Chapter 7

(R. Ad.; J. M. M.)

1See Burton, ii. 265, 148 and 238. Perhaps our knowledge of Johnson’s sentiments regarding the Scots in general, and of his expressions regarding Hume and Smith in particular, may lessen our surprise at this vehemence.2Macaulay describes Hume’s characteristic fault as an historian: “Hume is an accomplished advocate. Without positively asserting much more than he can prove, he gives prominence to all the circumstances which support his case; he glides lightly over those which are unfavourable to it; his own witnesses are applauded and encouraged; the statements which seem to throw discredit on them are controverted; the contradictions into which they fall are explained away; a clear and connected abstract of their evidence is given. Everything that is offered on the other side is scrutinized with the utmost severity; every suspicious circumstance is a ground for argument and invective; what cannot be denied is extenuated, or passed by without notice; concessions even are sometimes made; but this insidious candour only increases the effect of the vast mass of sophistry.”—Miscell. Writings, “History.” With this may be compared the more favourable verdict by J. S. Brewer, in the preface to his edition of theStudent’s Hume.

2Macaulay describes Hume’s characteristic fault as an historian: “Hume is an accomplished advocate. Without positively asserting much more than he can prove, he gives prominence to all the circumstances which support his case; he glides lightly over those which are unfavourable to it; his own witnesses are applauded and encouraged; the statements which seem to throw discredit on them are controverted; the contradictions into which they fall are explained away; a clear and connected abstract of their evidence is given. Everything that is offered on the other side is scrutinized with the utmost severity; every suspicious circumstance is a ground for argument and invective; what cannot be denied is extenuated, or passed by without notice; concessions even are sometimes made; but this insidious candour only increases the effect of the vast mass of sophistry.”—Miscell. Writings, “History.” With this may be compared the more favourable verdict by J. S. Brewer, in the preface to his edition of theStudent’s Hume.

HUME, JOSEPH(1777-1855), British politician, was born on the 22nd of January 1777, of humble parents, at Montrose, Scotland. After completing his course of medical study at the university of Edinburgh he sailed in 1797 for India, where he was attached as surgeon to a regiment; and his knowledge of the native tongues and his capacity for business threw open to him the lucrative offices of interpreter and commissary-general. In 1802, on the eve of Lord Lake’s Mahratta war, his chemical knowledge enabled him to render a signal service to the administration by making available a large quantity of gunpowder which damp had spoiled. In 1808, on the restoration of peace, he resigned all his civil appointments, and returned home in the possession of a fortune of £40,000. Between 1808 and 1811 he travelled much both in England and the south of Europe, and in 1812 published a blank verse translation of theInferno. In 1812 he purchased a seat in parliament for Weymouth and voted as a Tory. When upon the dissolution of parliament the patron refused to return him he brought an action and recovered part of his money. Six years elapsed before he again entered the House, and during that interval he had made the acquaintance and imbibed the doctrines of James Mill and the philosophical reformers of the school of Bentham. He had joined his efforts to those of Francis Place, of Westminster, and other philanthropists, to relieve and improve the condition of the working classes, labouring especially to establish schools for them on the Lancasterian system, and promoting the formation of savings banks. In 1818, soon after his marriage with Miss Burnley, the daughter of an East India director, he was returned to parliament as member for the Border burghs. He was afterwards successively elected for Middlesex (1830), Kilkenny (1837) and for the Montrose burghs (1842), in the service of which constituency he died. From the date of his re-entering the House Hume became the self-elected guardian of the public purse, by challenging and bringing to a direct vote every single item of public expenditure. In 1820 he secured the appointment of a committee to report on the expense of collecting the revenue. He was incessantly on his legs in committee, and became a name for an opposition bandog who gave chancellors of the exchequer no peace. He undoubtedly exercised a check on extravagance, and he did real service by helping to abolish the sinking fund. It was he who caused the word “retrenchment” to be added to the Radical programme “peace and reform.” He carried on a successful warfare against the old combination laws that hampered workmen and favoured masters; he brought about the repeal of the laws prohibiting the export of machinery and of the act preventing workmen from going abroad. He constantly protested against flogging in the army, the impressment of sailors and imprisonment for debt. He took up the question of lighthouses and harbours; in the former he secured greater efficiency, in the latter he prevented useless expenditure. Apart from his pertinacious fight for economy Hume was not always fortunate in his political activity. He was conspicuous in the agitation raised by the so-called Orange plot to set aside King William IV. in favour of the duke of Cumberland (1835 and 1836). His action as trustee for the notorious Greek Loan in 1824 was at least not delicate, and was the ground of charges of downright dishonesty. He died on the 20th of February 1855.

AMemorialof Hume was published by his son Joseph Burnley Hume (London, 1855).

HUMILIATI,the name of an Italian monastic order created in the 12th century. Its origin is obscure. According to some chroniclers, certain noblemen of Lombardy, who had offended the emperor (either Conrad III. or Frederick Barbarossa), were carried captive into Germany and after suffering the miseries of exile for some time, “humiliated” themselves before the emperor. Returning to their own country, they did penance and took the name of Humiliati. They do not seem to have had any fixed rule, nor did St Bernard succeed in inducing them to submit to one. The traditions relating to a reform of this order by St John of Meda are ill authenticated, hisActa(Acta sanctorum Boll., Sept., vii. 320) being almost entirely unsupported by contemporary evidence. The “Chronicon anonymi Laudunensis canonici” (Mon. Germ. hist. Scriptores, xxvi. 449), at date 1178, states that a group of Lombards came to Rome with the intention of obtaining the pope’s approval of the rule of life which they had spontaneously chosen; while continuing to live in their houses in the midst of their families, they wished to lead a more pious existence than of old, to abandon oaths and litigation, to content themselves with a modest dress, and all in a spirit of Catholic piety. The pope approved their resolve to live in humility and purity, but forbade them to hold assemblies and to preach in public; the chronicler adding that they infringed the pope’s wish and thus drew upon themselves his excommunication. Their name, Humiliati (“Humiles” would have been more appropriate), arose from the fact that the clothes they wore were very simple and of one colour. This lay fraternity spread rapidly and soon put forth two new branches, a second order composed of women, and a third composed of priests. No sooner, however, had this order of priests been formed, than it claimed precedence of the others, and, though chronologically last, was calledprimus ordoby hierarchical right—propter tonsuram(see P. Sabatier, “Regula antiqua Fr. et Sor. de poenitentia” inOpuscules de critique historique, part i. p. 15). In 1201 Pope Innocent III. granted a rule to this third order. Sabatier has drawn attention to the resemblances between this rule and theRegula de poenitentiagranted to Franciscanism in the course of its development; on the other hand, it is incontestable that Innocent III. wished to reconcile the order with the Waldenses, and, indeed, its rule reproduces several of the Waldensian propositions, ingeniously modified in the orthodox sense, but still very easily recognizable. It forbade useless oaths and the taking of God’s name in vain; allowed voluntary poverty and marriage; regulated pious exercises; and approved the solidarity which already existed among the members of the association. Finally, by a singular concession, it authorized them to meet on Sunday to listen to the words of a brother “of proved faith and prudent piety,” on condition that the hearers should not discuss among themselves either the articles of faith or the sacraments of the church. The bishops were forbidden to oppose any of the utterances of the Humiliati brethren, “for the spirit must not be stifled.” James of Vitry, without being unfavourable to their tendencies, represents their association as one of the peculiarities of the church of his time (Historia orientalis, Douai, 1597). So broad a discipline must of necessity have led back some waverers into the pale of the church, but the Waldenses of Lombardy, in theircongregationes laborantium, preserved the tradition of the independent Humiliati. Indeed, this tradition is confounded throughout the later 12th century with the history of the Waldenses. The “Chronicon Urspergense” (Mon. Germ. hist. Scriptores, xxiii. 376-377) mentions the Humiliati as one of the two Waldensian sects. The celebrated decretal promulgated in 1184 by Pope Lucius III. at the council of Verona against all heretics condemns at the same time as the “Poor Men of Lyons” “those who attribute to themselves falsely the name of Humiliati,” at the very time when this name denoted an order recognized by the papacy. This order, though orthodox, was always held in tacit and ever-increasing suspicion, and, in consequence of grave disorders, Pius V. suppressed the entire congregation in February 1570-71.

See Tiraboschi,Vetera humiliatorum monumenta(Milan, 1766); K. Müller,Die Waldenser(Gotha, 1886); W. Preger,Beiträge zur Geschichte der Waldensier(Munich, 1875).

(P. A.)

HUMITE,a group of minerals consisting of basic magnesium fluo-silicates, with the following formulae:—Chondrodite, Mg3[Mg(F, OH)]2[SiO4]2; Humite, Mg5[Mg(F, OH)]2[SiO4]3; Clinohumite, Mg7[Mg(F, OH)]2[SiO4]4. Humite crystallizes in the orthorhombic and the two others in the monoclinic system, but between them there is a close crystallographic relation: thelengths of the vertical axes are in the ratio 5:7:9, and this is also the ratio of the number of magnesium atoms present in each of the three minerals. These minerals are strikingly similar in appearance, and can only be distinguished by the goniometric measurement of the complex crystals. They are honey-yellow to brown or red in colour, and have a vitreous to resinous lustre; the hardness is 6-6½, and the specific gravity 3.1-3.2. Further, they often occur associated together, and it is only comparatively recently that the three species have been properly discriminated. The name humite, after Sir Abraham Hume, Bart. (1749-1839), whose collection of diamond crystals is preserved at Cambridge in the University museum, was given by the comte de Bournon in 1813 to the small and brilliant honey-yellow crystals found in the blocks of crystalline limestone ejected from Monte Somma, Vesuvius; all three species have since been recognized at this locality. Chondrodite (fromχόνδρος, “a grain”) was a name early (1817) in use for granular forms of these minerals found embedded in crystalline limestones in Sweden, Finland and at several place in New York and New Jersey. Large hyacinth-red crystals of all three species are associated with magnetite in the Tilly Foster iron-mine at Brewster, New York; and at Kafveltorp in Örebro, Sweden, similar crystals (of chondrodite) occur embedded in galena and chalcopyrite.

The relation mentioned above between the crystallographic constants and the chemical composition is unique amongst minerals, and is known as a morphotropic relation. S. L. Penfield and W. T. H. Howe, who in 1894 noticed this relation, predicted the existence of another member of the series, the crystals of which would have a still shorter vertical axis and contain less magnesium, the formula being Mg[Mg(F, OH)]2SiO4; this has since been discovered and named prolectite (fromπρολέγειν, “to foretell”).

(L. J. S.)

HUMMEL, JOHANN NEPOMUK(1778-1837), German composer and pianist, was born on the 14th of November 1778, at Pressburg, in Hungary, and received his first artistic training from his father, himself a musician. In 1785 the latter received an appointment as conductor of the orchestra at the theatre of Schikaneder, the friend of Mozart and the librettist of theMagic Flute. It was in this way that Hummel became acquainted with the composer, who took a great fancy to him, and even invited him to his house for a considerable period. During two years, from the age of seven to nine, Hummel received the invaluable instruction of Mozart, after which he set out with his father on an artistic tour through Germany, England and other countries, his clever playing winning the admiration of amateurs. He began to compose in his eleventh year. After his return to Vienna he completed his studies under Albrechtsberger and Haydn, and for a number of years devoted himself exclusively to composition. At a later period he learned song-writing from Salieri. For some years he held the appointment of orchestral conductor to Prince Eszterhazy, probably entering upon this office in 1807. From 1811 to 1815 he lived in Vienna. On the 18th of May 1813 he married Elisabeth Röckl, a singer, and the sister of one of Beethoven’s friends. It was not till 1816 that he again appeared in public as a pianist, his success being quite extraordinary. His gift of improvisation at the piano was especially admired, but his larger compositions also were highly appreciated, and for a time Hummel was considered one of the leading musicians of an age in which Beethoven was in the zenith of his power. In Prussia, which he visited in 1822, the ovations offered to him were unprecedented, and other countries—France in 1825 and 1829, Belgium in 1826 and England in 1830 and 1833—added further laurels to his crown. He died in 1837 at Weimar, where for a long time he had been the musical conductor of the court theatre. His compositions are very numerous, and comprise almost every branch of music. He wrote, amongst other things, several operas, both tragic and comic, and two grand masses (Op.80 and 111). Infinitely more important are his compositions for the pianoforte (his two concerti in A minor and B minor, and the sonata in F sharp minor), and his chamber music (the celebrated septet, and several trios, &c.). His experience as a player and teacher of the pianoforte was embodied in hisGreat Pianoforte School(Vienna), and the excellence of his method is further proved by such pupils as Henselt and Ferdinand Hiller. Both as a composer and as a pianist Hummel continued the traditions of the earlier Viennese school of Mozart and Haydn; his style in both capacities was marked by purity and correctness rather than by passion and imagination.

HUMMING-BIRD,a name in use, possibly ever since English explorers first knew of them, for the beautiful little creatures to which, from the sound occasionally made by the rapid vibrations of their wings, it is applied. Among books that are ordinarily in naturalists’ hands, the name seems to be first found in theMusaeum Tradescantianum, published in 1656, but it therein occurs (p. 3) so as to suggest its having already been accepted and commonly understood; and its earliest use, as yet traced, is by Thomas Morton (d. 1646), a disreputable lawyer who had a curiously adventurous career in New England, in theNew English Canaan, printed in 1637—a rare work giving an interesting description of the natural scenery and social life in New England in the 17th century, and reproduced by Peter Force in hisHistorical Tracts(vol. ii., Washington, 1838). André Thevet, in hisSingularitez de la France antarctique(Antwerp, 1558, fol. 92), has been more than once cited as the earliest author to mention humming-birds, which he did under the name ofGouambuch; but it is quite certain that Oviedo, whoseHystoria general de las Indiaswas published at Toledo in 1525, preceded him by more than thirty years, with an account of the “paxaro mosquito” of Hispaniola, of which island “the first chronicler of the Indies” was governor.1This name, though now apparently disused in Spanish, must have been current about that time, for we find Gesner in 1555 (De avium natura, iii. 629) translating it literally into Latin asPasser muscatus, owing, as he says, his knowledge of the bird to Cardan, the celebrated mathematician, astrologer and physician, from whom we learn (Comment. in Ptolem. de astr. judiciis, Basel, 1554, p. 472) that, on his return to Milan from professionally attending Archbishop Hamilton at Edinburgh, he visited Gesner at Zürich, about the end of the year 1552.2The name still survives in the Frenchoiseau-mouche; but the ordinary Spanish appellation is, and long has been,Tominejo, fromtomin, signifying a weight equal to the third part of anadarmeor drachm, and used metaphorically for anything very small. Humming-birds, however, are called by a variety of other names, many of them derived from American languages, such asGuainumbi,OurissiaandColibri, to say nothing of others bestowed upon them (chiefly from some peculiarity of habit) by Europeans, likePicaflores,ChuparosaandFroufrou. Barrère, in 1745, conceiving that humming-birds were allied to the wren, theTrochilus,3in part, ofPliny, applied that name in a generic sense (Ornith. spec. novum, pp. 47, 48) to both. Taking the hint thus afforded, Linnaeus very soon after went farther, and, excluding the wrens, founded his genusTrochilusfor the reception of such humming-birds as were known to him. The unfortunate act of the great nomenclator cannot be set aside; and, since his time, ornithologists, with but few exceptions, have followed his example, so that nowadays humming-birds are universally recognized as forming the familyTrochilidae.

The relations of theTrochilidaeto other birds were for a long while very imperfectly understood. Nitzsch first drew attention to their agreement in many essential characters with the swifts,Cypselidae, and placed the two families in one group, which he calledMacrochires, from the great length of their manual bones, or those forming the extremity of the wing. The name was perhaps not very happily chosen, for it is not the distal portion that is so much out of ordinary proportion to the size of the bird, but the proximal and median portions, which in both families are curiously dwarfed. Still themanus, in comparison with the other parts of the wing, is so long that the termMacrochiresis not wholly inaccurate. The affinity of theTrochilidaeandCypselidaeonce pointed out, became obvious to every careful and unprejudiced investigator, and there are probably few systematists now living who refuse to admit its validity. More than this, it is confirmed by an examination of other osteological characters. The “lines,” as a boat-builder would say, upon which the skeleton of each form is constructed are precisely similar, only that whereas the bill is very short and the head wide in the swifts, in the humming-birds the head is narrow and the bill long—the latter developed to an extraordinary degree in some of theTrochilidae, rendering them the longest-billed birds known.4Huxley takes these two families, together with the goatsuckers (Caprimulgidae), to form the divisionCypselomorphae—one of the two into which he separated his larger groupAegithognathae. However, the most noticeable portion of the humming-bird’s skeleton is thesternum, which in proportion to the size of the bird is enormously developed both longitudinally and vertically, its deep keel and posterior protraction affording abundant space for the powerful muscles which drive the wings in their rapid vibrations as the little creature poises itself over the flowers where it finds its food.5

So far as is known, all humming-birds possess a protrusible tongue, in conformation peculiar among the classAves, though to some extent similar to that member in the woodpeckers (Picidae)6—the “horns” of the hyoid apparatus upon which it is seated being greatly elongated, passing round and over the back part of the head, near the top of which they meet, and thence proceed forward, lodged in a broad and deep groove, till they terminate in front of the eyes. But, unlike the tongue of the woodpeckers, that of the humming-birds consists of two cylindrical tubes, tapering towards the point, and forming two sheaths which contain the extensile portion, and are capable of separation, thereby facilitating the extraction of honey from the nectaries of flowers, and with it, what is of far greater importance for the bird’s sustenance, the small insects that have been attracted to feed upon the honey.7These, on the tongue being withdrawn into the bill, are caught by the mandibles (furnished in the males of many species with fine, horny, saw like teeth8), and swallowed in the usual way. The stomach is small, moderately muscular, and with the inner coat slightly hardened. There seem to be no caeca. The trachea is remarkably short, the bronchi beginning high up on the throat, and song-muscles are wholly wanting, as in all otherCypselomorphae.9

Humming-birds comprehend the smallest members of the class Aves. The largest among them measures no more than 8½ and the least 23⁄8in. in length, for it is now admitted generally that Sloane must have been in error when he described (Voyage, ii. 308) the “least humming-bird of Jamaica” as “about 1¼ in. long from the end of the bill to that of the tail”—unless, indeed, he meant the proximal end of each. There are, however, several species in which the tail is very much elongated, such as theAithurus polytmus(fig. 1) of Jamaica, and the remarkableLoddigesia mirabilisof Chachapoyas in Peru, which last was for some time only known from a unique specimen (Ibis, 1880, p. 152); but “trochilidists” in giving their measurements do not take these extraordinary developments into account. Next to their generally small size, the best-known characteristic of theTrochilidaeis the wonderful brilliancy of the plumage of nearly all their forms, in which respect they are surpassed by no other birds, and are only equalled by a few, as, for instance, by theNectariniidae, or sun-birds of the tropical parts of the Old World, in popular estimation so often confounded with them.

The number of species of humming-birds now known to exist considerably exceeds 400; and, though none departs very widely from what a morphologist would deem the typical structure of the family, the amount of modification, within certain limits, presented by the various forms is surprising and even bewildering to the uninitiated. But the features that are ordinarily chosen by systematic ornithologists in drawing up their schemes of classification are found by the “trochilidists,” or special students of theTrochilidae, insufficient for the purpose of arranging these birds in groups, and characters on which genera can be founded have to be sought in the style and coloration of plumage, as well as in the form and proportions of those parts which are most generally deemed sufficient to furnish them. Looking to the large number of species to be taken into account, convenience has demanded what science would withhold, and the genera established by the ornithologists of a preceding generation nave been broken up by their successors into multitudinous sections—the more adventurous making from 150 to 180 of such groups, the modest being content with 120 or thereabouts, but the last dignifying each of them by the title of genus. It is of course obvious that these small divisions cannot be here considered in detail, nor would much advantage accrue by giving statistics from the works of recent trochilidists, such as Gould,10Mulsant11and Elliot.12It would be as unprofitable here to trace the successive steps by which the original genusTrochilusof Linnaeus, or the two generaPolytmusandMellisugaof Brisson, have been split into others, or have been addedto, by modern writers, for not one of these professes to have arrived at any final, but only a provisional, arrangement; it seems, however, expedient to notice the fact that some of the authors of the 18th century13supposed themselves to have seen the way to dividing what we now know as the familyTrochilidaeinto two groups, the distinction between which was that in the one the bill was arched and in the other straight, since that difference has been insisted on in many works. This was especially the view taken by Brisson and Buffon, who termed the birds having the arched bill “colibris,” and those having it straight “oiseaux-mouches.” The distinction wholly breaks down, not merely because there areTrochilidaewhich possess almost every gradation of decurvation of the bill, but some which have the bill upturned after the manner of that strange bird the avocet,14while it may be remarked that several of the species placed by those authorities among the “colibris” are not humming-birds at all.In describing the extraordinary brilliant plumage which most of theTrochilidaeexhibit, ornithologists have been compelled to adopt the vocabulary of the jeweller in order to give an idea of the indescribable radiance that so often breaks forth from some part or other of the investments of these feathered gems. In all, save a few other birds, the most imaginative writer sees gleams which he may adequately designate metallic, from their resemblance to burnished gold, bronze, copper or steel, but such similitudes wholly fail when he has to do with theTrochilidae, and there is hardly a precious stone—ruby, amethyst, sapphire, emerald or topaz—the name of which may not fitly, and without any exaggeration, be employed in regard to humming-birds. In some cases this radiance beams from the brow, in some it glows from the throat, in others it shines from the tail-coverts, in others it sparkles from the tip only of elongated feathers that crest the head or surround the neck as with a frill, while again in others it may appear as a luminous streak across the cheek or auriculars. The feathers that cover the upper parts of the body very frequently have a metallic lustre of golden-green, which in other birds would be thought sufficiently beautiful, but in theTrochilidaeits sheen is overpowered by the almost dazzling splendour that radiates from the spots where Nature’s lapidary has set her jewels. The flight feathers are almost invariably dusky—the rapidity of their movement would, perhaps, render any display of colour ineffective: while, on the contrary, the feathers of the tail, which, as the bird hovers over its food-bearing flowers, is almost always expanded, and is therefore comparatively motionless, often exhibit a rich translucency, as of stained glass, but iridescent in a manner that no stained glass ever is—cinnamon merging into crimson, crimson changing to purple, purple to violet, and so to indigo and bottle-green. But this part of the humming-bird is subject to quite as much modification in form as in colour, though always consisting of tenrectrices. It may be nearly square, or at least but slightly rounded, or wedge-shaped with the middle quills prolonged beyond the rest; or, again, it may be deeply forked, sometimes by the overgrowth of one or more of the intermediate pairs, but most generally by the development of the outer pair. In the last case the lateral feathers may be either broadly webbed to their tip or acuminate, or again, in some forms, may lessen to the filiform shaft, and suddenly enlarge into a terminal spatulation as in the forms known as “racquet tails.” The wings do not offer so much variation; still there are a few groups in which diversities occur that require notice. The primaries are invariably ten in number, the outermost being the longest, except in the single instance ofAithurus, where it is shorter than the next. The group known as “sabre-wings,” comprising the generaCampylopterus,EupetomenaandSphenoproctus, present a most curious sexual peculiarity, for while the female has nothing remarkable in the form of the wing, in the male the shaft of two or three of the outer primaries is dilated proximally, and bowed near the middle in a manner almost unique among birds. The feet again, diminutive as they are, are very diversified in form. In most the tarsus is bare, but in some groups, asEriocnemis, it is clothed with tufts of the most delicate down, sometimes black, sometimes buff, but more often of a snowy whiteness. In some the toes are weak, nearly equal in length, and furnished with small rounded nails; in others they are largely developed, and armed with long and sharp claws.Apart from the well-known brilliancy of plumage, of which enough has been here said, many humming-birds display a large amount of ornamentation in the addition to their attire of crests of various shape and size, elongated ear-tufts, projecting neck-frills, and pendant beards—forked or forming a single point. But it would be impossible here to dwell on a tenth of these beautiful modifications, each of which as it comes to our knowledge excites fresh surprise and exemplifies the ancient adage—maxime miranda in minimis Natura. It must be remarked, however, that there are certain forms which possess little or no brilliant colouring at all, but, as most tropical birds go, are very soberly clad. These are known to trochilidists as “hermits,” and by Gould have been separated as a subfamily under the name ofPhaethornithinae, though Elliot says he cannot find any characters to distinguish it from theTrochilidaeproper. But sight is not the only sense that is affected by humming-birds. The large species known asPterophanes temminckihas a strong musky odour, very similar to that given off by the petrels, though, so far as appears to be known, that is the only one of them that possesses this property.15FromThe Cambridge National History, vol. ix., “Birds,” by permission of Macmillan & Co. Ltd.Fig.2.—Eulampis jugularus.All well-informed people are aware that theTrochilidaeare a family peculiar to America and its islands, but one of the commonest of common errors is the belief that humming-birds are found in Africa and India—to say nothing even of England. In the first two cases the mistake arises from confounding them with some of the brightly-coloured sun-birds (Nectariniidae), to which British colonists or residents are apt to apply the better-known name; but in the last it can be only due to the want of perception which disables the observer from distinguishing between a bird and an insect—the object seen being a hawk-moth (Macroglossa), whose mode of feeding and rapid flight certainly bears some resemblance to that of the Trochilidae, and hence one of the species (M. stellarum) is very generally called the “humming-bird hawk-moth.” But though confined to the New World theTrochilidaepervade almost every part of it. In the southEustephanus galeritushas been seen flitting about the fuchsias of Tierra del Fuego in a snow-storm, and in the north-westSelatophorus rufusin summer visits the ribes-blossoms of Sitka, while in the north-eastTrochilus colubrischarms the vision of Canadians as it poises itself over the althaea-bushes in their gardens, and extends its range at least so far as lat. 57° N. Nor is the distribution of humming-birds limited to a horizontal direction only, it rises also vertically.Oreotrochilus chimborazoandO. pichinchalive on the lofty mountains whence each takes its specific name, but just beneath the line of perpetual snow, at an elevation of some 16,000 ft., dwelling in a world of almost constant hall, sleet and rain, and-feeding on the insects which resort to the indigenous flowering plants, while other peaks, only inferior to these in height, are no less frequented by one or more species. Peru and Bolivia produce some of the most splendid of the family—the generaCometes,DiphlogaenaandThaumastura, whose very names indicate the glories of their bearers. The comparatively giganticPatagonainhabits the west coast of South America, while the isolated rocks of Juan Fernandez not only afford a home to theEustephanusbut also to two other species of the same genus which are not found elsewhere. The slopes of the Northern Andes and the hill country of Colombia furnish perhaps the greatest number of forms, and some of the most beautiful, but leaving that great range, we part company with the largest and most gorgeously arrayed species, and their number dwindles as we approach the eastern coast. Still there are many brilliant humming-birds common enough in the Brazils, Guiana and Venezuela. TheChrysolampis mosquitusis perhaps the most plentiful. Thousands of its skins are annually sent to Europe to be used in the manufacture of ornaments, its rich ruby-and-topaz glow rendering it one of the most beautiful objects imaginable. In the darkest depths of the Brazilian forests dwell the russet-clothed brotherhood of the genusPhaethornis—the “hermits”; but the great wooded basin of the Amazons seems to be particularly unfavourable to theTrochilidae, and from Pará to Ega there are scarcely a dozen species to be met with. There is no island of the Antilles but is inhabited by one or more humming-birds, and there are some very remarkable singularities of geographical distribution to be found. Northwards from Panama the highlands present many genera whose names it would be useless here to insert, few or none of which are found in South America—though that must unquestionably be deemed the metropolis of the family—and advancing towards Mexico the numbers gradually fall off. Eleven species have been enrolled among the fauna of the United States, but some on slender evidence, while others only just cross the frontier line.The habits of humming-birds have been ably treated by writers like Waterton, Wilson and Audubon, to say nothing of P. H. Gosse, A. R. Wallace, H. W. Bates and others. But there is no one appreciativeof the beauties of nature who will not recall to memory with delight the time when a live humming-bird first met his gaze. The suddenness of the apparition, even when expected, and its brief duration, are alone enough to fix the fluttering vision on the mind’s eye. The wings of the bird, if flying, are only visible as a thin grey film, bounded above and below by fine black threads, in form of a St Andrew’s cross,—the effect on the observer’s retina of the instantaneous reversal of the motion of the wing at each beat—the strokes being so rapid as to leave no more distinct image. Consequently an adequate representation of the bird on the wing cannot be produced by the draughtsman. Humming-birds show to the greatest advantage when engaged in contest with another, for rival cocks fight fiercely, and, as may be expected, it is then that their plumage flashes with the most glowing tints. But these are quite invisible to the ordinary spectator except when very near at hand, though doubtless efficient enough for their object, whether that be to inflame their mate or to irritate or daunt their opponent, or something that we cannot compass. Humming-birds, however, will also often sit still for a while, chiefly in an exposed position, on a dead twig, occasionally darting into the air, either to catch a passing insect or to encounter an adversary; and so pugnacious are they that they will frequently attack birds many times bigger than themselves, without, as would seem, any provocation.The food of humming-birds consists mainly of insects, mostly gathered in the manner already described from the flowers they visit; but, according to Wallace, there are many species which he has never seen so occupied, and the “hermits” especially seem to live almost entirely upon the insects which are found on the lower surface of leaves, over which they will closely pass their bill, balancing themselves the while vertically in the air. The same excellent observer also remarks that even among the common flower-frequenting species he has found the alimentary canal entirely filled with insects, and very rarely a trace of honey. It is this fact doubtless that has hindered almost all attempts at keeping them in confinement for any length of time—nearly every one making the experiment having fed his captives only with syrup, which, without the addition of some animal food, is insufficient as sustenance, and seeing therefore the wretched creatures gradually sink into inanition and die of hunger. With better management, however, several species have been brought on different occasions to Europe, some of them to England.The beautiful nests of humming-birds, than which the work of fairies could not be conceived more delicate, are to be seen in most museums, and will be found on examination to be very solidly and tenaciously built, though the materials are generally of the slightest—cotton-wool or some vegetable down and spiders’ webs. They vary greatly in form and ornamentation—for it would seem that the portions of lichen which frequently bestud them are affixed to their exterior with that object, though probably concealment was the original intention. They are mostly cup-shaped, and the singular fact is on record (Zool. Journal, v. p. 1) that in one instance as the young grew in size the walls were heightened by the parents, until at last the nest was more than twice as big as when the eggs were laid and hatched. Some species, however, suspend their nests from the stem or tendril of a climbing plant, and more than one case has been known in which it has been attached to a hanging rope. These pensile nests are said to have been found loaded on one side with a small stone or bits of earth to ensure their safe balance, though how the compensatory process is applied no one can say. Other species, and especially those belonging to the “hermit” group, weave a frail structure round the side of a drooping palm-leaf. The eggs are never more than two in number, quite white, and having both ends nearly equal. The solicitude for her offspring displayed by the mother is not exceeded by that of any other birds, but it seems doubtful whether the male takes any interest in the brood.

In describing the extraordinary brilliant plumage which most of theTrochilidaeexhibit, ornithologists have been compelled to adopt the vocabulary of the jeweller in order to give an idea of the indescribable radiance that so often breaks forth from some part or other of the investments of these feathered gems. In all, save a few other birds, the most imaginative writer sees gleams which he may adequately designate metallic, from their resemblance to burnished gold, bronze, copper or steel, but such similitudes wholly fail when he has to do with theTrochilidae, and there is hardly a precious stone—ruby, amethyst, sapphire, emerald or topaz—the name of which may not fitly, and without any exaggeration, be employed in regard to humming-birds. In some cases this radiance beams from the brow, in some it glows from the throat, in others it shines from the tail-coverts, in others it sparkles from the tip only of elongated feathers that crest the head or surround the neck as with a frill, while again in others it may appear as a luminous streak across the cheek or auriculars. The feathers that cover the upper parts of the body very frequently have a metallic lustre of golden-green, which in other birds would be thought sufficiently beautiful, but in theTrochilidaeits sheen is overpowered by the almost dazzling splendour that radiates from the spots where Nature’s lapidary has set her jewels. The flight feathers are almost invariably dusky—the rapidity of their movement would, perhaps, render any display of colour ineffective: while, on the contrary, the feathers of the tail, which, as the bird hovers over its food-bearing flowers, is almost always expanded, and is therefore comparatively motionless, often exhibit a rich translucency, as of stained glass, but iridescent in a manner that no stained glass ever is—cinnamon merging into crimson, crimson changing to purple, purple to violet, and so to indigo and bottle-green. But this part of the humming-bird is subject to quite as much modification in form as in colour, though always consisting of tenrectrices. It may be nearly square, or at least but slightly rounded, or wedge-shaped with the middle quills prolonged beyond the rest; or, again, it may be deeply forked, sometimes by the overgrowth of one or more of the intermediate pairs, but most generally by the development of the outer pair. In the last case the lateral feathers may be either broadly webbed to their tip or acuminate, or again, in some forms, may lessen to the filiform shaft, and suddenly enlarge into a terminal spatulation as in the forms known as “racquet tails.” The wings do not offer so much variation; still there are a few groups in which diversities occur that require notice. The primaries are invariably ten in number, the outermost being the longest, except in the single instance ofAithurus, where it is shorter than the next. The group known as “sabre-wings,” comprising the generaCampylopterus,EupetomenaandSphenoproctus, present a most curious sexual peculiarity, for while the female has nothing remarkable in the form of the wing, in the male the shaft of two or three of the outer primaries is dilated proximally, and bowed near the middle in a manner almost unique among birds. The feet again, diminutive as they are, are very diversified in form. In most the tarsus is bare, but in some groups, asEriocnemis, it is clothed with tufts of the most delicate down, sometimes black, sometimes buff, but more often of a snowy whiteness. In some the toes are weak, nearly equal in length, and furnished with small rounded nails; in others they are largely developed, and armed with long and sharp claws.

Apart from the well-known brilliancy of plumage, of which enough has been here said, many humming-birds display a large amount of ornamentation in the addition to their attire of crests of various shape and size, elongated ear-tufts, projecting neck-frills, and pendant beards—forked or forming a single point. But it would be impossible here to dwell on a tenth of these beautiful modifications, each of which as it comes to our knowledge excites fresh surprise and exemplifies the ancient adage—maxime miranda in minimis Natura. It must be remarked, however, that there are certain forms which possess little or no brilliant colouring at all, but, as most tropical birds go, are very soberly clad. These are known to trochilidists as “hermits,” and by Gould have been separated as a subfamily under the name ofPhaethornithinae, though Elliot says he cannot find any characters to distinguish it from theTrochilidaeproper. But sight is not the only sense that is affected by humming-birds. The large species known asPterophanes temminckihas a strong musky odour, very similar to that given off by the petrels, though, so far as appears to be known, that is the only one of them that possesses this property.15

All well-informed people are aware that theTrochilidaeare a family peculiar to America and its islands, but one of the commonest of common errors is the belief that humming-birds are found in Africa and India—to say nothing even of England. In the first two cases the mistake arises from confounding them with some of the brightly-coloured sun-birds (Nectariniidae), to which British colonists or residents are apt to apply the better-known name; but in the last it can be only due to the want of perception which disables the observer from distinguishing between a bird and an insect—the object seen being a hawk-moth (Macroglossa), whose mode of feeding and rapid flight certainly bears some resemblance to that of the Trochilidae, and hence one of the species (M. stellarum) is very generally called the “humming-bird hawk-moth.” But though confined to the New World theTrochilidaepervade almost every part of it. In the southEustephanus galeritushas been seen flitting about the fuchsias of Tierra del Fuego in a snow-storm, and in the north-westSelatophorus rufusin summer visits the ribes-blossoms of Sitka, while in the north-eastTrochilus colubrischarms the vision of Canadians as it poises itself over the althaea-bushes in their gardens, and extends its range at least so far as lat. 57° N. Nor is the distribution of humming-birds limited to a horizontal direction only, it rises also vertically.Oreotrochilus chimborazoandO. pichinchalive on the lofty mountains whence each takes its specific name, but just beneath the line of perpetual snow, at an elevation of some 16,000 ft., dwelling in a world of almost constant hall, sleet and rain, and-feeding on the insects which resort to the indigenous flowering plants, while other peaks, only inferior to these in height, are no less frequented by one or more species. Peru and Bolivia produce some of the most splendid of the family—the generaCometes,DiphlogaenaandThaumastura, whose very names indicate the glories of their bearers. The comparatively giganticPatagonainhabits the west coast of South America, while the isolated rocks of Juan Fernandez not only afford a home to theEustephanusbut also to two other species of the same genus which are not found elsewhere. The slopes of the Northern Andes and the hill country of Colombia furnish perhaps the greatest number of forms, and some of the most beautiful, but leaving that great range, we part company with the largest and most gorgeously arrayed species, and their number dwindles as we approach the eastern coast. Still there are many brilliant humming-birds common enough in the Brazils, Guiana and Venezuela. TheChrysolampis mosquitusis perhaps the most plentiful. Thousands of its skins are annually sent to Europe to be used in the manufacture of ornaments, its rich ruby-and-topaz glow rendering it one of the most beautiful objects imaginable. In the darkest depths of the Brazilian forests dwell the russet-clothed brotherhood of the genusPhaethornis—the “hermits”; but the great wooded basin of the Amazons seems to be particularly unfavourable to theTrochilidae, and from Pará to Ega there are scarcely a dozen species to be met with. There is no island of the Antilles but is inhabited by one or more humming-birds, and there are some very remarkable singularities of geographical distribution to be found. Northwards from Panama the highlands present many genera whose names it would be useless here to insert, few or none of which are found in South America—though that must unquestionably be deemed the metropolis of the family—and advancing towards Mexico the numbers gradually fall off. Eleven species have been enrolled among the fauna of the United States, but some on slender evidence, while others only just cross the frontier line.

The habits of humming-birds have been ably treated by writers like Waterton, Wilson and Audubon, to say nothing of P. H. Gosse, A. R. Wallace, H. W. Bates and others. But there is no one appreciativeof the beauties of nature who will not recall to memory with delight the time when a live humming-bird first met his gaze. The suddenness of the apparition, even when expected, and its brief duration, are alone enough to fix the fluttering vision on the mind’s eye. The wings of the bird, if flying, are only visible as a thin grey film, bounded above and below by fine black threads, in form of a St Andrew’s cross,—the effect on the observer’s retina of the instantaneous reversal of the motion of the wing at each beat—the strokes being so rapid as to leave no more distinct image. Consequently an adequate representation of the bird on the wing cannot be produced by the draughtsman. Humming-birds show to the greatest advantage when engaged in contest with another, for rival cocks fight fiercely, and, as may be expected, it is then that their plumage flashes with the most glowing tints. But these are quite invisible to the ordinary spectator except when very near at hand, though doubtless efficient enough for their object, whether that be to inflame their mate or to irritate or daunt their opponent, or something that we cannot compass. Humming-birds, however, will also often sit still for a while, chiefly in an exposed position, on a dead twig, occasionally darting into the air, either to catch a passing insect or to encounter an adversary; and so pugnacious are they that they will frequently attack birds many times bigger than themselves, without, as would seem, any provocation.

The food of humming-birds consists mainly of insects, mostly gathered in the manner already described from the flowers they visit; but, according to Wallace, there are many species which he has never seen so occupied, and the “hermits” especially seem to live almost entirely upon the insects which are found on the lower surface of leaves, over which they will closely pass their bill, balancing themselves the while vertically in the air. The same excellent observer also remarks that even among the common flower-frequenting species he has found the alimentary canal entirely filled with insects, and very rarely a trace of honey. It is this fact doubtless that has hindered almost all attempts at keeping them in confinement for any length of time—nearly every one making the experiment having fed his captives only with syrup, which, without the addition of some animal food, is insufficient as sustenance, and seeing therefore the wretched creatures gradually sink into inanition and die of hunger. With better management, however, several species have been brought on different occasions to Europe, some of them to England.

The beautiful nests of humming-birds, than which the work of fairies could not be conceived more delicate, are to be seen in most museums, and will be found on examination to be very solidly and tenaciously built, though the materials are generally of the slightest—cotton-wool or some vegetable down and spiders’ webs. They vary greatly in form and ornamentation—for it would seem that the portions of lichen which frequently bestud them are affixed to their exterior with that object, though probably concealment was the original intention. They are mostly cup-shaped, and the singular fact is on record (Zool. Journal, v. p. 1) that in one instance as the young grew in size the walls were heightened by the parents, until at last the nest was more than twice as big as when the eggs were laid and hatched. Some species, however, suspend their nests from the stem or tendril of a climbing plant, and more than one case has been known in which it has been attached to a hanging rope. These pensile nests are said to have been found loaded on one side with a small stone or bits of earth to ensure their safe balance, though how the compensatory process is applied no one can say. Other species, and especially those belonging to the “hermit” group, weave a frail structure round the side of a drooping palm-leaf. The eggs are never more than two in number, quite white, and having both ends nearly equal. The solicitude for her offspring displayed by the mother is not exceeded by that of any other birds, but it seems doubtful whether the male takes any interest in the brood.

(A. N.)

1In the edition of Oviedo’s work published at Salamanca in 1547, the account (lib.xiv. cap. 4) runs thus: “Ay assi mismo enesta ysla vnos paxaricos tan negros como vn terciopelo negro muy bueno & son tan pequeños que ningunos he yo visto en Indias menores excepto el que aca se llama paxaro mosquito. El qual es tan pequeño que el bulto del es menor harto o assaz que le cabeça del dedo pulgar de la mano. Este no le he visto enesta Ysla pero dizen me que aqui los ay: & por esso dexo de hablar enel pa lo dezir dode los he visto que es en la tierra firme quãdo della se trate.” A modern Spanish version of this passage will be found in the beautiful edition of Oviedo’s works published by the Academy of Madrid in 1851 (i. 444).2See also Morley’sLife of Girolamo Cardano(ii. 152, 153).3Under this name Pliny perpetuated (Hist. naturalis, viii. 25) the confusion that had doubtless arisen before his time of two very distinct birds. As Sundevall remarks (Tentamen, p. 87, note),τροχίλοςwas evidently the name commonly given by the ancient Greeks to the smaller plovers, and was not improperly applied by Herodotus (ii. 68) to the species that feeds in the open mouth of the crocodile—thePluvianus aegyptiusof modern ornithologists—in which sense Aristotle (Hist. animalium, ix. 6) also uses it. But the received text of Aristotle has two other passages (ix. 1 and 11) wherein the word appears in a wholly different connexion, and can there be only taken to mean the wren—the usual Greek name of which would seem to beὄρχιλος(Sundevall,Om Aristotl. Djurarter, No. 54). Though none of his editors or commentators has suggested the possibility of such a thing, one can hardly help suspecting that in these passages some early copyist has substitutedτροχίλοςforὄρχιλος, and so laid the foundation of a curious error. It may be remarked that the crocodile of Santo Domingo is said to have the like office done for it by some kind of bird, which is called by Descourtilz (Voyage, iii. 26), a “Todier,” but, as Geoffr. St Hilaire observes (Descr. de l’Égypte, ed. 2, xxiv. 440), is more probably a plover. Unfortunately the fauna of Hispaniola is not much better known now than in Oviedo’s days.4ThusDocimastes ensifer, in which the bill is longer than both head and body together.5This is especially the case with the smaller species of the group, for the larger, though shooting with equal celerity from place to place, seem to flap their wings with comparatively slow but not less powerful strokes. The difference was especially observed with respect to the largest of all humming-birds,Patagona gigas, by Darwin.6The resemblance, so far as it exists, must be merely the result of analogical function, and certainly indicates no affinity between the families.7It is probable that in various members of theTrochilidaethe structure of the tongue, and other parts correlated therewith, will be found subject to several and perhaps considerable modifications, as is the case in various members of thePicidae.8These are especially observable inRhamphodon naeviusandAndrodon aequatorialis.9P. H. Gosse (Birds of Jamaica, p. 130) says thatMellisuga minima, the smallest species of the family, has “a real song”—but the like is not recorded of any other.10A Monograph of the Trochilidae or Humming-birds, 5 vols. imp. fol. (London, 1861, with Introduction in 8vo).11Histoire naturelle des oiseaux-mouches, ou colibris, 4 vols., with supplement, imp. 4to (Lyon-Genève-Bale, 1874-1877).12Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, No. 317,A Classification and Synopsis of the Trochilidae, 1 vol. imp. 4to (Washington, 1879).13Salerne must be excepted, especially as he was rebuked by Buffon for doing what we now deem right.14For exampleAvocettula recurvirostrisof Guiana andA. eurypteraof Colombia.15The specific name of a species of Chrysolampis, commonly written by many writersmoschitus, would lead to the belief that it was a mistake formoschatus,i.e.“musky,” but in truth it originates with their carelessness, for though they quote Linnaeus as their authority they can never have referred to his works, or they would have found the word to bemosquitus, the “mosquito” of Oviedo, awkwardly, it is true, Latinized. If emendation be needed,muscatus, after Gesner’s example, is undoubtedly, preferable.

2See also Morley’sLife of Girolamo Cardano(ii. 152, 153).

3Under this name Pliny perpetuated (Hist. naturalis, viii. 25) the confusion that had doubtless arisen before his time of two very distinct birds. As Sundevall remarks (Tentamen, p. 87, note),τροχίλοςwas evidently the name commonly given by the ancient Greeks to the smaller plovers, and was not improperly applied by Herodotus (ii. 68) to the species that feeds in the open mouth of the crocodile—thePluvianus aegyptiusof modern ornithologists—in which sense Aristotle (Hist. animalium, ix. 6) also uses it. But the received text of Aristotle has two other passages (ix. 1 and 11) wherein the word appears in a wholly different connexion, and can there be only taken to mean the wren—the usual Greek name of which would seem to beὄρχιλος(Sundevall,Om Aristotl. Djurarter, No. 54). Though none of his editors or commentators has suggested the possibility of such a thing, one can hardly help suspecting that in these passages some early copyist has substitutedτροχίλοςforὄρχιλος, and so laid the foundation of a curious error. It may be remarked that the crocodile of Santo Domingo is said to have the like office done for it by some kind of bird, which is called by Descourtilz (Voyage, iii. 26), a “Todier,” but, as Geoffr. St Hilaire observes (Descr. de l’Égypte, ed. 2, xxiv. 440), is more probably a plover. Unfortunately the fauna of Hispaniola is not much better known now than in Oviedo’s days.

4ThusDocimastes ensifer, in which the bill is longer than both head and body together.

5This is especially the case with the smaller species of the group, for the larger, though shooting with equal celerity from place to place, seem to flap their wings with comparatively slow but not less powerful strokes. The difference was especially observed with respect to the largest of all humming-birds,Patagona gigas, by Darwin.

6The resemblance, so far as it exists, must be merely the result of analogical function, and certainly indicates no affinity between the families.

7It is probable that in various members of theTrochilidaethe structure of the tongue, and other parts correlated therewith, will be found subject to several and perhaps considerable modifications, as is the case in various members of thePicidae.

8These are especially observable inRhamphodon naeviusandAndrodon aequatorialis.

9P. H. Gosse (Birds of Jamaica, p. 130) says thatMellisuga minima, the smallest species of the family, has “a real song”—but the like is not recorded of any other.

10A Monograph of the Trochilidae or Humming-birds, 5 vols. imp. fol. (London, 1861, with Introduction in 8vo).

11Histoire naturelle des oiseaux-mouches, ou colibris, 4 vols., with supplement, imp. 4to (Lyon-Genève-Bale, 1874-1877).

12Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, No. 317,A Classification and Synopsis of the Trochilidae, 1 vol. imp. 4to (Washington, 1879).

13Salerne must be excepted, especially as he was rebuked by Buffon for doing what we now deem right.

14For exampleAvocettula recurvirostrisof Guiana andA. eurypteraof Colombia.

15The specific name of a species of Chrysolampis, commonly written by many writersmoschitus, would lead to the belief that it was a mistake formoschatus,i.e.“musky,” but in truth it originates with their carelessness, for though they quote Linnaeus as their authority they can never have referred to his works, or they would have found the word to bemosquitus, the “mosquito” of Oviedo, awkwardly, it is true, Latinized. If emendation be needed,muscatus, after Gesner’s example, is undoubtedly, preferable.

HUMMOCK(of uncertain derivation; cf. hump or hillock), a boss or rounded knoll of ice rising above the general level of an ice-field, making sledge travelling in the Arctic and Antarctic region extremely difficult and unpleasant. Hummocky ice is caused by slow and unequal pressure in the main body of the packed ice, and by unequal structure and temperature at a later period.

HUMOUR(Latinhumor), a word of many meanings and of strange fortune in their evolution. It began by meaning simply “liquid.” It passed through the stage of being a term of art used by the old physicians—whom we should now call physiologists—and by degrees has come to be generally understood to signify a certain “habit of the mind,” shown in speech, in literature and in action, or a quality in things and events observed by the human intelligence. The word reached its full development by slow degrees. When Dr Johnson compiled his dictionary, he gave nine definitions of, or equivalents for, “humour.” They may be conveniently quoted: “(1) Moisture. (2) The different kinds of moisture in man’s body, reckoned by the old physicians to be phlegm, blood, choler and melancholy, which as they predominate are supposed to determine the temper of mind. (3) General turn or temper of mind. (4) Present disposition. (5) Grotesque imagery, jocularity, merriment. (6) Tendency to disease, morbid disposition. (7) Petulance, peevishness. (8) A trick, a practice. (9) Caprice, whim, predominant inclination.” The list was not quite complete, even in Dr Johnson’s own time. Humour was then, as it is now, the name of the semi-fluid parts of the eye. Yet no dictionary-maker has been more successful than Johnson in giving the literary and conversational meaning of an English word, or the main lines of its history. It is therefore instructive to note that in no one of his nine clauses does humour bear the meaning it has for Thackeray or for George Meredith. “General turn or temper of mind” is at the best too vague, and has moreover another application. His list of equivalents only carries the history of the word up to the beginning of the last stage of its growth.

The limited original sense of liquid, moisture, mere wet, in which “humour” is used in Wycliffe’s translation of the Bible, continued to attach to it until the 17th century. Thus Shakespeare, in the first scene of the second act ofJulius Caesar, makes Portia say to her husband:—

“Is Brutus sick? and is it physicalTo walk unbraced and suck up the humoursOf the dank morning?”

“Is Brutus sick? and is it physical

To walk unbraced and suck up the humours

Of the dank morning?”

In the same scene Decius employs the word in the wide metaphorical sense in which it was used, and abused, then and afterwards. “Let me work,” he says, referring to Caesar—

“For I can give his humour the true bent,And I will bring him to the Capitol.”

“For I can give his humour the true bent,

And I will bring him to the Capitol.”

Here we have “the general turn or temper of mind,” which can be flattered, or otherwise directed to “present disposition.” We have travelled far from mere fluid, and have been led on the road by the old physiologists. We are not concerned with their science, but it is necessary to see what they mean by “primary humours,” and “second or third concoctions,” if we are to understand how it was that a name for liquid could come to mean “general turn” or “present disposition,” or “whim” or “jocularity.” Part I., Section 1, Member 2, Subsection 2, of Burton’sAnatomy of Melancholywill supply all that is necessary for literary purposes. “A humour is a liquid or fluent part of the body comprehended in it, and is either born with us, or is adventitious and acquisite.” The first four primary humours are—“Blood, a hot, sweet, tempered, red humour, prepared in the meseraic veins, and made of the most temperate parts of the chylus (chyle) in the liver, whose office it is to nourish the whole body, to give it strength and colour, being dispersed through every part of it. And from it spirits are first begotten in the heart, which afterwards in the arteries are communicated to the other parts. Pituita or phlegm is a cold and moist humour, begotten of the colder parts of the chylus (or white juice coming out of the meat digested in the stomach) in the liver. His office is to nourish and moisten the members of the body,” &c. “Choler is hot and dry, begotten of the hotter parts of the chylus, and gathered to the gall. It helps the natural heat and senses. Melancholy, cold and dry, thick, black and sour, begotten of the more feculent part of nourishment, and purged from the spleen, is a bridle to the other two hot humours, blood and choler, preserving them in the blood, and nourishing the bones.” Mention must also be made of serum, and of “those excrementitious humours of the third concoction, sweat and tears.” An exact balance of the four primary humours makes the justly constituted man, and allows for the undisturbed production of the “concoctions”—or processes of digestion and assimilation. Literature seized upon these terms and definitions. Sometimes it applied them gravely in the moral and intellectual sphere. Thus the Jesuit Bouhours, a French critic of the 17th century, in hisEntretiens d’Ariste et d’Eugène, says that in the formation of abel esprit, “La bile donne le brillant et la pénétration, la mélancolie donne le bon sens et la solidité; le sang donne l’agrément etla délicatesse.” It was, in fact, taken for granted that the character and intellect of men were produced by—were, so to speak, concoctions dependent on—the “humours.” In the fallen state of mankind it rarely happens that an exact balance is maintained. One or other humour predominates, and thus we have the long-established doctrine of the existence of the sanguine, the phlegmatic, the choleric, or the melancholytemperaments. Things being so, nothing was more natural than the passage of these terms of art into common speech, and their application in a metaphorical sense, when once they had been adopted by the literary class. The process is admirably described by Asper in the introduction to Ben Jonson’s play—Every Man out of his Humour:—

“Why humour, as it is ‘ens,’ we thus define it,To be a quality of air or water;And in itself holds these two propertiesMoisture and fluxure: as, for demonstrationPour water on this floor. ’Twill wet and run.Likewise the air forced through a horn or trumpetFlows instantly away, and leaves behindA kind of dew; and hence we do concludeThat whatsoe’er hath fluxure and humidityAs wanting power to contain itselfIs humour. So in every human bodyThe choler, melancholy, phlegm and bloodBy reason that they flow continuallyIn some one part and are not continentReceive the name of humours. Now thus farIt may, by metaphor, apply itselfUnto the general disposition;As when some one peculiar qualityDoth so possess a man that it doth drawAll his effects, his spirits and his powers,In their confluxion all to run one way,—This may be truly said to be a humour.”

“Why humour, as it is ‘ens,’ we thus define it,

To be a quality of air or water;

And in itself holds these two properties

Moisture and fluxure: as, for demonstration

Pour water on this floor. ’Twill wet and run.

Likewise the air forced through a horn or trumpet

Flows instantly away, and leaves behind

A kind of dew; and hence we do conclude

That whatsoe’er hath fluxure and humidity

As wanting power to contain itself

Is humour. So in every human body

The choler, melancholy, phlegm and blood

By reason that they flow continually

In some one part and are not continent

Receive the name of humours. Now thus far

It may, by metaphor, apply itself

Unto the general disposition;

As when some one peculiar quality

Doth so possess a man that it doth draw

All his effects, his spirits and his powers,

In their confluxion all to run one way,—

This may be truly said to be a humour.”

A humour in this sense is a “ruling passion,” and has done excellent service to English authors of “comedies of humours,” to the Spanish authors ofcomedias de figuron, and to the French followers of Molière. Nor is the metaphor racked out of its fair proportions if we suppose that there may be a temporary, or even an “adventitious and acquisite” “predominance of a humour,” and that “deliveries of a man’s self” to passing passion, or to imitation, are also “humours,” though not primary, but only second or third concoctions. By a natural extension, therefore, “humours” might come to mean oddities, tricks, practices, mere whims, and the aping of some model admired for the time being. “But,” as Falstaff has told us, “it was always yet the trick of our English, if they have a good thing, to make it too common.” The word “humour” was a good thing, but the Elizabethans certainly made it too common. It became a hack epithet of all work, to be used with no more discretion, though with less imbecile iteration, than the modern “awful.” Shakespeare laughed at the folly, and pinned it for ever to the ridiculous company of Corporal Nym—“I like not the humour of lying. He hath wronged me in some humours. I should have borne the humoured letter to her ... I love not the humour of bread and cheese; and there’s the humour of it.” The humour of Jonson was that he tried to clear the air of thistledown by stamping on it. Asper ends in denunciation:—

“But that a rook by wearing a pied feather,The sable hat-band, or the three-piled ruff,A yard of shoe tie, or the Switzer knotOn his French gaiters, should affect a humour,O! it is more than most ridiculous.”

“But that a rook by wearing a pied feather,

The sable hat-band, or the three-piled ruff,

A yard of shoe tie, or the Switzer knot

On his French gaiters, should affect a humour,

O! it is more than most ridiculous.”

The abuse of the word was the peculiar practice of England. The use of it was not confined wholly to English writers. The Spaniards of the 16th and 17th centuries knewhumoresin the same sense, and still employ the word as a name for caprices, whims and vapours.Humoradawas, and is, the correct Spanish for a festive saying or writing of epigrammatic form. Martial’s immortal reply to the critic who admired only dead poets—

Ignoscas petimus Vacerra: tantiNon est, ut placeam tibi perire,—

Ignoscas petimus Vacerra: tanti

Non est, ut placeam tibi perire,—

is a modelhumorada. It would be a difficult and would certainly be a lengthy task to exhaust all the applications given to so elastic a word. We still continue to use it in widely different senses. “Good humour” or “bad humour” are simply good temper or bad temper. There is a slight archaic flavour about the phrases “grim humour,” “the humour they were in,” in the sense of suspicious, or angry or careless mood, which were favourites with Carlyle, but though somewhat antiquated they are not affected, or very unusual. With the proviso that the exceptions must always be excepted, we may say that for a long time “humour” came to connote comic matter less refined than the matter of wit. It had about it a smack of the Boar’s Head Tavern in Eastcheap, and of the unyoked “humour” of the society in which Prince Henry was content to imitate the sun—

“Who doth permit the base contagious cloudsTo smother up his beauty from the world.”

“Who doth permit the base contagious clouds

To smother up his beauty from the world.”

The presence of a base contagious cloud is painfully felt in the so-called humorous literature of England till the 18th century. The reader who does not sometimes wonder whether humour in the mouths of English writers of that period did not stand for maniacal tricks, horse-play, and the foul names of foul things, material and moral, must be very determined to prove himself a whole-hearted admirer of the ancient literature. Addison, who did much to clean it of mere nastiness, gives an excellent example of the base use of the word in his day. In Number 371 of theSpectatorhe introduces an example of the “sort of men called Whims and Humourists.” It is the delight of this person to play practical jokes on his guests. He is proud when “he has packed together a set of oglers” who had “an unlucky cast in the eye,” or has filled his table with stammerers. The humorist, in fact, was a mere practical joker, who was very properly answered by a challenge from a military gentleman of peppery temper. Indeed, the pump and a horse-whip would appear to have been the only effective forms of criticism on the prevalent humour and humours of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. But the pump and the horse-whip were themselves humours. Carlo Buffone in Jonson’s play is put “out of his humour” by the counter humour of Signor Puntarvolo, who knocks him down and gags him with candle wax. The brutal pranks of Fanny Burney’s Captain Mirvan, who belongs to the earlier part of the 18th century, were meant for humour, and were accepted as such. Examples might easily be multiplied. A briefer and also a more convincing method of demonstration is to take the deliberate judgment of a great authority. No writer of the 18th century possessed a finer sense of humour in the noble meaning than Goldsmith. What did he understand the word to mean? Not what he himself wrote when he created Dr Primrose. We have his express testimony in the 9th chapter ofThe Present State of Polite Learning. Goldsmith complains that “the critic, by demanding an impossibility from the comic poet, has, in effect, banished true comedy from the stage.” This he has done by banning “low” subjects, and by proscribing “the comic or satirical muse from every walk but high life, which, though abounding in fools as well as the humbler station, is by no means so fruitful in absurdity.... Absurdity is the poet’s game, and good breeding is the nice concealment of absurdity. The truth is, the critic generally mistakes ‘humour’ for ‘wit,’ which is a very different excellence; wit raises human nature above its level; humour acts a contrary part, and equally depresses it. To expect exalted humour is acontradictionin terms.... The poet, therefore, must place the object he would have the subject of humour in a state of inferiority; in other words, the subject of humour must below.”

That no doubt may remain in his reader’s mind, Goldsmith gives an example of true humour. It is nothing more or less than the absurdity and incongruity obvious in a man who, though “wanting a nose,” is extremely curious in the choice of his snuffbox. We applaud “the humour of it,” for “we here see him guilty of an absurdity of which we imagine it impossible for ourselves to be guilty, and therefore applaud our own good sense on the comparison.”

Nothing could be more true as an account of what the Elizabethans, the Restoration, the Queen Anne men, and the 18th century meant by “humour.” Nothing could be more falseas an example of what we mean by the humour of Falstaff or ofThe Vicar of Wakefield.

When we pass from Goldsmith to Hazlitt—one of the greatest names in English criticism—we find that “humour” has grown in meaning, without quite reaching its full development. In the introduction to hisLectures on the English Comic Writershe attempts a classification of the comic spirit into wit and humour. “Humour,” he says, “is the describing the ludicrous as it is in itself; wit is the exposing it, by comparing or contrasting it with something else. Humour is, as it were, the growth of nature and accident; wit is the product of art and fancy. Humour, as it is shown in books, is an imitation of the natural or acquired absurdities of mankind, or of the ludicrous in accident, situation and character; wit is the illustrating and heightening the sense of that absurdity by some sudden and unexpected likeness or opposition of one thing to another, which sets off the quality we laugh at or despise in a still more contemptible or striking point of view.” Hazlitt’s definition will, indeed, not stand analysis. The element of comparison is surely as necessary for humour as for wit. Yet his classification is valuable as illustrating the growth of the meaning of the word. Observe that Hazlitt has transferred to wit that power of pleasing as by a flattering sense of our own superiority which Goldsmith attributed to humour. He had not thought, and had not heard, that sympathy is necessary to complete humour. He cannot have thought it needful, for if he had he would hardly have said of theArabian Nightsthat they are “an inexhaustible mine of comic humour and invention,” “which from the manners of the East, which they describe, carry the principle of callous indifference in the jest as far as it can go.” He might, and probably would, have dismissed Goldsmith’s illustration as “low” in every conceivable sense. He would not have added, as we should to-day, that humour does not lie in laughter, according to the definition of Hobbes, in a “sudden glory,” in a guffaw of self-conceited triumph over the follies and deficiencies of others. If there is any place for humour in Goldsmith’s sordid example, it must be made by pity, and shown by a deft introduction of thede te fabuladear to Thackeray, by a reminder that the world is full of people, who, though wanting noses, are extremely curious in their choice of snuff-boxes, and that the more each of us thinks himself above the weakness the more likely he is to fall into it.

The critical value of Hazlitt’s examination of the differences between wit and humour lies in this, that he ignores the doctrine that the quality of humour lies in the thing or the action and not in the mind of the observer. The examples quoted above, to which any one with a moderate share of reading in English literature could add with ease, show that humour was first held to lie in the trick, the whim, the act, or the event and clash of incidents. It might even be a mere flavour, as when men spoke of the salt humour of sea-sand. Even when it stood for the “general turn or temper of mind” it was a form of the ruling passion which inspires men’s actions and words. It was used in that sense by Decius when he spoke of the humour of Caesar, which is a liability to be led by one who can play on his weakness—

“for he loves to hearThat unicorns may be betrayed with treesAnd bears with glasses, elephants with holes,Lions with toils, and men with flatterers;But when I tell him he hates flatterersHe says he does; being then most flattered.”

“for he loves to hear

That unicorns may be betrayed with trees

And bears with glasses, elephants with holes,

Lions with toils, and men with flatterers;

But when I tell him he hates flatterers

He says he does; being then most flattered.”

It is plain that this is not what Hazlitt meant, or we now mean, by the humour displayed in “describing the ludicrous as it is shown in itself.” Nor did he, any more than we do, suppose with Goldsmith that a “low” quality of actions and persons is inseparable from humour. It had become for Hazlitt what Addison called cheerfulness, “a habit of the mind” as distinguished from mirth, which is “an act.” If in Addison’s sentences the place of cheerfulness is taken by humour, and that of mirth by wit, we have a very fair description of the two. “I have always preferred cheerfulness to mirth. The latter I consider as an act, the former as a habit of the mind. Mirth is short and transient, cheerfulness is fixed and permanent.” Humour is the fixed and permanent appreciation of the ludicrous, of which wit may be the short and transient expression.

If now we pass to an attempt to define “humour,” the temptation to take refuge in the use of an evasion employed by Dr Johnson is very strong. When Boswell asked him, “Then, Sir, what is poetry?” the doctor answered, “Why, Sir, it is much easier to say what it is not. We all know what light is, but it is not easy to tell what it is.” But George Meredith has come to our assistance in two passages of hisEssay on Comedy and the uses of the Comic Spirit. “If you laugh all round him (to wit, the ridiculous person), tumble him, roll him about, deal him a smack, and drop a tear on him, own his likeness to you, and yours to your neighbour, spare him as little as you shun, pity him as much as you expose, it is spirit of Humour that is moving you.... The humourist of mean order is a refreshing laugher, giving tone to the feelings, and sometimes allowing the feelings to be too much for him. But the humourist, if high, has an embrace of contrasts beyond the scope of the comic poet.” The third sentence is required to complete the first. The tumbling and rolling, the smacks and the exposure, may be out of place where there is humour of the most humorous quality. Who could associate them with Sir Walter Scott’s characters of Bradwardine or Monkbarns? Bradwardine, one feels, would have stopped them as he did the ill-timed jests of Sir Hew Halbert, “who was so unthinking as to deride my family name.” Monkbarns was a man of peace who loved the company of Sir Priest better than that of Sir Knight. But there is that in him which cows mere ridicule, be it ever so genial. He cared not who knew so much of his valour, and by that very avowal of his preference took his position sturdily in the face of the world. But Meredith has given its due prominence to the quality which, for us, distinguishes humour from pure wit and the harder forms of jocularity. It is the sympathy, the appreciation, the love, which include the follies of Don Quixote, the prosaic absurdities of Sancho Panza, the oddities of Bradwardine, Dr Primrose or Monkbarns, and the jovial animalism of Falstaff, in “an embrace of contrasts beyond the scope of the comic poets.”

It is needless to insist that humour of this order is far older than the very modern application of the name. It is assuredly present in Horace. Chaucer, who knew the word only as meaning “liquid,” has left a masterpiece of humour in his prologue to theCanterbury Pilgrims. We look for the finest examples in Shakespeare. And if it is old, it is also more universal than is always allowed. National, or at least racial, partiality, has led to the unfortunate judgment that humour is a virtue of the northern peoples. Yet Rabelais came from Touraine, and if the creator of Panurge has not humour, who has? The Italians may say thatumorein the English sense is unknown to them. They mean the word, not the thing, for it is in Ariosto. To claim the quality for Cervantes would indeed be to push at an open door. The humour of the Germans has been rarely indeed of so high an order as his. It has been found wherever humanity has been combined with a keen appreciation of the ludicrous. The appreciation may exist without the humanity. When Rivarol met the Chevalier Florian with a manuscript sticking out of his pocket, and said, “How rash you are! if you were not known you would be robbed,” he was making use of the comic spirit, but he was not humorous. When Rivarol himself, a man of dubious claim to nobility, was holding forth on the rights of the nobles, and calling them “our rights,” one of the company smiled. “Do you find anything singular in what I say?” asked he. “It is the plural which I find singular,” was the answer. There is certainly something humorous in the neat overthrow of an insolent wit by a rival insolence, but the humour is in the spectator, not in the answer. The spirit of humour as described by George Meredith cannot be so briefly shown as in the rapid flash of the Frenchmen’s wit. It lingers and expatiates, as in Dr Johnson’s appreciation of Bet Flint. “Oh, a fine character, Madam! She was habitually a slut and a drunkard, and occasionally a thief and a harlot. And for heaven’ssake how came you to know her? Why, Madam, she figured in the literary world too! Bet Flint wrote her own life, and called herself Cassandra, and it was in verse; it began:—

‘When nature first ordained my birthA diminutive I was born on earthAnd then I came from a dark abodeInto a gay and gaudy world.’

‘When nature first ordained my birth

A diminutive I was born on earth

And then I came from a dark abode

Into a gay and gaudy world.’

“So Bet brought her verses to me to correct; but I gave her half-a-crown, and she liked it as well. Bet had a fine spirit; she advertised for a husband, but she had no success, for she told me no man aspired to her. Then she hired very handsome lodgings and a footboy, and she got a harpsichord, but Bet could not play; however, she put herself in fine attitudes and drummed. And pray what became of her, Sir? Why, Madam, she stole a quilt from the man of the house, and he had her taken up; but Bet Flint had a spirit not to be subdued, so when she found herself obliged to go to gaol, she ordered a sedan chair, and bid her footboy walk before her. However, the footboy proved refractory, for he was ashamed, though his mistress was not. And did she ever get out of gaol, Sir? Yes, Madam, when she came to her trial, the judge acquitted her. ‘So now,’ she said to me, ‘the quilt is my own, and now I’ll make a petticoat of it.’ Oh! I loved Bet Flint.”

The subject is low enough to please Goldsmith. The humour may be of that mean order which has only a refreshing laugh, and gives tone to the feelings, but it is the pure spirit of humour.

We need not labour to demonstrate that a kindly appreciation of the ludicrous may find expression in art as well as in literature. But humour in art tends so inevitably to become caricature, which can be genial as well as ferocious, that the reader must be referred to the article on Caricature for an account of its manifestations in that field.

Back to Index Next