Chapter 8

(J. Ws.; W. R. W.)

HORTON, CHRISTIANA(c.1696-c.1756), English actress, first appeared in London as Melinda inThe Recruiting Officerin 1714 at Drury Lane. Here she remained twenty years, followed by fifteen at Covent Garden. At both houses during this long career she played all the leading tragedy and comedy parts, and Barton Booth (who “discovered” her) said she was the best successor of Mrs. Oldfield. She was the original Mariana in Fielding’sMiser(1733).

HORTON, ROBERT FORMAN(1855- ), British Nonconformist divine, was born in London on the 18th of September 1855. He was educated at Shrewsbury school and New College, Oxford, where he took first classes in classics. He was president of the Oxford Union in 1877. He became a fellow of his college in 1879, and lectured on history for four years. In 1880 he accepted an influential invitation to become pastor of the Lyndhurst Road Congregational church, Hampstead, and subsequently took a very prominent part in church and denominational work generally. He delivered the Lyman Beecher lectures at Yale in 1893; in 1898 he was chairman of the London Congregational Union; and in 1903 of the Congregational Union of England and Wales. In 1909 he took a prominent part in the 75th anniversary celebration of Hartford Theological Seminary. His numerous publications include books on theological, critical, historical, biographical and devotional subjects.

HORTON, SAMUEL DANA(1844-1895), American writer on bimetallism, was born in Pomeroy, Ohio, on the 16th of January 1844. He graduated at Harvard in 1864, and at the Harvard Law School in 1868, studied Roman law in Berlin in 1869, and in 1871 was admitted to the Ohio bar. He practised law in Cincinnati, and then in Pomeroy until 1885, when he gave up law for the advancement of bimetallism. His attention had been turned to monetary questions by the “greenback campaign” of 1875 in Ohio, in which, as in former campaigns, he had spoken, particularly effectively in German, for the Republican party. He was secretary of the American delegation to the Monetary Conference which met in Paris in 1878, and edited the report of the delegation. To the conference of 1881 he was a delegate, and thereafter he spent much of his time in Europe, whither he was sent by President Harrison in 1889 as special commissioner to promote the international restoration of silver. He died in Washington, D.C., on the 23rd of February 1895. Horton’s principal works wereThe Silver Pound(1887) andSilver in Europe(1890), a volume of essays.

HORUS(EgyptianHōr), the name of an Egyptian god, if not of several distinct gods. To all forms of Horus the falcon was sacred; the name Hōr, written with a standing figure of that bird,is connected with a root signifying “upper,” and probably means “the high-flyer.” The tame sacred falcon on its perchis the commonest symbol of divinity in early hieroglyphic writing; the commonest title of the king in the earliest dynasties, and his first title later, was that which named him Horus. Hawk gods were the presiding deities of Poi (Pe) and Nekhen, which had been the royal quarters in the capitals of the two primeval kingdoms of Upper and Lower Egypt, at Buto and opposite El Kab. A principal festival in very early times was the “worship of Horus,” and the kings of the prehistoric dynasties were afterwards called “the worshippers of Horus.” The Northern Kingdom in particular was under the patronage of Horus. He was a solar divinity, but appears very early in the Osiris cycle of deities, a son of Isis and probably of Osiris, and opponent of Sēth. On monuments of the Middle Kingdom or somewhat later we find besides Hōr the following special forms: Har-behtet,i.e.Hōr of Beht, the winged solar disk, god of Edfu (Apollinopolis Magna); Har-khentekthai, god of Athribis; Har-mesen (whose principal sacred animal was a lion), god of the Sethroite (?) nome; Har-khentemna,i.e.the blind (?) Horus (with a shrew-mouse) at Letopolis; Har-mert (“of two eyes”) at Pharbaethus; Har-akht, Ra-har-akht, or Har-m-akhi (Harikakhis, “Hor of the horizon”), the sun-god of Heliopolis.

As a sun-god Horus not only worsted the hostile darkness and avenged his father, but also daily renewed himself. He was thus identical with his own father from one point of view. In the mythology, especially that of the New Kingdom, or of quite late times, we find the following standing epithets applied to more or less distinct forms or phases: Harendotes (Har-ent-yotf),i.e.“Hōr, avenger of his father (Osiris)”; Harpokhrates (Har-p-khrat),i.e.“Hōr the child,” with finger in mouth, sometimes seated on a lotus-flower; Harsiesis (Har-si-Ēsi),i.e.“Hōr, son of Isis,” as a child; Har-en-khēbi, “Hōr in Chemmis,” a child nursed by Isis in the papyrus marshes; Haroeris (Har-uēr),i.e.“the elder Hōr,” at Ombos, &c., human-headed or falcon-headed; Harsemteus (Har-sem-teu),i.e.“Hōr, uniter of the two lands,” and others.

In the judgment scene Horus introduces the deceased to Osiris. To the Greeks Horus was equivalent to Apollo, but in the name of Hermopolis Parva (seeDamanhur), which must have been among the first of the Egyptian cities to be known to them, he was apparently identified with Hermes. Although the falcon was the bird most properly sacred to Horus, not only its varieties, but also the sparrow-hawk, kestrel and other small hawks were mummified in his honour in late times.

SeeEgypt: sectionReligion; Meyer, art. “Horos” in Röscher,Lexicon der Griech. und Rom. Mythologie.

(F. Ll. G.)

HORWICH,an urban district in the Westhoughton parliamentary division of Lancashire, England, 4 m. W.N.W. of Bolton, on the Lancashire and Yorkshire railway. Pop. (1901) 15,084. It lies beneath the considerable elevation of Rivington Pike, where formerly was a great forest. It has extensive locomotive works, and there are large stone quarries in the district. Bleaching and cotton-spinning and the manufacture of fire-bricks and tiles are carried on.

HOSANNA,the cry of praise or adoration shouted in recognition of the Messiahship of Jesus on his entry into Jerusalem (Matt. xxi. 9, 15; Mark xi. 9 sq.; John xii. 13), and since used in the Christian Church. It is also a Jewish liturgical term, and was applied specifically to the “hosanna” branches carried in procession in the Feast of Booths or Tabernacles, the seventh day of which was called the Hosanna-day (so also in Syrian usage; cf. “Palm” Sunday). This festival (for which see Lev. xxiii. 39 sqq.; 2 Macc. x. 7; Jos.Ant.xii. 10. 4, xiii. 13. 15; and the Talmudic tractateSukkah) already suggested a Dionysiac celebration to Plutarch (Symp.iv. 6), and was associated with a ceremonial drawing of water which, it was believed, secured fertilizing rains in the following year; the penalty for abstinence was drought (cf. Zech. xiv. 16 seq.). The evidence (see furtherEncy. Bib.cols. 3354, 4880 seq.; I. Levy,Rev. des Ét. juives, 1901, pp. 192 sqq.) points to rites of nature-worship, and it is possible that in these the term Hosanna had some other application.

The old interpretation “save, now!” which may be a popular etymology, is based on Ps. cxviii. 25 (Heb.hōshī‘ah-nnā), but this does not explain the occurrence of the word in the Gospels, a complicated problem, on which see the articles of J. H. Thayer in Hastings’sDict. Bib., and more especially T. K. Cheyne,Ency. Bib.s.v.

HOSE(a word common to many Teutonic languages; cf. Dutch,hoos, stocking, Ger.Hose, breeches, tights; the ultimate origin is unknown), the name of an article of dress,used as a covering for the leg and foot. The word has been used for various forms of a long stocking covering both the foot and leg (seeHosiery), and this is the usual modern sense. But it also formerly meant a kind of gaiter covering the leg from the knee to the ankle only, of the long tight covering for the whole of the lower limbs, and later of the short puffed or slashed breeches worn with the doublet—at this period, from the early part of the 16th century onwards, comes the distinction between the “hose” or “trunk hose” and the stocking (seeCostume). The term is applied to certain objects resembling such a covering, as in its application to flexible rubber or canvas piping used for conveying water (seeHosepipe), and in botany, to the “sheath” covering,e.g.the ear of corn. The term “hose-in-hose” is thus used in botany for a flower in which the corolla has become doubled, as though a second were inserted in the throat of the first; it occurs sometimes in the primrose.

HOSEA,the son of Beērī, the first in order of the minor prophets of the Old Testament. The name Hosea (הושע, LXX.Ὠσηέ, Vulg.Osee, and so the English version in Rom. ix. 25) ought rather to be written Hoshea, and is identical with that borne by the last king of Ephraim, and by Joshua in Num. xiii. 16, Deut. xxxii. 44. Of the life of Hosea1we know nothing beyond what can be gathered from his prophecies. That he was a citizen of the northern kingdom appears from the whole tenor of the book, but most expressly from i. 2, where “the land,” the prophet’s land, is the realm of Israel, and vii. 5, where “our king” is the king of Samaria. The date at which Hosea flourished is given in the title, i. 1, by the reigning kings of Judah and Israel. He prophesied (i) in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah; (2) in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel. The dates indicated by the title, which may be regarded as editorial, are, for the four kings of the southern kingdom, 789-740, 739-734, 733-721 and 720-693B.C.respectively; and, for Jeroboam II., 782-743 (cf.Ency. Bib.col. 797-798). The book itself, however, plainly belongs to the period prior to 734B.C.since, in that year, (a) the Syro-Ephraimitic war began, to which there is here no reference, nor is Assyria yet the open foe it then became; (b) Gilead became Tiglath-Pileser’s (2 Kings xv. 29), whereas it is here described as still part of the territory of Israel (vi. 8; xii. 11; cf. the included place-names of v. 1). On the other hand, the prophet connects with the birth of his eldest child the approaching fall of the house of Jehu (i. 4), thus anticipating the death of Jeroboam II. in 743, and the period of anarchy which followed (2 Kings xv.). Thus the prophetic work of Hosea may be dated, with practical certainty, as beginning from some point previous to 743 and extending not later than 734.2This is corroborated by the general character of the book. Of its two parts, i.-iii. reflects the wealth and prosperity of the reign of Jeroboam II., whilst iv.-xiv. contains frequent references to the social disorder and anarchy of the subsequent years.

The first part of Hosea’s prophetic work, corresponding to chs. i.-iii., lay in the years of external prosperity immediately preceding the catastrophe of the house of Jehu in or near the year 743. The second part of the book is a summary of prophetic teaching during the subsequent troublous reign of Menahem, and, perhaps, that of his successor, Pekahiah, and must have been completed before 734B.C.Apart from the narrative in chs. i.-iii., to which we shall presently recur, the book throws little or no light on the details of Hosea’s life. It appears from ix. 7, 8, that his prophetic work was greatly embarrassed by opposition: “As for the prophet, a fowler’s snare is in all his ways, and enmity in the house of his God.” The enmity which had its centre in the sanctuary probably proceeded from the priests (comp. Amos vii.), against whose profligacy and profanation of their office our prophet frequently declaims—perhaps also from the degenerate prophetic gilds which had their seats in the holy cities of the northern kingdom, and with whom Hosea’s elder contemporary Amos so indignantly refuses to be identified (Amos vii. 14). In ch. iv. 5 Hosea seems to comprise priests and prophets in one condemnation, thus placing himself in direct antagonism to all the leaders of the religious life of his nation. He is not less antagonistic to the kings and princes of his day (vii. 3-7, viii. 4, viii. 10 Septuagint, x. 7-15, xiii. 11).3In view of the familiarity shown with the intrigues of rulers and the doings of priests, it has been conjectured that Hosea held a prominent position, or even (by Duhm) that he was himself a priest (Marti, p. 2).

The most interesting problem of Hosea’s history lies in the interpretation of the story of his married life (chs. i.-iii.). We read in these chapters that God’s revelation to Hosea began when in accordance with a divine command he married a profligate wife, Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim. Three children were born in this marriage and received symbolical names, illustrative of the divine purpose towards Israel, which are expounded in ch. i. In ch. ii. the faithlessness of Israel to Jehovah (Yahweh), the long-suffering of God, the moral discipline of sorrow and tribulation by which He will yet bring back His erring people and betroth it to Himself for ever in righteousness, love and truth, are depicted under the figure of the relation of a husband to an erring spouse. The suggestion of this allegory lies in the prophet’s marriage with Gomer, but the details are worked out quite independently, and under a rich multiplicity of figures derived from other sources. In the third chapter we return to the personal experience of the prophet. His faithless wife had at length left him and fallen, under circumstances which are not detailed, into a state of misery, from which Hosea, still following her with tender affection, and encouraged by a divine command, brought her back and restored her to his house, where he kept her in seclusion, and patiently watched over her for many days, yet not readmitting her to the privileges of a wife.

In these experiences the prophet again recognizes a parallel to Yahweh’s long-suffering love to Israel, and the discipline by which the people shall be brought back to God through a period in which all their political and religious institutions are overthrown. Throughout these chapters personal narrative and prophetic allegory are interwoven with a rapidity of transition very puzzling to the modern reader; but an unbiassed exegesis can hardly fail to acknowledge that chs. i. and iii. narrate an actual passage in the prophet’s life. The names of the three children are symbolical, but Isaiah in like manner gave symbolical names to his sons, embodying prominent pointsin his prophetic teaching (Shear-jashub, Isa. vii. 3, comp. x. 21; Maher-shalal-hash-baz, viii. 3). And the name of Gomer bath Diblaim is certainly that of an actual person, upon which all the allegorists, from the Targum, Jerome and Ephraem Syrus downwards, have spent their arts in vain, whereas the true symbolical names in the book are perfectly easy of interpretation.4That the ancient interpreters take the whole narrative as a mere parable is no more than an application of their standing rule that everything in the Biblical history is allegorical which in its literal sense appears offensive to propriety (comp. Jerome’s proem to the book). But the supposed offence to propriety seems to rest on mistaken exegesis and too narrow a conception of the way in which the Divine word was communicated to the prophets.5There is no reason to suppose that Hosea knowingly married a woman of profligate character. The point of the allegory in i. 2 is plainly infidelity after marriage as a parallel to Israel’s departure from the covenant God, and a profligate wife (אשת זנונים) is not the same thing with an open prostitute (זונה). The marriage was marred by Gomer’s infidelity; and the struggle of Hosea’s affection for his wife with this great unhappiness—a struggle inconceivable unless his first love had been pure and full of trust in the purity of its object—furnished him with a new insight into Yahweh’s dealings with Israel. Then he recognized that the great calamity of his life was God’s own ordinance and appointed means to communicate to him a deep prophetic lesson. The recognition of a divine command after the fact has its parallel, as Wellhausen observes, in Jer. xxxii. 8.

It was in the experiences of his married life, and in the spiritual lessons opened to him through these, that Hosea first heard the revealing voice of Yahweh (i. 2).6Like Amos (Amos iii. 8), he was called to speak for God by an inward constraining voice, and there is no reason to think that he had any connexion with the recognized prophetic societies, or ever received such outward adoption to office as was given to Elisha. His position in Israel was one of tragic isolation. Amos, when he had discharged his mission at Bethel, could return to his home and to his friends; Hosea was a stranger among his own people, and his home was full of sorrow and shame. Isaiah in the gloomiest days of Judah’s declensions had faithful disciples about him, and knew that there was a believing remnant in the land. Hosea knows no such remnant, and there is not a line in his prophecy from which we can conclude that his words ever found an obedient ear.

As already stated, this prophecy falls into two clearly distinguished sections,7the former (i.-iii.), already dealt with, accounting for the general standpoint of the latter (iv.-xiv.). It is not possible to make any convincing subdivisions of this latter section (cf. G. A. Smith, i. p. 223) which is best regarded as a series of separate discourses on certain recurrent topics, viz. (a) the cultus, (b) the social disorder and immorality, (c) political tendencies (alliance with either Assyria or Egypt sought).8In regard to each of these topics, the attitude of the prophet involves the discernment of present guilt, and the assertion of future punishment. For him the present condition of the people contained no germ or pledge of future amendment, and he describes the impending judgment, not as a sifting process (Amos ix. 9, 10) in which the wicked perish and the righteous remain, but as the total wreck of the nation which has wholly turned aside from its God. In truth, while the idolatrous feasts of Ephraim still ran their joyous round, while the careless people crowded to the high places, and there in unbridled and licentious mirth flattered themselves that their many sacrifices ensured the help of their God against all calamity, the nation was already in the last stage of internal dissolution. To the prophet’s eye there was “no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land—nought but swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing and adultery; they break out, and blood toucheth blood” (iv. 1, 2). The root of this corruption lay in total ignorance of Yahweh, whose precepts were no longer taught by the priests, while in the national calf-worship, and in the local high places, this worship was confounded with the service of the Canaanite Baalim. Thus the whole religious constitution of Israel was undermined. And the political state of the realm was in Hosea’s eyes not more hopeful. The dynasty of Jehu, still great and powerful when the prophet’s labours began, is itself an incorporation of national sin. Founded on the bloodshed of Jezreel, it must fall by God’s vengeance, and the state shall fall with it (i. 4, iii. 4). This sentence stands at the head of Hosea’s predictions, and throughout the book the civil constitution of Ephraim is represented as equally lawless and godless with the corrupt religious establishment. The anarchy that followed on the murder of Zachariah appears to the prophet as the natural decadence of a realm not founded on divine ordinance. The nation had rejected Yahweh, the only helper. And now the avenging Assyrian9is at hand. Samaria’s king shall pass away as foam on the water. Fortress and city shall fall before the ruthless invader, who spares neither age nor sex, and thistles shall cover the desolate altars of Ephraim.

In our present book of Hosea, this condemnatory judgment on contemporary Israel culminates in a chapter of appeal for penitence, with promise of divine forgiveness. The question of the authenticity of this and of other “restoration” passages10forms the chief problemfor literary criticism presented by the book.11Amongst the more recent commentators, Davidson, G. A. Smith and Nowack regard Hosea xiv. as written by the prophet, though the second admits its chronological misplacement and the third its later expansion. On the other hand, it is altogether rejected by Cheyne, Wellhausen, Marti and Harper. These claim that the passage reflects the later standpoint of completed punishment, and is therefore inconsistent in the prophet who anticipates that punishment. But the case is different from that of the epilogue to Amos, since Hosea’s personal experience covers forgiveness as well as discipline (Marti consistently, though without ground, rejects this experience also). There seems, therefore, to be no sufficient evidence for denying thoughts of restoration to Hosea, whilst it is highly probable that such passages would be amplified in a later age. Indeed, the importance of these passages for the interpretation of Hosea is apt to be overrated, for, as one of those rejecting them remarks, though Hosea “promised nothing,” yet he “contributed a conception of Yahweh which made such a future not only possible but even probable” (Harper, p. cliii.). We may therefore read the closing chapter as, at least, the explicit statement of a hope implicit in Hosea’s teaching.

Hosea could discern no faithful remnant in Ephraim, yet Ephraim in all his corruption is the son of Yahweh, a child nurtured with tender love, a chosen people, whose past history declares in every episode the watchful and patient affection of his father. And that father is God and not man, the Holy One who will not and cannot sacrifice His love even to the justest indignation (chap. xi.). To the prophet who knows this love of Yahweh, who has learned to understand it in the like experience of his own life, the very ruin of the state of Israel is a step in the loving guidance which makes the valley of trouble a door of hope (ii. 15), and the wilderness of tribulation as full of promise as the desert road from Egypt to Canaan was to Israel of old. Of the manner of Israel’s repentance and conversion Hosea presents no clear image—nay, it is plain that on this point he had nothing to tell. The certainty that the people will at length return and seek Yahweh their God rests, not on any germ of better things in Israel, but on the invincible supremacy of Yahweh’s love. And so the two sides of his prophetic declaration, the passionate denunciation of Israel’s sin and folly, and the not less passionate tenderness with which he describes the final victory of divine love, are united by no logical bond. The unity is one of feeling only, and the sob of anguish in which many of his appeals to a heedless people seem to end turns once and again with sudden revulsion into the clear accents of evangelical promise, which in the closing chapter swell forth in pure and strong cadence out of a heart that has found its rest with God from all the troubles of a stormy life.

The strongly emotional temperament of Hosea suggests comparison with that of Jeremiah, who like himself is the prophet of the decline and fall of a kingdom. The subsequent influence of Hosea on the literature of the Old and New Testaments is very marked. Not only is it seen in the conception of the relation between God and His people as a marriage, which he makes current coin (cf. Marti, p. 15), but still more in the fact that his conception of the divine character becomes the inspiration of the book of Deuteronomy and so of the whole canon of Scripture. “In a special degree, the author of Deuteronomy is the spiritual heir of Hosea.”12

Recent Literature(where references to older works will be found): Cheyne, “Hosea” inCambridge Bible(1884); W. R. Smith,The Prophets of Israel,2with Cheyne’s introduction (1895); G. A. Smith, “The Book of the Twelve,” i., inThe Expositor’s Bible(1896); Nowack,Die Kleinen Propheten(1897); Wellhausen,Die Kleinen Propheten3(1898); Smend,Alttest. Religionsgeschichte,2pp. 204 f. (1899); Davidson, art. “Hosea” in Hastings’Dictionary of the Bible, ii. pp. 419 f. (1900); Marti, art. “Hosea” inEncy. Biblica, ii. c. 2119 (1901) (a revision of the original article by W. R. Smith, in theEncy. Britannica, partially reproduced above); Marti,Dodekapropheton(1903); W. R. Harper, “Amos and Hosea” inInter. Critical Commentary(1905) (with copious bibliography).

(W. R. S.; H. W. R.*)

1Traditions about Hosea.—Beērī, the prophet’s father, is identified by the Rabbins with Beērah (1 Chron. v. 6), a Reubenite prince carried captive by Tiglath-Pileser. This view is already expressed by Jerome,Quaest. in Paralip., and doubtless underlies the statement of the Targum to Chronicles that Beērah was a prophet. For it is a Jewish maxim that when a prophet’s father is named, he, too, was a prophet, and accordingly a tradition of R. Simon makes Isa. viii. 19, 20 a prophecy of Beērī (Ḳimcḥi in loc.;Leviticus Rabba, par. 15). According to the usual Christian tradition, however, Hosea was of the tribe of Issachar, and from an unknown town, Belemoth or Belemon (pseudo-Epiphanius, pseudo-Dorotheus, Ephraem Syr. ii. 234;Chron. Pasch., Bonn ed., i. 276). As the tradition adds that he died there, and was buried in peace, the source of the story lies probably in some holy place shown as his grave. There are other traditions as to the burial-place of Hosea. A Jewish legend in theShalshelet haqqabala(Carpzov,Introd., pt. iii. ch. vii. § 3) tells that he died in captivity at Babylon, and was carried to Upper Galilee, and buried atצפת, that is, Safed (Neubauer, Géog.du Talmud, p. 227); and the Arabs show the grave of Nebi ’Osha, east of the Jordan, near Es-Salt (Baedeker’sPalestine, p. 337; Burckhardt’sSyria, p. 353).2The supposed reference of viii. 9-10 to the tribute paid by Menahem to Tiglath-Pileser (2 Kings xv. 19), and dated, on the monuments, 738B.C., depends on a corrupt text: read v. 10 with Septuagint.3Some scholars hold that his attack is directed against the very principle of monarchy (Nowack, p. 8; Smend, p. 209: “Hosea rejects the kingship in itself”; Wellhausen, p. 125: “The making of kings in Israel is for him, together with the heathen cultus, the fundamental evil”). This view depends on a disputed interpretation of the reference to Gibeah (x. 9; cf. ix. 9); and on the words: “I give thee kings in mine anger, and I take them away in my wrath” (xiii. 11), which may refer to the rise and fall of contemporary kings (cf. Marti, ad loc). In any case, as Wellhausen himself says (p. 132): “He does not start from a dogmatic theory, but simply from historical experience.”4Theodorus Mops. remarks very justly,καὶ τὸ ὄνομα καὶ τὸν πατέρα λέγει, ὡς μὴ πλάσμα ψιλόν τι δοκοίη τὸ λεγόμενον, ἱστορία δὲ ἀληθὴς τῶν πραγμάτων.5This explanation of the narrative, which is essentially Ewald’s, is now generally accepted. It has the great advantage of supplying a psychological key to the conception of Israel or the land of Israel (i. 2) as the spouse of Yahweh, which dominates these chapters, but in the later part of the book gives way to the personification of the nation as God’s son. This conception has, indeed, formal points of contact with notions previously current, and even with the ideas of Semitic heathenism. On the one hand, it is a standing Hebrew usage to represent the land as mother of its people, while the representation of worshippers as children of their god is found in Num. xxi. 29, where the Moabites are called children of Chemosh, and is early and widespread throughout the Semitic field (cf.Trans. Bib. Arch.vi. 438;Jour. of Phil.ix. 82). The combination of these two notions gives at once the conception of the national deity as husband of the land. On the other hand, the designation of Yahweh as Baal, which, in accordance with the antique view of marriage, means husband as well as lord and owner, was current among the Israelites in early times, perhaps, indeed, down to Hosea’s age (ii. 16). Now it is highly probable that among the idolatrous Israelites the idea of a marriage between the deity and individual worshippers was actually current and connected with the immorality which Hosea often condemns in the worship of the local Baalim whom the ignorant people identified with Yahweh. For we have a Punic woman’s name,ארשתבעל, “the betrothed of Baal” (Euting, Punische Steine, pp. 9, 15), and a similar conception existed among the Babylonians (Herod. i. 181, 182). But Hosea takes the idea of Yahweh as husband, and gives it an altogether different turn, filling it with a new and profound meaning, based on the psychical experiences of a deep human affection in contest with outraged honour and the wilful self-degradation of a spouse. It can hardly be supposed that all that lies in these chapters is an abstract study in the psychology of the emotions. It is actual human experience that gives Hosea the key to divine truth.6Davidson (D.B.ii. 422) remarks that “it was not his misfortunes that gave Hosea his prophetic word. Israel’s apostasy was plain to him, and he foreshadowed her doom in Jezreel, the name of his first child, before any misfortunes overtook him. At most, his misfortunes may at a later time have given a complexion to his prophetic thoughts.” Wellhausen (p. 108) objects to the emergence of the call from the experience, on the ground that the name given to the first child gives no indication that Hosea had yet reached his specific message, the infidelity of his wife and of Israel, though it shows him already as a prophet. Marti (p. 15) agrees with Davidson in making the order (a) call, (b) marriage and birth of three children, (c) comprehension of the significance of the marriage for himself and for Israel. The statement made above must be interpreted of Hosea’sspecificmessage from Yahweh, as recorded in his book.7Marti disregards this generally accepted division, arguing that (a) i.-iii. was not written earlier than iv.-xiv., (b) iii. is not Hoseanic, (c) ii. is much more akin to iv.-xiv. than to i.-iii. (Comm.p. 1; cf.Enc. Bib.2123 n.3). He holds that another wife, not Gomer, is intended in iii., which is an allegory referring to Israel, as Gomer referred to Judah. His arguments are not convincing.8So, practically, Davidson,D.B.ii. p. 423 seq., where the detailed references will be found.9This is too definite for the data; cf. Davidson,l.c.“Hosea has no clear idea of the instrument or means of Israel’s destruction. It is ‘the sword’ (vii. 16, xi. 6), the ‘enemy’ (viii. 3, v. 8-9); or it is natural, internal decay (vii. 8-9, ix. 16), the moth and rottenness (v. 12).”10e.g.i. 10-ii. 1, ii. 14 f., iii. 5, v. 15-vi. 3, xi. 10-11.11Apart from glosses and minor alterations, the only other critical problem of importance is that of the references toJudahscattered throughout the book (i. 7, iv. 15, v. 5, v. 10 f., vi. 4, 11, viii. 14, x. 11, xi. 12). There is no inherent improbability in some mention of the sister kingdom; but some of the actual references do suggest interpolation, especially i. 7, where the deliverance of Judah from Sennacherib in 701B.C.seems intended. Each case, as Wellhausen implies, is to be considered on its merits. On these and other suspected passages, cf. Cheyne, Intro. to W. R. Smith’sProphets of Israel, pp. xvii.-xxii.; Marti, p. 8; Harper, p. clix.12Driver,Deuteronomy, p. xxvii.

2The supposed reference of viii. 9-10 to the tribute paid by Menahem to Tiglath-Pileser (2 Kings xv. 19), and dated, on the monuments, 738B.C., depends on a corrupt text: read v. 10 with Septuagint.

3Some scholars hold that his attack is directed against the very principle of monarchy (Nowack, p. 8; Smend, p. 209: “Hosea rejects the kingship in itself”; Wellhausen, p. 125: “The making of kings in Israel is for him, together with the heathen cultus, the fundamental evil”). This view depends on a disputed interpretation of the reference to Gibeah (x. 9; cf. ix. 9); and on the words: “I give thee kings in mine anger, and I take them away in my wrath” (xiii. 11), which may refer to the rise and fall of contemporary kings (cf. Marti, ad loc). In any case, as Wellhausen himself says (p. 132): “He does not start from a dogmatic theory, but simply from historical experience.”

4Theodorus Mops. remarks very justly,καὶ τὸ ὄνομα καὶ τὸν πατέρα λέγει, ὡς μὴ πλάσμα ψιλόν τι δοκοίη τὸ λεγόμενον, ἱστορία δὲ ἀληθὴς τῶν πραγμάτων.

5This explanation of the narrative, which is essentially Ewald’s, is now generally accepted. It has the great advantage of supplying a psychological key to the conception of Israel or the land of Israel (i. 2) as the spouse of Yahweh, which dominates these chapters, but in the later part of the book gives way to the personification of the nation as God’s son. This conception has, indeed, formal points of contact with notions previously current, and even with the ideas of Semitic heathenism. On the one hand, it is a standing Hebrew usage to represent the land as mother of its people, while the representation of worshippers as children of their god is found in Num. xxi. 29, where the Moabites are called children of Chemosh, and is early and widespread throughout the Semitic field (cf.Trans. Bib. Arch.vi. 438;Jour. of Phil.ix. 82). The combination of these two notions gives at once the conception of the national deity as husband of the land. On the other hand, the designation of Yahweh as Baal, which, in accordance with the antique view of marriage, means husband as well as lord and owner, was current among the Israelites in early times, perhaps, indeed, down to Hosea’s age (ii. 16). Now it is highly probable that among the idolatrous Israelites the idea of a marriage between the deity and individual worshippers was actually current and connected with the immorality which Hosea often condemns in the worship of the local Baalim whom the ignorant people identified with Yahweh. For we have a Punic woman’s name,ארשתבעל, “the betrothed of Baal” (Euting, Punische Steine, pp. 9, 15), and a similar conception existed among the Babylonians (Herod. i. 181, 182). But Hosea takes the idea of Yahweh as husband, and gives it an altogether different turn, filling it with a new and profound meaning, based on the psychical experiences of a deep human affection in contest with outraged honour and the wilful self-degradation of a spouse. It can hardly be supposed that all that lies in these chapters is an abstract study in the psychology of the emotions. It is actual human experience that gives Hosea the key to divine truth.

6Davidson (D.B.ii. 422) remarks that “it was not his misfortunes that gave Hosea his prophetic word. Israel’s apostasy was plain to him, and he foreshadowed her doom in Jezreel, the name of his first child, before any misfortunes overtook him. At most, his misfortunes may at a later time have given a complexion to his prophetic thoughts.” Wellhausen (p. 108) objects to the emergence of the call from the experience, on the ground that the name given to the first child gives no indication that Hosea had yet reached his specific message, the infidelity of his wife and of Israel, though it shows him already as a prophet. Marti (p. 15) agrees with Davidson in making the order (a) call, (b) marriage and birth of three children, (c) comprehension of the significance of the marriage for himself and for Israel. The statement made above must be interpreted of Hosea’sspecificmessage from Yahweh, as recorded in his book.

7Marti disregards this generally accepted division, arguing that (a) i.-iii. was not written earlier than iv.-xiv., (b) iii. is not Hoseanic, (c) ii. is much more akin to iv.-xiv. than to i.-iii. (Comm.p. 1; cf.Enc. Bib.2123 n.3). He holds that another wife, not Gomer, is intended in iii., which is an allegory referring to Israel, as Gomer referred to Judah. His arguments are not convincing.

8So, practically, Davidson,D.B.ii. p. 423 seq., where the detailed references will be found.

9This is too definite for the data; cf. Davidson,l.c.“Hosea has no clear idea of the instrument or means of Israel’s destruction. It is ‘the sword’ (vii. 16, xi. 6), the ‘enemy’ (viii. 3, v. 8-9); or it is natural, internal decay (vii. 8-9, ix. 16), the moth and rottenness (v. 12).”

10e.g.i. 10-ii. 1, ii. 14 f., iii. 5, v. 15-vi. 3, xi. 10-11.

11Apart from glosses and minor alterations, the only other critical problem of importance is that of the references toJudahscattered throughout the book (i. 7, iv. 15, v. 5, v. 10 f., vi. 4, 11, viii. 14, x. 11, xi. 12). There is no inherent improbability in some mention of the sister kingdom; but some of the actual references do suggest interpolation, especially i. 7, where the deliverance of Judah from Sennacherib in 701B.C.seems intended. Each case, as Wellhausen implies, is to be considered on its merits. On these and other suspected passages, cf. Cheyne, Intro. to W. R. Smith’sProphets of Israel, pp. xvii.-xxii.; Marti, p. 8; Harper, p. clix.

12Driver,Deuteronomy, p. xxvii.

HOSE-PIPE,or simply “hose,” the name given to flexible piping by means of which water may be conveyed from one place to another. One end of the pipe is connected to the source of the water, while the other end is free, so that the direction of the stream of water which issues from the pipe may be changed at will. The method of manufacture and the strength of the materials used depend naturally upon the particular use to which the finished article is to be put. Simple garden hose is often made of india-rubber or composition, but the hose intended for fire brigade and similar important purposes must be of a much more substantial material. The most satisfactory material is the best long flax, although cotton is also extensively used for many types of this fabric.

The flax fibre, after having been carefully spun into yarn, is boiled twice and then beetled; these two processes remove all injurious matter, and make the yarn soft and lustrous. The yarn is then wound on to large bobbins, and made into a chain; the number of threads in the chain depends upon the size of the hose, which may be anything from half an inch to 15 in. or even more in diameter. When the chain is warped, it is beamed upon the weaver’s beam, and the ends—either double or triple—are drawn through the leaves of the cambs of heddles, passed through the reed and finally tied to the cloth beam. The preparation of the warp for any kind of loom varies very little, but the weaving may vary greatly. In all cases the hose fabric is essentially circular, although it appears quite flat during the weaving operation.

There are very few hand-made fabrics which can compete with the machine-made article, but the very best type of hose-pipe is certainly one of the former class. The cloth can be made much more cheaply in the power-loom than in the hand-loom, but, up to the present, no power-loom has been made which can weave as substantial a cloth as the hand-loom product; the weak part in all hose-pipes is where the weft passes round the sides from top to bottom of the fabric or vice versa, that is, the side corresponding to the selvages in an ordinary cloth; the hand-loom weaver can draw the weft tighter than is possible in the power-loom, hence the threads at the sides can be brought close together, and by this means the fabric is made almost, but not quite, as perfect here as in other parts. It is essential that the warp threads be held tightly in the loom, and to secure this, they pass alternately over and under three or four back rests before reaching the heddles or cambs, which are almost invariably made of wire. Although the warp yarn is made very soft and pliable by boiling and beetling, the weaver always tallows it in order to make it work more easily.

The commonest type of hose-pipe is made on the double-plain principle of weaving, the cloth being perfectly plain but woven in such a manner that the pipe is without seams of any kind. Fig. 1 is a design showing two repeats or eight shots in the way of the weft, and six repeats or twenty-four-threads in the way of the warp, consequently the weave is complete on four threads, or leaves, and four picks. Fig. 2 illustrates the method of interlacing the threads and the picks: this figure shows that twenty-three threads only are used, the first thread—shown shaded in fig. 1—having been left out. It is necessary to use a number of threads which is either one less or one more than some multiple of four—the number of threads in the unit weave. The sectional view (fig. 2), although indicating the crossings of the warp and the weft, is quite different from an actual section through the threads: the warp is almost invariably two or three ply, and in addition two or more of these twisted threads pass through the same heddle-eye in the camb; moreover, they are set very closely together—so closely, indeed, that the threads entirely conceal the weft; it is, therefore, impossible to give a correctsectional view with satisfactory clearness, as the threads are so very rank, but fig. 3 gives some idea of the structure of the fabric. This view shows ninety-nine threads and one complete round of weft; this round is, of course, equal to two picks or shots—one pick for the top part of the cloth and one for the bottom part. A comparison of this figure with fig. 2 will, perhaps, make the description clearer. The weft in fig. 3 is thinner than the warp, but, in practice, it is always much thicker, and may consist of from two to seventy threads twisted together.Hose-pipes are also woven with the three-leaf twill on both sides, and occasionally with the four-leaf twill. These pipes, woven with the twill weaves, are usually lined with a pure rubber tube which is fixed to the inside of the cloth by another layer of rubber after the cloth leaves the loom. Such pipes have usually, but not invariably, a smoother inner surface than those which are unlined, hence, when they are used, less friction is presented to the flow of water, and there is less tendency for the pipe to leak. They are, therefore, suitable for hotels, public buildings and similar places where their temporary use will not result in undue damage to articles of furniture, carpets and general decoration.The greatest care must be observed in the weaving of these fabrics, the slightest flaw in the structure rendering the article practically useless. After the cloth has been woven, it is carefully examined, and then steeped in a chemical solution which acts as an antiseptic. The cloth is thus effectively preserved from mildew, and is, in addition, made more pliable. Finally the hose-pipe is dried artificially, and then fitted with the necessary couplings and nozzles.For a more detailed description of circular weaving see Woodhouse and Milne,Textile Design: Pure and Applied.

Hose-pipes are also woven with the three-leaf twill on both sides, and occasionally with the four-leaf twill. These pipes, woven with the twill weaves, are usually lined with a pure rubber tube which is fixed to the inside of the cloth by another layer of rubber after the cloth leaves the loom. Such pipes have usually, but not invariably, a smoother inner surface than those which are unlined, hence, when they are used, less friction is presented to the flow of water, and there is less tendency for the pipe to leak. They are, therefore, suitable for hotels, public buildings and similar places where their temporary use will not result in undue damage to articles of furniture, carpets and general decoration.

The greatest care must be observed in the weaving of these fabrics, the slightest flaw in the structure rendering the article practically useless. After the cloth has been woven, it is carefully examined, and then steeped in a chemical solution which acts as an antiseptic. The cloth is thus effectively preserved from mildew, and is, in addition, made more pliable. Finally the hose-pipe is dried artificially, and then fitted with the necessary couplings and nozzles.

For a more detailed description of circular weaving see Woodhouse and Milne,Textile Design: Pure and Applied.

(T. Wo.)

HOSHANGABAD,a town and district of British India, in the Nerbudda division of the Central Provinces. The town stands on the left bank of the Nerbudda, 1009 ft. above the sea, and has a railway station. Pop. (1901), 14,940. It is supposed to have been founded by Hoshang Shah, the second of the Ghori kings of Malwa, in the 15th century; but it remained an insignificant place till the Bhopal conquest about 1720, when a massive stone fort was constructed, with its base on the river, commanding the Bhopal road. It sustained several sieges during the 18th century, and passed alternately into the hands of the Bhopal and Nagpur rulers. Since 1818 it has been the residence of the chief British officials in charge of the district. It has a government high school, and agricultural school and a brass-working industry.

TheDistrict of Hoshangabadhas an area of 3676 sq. m. Pop. (1901), 449,165, showing a decrease of 10% in the decade, due to famine. It may be described as a valley of varying breadth, extending for 150 m. between the Nerbudda river and the Satpura mountains. The soil consists chiefly of black basaltic alluvium, often more than 20 ft. deep; but along the banks of the Nerbudda the fertility of the land compensates for the tameness of the scenery. Towards the west, low stony hills and broken ridges cut up the level ground, while the Vindhyas and the Satpuras throw out jutting spurs and ranges. In this wilder country considerable regions are covered with jungle. On the south the lofty range which shuts in the valley is remarkable in mountain scenery, surpassing in its picturesque irregularity the Vindhyan chain in the north. Many streams take their rise amid its precipices, then, winding through deep glens, flow across the plain between sandy banks covered with low jungle till they swell the waters of the Nerbudda. None is of any importance except the Tawa, which is interesting to the geologist on account of the many minerals to be found along its course. The boundary rivers, the Nerbudda and Tapti, are the only considerable waters in Hoshangabad. The principal crops are wheat, millets and oil-seeds. The district is traversed throughout its length by the Great Indian Peninsula railway.

HOSHEA(Heb. for “deliverance”), the last king of Israel, in the Bible. The attempt of his predecessor Pekah to take Jerusalem with the help of his ally Rasun (Rezin) of Damascus was frustrated by the intervention of Tiglath-Pileser IV. (seeAhaz), who attacked Gilead, Galilee and the north frontier, and carried off some of its population (cp. 1 Chron. v. 26). Pekah’s resistance to Assyria led to a conspiracy in which he lost his life, and Hoshea the son of Elah became king (2 Kings xv. 27-30). The Assyrian king held him as his vassal (and indeed claims to have set him on the throne), and exacted from him a yearly tribute. Meanwhile, Damascus was besieged (733-732B.C.), Raṣun was slain and the inhabitants deported (2 Kings xvi. 9; LXX. omits “to Kir,” but see Amos i. 5). The impending fate of Damascus is illustrated by Isaiah (vii. 16, viii. 4, xvii. 1-11), who also gives a vivid description of the impression left by the Assyrian army (v. 26-30). After the death of Tiglath-Pileser, Israel regained confidence (Isa. ix. 8-x. 4) and took steps to recover its independence. Its policy vacillated—“like a silly dove” (Hos. vii. 11), and at length negotiations were opened with Mizraim. The annual payment of tribute ceased and Shalmaneser IV. (who began to reign in 727B.C.) at once laid siege to Samaria, which fell at the end of three years (722-721B.C.). The achievement is claimed by his successor Sargon. Hoshea was killed, the land was again partly depopulated and a governor appointed (2 Kings xviii. 9-12; cp. xvii. 1 sqq.). For other allusions to this period seeHosea,Isaiah.

Back to Index Next