VOLUME XIII SLICE VIII Hudson River to Hurstmonceaux (continued 8)

Polite literature had received a great impulse in the preceding period (1807-1830), but after the formation of the academy and the Kisfaludy society it advanced with accelerated speed towards the point attained by other nations. Foremost among epic poets, though not equally successful as a dramatist, was Mihaly Vörösmarty (q.v.), who, belonging also to the close of the last period, combines great power of imagination with elegance of language. Generally less varied and romantic, though easier in style, are the heroic poems Augsburgi ütközet (Battle of Augsburg) and Aradi gyülés (Diet of Arad) of Gregory Czuczor, who was, moreover, very felicitous as an epigrammatist. Martin Debreczeni was chiefly famed for his Kióvi csata (Battle of Kieff), published at Pest in 1854 after his death by Count Emeríc Mikó. The laborious John Garay in his Szent László shows considerable ability as an epic poet, but his greatest merit was rather as a romancist and ballad writer, as shown by the “Pen Sketches” or Tollrajzok (1845), and his legendary series Árpádok (1847). Joseph Bajza was a lyricist of a somewhat melancholy cast, but his Borének (Wine Song), Sohajtás (Sigh), Ébresztö (Awakening) and Apotheosis are much admired. He is known further as the translator of F. C. Dahlmann’s Geschichte der englischen Revolution. As generally able writers of lyrical poetry during the earlier part of this period may be mentioned among others Francis Császár, Joseph Székács and Andrew Kunoss—also Lewis Szakál and Alexander Vachott, whose songs and romances are of an artless and simple character, and the sacred lyricist Béla Tárkányi. As an original but rather heavy lyric and didactic poet we may mention Peter Vajda, who was, moreover, the translator of Bulwer’s “Night and Morning.” Of a more distinctly national tendency are the lyrics of John Kriza80 and John Erdélyi, but the reputation of the latter was more especially due to his collections of folk-lore made on behalf of the Kisfaludy society. More popular than any of the preceding, and well known in England through Sir John Bowring’s translation, are the charming lyrics of Alexander Petöfi (q.v.), the “Burns” of Hungary. His poems, which embody the national genius, have passed into the very life of the people; particularly is he happy in the pieces descriptive of rural life. Among lyricists were: Coloman Tóth, who is also the author of several epic and dramatic pieces; John Vajda, whose Kisebb Költemények (Minor Poems), published by the Kisfaludy society in 1872, are partly written in the mode of Heine, and are of a pleasing but melancholy character; Joseph Lévay, known also as the translator of Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus, Taming of the Shrew and Henry IV.; and Paul Gyulai, who, not only as a faultless lyric and epic poet, but as an impartial critical writer, is highly esteemed, and whose Romhányi is justly prized as one of the best Magyar poems that has appeared in modern times. To these may be added the names of Charles Berecz, Joseph Zalár, Samuel Nyilas, Joseph Vida, Lewis Tolnai, the sentimental Ladislaus Szelestey, and the talented painter Zoltán Balogh, whose romantic poem Alpári was published in 1871 by the Kisfaludy society. The lyrics of Anthony Várady (1875, 1877) are somewhat dull and unequal in tone; both he and Baron Ivor Kaas, author of Az itélet napja (Day of Judgment, 1876), have shown skill rather in the art of dramatic verse. The poems of Count Géza Zichy and Victor Dalmady, those of the latter published at Budapest in 1876, are mostly written on subjects of a domestic nature, but are conceived in a patriotic spirit. Emil Ábrányi adopts a rather romantic style, but his Nagypéntek (Good Friday) is an excellent descriptive sketch. Alexander Endrödy, author of Tücsök dalok (Cricket Songs, 1876), is a glowing writer, with great power of conception, but his metaphors, following rapidly one upon the other, become often confused. Joseph Kiss in 1876 brought out a few lyric and epic poems of considerable merit. The Mesék of Augustus Greguss (1878), a collection of verse “Fables,” belonging to the school of Gay, partake more of a didactic than lyrical nature. This feature is noticeable also in the Költemények (1873) of Ladislaus Torkos and the Modern Mesék (1874) of Ladislaus Névy. The Salamon (1878) of Charles Szász (b. 1829) was rewarded with the prize of the academy. The subject, taken from the age of Hungarian chivalry, is artistically worked out from medieval legends, and gives an excellent description of the times of St Ladislaus of Hungary. Charles Szász is generally better known as a metrical translator than as an original poet. He is the Magyarizer of Shakespeare’s Anthony and Cleopatra, Othello, Macbeth, Henry VIII., Winter’s Tale, Romeo and Juliet and Tempest, as also of some of the best pieces of Burns, Moore, Byron, Shelley, Milton, Béranger, Lamartine, Victor Hugo, Goethe and others. A translator from Byron and Pope appeared also in Maurice Lukács.81

Meanwhile dramatic literature found many champions, of whom the most energetic was Edward Szigligeti, proprie Joseph Szathmáry, who enriched the Hungarian stage with more than a hundred pieces. Of these the most popular are comedies and serio-comic national dramas. A less prolific but more classical writer appeared in Charles Obernyik, whose George Brankovics is, next to Katona’s Bánk Bán, one of the best historical tragedies in the language. Several of the already mentioned lyric and epic poets were occasional writers also for the drama. To these we may add the gifted but unfortunate Sigismund Czakó, Lewis Dobsa, Joseph Szigeti, Ignatius Nagy, Joseph Szenvey (a translator from Schiller), Joseph Gaal, Charles Hugo, Lawrence Tóth (the Magyarizer of the School for Scandal), Emeric Vahot, Alois Degré (equally famous as a novelist), Stephen Toldy and Lewis Dóczi, author of the popular prize drama Csók (The Kiss). Az ember tragoediája (The Tragedy of Man), by Emeric Madách (1861), is a dramatic poem of a philosophical and contemplative character, and is not intended for the stage. Among successful dramatic pieces may be mentioned the Falu rossza (Village Scamp) of Edward Tóth (1875), which represents the life of the Hungarian peasantry, and shows both poetic sentiment and dramatic skill; A szerelem harcza (Combat of Love), by Count Géza Zichy; Iskáriot (1876) and the prize tragedy Tamora (1879), by Anthony Várady; Jánus (1877), by Gregory Csiky; and the dramatized romance Szép Mikhal (Handsome Michal), by Maurus Jókai (1877). The principal merit of this author’s drama Milton (1876) consists in its brilliance of language. The Szerelem iskolája (School of Love), by Eugene Rákosy, although in some parts exquisitely worded, did not meet with the applause accorded to his Ripacsos Pista Dolmánya (1874). The Gróf Dormándi Kálmán (Count Coloman Dormándi) of Béla Bercsényi (1877) is a social tragedy of the French school. Among the most recent writers of comedy we single out Árpád Berczik for his A házasitók (The Matchmakers); Ignatius Súlyovsky for his Nöi diplomatia (Female Diplomacy); and the above-mentioned Gregory Csiky for his Ellenállhatatlan (The Irresistible), produced on the stage in 1878. As popular plays the Sárga csikó (Bay Foal) and A piros bugyelláris (The Red Purse), by Francis Csepreghy, have their own special merit, and were often represented in 1878 and 1879 at Budapest and elsewhere.

Original romance writing, which may be said to have commenced with Dugonics and Kármán at the close of the 18th, and to have found a representative in Francis Verseghy at the beginning of the 19th century, was afterwards revived by Fáy in his Bélteky ház (1832), and by the contributors to certain literary magazines, especially the Aurora, an almanack conducted by Charles Kisfaludy, 1821-1830, and continued by Joseph Bajza to 1837. Almost simultaneously with the rise of the Kisfaludy society, works of fiction assumed a more vigorous tone, and began to present just claims for literary recognition. Far from adopting the levity of style too often observable in French romances, the Magyar novels, although enlivened by touches of humour, have generally rather a serious historical or political bearing. Especially is this the case with Nicholas Jósika’s Abafi (1835), A csehek Magyarországon (The Bohemians in Hungary), and Az utolsó Bátori (The Last of the Báthoris), published in 1847. In these, as in many other of the romances of Jósika, a high moral standard is aimed at. The same may be said of Baron Joseph Eötvös’s Karthausi (1839) and Falu Jegyzöje (Village Notary), published in 1845, and translated into English (1850) by O. Wenckstern (see Eötvös). The Árvizönyv or “Inundation Book,” edited by Eötvös (1839-1841), is a collection of narratives and poems by the most celebrated authors of the time. Of the novels produced by Baron Sigismund Kemény the Gyulai Pál (1847), in 5 vols., is, from its historical character, the most important. His Férj és nö (Husband and Wife) appeared in 1853 (latest ed., 1878), the Rajongók (Fanatics), in 4 vols., in 1858-1859. The graphic descriptions of Hungarian life in the middle and lower classes by Lewis Kuthy won for him temporary renown; but his style, though flowery, is careless. Another popular writer of great originality was Joseph Radákovics alias Vas-Gereben. The romances of Baron Frederick Podmaniczky are simpler, and rather of a narrative than colloquial character. The fertile writer Paul Kovács excels more particularly in humorous narration. Fay’s singular powers in this direction were well shown by his Jávor orvos és Bakator Ambrus szolgája (Doctor Jávor and his servant Ambrose Bakator), brought out at Pest in 1855. The Beszélyek (Tales) of Ladislaus Beöthy were produced in the same year, his Puszták fia (Son of the Pusztas) in 1857. Pleasing humorous sketches are contained also in Ignatius Nagy’s Beszélyek (1843) and “Caricatures” or Torzképek (1844); in Caspar Bernát’s Fresko képek (1847-1850); in Gustavus Lauka’s Vidék, and his A jó régi világ (The Good Old World), published respectively in 1857 and 1863; and in Alexander Balázs’s Beszélyei (1855) and Tükördarabok (1865). Among authors of other historical or humorous romances and tales which have appeared from time to time are Francis Márton alias Lewis Abonyi, Joseph Gaal, Paul Gyulai, William Györi, Lazarus Horváth, the short-lived Joseph Irinyi, translator of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Francis Ney, Albert Pálffy, Alexander Vachott and his brother Emeric (Vahot), Charles Szathmáry, Desider Margittay, Victor Vajda, Joseph Bodon, Atala Kisfaludy and John Krátky. But by far the most prolific and talented novelist that Hungary can boast of is Maurus Jókai (q.v.), whose power of imagination and brilliancy of style, no less than his true representations of Hungarian life and character, have earned for him a European reputation. Of the novels produced by other authors between 1870 and 1880, we may mention A hol az ember kezdödik (Where the Man Begins), by Edward Kavassy (1871), in which he severely lashes the idling Magyar nobility; Az én ismeröseim (My Acquaintances), by Lewis Tolnai (1871); and Anatol, by Stephen Toldy (1872); the versified romances Déli bábok höse (Hero of the Fata Morgana), generally ascribed to Ladislaus Arany, but anonymously published, A szerelem höse (Hero of Love), by John Vajda (1873), and Találkozások (Rencounters) by the same (1877), and A Tündéröv (The Fairy Zone), by John Sulla (1876), all four interesting as specimens of narrative poetry; Kálozdy Béla (1875), a tale of Hungarian provincial life, by Zoltán Beöthy, a pleasing writer who possesses a fund of humour, and appears to follow the best English models; Edith története (History of Edith), by Joseph Prém (1876); Nyomorúság iskolája (School of Misery), by the prolific author Arnold Vértesi (1878); Titkolt szerelem (Secret Love), by Cornelius Ábrányi (1879), a social-political romance of some merit; and Uj idök, avult emberek (Modern Times, Men of the Past), by L. Véka (1879). In the Itthon (At Home), by Alois Degré (1877), the tale is made the medium for a satirical attack upon official corruption and Hungarian national vanity; and in the Álmok álmódoja (Dreamer of Dreams), by John Ásbóth (1878), other national defects are aimed at. A rosz szomszéd (The Bad Neighbour), by Charles Vadnay (1878), is a felicitous representation of the power of love. The Az utolsó Bebek (The Last of the Bebeks), by the late Charles Pétery, is a work rich in poetic invention, but meagre in historical matter. The reverse is the case with the Lajos pap (Priest Lewis), by Charles Vajkay (1879), the scene of which is placed at Pest, in the beginning of the 14th century. In this romance the interest of the narrative is weakened by a superabundance of historical and archaeological detail.

As regards works of a scientific character, the Magyars until recently were confessedly behindhand as compared with many other European nations. Indeed, before the foundation of the Hungarian academy in 1830, but few such works claiming general recognition had been published in the native language. Even in 1847 astronomy, physics, logic and other subjects of the kind had to be taught in several of the lyceums through the medium of Latin. The violent political commotions of the next few years allowed but little opportunity for the prosecution of serious studies; the subsequent quieter state of the country, and gradual re-establishment of the language as a means of education, were, however, more favourable to the development of scientific knowledge.

In the department of philosophy, besides several writers of dissertations bearing an imitative, didactic or polemical character, Hungary could boast a few authors of independent and original thought. Of these one of the most notable is Cyril Horváth, whose treatises published in the organs of the academy display a rare freedom and comprehensiveness of imagination. John Hetényi and Gustavus Szontagh must be rather regarded as adopters and developers of the ethical teaching of Samuel Köteles in the previous period. Hyacinth Rónay in his Mutatvány (Representation) and Jellemisme (Characteristics) endeavoured to popularize psychological studies. The philosophical labours of the already mentioned John Erdélyi and of Augustus Greguss won for them well-deserved recognition, the latter especially being famous for his aesthetical productions, in which he appears to follow out the principles of Vischer. The Tanulmányok (Studies) of Greguss were brought out at Pest in 1872. The reputation of John Szilasy, John Varga, Fidelius Beély and Francis Ney arose rather from their works bearing on the subject of education than from their contributions to philosophy.

The labours of Stephen Horváth in the preceding period had prepared the way for future workers in the field of historical literature. Specially meritorious among these are Michael Horváth, Ladislaus Szalay, Paul Jászay and Count Joseph Teleki. The Magyarok története (History of the Magyars), in 4 vols., first published at Pápa (1842-1846), and afterwards in 6 vols. at Pest (1860-1863), and in 8 vols. (1871-1873), is the most famous of Michael Horváth’s numerous historical productions. Ladislaus Szalay’s Magyarország története (History of Hungary), vols. i.-iv. (Leipzig, 1852-1854), vols. v.-vi. (Pest, 1856-1861), 2nd ed., i.-v. (1861-1866), is a most comprehensive work, showing more particularly the progress of Hungarian legislative development in past times. His style is elevated and concise, but somewhat difficult. Magyar history is indebted to Paul Jászay for his careful working out of certain special periods, as, for instance, in his A Magyar nemzet napjai a legrégibb idötöl az arany bulláig (Days of the Hungarian nation from the earliest times to the date of the Golden Bull). Count Joseph Teleki is famed chiefly for his Hunyadiak kora Magyarországon (The Times of the Hunyadys in Hungary), vols. i.-vi. (Pest, 1852-1863), x.-xii. (1853-1857), the result of thirty years’ labour and research. In particular departments of historical literature we find George Bartal, author of Commentariorum ... libri XV., tom. i.-iii. (Pozsony, 1847), John Czech, Gustavus Wenczel, Frederick Pesty and Paul Szlemenics as writers on legal history; Joseph Bajza, who in 1845 commenced a History of the World; Alexander Szilágyi, some of whose works, like those of Ladislaus Köváry, bear on the past of Transylvania, others on the Hungarian revolution of 1848-1849; Charles Lányi and John Pauer, authors of treatises on Roman Catholic ecclesiastical history; John Szombathi, Emeric Révész and Balogh, writers on Protestant church history; William Fraknói, biographer of Cardinal Pázmán, and historian of the Hungarian diets; and Anthony Gévay, Aaron Sziládi, Joseph Podhradczky, Charles Szabó, John Jerney and Francis Salamon, who have investigated and elucidated many special historical subjects. For the medieval history of Hungary the Mátyáskori diplomatikai emlékek (Diplomatic Memorials of the Time of Matthias Corvinus), issued by the academy under the joint editorship of Ivan Nagy and Baron Albert Nyáry, affords interesting material. As a masterly production based on extensive investigation, we note the Wesselényi Ferencz ... összeesküvése (The Secret Plot of Francis Wesselényi, 1664-1671), by Julius Pauler (1876). Among the many historians of Magyar literature Francis Toldy alias Schedel holds the foremost place. As compilers of useful manuals may be mentioned also Joseph Szvorényi, Zoltán Beöthy, Alexander Imre, Paul Jámbor, Ladislaus Névy, John Környei and Joseph Szinnyei, junior. For philological and ethnographical research into the origin and growth of the language none excels Paul Hunfalvy. He is, moreover, the warm advocate of the theory of its Ugrio-Finnic origin, as established by the Uralian traveller Anthony Reguly, the result of whose labours Hunfalvy published in 1864, under the title A Vogul föld és nép (The Vogul Land and People). Between 1862 and 1866 valuable philological studies bearing on the same subject were published by Joseph Budenz in the Nyelvtudományi közlemények (Philological Transactions). This periodical, issued by the academy, has during the last decade (1870-1880) contained also comparative studies, by Arminius Vámbéry and Gabriel Bálint, of the Magyar, Turkish-Tatar and Mongolian dialects.

As compilers and authors of works in various scientific branches allied to history, may be particularly mentioned—in statistics and geography, Alexius Fényes, Emeric Palugyay, Alexander Konek, John Hunfalvy, Charles Galgóczy, Charles Keleti, Leo Beöthy, Joseph Körösi, Charles Ballagi and Paul Király, and, as regards Transylvania, Ladislaus Köváry; in travel, Arminius Vámbéry, Ignatius Goldziher, Ladislaus Magyar, John Xantus, John Jerney, Count Andrássy, Ladislaus Podmaniczky, Paul Hunfalvy; in astronomy, Nicholas Konkoly; in archaeology, Bishop Arnold Ipolyi, Florian Rómer, Emeric Henszlmann, John Érdy, Baron Albert Nyáry, Francis Pulszky and Francis Kiss; in Hungarian mythology, Bishop Ipolyi, Anthony Csengery,82 and Árpád Kerékgyártó; in numismatics, John Érdy and Jacob Rupp; and in jurisprudence, Augustus Karvassy, Theodore Pauler, Gustavus Wenczel, Emeric Csacskó, John Fogarasi and Ignatius Frank. After 1867 great activity was displayed in history and its allied branches, owing to the direct encouragement given by the Hungarian Historical Society, and by the historical, archaeological, and statistical committees of the academy.

Notwithstanding the exertions of Paul Bugát to arouse an interest in the natural sciences by the establishment in 1841 of the “Hungarian Royal Natural Science Association,” no general activity was manifested in this department of knowledge, so far as the native literature was concerned, until 1860, when the academy organized a special committee for the advancement of mathematical and natural science.83 The principal contributors to the “Transactions” of this section of the academy were—for anatomy and physiology, Coloman Balogh, Eugene Jendrassik, Joseph Lenhossék and Lewis Thanhoffer; for zoology, John Frivaldszky, John Kriesch and Theodore Margó; for botany, Frederick Hazslinszky, Lewis Jurányi and Julius Klein; for mineralogy and geology, Joseph Szabó, Max Hantken, Joseph Krenner, Anthony Koch and Charles Hoffman; for physics, Baron Lorando Eötvös, Coloman Szily and Joseph Sztoczek; for chemistry, Charles Than and Vincent Wartha; for meteorology, Guido Schenzl. As good text-books, for which the so-called “Ladies’ Prize” was awarded by the academy, we may mention the Természettan (Physics) and Természettani földrajz (Physical Geography) of Julius Greguss.

Almost simultaneously with the formation of the above-mentioned committee of the academy, the “Natural Science Association” showed signs of renewed animation, and soon advanced with rapid strides in the same direction, but with a more popular aim than the academy. Between 1868 and 1878 the number of its members increased from some 600 to about 5000. After 1872, in addition to its regular organs, it issued Hungarian translations of several popular scientific English works, as, for instance, Darwin’s Origin of Species; Huxley’s Lessons in Physiology; Lubbock’s Prehistoric Times; Proctor’s Other Worlds than Ours; Tyndall’s Heat as a Mode of Motion, &c. Versions were also made of Cotta’s Geologie der Gegenwart and Helmholtz’s Populäre Vorlesungen. As important original monographs we note—Az árapály a Fiumei öbölben (Ebb and Flow in the Gulf of Fiume), by Emil Stahlberger (1874); Magyarország pókfaunája (The Arachnida of Hungary), by Otto Hermann (1876-1878); Magyarország vaskövei és vasterményei (The Iron Ores and Iron Products of Hungary), by Anthony Kerpely (1877); Magyarország nevezetesebb dohányfajainak chemiai ... megvizsgálása (Chemical Examination of the most famous Tobaccos of Hungary), by Dr Thomas Kosutány (1877).

(E. D. Bu.)

The number of Magyar writers has since 1880 increased to an extent hardly expected by the reading public in Hungary itself. In 1830 there were only 10 Magyar periodical publications; in 1880 we find 368; in 1885 their Literature since 1880. number rose to 494; in 1890 to 636; and at the beginning of 1895 no fewer than 806 periodical publications, written in the Hungarian language, appeared in Hungary. Since that time (1895) the number of periodical as well as of non-periodical literary works has been constantly rising, although, as in all countries with a literature of rather recent origin, the periodical publications are, in proportion to the whole of the output, far more numerous than the non-periodical.84 This remarkable increase in the quantity of literary work was, on the whole, accompanied by a fair advance in literary quality.

In lyrical poetry, among the poets who first came to the fore in the ’sixties several were active after 1880, such as Joseph Komócsy (d. 1894), whose Szerelem Könyve (“Book of Love”) has become a popular classic; Victor Dalmady, who published in the ’nineties his Hazafias Költemények (Patriotic Poems); and Ladislas Arany, son of the great John. Among the prominent lyrists whose works, although partly published before 1880, belong largely to the later period, the following deserve special mention: The poetry of Emil Ábrányi (born 1850) is filled with the ideas and ideals of Victor Hugo. Ábrányi excels also as a translator, more particularly of Byron. Julius Reviczky (1855-1899) also inclined to the Occidental rather than to the specifically Magyar type of poets; his lyrics are highly finished, aristocratic and pessimistic (Pán halála, “The Death of Pan”). Count Géza Zichy (b. 1849) published his lyrical poems in 1892. Joseph Kiss (b. 1843) is especially felicitous in ballads taken from village and Jewish life, and in love-songs; Alexander Endrödi (b. 1850), one of the most gifted modern lyrical poets of Hungary, has the charm of tenderness and delicacy together with that of a peculiar and original style, his Kurucz nóták being so far his most successful attempt at romantic lyrics. Louis Bartók (b. 1851) is a remarkable satirist and epigrammatist (Kárpáti emlékek). Ödön Jakab (b. 1850) leans towards the poetic manner of Tompa, with perhaps a greater power of expression than the author of the Virágregék (“Flower-fables”); Jakab wrote Hangok az ifjuságból (“Sounds of Youth”), Nyár (“Summer”), both collections of lyrical poems. Louis Pósa (b. 1850) has made a sphere of his own in his charming poems for and about children, Édes anyám (“My dear Mother”). In Andor Kozma (b. 1860), author of A tegnap és a ma (“Yesterday and To-day,” 1889), Versek (Poems, 1893), &c., there is undoubted power of genuine satire and deep humour. Michael Szabolcska (b. 1864), author of Hangulatok (“Moods,” 1894), showed great promise; Julius Vargha (b. 1853) cultivates the népies or folk-poetry as represented by Hungary’s two greatest poets, Petőfi and Arany; Vargha has also published excellent translations of Schiller and Goethe. Perhaps scarcely less remarkable are the modern Magyar lyrists, such as, of the older set, John Bulla (b. 1843), J. D. Temérdek, Gustavus Csengey (b. 1842), Paul Koroda (b. 1854), E. Julius Kovács (b. 1839, Poems, 1892), Ladislas Inczédi, Julius Nógrádi Pap, Julius Szávay (b. 1860), John Dengi (b. 1853); among the juniors, Anton Radó (also an excellent translator), Louis Palágyi (Magányos úton, “On Lonely Way,” &c.), Géza Gárdonyi (b. 1863, Aprilis, 1894), Zoltán Pap, Eugen Heltai (Ignotus), Julius Rudnyánszky (b. 1860, Szerelem, “Love”; Nyár, “Summer”), Árpád Zemplényi, Julius Szentessy, Emil Makai (b. 1870), Cornelius Gáspár, Julius Varsányi (b. 1863, Mulandóság, “The Unstableness of Things”), Alexander Luby (Vergödés, “Striving”), Eugen V. Szászvárosi, Endre Szabó (b. 1849), political satirist. In the most recent lyrics of Hungary there is a growing tendency to socialistic poetry, to the “poetry of misery” (A nyomor költészete). In epic poetry Josef Kiss’s Jehova is the most popular work. Amongst rhymed novels—novels in verse form—the best is the Délibábok hőse (“The Hero of Mirages”), in which Ladislas Arany tells, in brilliantly humorous and captivating fashion, the story of a young Magyar nobleman who, at first full of great ideals and aspirations, finally ends as a commonplace country squire.

Among Hungarian novels we may distinguish four dominant genres or tendencies. The first is represented almost exclusively by Maurus Jókai (q.v.). To the school so perfectly represented by Jókai belong Árpád Kupa (A napszámosok, “The Labourers”; Képselt királyok, “Imaginary Kings”); Robert Tábori (Nagy játék, “Great Game”; A negyvenéves férfiu, “The Man at Forty”); and Julius Werner (Kendi Imre házassága, “The Wedding of Emericus Kendi”; Olga; Megvirrad még valaha, “Dawn will come in the End”). The second class of Hungarian modern novelists is led by the well-known Koloman Mikszáth, a poet endowed with originality, a charming naïveté, and a freshness of observation from life. A close observer of the multifarious low life of Hungary, Mikszáth has, in his short stories, given a delightful yet instructive picture of all the minor varied phases of the peasant life of the Slavs, the Palócok, the Saxons, the town artisan. Amongst his numerous works may be mentioned A jó palóczok (“The Good Palóczok,” Slav peasants); Egy választás Magyarországon (“An Election in Hungary”); Pipacsok a búzában (“Wild Poppies in the Wheatfield”); A tekintetes vármegye (“The Worshipful County”); Ne okoskodj Pista (“Don’t reason, Pista”); Szent Peter esernyője (“St Peter’s Umbrella,” translated from the original into English by Miss B. W. Worswick), &c. Mikszáth has had considerable influence upon other writers. Such are Victor Rákosi (Sipulus tárcái, “The Essays of Sipulus”; Rejtett fészkek, “Hidden Nests”); Stephen Móra (Atyánkfiai, “Our Compatriots”); Alexius Benedek, the author of numerous distinctly sympathetic and truly Magyar tales, fables and novels, one of the most gifted and deserving literary workers of modern Hungary (Huszár Anna, “Anna Huszar”; Egy szalmaözvegy levelei, “Letters of a grass widow”; A sziv könyve, “The Book of the Heart”; Katalin, “Catherine”; Csendes órák, “Quiet Hours”; Testamentum és hat levél, “Last Will and Six Letters,” translated into German by Dr W. Schönwald, &c.); Géza Gárdonyi (several novels containing the adventures, observations, &c., of Mr Gabriel Gőre; A kékszemü Davidkáné, “Blue-eyed Mrs Dávidka”; A Kátsa, scenes from gipsy life); Charles Murai (Vig történetek, “Jolly Stories”; Bandi, a collection of short tales); Stephen Bársony (Csend, “Silence”; A Kaméleon-leány, “The Chamaeleon Girl, and other Stories”; Erdőn-mezőn, “In Wood and Field”). The third class of Magyar novelists comprises those cosmopolitan writers who take their method of work, their inspiration and even many of their subjects from foreign authors, chiefly French, German, Russian and also Norwegian. A people with an intense national sentiment, such as the Hungarians, do not as a rule incline towards permanent admiration of foreign-born or imported literary styles; and accordingly the work of this class of novelists has frequently met with very severe criticism on the part of various Magyar critics. Yet it can scarcely be denied that several of the “foreign” novelists have contributed a wholesome, if not quite Magyar, element of form or thought to literary narrative style in Hungary. Probably the foremost among them is Sigismund Justh, who died prematurely in the midst of his painful attempt at reconciling French “realistic” modes of thought with what he conceived to be Magyar simplicity (A puszta könyve, “The Book of the Puszta,” prairie of Hungary; A Pénz legendája, “The Legend of Money”; Gányo Julcsa, “Juliet Gányó”; Fuimus). Other novelists belonging to this school are: Desiderius Malonyai (Az utolsó, “The Last”; Judith könyve, “The Book of Judith”; Tanulmányfejek, “Typical Heads”); Julius Pekár (Dodo főhadnagy problémái, “Lieutenant Dodo’s Problems”; Az aranykesztyűs kisasszony, “The Maid with the Golden Gloves”; A szoborszép asszony, “The Lady as Beautiful as a Statue”; Az esztendo legendája, “The Legend of the Year”); Thomas Kobor (Aszfalt, “Asphalt”; O akarta, “He Wanted It”; A csillagok felé, “Towards the Stars”); Stephen Szomaházy (Huszonnégy óra, “Twenty-four Hours”; A Clairette Keringő, “The Clairette Valse”; Páratlan szerdák, “Incomparable Wednesdays”; Nyári felhők, “Clouds of Summer”); Zoltán Thury (Ullrich főhadnagy és egyéb történetek, “Lieutenant Ullrich and other Tales”; Urak és parasztok, “Gentlemen and Peasants”); also Desiderius Szomory, Ödon Gerő, Árpád Abonyi, Koloman Szántó, Edward Sas, Julius Vértesi, Tibor Dénes, Ákos Pintér, the Misses Janka and Stéphanie Wohl, Mrs Sigismund Gyarmathy and others. In the fourth class may be grouped such of the latest Hungarian novelists as have tried, and on the whole succeeded, in clothing their ideas and characters in a style peculiar to themselves. Besides Stephen Petelei (Jetti, a name—“Henrietta”—Felhők, “Clouds”) and Zoltán Ambrus (Pókháló Kisasszony, “Miss Cobweb”; Gyanu, “Suspicion”) must be mentioned especially Francis Herczeg, who has published a number of very interesting studies of Hungarian social life (Simon Zsuzsa, “Susanna Simon”; Fenn és lenn, “Above and Below”; Egy leány története, “The History of a Girl”; Idegenek között, “Amongst Strangers”); Alexander Bródy, who brings a delicate yet resolute analysis to unfold the mysterious and fascinating inner life of persons suffering from overwrought nerves or overstrung mind (A kétlelkü asszony, “The Double-Souled Lady”; Don Quixote kisasszony, “Miss Don Quixote”; Faust orvos, “Faust the Physician”; Tündér Ilona, Rejtelmek, “Mysteries”; Az ezüst kecske, “The Silver Goat”); and Edward Kabos, whose sombre and powerful genius has already produced works, not popular by any means, but full of great promise. In him we may trace the influence of Nietzsche’s philosophy (Koldusok, “Beggars”; Vándorok, “Wanderers”). To this list we must add the short but incomparable feuilletons (tárczalevelek) of Dr Adolf Ágai (writing under the nom de plume of Porzó), whose influence on the formation of modern Hungarian literary prose is hardly less important than the unique esprit and charm of his writings.

Dramatic literature, liberally supported by the king and the government, and aided by magnificent theatres in the capital and also in the provinces (the finest provincial theatre is in Kolozsvár, in Transylvania), has developed remarkably. The Hungarians have the genuine dramatic gift in abundance; they have, moreover, actors and actresses of the first rank. In the modern drama three great and clearly differentiated groups may be distinguished. First the neo-romantic group, whose chief representatives are Eugen Rákosi, Louis Dóczi (b. 1845), who, in addition to Csók (“The Kiss”), has written Utolsó szerelem (“Last Love”), Széchy Mária (“Maria Széchy”), Vegyes Párok (“Mixed Couples”). In these and other dramatic writings, more remarkable perhaps for poetic than for stage effects, Dóczi still maintains his brilliancy of diction and the delicacy of his poetic touch. To the same school belong Louis Bartók, Anton Váradi and Alexander Somló. The next group of Hungarian dramatists is dominated by the master spirit of Gregor Csiky (q.v.). Among Csiky’s most promising disciples is Francis Herczeg (already mentioned as a novelist), author of the successful society comedy, A Gyurkovics leányok (“The Misses Gyurkovics”), Három testőr (“Three Guardsmen”), Honty háza (“The House of Honty”). Árpád Berczik’s Nézd meg az anyját (“Look at her Mother”), A protekczió (“Patronizing”), also followed on the lines of Csiky. The third group of dramatic writers take their subjects, surroundings and diction from the folk-life of the villages (népszínmü, “folk-drama”). The greatest of these dramatists has so far been Edward Tóth (Toloncz, “The Ousted Pauper”). Amongst his numerous followers, who have, however, sometimes vulgarized their figures and plots, may be mentioned Tihamér Almási (Milimári, A Miniszterelnök bálja, “The Ball of the Premier”) and Alexander Somló.

In philosophy there has been a remarkable increase of activity, partly assimilative or eclectic and partly original. Peter Bihari and Maurice Kármán have in various writings spread the ideas of Herbart. After the school of Comte, yet to a large extent original, is the Az ember és világa (“Man and his World”) of Charles Böhm, who in 1881 started a philosophical review (Magyar Filozofiaí Szemle), subsequently edited by Joseph Bokor, a vigorous thinker. Realism, more particularly of the Wundt type, is represented by Emericus Pauer, Az ethikai determinismus (“Ethical Determinism”), and Eugen Posch (Az időről, “On Time”). On a Thomistic basis John Kiss edits a philosophical review (Bölcseleti Folyóirat); on similar lines have been working Ákos Mihályfi, Répássy, Augustin Lubrich and others. Neo-Hegelianism is cultivated by Eugen Schmitt, efficiently assisted by Joseph Alexander Simon (Az egységes és reális természet filozofia alapvonalai, “Outlines of a Uniform and Realistic Philosophy of Nature”). F. Medveczky (formerly a German author under the name of Fr. von Bärenbach) espouses Neo-Kantism (Társadalmi elméletek és eszmények, 1887, “Social Theories and Ideals”). The Hungarian scholar Samuel Brassai published, in 1896, Az igazi pozitiv filozofia (“The True Positive Philosophy”). Amongst the ablest and most zealous students of the history of philosophy are Bernhard Alexander, under whose editorship, aided by Joseph Bánoczi, a series of the works of the world’s great thinkers has appeared; Andrew Domanovszky, author of an elaborate History of Philosophy; Julius Gyomlai, translator of Plato; Eugen Péterfy, likewise translator of philosophical works, &c.

Juristic literature has been stimulated by the activity in positive legislation. On 1st January 1900 a new criminal code, thoroughly modern in spirit, was put in force; and in 1901 a Civil Code Bill, to replace the old Hungarian customary system, was introduced. Among the newer writers on common and commercial law may be mentioned Wenczal, Zlinsky, Zögöd, Gustave Schwarz, Alexander Plósz, Francis Nagy and Neumann; on constitutional law, Korbuly, Boncz, Stephen Kiss, Ernest Nagy, Kmety, Arthur Balogh, Ferdinandy, Béla Grünwald, Julius Andrássy and Emeric Hajnik; on administration, George Fésüs, Kmety and Csiky; on finance, Mariska, Exner and László. Among the later writers on statistics, moreover, have been Konek, Keleti, Láng, Földes, Jekelfalussy, Vorgha, Körösy, Ráth and Vízaknai.

On subjects of politics, amongst the more important works are the various monographs of Gustavus Beksics on the Dualism of Austria-Hungary, on the “New Foundations of Magyar Politics” (A magyar politika uj alapjai, 1899), on the Rumanian question, &c.; the writings of Emericus Bálint, Ákos Beöthy, Victor Concha (systematic politics), L. Ecsery, Géza Ferdinandy (historical and systematic politics), Árpád Zigány, Béla Földes (political economy), Julius Mandello (political economy), Alexander Matlekovics (Hungary’s administrative service; Államháztartás, 3 vols.), J. Pólya (agrarian politics), M. Somogyi (sociology), and the late Augustus Pulszky.

In history there has been great activity. The millennial festivities in 1896 gave rise to the publication of what was then the most extensive history of the Hungarian nation (A magyar nemzet története, 1895-1901), ten large and splendidly illustrated volumes, edited by Alexander Szilágyi, with the collaboration of the best specialists of modern Hungary, Robert Fröhlich, B. Kuzsinszky, Géza Nagy, H. Marczali, Anton Pór, Schönherr, V. Fraknói, Árpád Károlyi, David Angyal, Coloman Thaly, Géza Ballagi.

Literary criticism is actively pursued. Among the more authoritative writers Paul Gyulai and Zsolt Beöthy represent the conservative school; younger critics, like Béla Lázár, Alexander Hevesi, H. Lenkei, Zoltán Ferenczy, Aladár Ballagi, Ladislas Négyessy, have shown themselves somewhat too ready to follow the latest Norwegian or Parisian sensation.

Authorities.—The best authorities on Magyar literature are: F. Toldy, A Magyar nemzeti irodalom története a legrégibb idöktöl a jelenkorig (Pest, 1864-1865; 3rd ed., 1872); S. Imre, A Magyar irodalom és nyelv rövid története (Debreczen, 1865; 4th ed., 1878); J. Szvorényi, Magyar irodalmi szemelvények (Pest, 1867), and A Magyar irodalmi tanulmányok kézikönyve (Pest, 1868); P. Jámbor, A Magyar irodalom története (Pest, 1864); J. Környei, A Magyar nemzeti irodalomtörténet vázlata (Pest, 1861; 3rd ed., 1874); A. Lonkay, A Magyar irodalom ismertetése (Budán, 1855; 3rd ed., Pest, 1864); J. Ferencz, Magyar irodalom és tudományosság története (Pest, 1854); J. Ferencz és J. Danielik, Magyar Irók. Életrajz-Gyütemény (2 vols., Pest, 1856-1858); and the literary histories of L. Névy, Z. Beöthy and B. Erödi. One of the most useful monographs on “Magyar Literary History Writing” is that of J. Szinnyei, junior, A Magyar Irodalomtörténet-Irás ismertetése (Budapest, 1878). For information as to the most recent literature see A. Dux, Aus. Ungarn. (Leipzig, 1880); Zsolt Beöthy, A Magy. nemz. irod. tört.; S. Bodnár, A magy. irod. tört.; Béla Lázár, A tegnap, a ma, és a holnap (Budapest, 1896-1900); Joseph Szinnyel, Magy. irók élete és munkái (an extensive biographical dictionary of Hungarian authors); Irodalom történeti Közlemények (a periodical edited by Aron Szilády, for the history of literature); Emil Reich, Hungarian Literature (London, 1898).

(E. Re.*)

1 See the table in Seton-Watson’s Racial Problems in Hungary, Appendix xiii. p. 470, and Drage, Austria-Hungary, p. 289. Of the emigrants in 1906, 52,121 were Magyars, 32,904 Slovaks, 30,551 Germans, 20,859 Rumanians and 16,016 Croats.

2 Racial Problems, p. 202.

3 The colouring of ordinary ethnographical maps is necessarily somewhat misleading. When an attempt is made to represent in colour the actual distribution of the races (as in Dr Chavanne’s Geographischer und statistischer Handatlas) the effect is that of occasional blotches of solid colour on a piece of shot silk.

4 The distribution of the races is analysed in greater detail in Mr Seton-Watson’s Racial Problems, p. 3 seq.

5 Seton-Watson, op. cit. pp. 173, 188, 252; Drage, Austria-Hungary, pp. 280, 588; Gonnard, La Hongrie, p. 72.

6 An admirable account of this “little world, which produces almost everything and is almost self-sufficient” is given by M. Gonnard in his Hongrie au XXme siècle, p. 159 seq.

7 Ib. p. 349 seq.

8 Merchandise passing the boundaries is subject to declaration; the respective values are stated by a special commission of experts residing in Budapest.

9 The acquisition of the Austrian Staatsbahn in 1891 practically gave to the state the control of the whole railway net of Hungary. By 1900 all the main lines, except the Südbahn and the Kaschan-Oberbergar Bahn, were in its hands.

10 The franchise is “probably the most illiberal in Europe.” Servants, in the widest sense of the word, apprenticed workmen and agricultural labourers are carefully excluded. The result is that the working classes are wholly unrepresented in the parliament, only 6% of them, and 13% of the small trading class, possessing the franchise, which is only enjoyed by 6% of the entire population (see Seton-Watson, Racial Problems, 250, 251). For the question of franchise reform which played so great a part in the Austro-Hungarian crisis of 1909-1910 see History, below.—[Ed.]

11 i.e. Catholics of the Oriental rite in communion with Rome.

12 The methods pursued to this end are exposed in pitiless detail by Mr Seton-Watson in his chapter on the Education Laws of Hungary, in Racial Problems, 205.

13 Ger. Ottrik, in religion Anastasius.

14 At its worst, c. 1030-1033, cannibalism was common.

15 The English title of lord-lieutenant is generally used as the best translation of Föispán or comes (in this connexion). The title of count (gróf) was assumed later (15th century) by those nobles who had succeeded, in spite of the Golden Bull, in making their authority over whole counties independent and hereditary.—[Ed.]

16 The bán is equivalent to the margrave, or count of the marches.

17 Andrássy, Development of Hung. Const. Liberty (Eng. trans., p. 93); Knatchbull-Hugessen, i. 26 seq., where its provisions are given in some detail.

18 The full title of the palatine (Mag. nádor or nádor-ispán, Lat. palatinus) was comes palatii regni, the first palatine being Abu Samuel (c. 1041). By the Golden Bull the palatine acquired something of the quality of a responsible minister, as “intermediary between the crown and people, guardian of the nation’s rights, and keeper of the king’s conscience” (Knatchbull-Hugessen, i. 30).

19 Knatchbull-Hugessen, i. 41.

20 That is to say the western portion of Walachia, which lies between the Aluta and the Danube.

21 Though elected king of the Romans in 1411, he cannot be regarded as the legal emperor till his coronation at Rome in 1423, and if he was titular king of Bohemia as early as 1419, he was not acknowledged as king by the Czechs themselves till 1436.

22 In 1412 he pawned the twenty-four Zips towns to Poland, and, in 1411 he pledged his margraviate of Brandenburg to the Hohenzollerns.

23 Some of these were of gigantic size, e.g. the Varga Mozsar, or great mortar, which sixty horses could scarce move from its place, and a ballistic machine invented by Matthias which could hurl stones of 3 cwt.

24 We know actually of fifteen, but there may have been many more.

25 It should be remembered that at this time one-third of the land belonged to the church, and the remainder was in the hands of less than a dozen great families who had also appropriated the royal domains.

26 The Opus tripartitum juris consuetudinarii regni Hungariae was drawn up by Verböczy at the instance of the diet in 1507. It was approved by a committee of the diet and received the royal imprimatur in 1514, but was never published. In the constitutional history of Hungary the Tripartitum is of great importance as reasserting the fundamental equality of all the members of the populus (i.e. the whole body of the nobles) and, more especially, as defining the co-ordinate power of the king and “people” in legislation: i.e. the king may propose laws, but they had no force without the consent of the people, and vice versa. See Knatchbull-Hugessen, i. 64.

27 He was just twenty.

28 It was kept secret for some years for fear of Turkish intervention.

29 In contradistinction to Turkish Hungary and Transylvanian Hungary.

30 At first the Habsburgs held their court at Prague instead of at Vienna.

31 According to contemporary records the number of prelates and priests in the three parts of Hungary at the beginning of the 17th century was but 103, all told, and of the great families not above half a dozen still clung to Catholicism.

32 The counties of Szatmar, Ugocsa and Bereg and the fortress of Tokaj were formally ceded to him.

33 He was the first Protestant palatine.

34 The jobbagyok, or under-tenants, had to follow the example of their lords; they were, by this time, mere serfs with no privileges either political or religious.

35 E.g. in Esztergom, the primatial city, there were only two buildings still standing.

36 Charles VI. as emperor.

37 Litterae credentiales, nearly equivalent to a coronation oath.

38 Up to 1848 the Hungarian diet was usually held at Pressburg.

39 Franz Phillip, Count von Lamberg (1791-1848), a field-marshal in the Austrian army, who had seen service in the campaigns of 1814-1815 in France, belonged to the Stockerau branch of the ancient countly family of Orteneck-Ottenstein. He was chosen for this particular mission as being himself a Hungarian magnate conversant with Hungarian affairs, but at the same time of the party devoted to the court.

40 The crowning atrocities, which the Magyars have never wholly forgiven, were the shooting and hanging of the “Arad Martyrs” and the execution of Batthyány. On October 6, 1849, thirteen generals who had taken part in the war, including Damjanics and Counts Vécsey and Leiningen, were hanged or shot at Arad. On the same day Count Louis Batthyány, who had taken no part in the war and had done his utmost to restrain his countrymen within the bounds of legality, was shot at Pest.

41 Transylvania, Croatio-Slavonia with Fiume and the Temes Banat were separated from the kingdom and provided with local governments.

42 This Reichsrath was a purely consultative body, the ultimate control of all important affairs being reserved to the emperor. Its representative element consisted of 100 members elected by the provinces.

43 Beust was the only “imperial chancellor” in Austro-Hungarian history: even Metternich bore only the title of “chancellor”; and Andrássy, who succeeded Beust, styled himself “minister of the imperial and royal household and for foreign affairs.”

44 See for this Mr Seton-Watson’s Racial Problems of Hungary, passim.

45 Ibid. p. 168.

46 Especially the Electoral Law of 1874, which established a very unequal distribution of electoral areas, a highly complicated franchise, and voting by public declaration, thus making it easy for the government to intimidate the electors and generally to gerrymander the elections.

47 The Austrian court resented especially the decree proclaiming national mourning for Louis Kossuth, though no minister was present at the funeral.

48 Subsequently extended till 1907.

49 The question involves rather complex issues. Apart from the question of constitutional right, the Magyars objected to German as the medium of military education as increasing the difficulty of magyarizing the subordinate races of Hungary (see Knatchbull-Hugessen, ii. 296). On the other hand the Austrians pointed out that not only would failure to understand each other’s language cause fatal confusion on a battlefield, but also tend to disintegrate the forces even in peace time. They also laid stress on the fact that Magyar was not, any more than German, the language of many Hungarian regiments, consisting as these did mainly of Slovaks, Vlachs, Serbs and Croats. In resisting the Magyar word of command, then, the king-emperor was able to appeal to the anti-Magyar feeling of the other Hungarian races.

(W. A. P.)

50 Of the 16,000,000 inhabitants of Hungary barely a half were Magyar; and the franchise was possessed by only 800,000, of whom the Magyars formed the overwhelming majority.

51 The cabinet consisted of Dr Wekerle (premier and finance), Ferencz Kossuth (commerce), Count Gyula Andrássy (interior), Count Albert Apponyi (education), Daványi (agriculture), Polónyi (justice) and Count Aladár Zichy (court).

52 Seton-Watson, Racial Problems, p. 194.

53 The Times, March 14, 1907.

54 Ibid. October 11, 1907.

55 Ibid. October 15, 1907.

56 The Times, September 27, 1908.

57 The People’s party first emerged during the elections of 1896, when it contested 98 seats. Its object was to resist the anti-clerical tendencies of the Liberals, and for this purpose it appealed to the “nationalities” against the dominant Magyar parties, the due enforcement of the Law of Equal Rights of Nationalities (1868) forming a main item of its programme. Its leader, Count Zichy, in a speech of Jan. 1, 1897, declared it to be neither national, nor Liberal, nor Christian to oppress the nationalities. See Seton-Watson, p. 185.

58 See Hunfalvy’s “Die ungarische Sprachwissenschaft,” Literarische Berichte aus Ungarn, pp. 80-87 (Budapest, 1877).

59 Specimen usus linguae Gothicae in eruendis atque illustrandis obscurissimis quibusdam Sacrae Scripturae locis; addita analogia linguae Gothicae cum Sinica, necnon Finnicae cum Ungarica (Upsala, 1717).

60 Hunfalvy, p. 81.

61 Id. pp. 82-86.

62 Demonstratio Idioma Ungarorum et Lapponum idem esse (Copenhagen und Tyrnau, 1770).

63 See Count Géza Kuun’s “Lettere Ungheresi,” La Rivista Europea, anno vi., vol. ii. fasc. 3, pp. 561-562 (Florence, 1875).

64 So also Jámbor (A Magyar Irod. Tört., Pest, 1864, p. 104). Környei, Imre and others incline to the belief that it was Béla I. and that consequently the “anonymous notary” belongs rather to the 11th than to the 12th century.

65 An example of this work, printed on vellum in Gothic letter (Augsburg, 1488), and formerly belonging to the library of Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary, may be seen in the British Museum. Of the three first-mentioned chronicles Hungarian translations by Charles Szabó appeared at Budapest in 1860, 1861 and 1862.

66 Both this and the later editions of Frankfort (1581), Cologne (1690) and Pressburg (1744) are represented in the British Museum.

67 The only copy existing at the present time appears to have been transcribed at the beginning of the 16th century. Both this and the Halotti Beszéd (Pray Codex) are preserved in the National Museum at Budapest.

68 This codex contains Ruth, the lesser prophets, and part of the Apocrypha. According to Toldy, it is copied from an earlier one of the 14th century.

69 First made known by Coloman Thaly (1871) from a discovery by MM. E. Nagy and D. Véghelyi in the archives of the Csicsery family, in the county of Ung.

70 One of the only seven perfect copies extant of the Vienna (1574) edition is in the British Museum library.

71 A copy, with the autograph of the editor, is in the British Museum.

72 A copy is in the British Museum library.

73 There are two copies of this edition in the British Museum library.

74 The earliest, styled “Song on the Discovery of the right hand of the Holy King Stephen,” and printed at Nuremberg by Anton Koburger in 1484, is lost.

75 See Chas. Szabó’s Régi Magyar Kònyvtár (Budapest, 1879). Cf. also Lit. Ber. aus Ungarn for 1879, Bd. iii. Heft 2, pp. 433-434.

76 The subject is similar to that of Grillparzer’s tragedy, Ein treuer Diener seines Herrn.

77 It was founded in 1825 through the generosity of Count Széchenyi, who devoted his whole income for one year (60,000 florins) to the purpose. It was soon supported by contributions from all quarters except from the government.

78 Among the earlier publications of the academy were the Tudománytár (Treasury of Sciences, 1834-1844), with its supplement Literatura; the Külföldi játékszin (Foreign Theatres); the Magyar nyelv rendszere (System of the Hungarian language, 1846; 2nd ed., 1847); various dictionaries of scientific, mathematical, philosophical and legal terms; a Hungarian-German dictionary (1835-1838), and a Glossary of Provincialisms (1838). The Nagy-Szótár (Great Dictionary), begun by Czuczor and Fogarasi in 1845, was not issued till 1862-1874. Among the regular organs of the academy are the Transactions (from 1840), in some 60 vols., and the Annuals.

79 Among its earlier productions were the Nemzeti könyvtár (National Library), published 1843-1847, and continued in 1852 under the title Ujabb Nemzeti könyvtár, a repository of works by celebrated authors; the Külföldi Regénytár (Treasury of Foreign Romances), consisting of translations; and some valuable collections of proverbs, folk-songs, traditions and fables. Of the many later publications of the Kisfaludy society the most important as regards English literature is the Shakspere Minden Munkái (Complete Works of Shakespeare), in 19 vols. (1864-1878), to which a supplementary vol., Shakspere Pályája (1880), containing a critical account of the life and writings of Shakespeare, has been added by Professor A. Greguss. Translations from Molière, Racine, Corneille, Calderon and Moreto have also been issued by the Kisfaludy society. The Évlapok új folyama, or “New Series of Annuals,” from 1860 (Budapest, 1868, &c.), is a chrestomathy of prize orations, and translations and original pieces, both in poetry and prose.

80 Unitarian bishop of Transylvania, author of Vadrózsák, or “Wild Roses” (1863), a collection of Szekler folk-songs, ballads and sayings.

81 Besides the various translators from the English, as for instance William Györi, Augustus Greguss, Ladislaus Arany, Sigismond Ács, Stephen Fejes and Eugene Rákosy, who, like those already incidentally mentioned, assisted in the Kisfaludy society’s version of Shakespeare’s complete works, metrical translations from foreign languages were successfully made by Emil Ábrányi, Dr Ignatius Barna, Anthony Várady, Andrew Szabó, Charles Bérczy, Julius Greguss, Lewis Dóczi, Béla Erödi, Emeric Gáspár and many others. A Magyar version, by Ferdinand Barna, of the Kalewala was published at Pest in 1871. Faithful renderings by Lewis Szeberényi, Theodore Lehoczky and Michael Fincicky of the popular poetry of the Slavic nationalities appeared in vols. i. and ii. of the Hazai nép költészet tára (Treasury of the Country’s Popular Song), commenced in 1866, under the auspices of the Kisfaludy society. In vol. iii. Rumanian folk-songs were Magyarized by George Ember, Julian Grozescu and Joseph Vulcanu, under the title Román népdalok (Budapest, 1877). The Rózsák (Zombor, 1875) is a translation by Eugene Pavlovits from the Servian of Jovan Jovanovits. Both the last-mentioned works are interesting from an ethnographical point of view. We may here note that for foreigners unacquainted with Hungarian there are, besides several special versions of Petöfi and of Arany, numerous anthologies of Magyar poetry in German, by Count Majláth (1825), J. Fenyéry and F. Toldy (1828), G. Steinacker (1840, 1875), G. Stier (1850), K. M. Kertbeny (1854, 1860), A. Dux (1854), Count Pongrácz (1859-1861), A. M. Riedl (1860), J. Nordheim (1872), G. M. Henning (1874), A. von der Heide (1879) and others. Selections have also been published in English by Sir John Bowring (1830), S. Wékey in his grammar (1852) and E. D. Butler (1877), and in French by H. Desbordes-Valmore and C. E. de Ujfalvy (1873).

82 The translator of Macaulay.

83 See, however, J. Szinnyei & Son’s Bibliotheca Hungarica historiae naturalis et matheseos, 1472-1875 (Budapest, 1878), where the number of Magyar works bearing on the natural sciences and mathematics printed from the earliest date to the end of 1875 is stated to be 3811, of which 106 are referred to periodicals.

84 This will appear even more striking by a consideration of the number of periodical publications published in Hungary in languages other than Magyar. Thus, while of German periodicals appearing in Hungary there were in 1871 only 85, they increased in 1880 to 114, in 1885 to 141; and they were, at the beginning of 1895, still 128, in spite of the constant spread of that process of Magyarization which has, since 1880, considerably changed the linguistic habits of the people of Hungary.

HUNGER and THIRST. These terms are used to express peculiar sensations which are produced by and give expression to general wants of the system, satisfied respectively by the ingestion of organic solids containing substances capable of acting as food, and by water or liquids and solids containing water.

Hunger (a word common to Teutonic languages) is a peculiarly indefinite sensation of craving or want which is referred to the stomach, but with which is often combined, always indeed in its most pronounced stages, a general feeling of weakness or faintness. The earliest stages are unattended with suffering, and are characterized as “appetite for food.” Hunger is normally appeased by the introduction of solid or semi-solid nutriment into the stomach, and it is probable that the almost immediate alleviation of the sensation in these circumstances is in part due to a local influence, perhaps connected with a free secretion of gastric juice. Essentially, however, the sensation of hunger is a mere local expression of a general want, and this local expression ceases when the want is satisfied, even though no food be introduced into the stomach, the needs of the economy being satisfied by the introduction of food through other channels, as, for example, when food which admits of being readily absorbed is injected into the large intestine.

Thirst (a word of Teutonic origin, Ger. Durst, Swed. and Dan. törst, akin to the Lat. torrere, to parch) is a peculiar sensation of dryness and heat localized in the tongue and throat. Although thirst may be artificially produced by drying, as by the passage of a current of air over the mucous membrane of the above parts, normally it depends upon an impoverishment of the system in water. And, when this impoverishment ceases, in whichever way this be effected, the sensation likewise ceases. The injection of water into the blood, the stomach, or the large intestine appeases thirst, though no fluid is brought in contact with the part to which the sensation is referred.

The sensations of hunger and thirst lead us, or when urgent compel us, to take food and drink into the mouth. Once in the mouth, the entrance to the alimentary canal, the food begins to undergo a series of processes, the object of which is to extract from it as much as possible of its nutritive constituents. Food in the alimentary canal is, strictly speaking, outside the confines of the body; as much so as the fly grasped in the leaves of the insectivorous Dionea is outside of the plant itself. The mechanical and chemical processes to which the food is subjected have their seat and conditions outside the body which it is destined to nourish, though unquestionably the body is no passive agent, and innumerable glands come into action to supply the chemical agents which dissolve and render assimilable those constituents of the food capable of being absorbed into the organism, and of forming part and parcel of its substance (see further under Nutrition).

HUNGERFORD, WALTER HUNGERFORD, Baron (d. 1449), English soldier, belonged to a Wiltshire family. His father, Sir Thomas Hungerford (d. 1398), was speaker of the House of Commons in 1377, a position which he owed to his friend John of Gaunt, and is the first person formally mentioned in the rolls of parliament as holding the office. Walter Hungerford also served as speaker, but he is more celebrated as a warrior and diplomatist, serving in the former capacity at Agincourt and in the latter at the council of Constance and the congress of Arras. An executor of Henry V.’s will and a member of the council under Henry VI., Hungerford became a baron in 1426, and he was lord treasurer from 1426 to 1431. Remains of his benefactions still exist at Heytesbury, long the principal residence of the family.

Hungerford’s son Robert (c. 1400-1459) was also called to parliament as a baron; he was very wealthy, both his mother and his wife being heiresses. Like several other members of the family, Robert was buried in the cathedral at Salisbury.

Robert’s son and heir, Robert, Lord Moleyns and Hungerford (c. 1420-1464), married Eleanor, daughter of Sir William de Moleyns, and was called to parliament as Lord de Moleyns in 1445. He is chiefly remembered through his dispute with John Paston over the possession of the Norfolk manor of Gresham. After losing this case he was taken prisoner in France in 1452, not securing his release until 1459, During the Wars of the Roses he fought for Henry VI., with whom he fled to Scotland; then he was attainted, was taken prisoner at the battle of Hexham, and was executed at Newcastle in May 1464.

His eldest son, Sir Thomas Hungerford (d. 1469), was attainted and executed for attempting the restoration of Henry VI.; a younger son, Sir Walter Hungerford (d. 1516), who fought for Henry VII. at Bosworth, received some of the estates forfeited by his ancestors. Sir Thomas, who had no sons, left an only daughter Mary (d. c. 1534). When the attainders of her father and grandfather were reversed in 1485 this lady became Baroness Hungerford and Baroness de Moleyns; she married into the Hastings family and was the mother of George Hastings, 1st earl of Huntingdon.

Sir Walter Hungerford’s son Edward (d. 1522) was the father of Walter, Lord Hungerford of Heytesbury (1503-1540), who was created a baron in 1536, but was attainted for his alleged sympathy with the Pilgrimage of Grace; he was beheaded on the 28th of July 1540, the same day as his patron Thomas Cromwell. As his sons Sir Walter (1532-1596) and Sir Edward (d. 1607) both died without sons the estates passed to another branch of the family.

Sir Edward Hungerford (1596-1648), who inherited the estates of his kinsman Sir Edward in 1607, was the son of Sir Anthony (1564-1627) and a descendant of Walter, Lord Hungerford. He was a member of both the Short and Long Parliaments in 1640; during the Civil War he attached himself to the parliamentary party, fighting at Lansdowne and at Roundway Down. His half-brother Anthony (d. 1657) was also a member of both the Short and the Long Parliaments, but was on the royalist side during the war. This Anthony’s son and heir was Sir Edward Hungerford (1632-1711), the founder of Hungerford market at Charing Cross, London. He was a member of parliament for over forty years, but was very extravagant and was obliged to sell much of his property; and little is known of the family after his death.

See Sir R. C. Hoare, History of Modern Wiltshire (1822-1844).

HUNGERFORD, a market town in the Newbury parliamentary division of Berkshire, England, extending into Wiltshire, 61 m. W. by S. of London by the Great Western railway. Pop. (1901) 2906. It is beautifully situated in the narrow valley of the Kennet at the junction of tributary valleys from the south and south-west, the second of which is followed by the Bath road, an important highway from London to the west. The town, which lies on the Kennet and Avon canal, has agricultural trade. John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, presented to the citizens manorial rights, including common pasture and fishing. The fishing is valuable, for the trout of the Kennet and other streams in the locality are numerous and carefully preserved. Hungerford is also a favourite hunting centre. A horn given to the town by John of Gaunt is preserved in the town hall, another horn dating from 1634 being used to summon the manorial court of twelve citizens called feoffees (the president being called the constable), at Hocktide, the Tuesday following Easter week. In 1774, when a number of towns had taken action against the imposition of a fee for the delivery of letters from their local post-offices, Hungerford was selected as a typical case, and was first relieved of the imposition.

HÜNINGEN, a town of Germany, in Alsace-Lorraine, situated on the left bank of the Rhine, on a branch of the Rhine-Rhone canal, and 3 m. N. of Basel by rail. Pop. (1905) 3304. The Rhine is here crossed by an iron railway bridge. The town boasts a handsome Roman Catholic church, and has manufactures of silk, watches, chemicals and cigars. Hüningen is an ancient place and grew up round a stronghold placed to guard the passage of the Rhine. It was wrested from the Imperialists by the duke of Lauenburg in 1634, and subsequently passed by purchase to Louis XIV. of France. It was fortified by Vauban (1679-1681) and a bridge was built across the Rhine. The fortress capitulated to the Austrians on the 26th of August 1815 and the works were shortly afterwards dismantled. In 1871, the town passed, with Alsace-Lorraine, to the German empire.

See Tschamber, Geschichte der Stadt und ehemaligen Festung Hüningen (St Ludwig, 1894); and Latruffe, Huningue et Bâle devant les traités de 1815 (Paris, 1863).

HUNNERIC (d. 484), king of the Vandals, was a son of King Gaiseric, and was sent to Italy as a hostage in 435 when his father made a treaty with the emperor Valentinian III. After his return to the Vandal court at Carthage, he married a daughter of Theodoric I., king of the Visigoths; but when this princess was suspected of attempting to poison her father-in-law, she was mutilated and was sent back to Europe. Hunneric became king of the Vandals on his father’s death in 477. Like Gaiseric he was an Arian, and his reign is chiefly memorable for his cruel persecution of members of the orthodox Christian Church in his dominions. Hunneric’s second wife was Eudocia, a daughter of Valentinian III. and his wife Eudocia. (See Vandals.)

HUNNIS, WILLIAM (d. 1597), English musician and poet, was as early as 1549 in the service of William Herbert, afterwards earl of Pembroke. His friend Thomas Newton, in a poem prefixed to The Hive of Hunnye (1578), says: “In prime of youth thy pleasant Penne depaincted Sonets sweete,” and mentions his interludes, gallant lays, rondelets and songs, explaining that it was in the winter of his age that he turned to sacred lore and high philosophy. In 1550 he published Certayne Psalms ... in Englishe metre, and shortly afterwards was made a gentleman of the Chapel Royal. At Mary’s accession he retained his appointment, but in 1555 he is said to have been one of a party of twelve conspirators who had determined to take Mary’s life. Nothing came of this plot, but shortly afterwards he was party to a conspiracy to dethrone Mary in favour of Elizabeth. Hunnis, having some knowledge of alchemy, was to go abroad to coin the necessary gold, but this doubtful mission was exchanged for the task of making false keys to the treasury in London, which he was able to do because of his friendship with Nicholas Brigham, the receiver of the exchequer. The conspirators were, however, betrayed by one of their number, Thomas Whyte. Some of them were executed, but Hunnis escaped with imprisonment. The death of Mary made him a free man, and in 1559 he married Margaret, Brigham’s widow, but she died within the year, and Hunnis married in 1560 the widow of a grocer. He himself became a grocer and freeman of the City of London, and supervisor of the Queen’s Gardens at Greenwich. In 1566 he was made Master of the Children of the Chapel Royal. No complete piece of his is extant, perhaps because of the rule that the plays acted by the Children should not have been previously printed. In his later years he purchased land at Barking, Essex. If the lines above his signature on a 1557 edition of Sir Thomas More’s works are genuine, he remained a poor man, for he refuses to make a will on the ground that “the good that I shall leave, will not pay all I owe.” In Harleian MS. 6403 is a story that one of his sons, in the capacity of page, drank the remainder of the poisoned cup supposed to have been provided by Leicester for Walter Devereux, 1st earl of Essex, but escaped with no injury beyond the loss of his hair.

Hunnis’s extant works include Certayne Psalms (1549), A Hive full of Hunnye (1578), Seven Sobbes of a sorrowful Soule for Sinne (1583), Hunnies Recreations (1588), sixteen poems in the Paradise of Dainty Devices (1576), and two in England’s Helicon (1600). See Mrs C. Carmichael Stopes’s tract on William Hunnis, reprinted (1892) from the Jahrbuch der deutschen Shakespeare Gesellschaft.

HUNS. This or some similar name is given to at least four peoples, whose identity cannot be regarded as certain. (1) The Huns, who invaded the East Roman empire from about A.D. 372 to 453 and were most formidable under the leadership of Attila. (2) The Hungarians or Magyars. The Magyars crossed the Carpathians into Hungary in A.D. 898 and mingled with the races they found there. The modern Hungarians (excluding Slavonic elements) are probably a mixture of these Magyars with the remnants of older invaders such as Huns, Petchenegs and Kumans. (3) The White Huns (Λευκοὶ Οὕννοι or Ephthalites), who troubled the Persian empire from about 420 to 557 and were known to the Byzantines. (4) The Hûnas, who invaded India during the same period. There is not much doubt that the third and fourth of these tribes are the same, and it is quite likely that the Magyars are descended from the horde which sent forth the Huns in the 4th century, but it is not demonstrable. Neither can it be proved that the Huns and Magyars belonged either physically or linguistically to the same section as the Hûnas and Ephthalites. But the occurrence of the name in both India and Europe is prima facie evidence in favour of a connexion between those who bore it, for, though civilized races often lumped all their barbarian neighbours together under one general name, it would seem that, when the same name is applied independently to similar invaders in both India and eastern Europe, the only explanation can be that they gave themselves that name, and this fact probably indicates that they were members of the same tribe or group. What we know of the history and distribution of the Huns does not conflict with this idea. They appear in Europe towards the end of the 4th century and the Ephthalites and Hûnas in western Asia about fifty years later. It may be supposed that some defeat in China (and the Chinese were successful in driving back the Hiung-nu in the 1st century A.D.) had sent them westwards some time earlier. One body remained in Transoxiana and, after resting for a time, pushed their way through the mountains into Afghanistan and India, exactly as the Yüe-Chi had done before them. Another division pressed farther westwards and probably made its headquarters near the northern end of the Caspian Sea and the southern part of the Ural Mountains. It was from here that the Huns invaded Europe, and when their power collapsed, after the death of Attila, many of them may have returned to their original haunts. Possibly the Bulgarians and Khazars were offshoots of the same horde. The Magyars may very well have gradually spread first to the Don and then beyond it, until in the 9th century they entered Hungary. But this sketch of possible migrations is largely conjectural, and authorities are not even agreed as to the branch of the Turanians to which the Huns should be referred. The physical characteristics of these nomadic armies were very variable, since they continually increased their numbers by slaves, women and soldiers of fortune drawn from all the surrounding races. The language of the Magyars is Finno-Ugric and most nearly allied to the speech of the Ostiaks now found on the east of the Ural, but we have no warrant for assuming that the Huns, and still less that the Ephthalites and Hûnas, spoke the same language. Neither can we assume that the Huns and Hûnas are the same as the Hiung-nu Of the Chinese. The names may be identical, but it is not certain, for in Hun may lurk some such designation as the ten (Turkish on or ūn) tribes. Also Hiung-nu seems to be the name of warlike nomads in general, not of a particular section. Again the Finnish languages spoken in various parts of Russia and more or less allied to Magyar must have spread gradually westwards from the Urals, and their development and diffusion seem to postulate a long period (for the history of the Finns shows that they were not mobile like the Turks and Mongols), so that the ancestral language from which spring Finnish and Magyar can hardly have been brought across Asia after the Christian era. The warlike and vigorous temper of the Huns has led many writers to regard them as Turks. The Turks were perhaps not distinguished by name or institutions from other tribes before the 5th century, but the Huns may have been an earlier offshoot of the same stock. Apart from this the Hungarians may have received an infusion of Turkish blood not only from the Osmanlis but from the Kumans and other tribes who settled in the country.

History.—The authentic history of the Huns in Europe practically begins about the year A.D. 372, when under a leader named Balamir (or, according to some MSS., Balamber) they began a westward movement from their settlements in the steppes lying to the north of the Caspian. After crushing, or compelling the alliance of, various nations unknown to fame (Alpilzuri, Alcidzuri, Himari, Tuncarsi, Boisci), they at length reached the Alani, a powerful nation which had its seat between the Volga and the Don; these also, after a struggle, they defeated and finally enlisted in their service. They then proceeded, in 374, to invade the empire of the Ostrogoths (Greutungi), ruled over by the aged Ermanaric, or Hermanric, who died (perhaps by his own hand) while the critical attack was still impending. Under his son Hunimund a section of his subjects promptly made a humiliating peace; under Withemir (Winithar), however, who succeeded him in the larger part of his dominions, an armed resistance was organized; but it resulted only in repeated defeat, and finally in the death of the king. The representatives of his son Witheric put an end to the conflict by accepting the condition of vassalage. Balamir now directed his victorious arms still farther westward against that portion of the Visigothic nation (or Tervingi) which acknowledged the authority of Athanaric. The latter entrenched himself on the frontier which had separated him from the Ostrogoths, behind the “Greutungrampart” and the Dniester; but he was surprised by the enemy, who forded the river in the night, fell suddenly upon his camp, and compelled him to abandon his position. Athanaric next attempted to establish himself in the territory between the Pruth and the Danube, and with this object set about heightening the old Roman wall which Trajan had erected in north-eastern Dacia; before his fortifications, however, were complete, the Huns were again upon him, and without a battle he was forced to retreat to the Danube. The remainder of the Visigoths, under Alavivus and Fritigern, now began to seek, and ultimately were successful in obtaining (376), the permission of the emperor Valens to settle in Thrace; Athanaric meanwhile took refuge in Transylvania, thus abandoning the field without any serious struggle to the irresistible Huns. For more than fifty years the Roman world was undisturbed by any aggressive act on the part of the new invaders, who contented themselves with over-powering various tribes which lived to the north of the Danube. In some instances, in fact, the Huns lent their aid to the Romans against third parties; thus in 404-405 certain Hunnic tribes, under a chief or king named Uldin, assisted Honorius in the struggle with Radagaisus (Ratigar) and his Ostrogoths, and took a prominent part in the decisive battle fought in the neighbourhood of Florence. Once indeed, in 409, they are said to have crossed the Danube and invaded Bulgaria under perhaps the same chief (Uldin), but extensive desertions soon compelled a retreat.

About the year 432 a Hunnic king, Ruas or Rugulas, made himself of such importance that he received from Theodosius II. an annual stipend or tribute of 350 pounds of gold (£14,000), along with the rank of Roman general. Quarrels soon arose, partly out of the circumstance that the Romans had sought to make alliances with certain Danubian tribes which Ruas chose to regard as properly subject to himself, partly also because some of the undoubted subjects of the Hun had found refuge on Roman territory; and Theodosius, in reply to an indignant and insulting message which he had received about this cause of dispute, was preparing to send off a special embassy when tidings arrived that Ruas was dead and that he had been succeeded in his kingdom by Attila and Bleda, the two sons of his brother Mundzuk (433). Shortly afterwards the treaty of Margus (not far from the modern Belgrade), where both sides negotiated on horseback, was ratified. By its stipulations the yearly stipendium or tribute payable to Attila by the Romans was doubled; the fugitives were to be surrendered, or a fine of £8 to be paid for each of those who should be missing; free markets, open to Hun and Roman alike, were to be instituted; and any tribe with which Attila might be at any time at war was thereby to be held as excluded from alliance with Rome. For eight years afterwards there was peace so far as the Romans were concerned; and it was probably during this period that the Huns proceeded to the extensive conquests to which the contemporary historian Priscus so vaguely alludes in the words: “He (Attila) has made the whole of Scythia his own, he has laid the Roman empire under tribute, and he thinks of renewing his attacks upon Persia. The road to that eastern kingdom is not untrodden by the Huns; already they have marched fifteen days from a certain lake, and have ravaged Media.” They also appear before the end of this interval to have pushed westward as far as to the Rhone, and to have come into conflict with the Burgundians. Overt acts of hostility, however, occurred against the Eastern empire when the town of Margus (by the treachery of its bishop) was seized and sacked (441), and against the Western when Sirmium was invested and taken.

In 445 Bleda died, and two years afterwards Attila, now sole ruler, undertook one of his most important expeditions against the Eastern empire; on this occasion he pushed southwards as far as Thermopylae, Gallipoli and the walls of Constantinople; peace was cheaply purchased by tripling the yearly tribute (which accordingly now stood at 2100 pounds of gold, or £84,000 sterling) and by the payment of a heavy indemnity. In 448 again occurred various diplomatic negotiations, and especially the embassy of Maximinus, of which many curious details have been recorded by Priscus his companion. Then followed, in 451, that westward movement across the Rhine which was only arrested at last, with terrible slaughter, on the Catalaunian plains (according to common belief, in the neighbourhood of the modern Châlons, but more probably at a point some 50 m. to the south-east, near Mery-sur-Seine). The following year (452), that of the Italian campaign, was marked by such events as the sack of Aquileia, the destruction of the cities of Venetia, and finally, on the banks of the Mincio, that historical interview with Pope Leo I. which resulted in the return of Attila to Pannonia, where in 453 he died (see Attila). Almost immediately afterwards the empire he had amassed rather than consolidated fell to pieces. His too numerous sons began to quarrel about their inheritance, while Ardaric, the king of the Gepidae, was placing himself at the head of a general revolt of the dependent nations. The inevitable struggle came to a crisis near the river Netad in Pannonia, in a battle in which 30,000 of the Huns and their confederates, including Ellak, Attila’s eldest son, were slain. The nation, thus broken, rapidly dispersed, exactly as the White Huns did after a similar defeat about a hundred years later. One horde settled under Roman protection in Little Scythia (the Dobrudzha), others in Dacia Ripensis (on the confines of Servia and Bulgaria) or on the southern borders of Pannonia. Many, however, appear to have returned to what is now South Russia, and may perhaps have taken part in the ethnical combinations which produced the Bulgarians.

The chief original authorities are Ammianus Marcellinus, Priscus, Jordanes, Procopius, Sidonius Apollinaris and Menander Protector. See also Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire; J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire (1889); H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols (1876-1888); J. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders (1892); and articles in the Revue orientale pour les études Ouralaltaiques. For the Chinese sources see E. H. Parker, A Thousand Years of the Tartars (1905), and numerous articles by the same author in the Asiatic Quarterly; also articles by Chavannes, O. Franke, Stein and others in various learned periodicals. For the literature on the White Huns see Ephthalites.

(C. El.)

HUNSDON, HENRY CAREY, 1st Baron (c. 1524-1596), English soldier and courtier, was a son of William Carey (d. 1529); his mother was Mary (d. 1543), a sister of Anne Boleyn, and he was consequently cousin to Queen Elizabeth. Member of parliament for Buckingham under Edward VI. and Mary, he was knighted in 1558, was created Baron Hunsdon in 1559, and in 1561 became a privy councillor and a knight of the Garter. In 1568 he became governor of Berwick and warden of the east Marches, and he was largely instrumental in quelling the rising in the north of England in 1569, gaining a decisive victory over Leonard Dacre near Carlisle in February 1570. Hunsdon received very little money to cover his expenses, but Elizabeth lavished honours upon him, although he did not always carry out her wishes. In 1583 he became lord chamberlain, but he did not relinquish his post at Berwick. Hunsdon was one of the commissioners appointed to try Mary queen of Scots; after Mary’s execution he went on a mission to James VI. of Scotland, and when the Spanish Armada was expected he commanded the queen’s bodyguard. He died in London, at Somerset House, on the 23rd of July 1596.

His eldest son, George (1547-1603), 2nd Baron Hunsdon, was a member of parliament, a diplomatist, a soldier and lord chamberlain. He was also captain-general of the Isle of Wight during the time of the Spanish Armada. He was succeeded by his brother John (d. 1617). In 1628 John’s son Henry, 4th Baron Hunsdon, was created earl of Dover. This title became extinct on the death of the 2nd earl, John, in 1677, and a like fate befell the barony of Hunsdon on the death of the 8th baron, William Ferdinand, in June 1765. Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John Spencer of Althorp, and wife of the 2nd Lord Hunsdon, is celebrated as the patroness of her kinsman, the poet Spenser; and either this lady or her daughter Elizabeth was the author of the Tragedie of Marian (1613).

The 1st lord’s youngest son, Robert Carey (c. 1560-1639), was for a long time a member of the English parliament. He was frequently employed on the Scottish borders; he announced the death of Elizabeth to James VI. of Scotland; and he was created earl of Monmouth in 1626. He wrote some interesting Memoirs, first published in 1759. His son and successor, Henry (1596-1661), is known as a translator of various French and Italian books. The title of earl of Monmouth became extinct on his death in June 1661.

HUNSTANTON [commonly pronounced Hunston], a seaside resort in the north-western parliamentary division of Norfolk, England, on the east shore of the Wash, 112 m. N. by E. from London by the Great Eastern railway. Pop. of urban district of New Hunstanton (1901) 1893. The new watering-place is about 1 m. from the old village. It has a good beach, a golf course and a pier. The parish church of St Mary is a fine Decorated building, containing monuments of the L’Estrange family, whose mansion, Hunstanton Hall, is a picturesque Tudor building of brick in a well-wooded park. A convalescent home (1872) commemorates the recovery from illness of King Edward VII. when Prince of Wales. At Brancaster, 6 m. E., there is a Roman fort which formed part of the defences of the Litus Saxonicum (4th century A.D.)

HUNT, ALFRED WILLIAM (1830-1896), English painter, son of Andrew Hunt, a landscape painter, was born at Liverpool in 1830. He began to paint while at the Liverpool Collegiate School; but as the idea of adopting the artist’s profession was not favoured by his father, he went in 1848 to Corpus Christi College, Oxford. His career there was distinguished; he won the Newdigate Prize in 1851, and became a Fellow of Corpus in 1858. He did not, however, abandon his artistic practice, for, encouraged by Ruskin, he exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1854, and thenceforward regularly contributed landscapes in oil and water-colour to the London and provincial exhibitions. In 1861 he married, gave up his Fellowship, and was elected an Associate of the Royal Society of Painters in Water-Colours, receiving full membership three years later. His work is distinguished mainly by its exquisite quality and a poetic rendering of atmosphere. Hunt died on 3rd May 1896. Mrs A. W. Hunt (née Margaret Raine) wrote several works of fiction; and one of her daughters, Violet Hunt, is well known as a novelist.

See Frederick Wedmore, “Alfred Hunt,” Magazine of Art (1891); Exhibition of Drawings in Water Colour by Alfred William Hunt, Burlington Fine Arts Club (1897).

HUNT, HENRY (1773-1835), English politician, commonly called “Orator Hunt,” was born at Widdington Farm, Upavon, Wiltshire, on the 6th of November 1773. While following the vocation of a farmer he made the acquaintance of John Horne Tooke, with whose advanced views he soon began to sympathize. At the general election of 1806 he came to the front in Wiltshire; he soon associated himself with William Cobbett, and in 1812 he was an unsuccessful candidate for Bristol. He was one of the speakers at the meeting held in Spa Fields, London, in November 1816; in 1818 he tried in vain to become member of parliament for Westminster, and in 1820 for Preston. In August 1819 Hunt presided over the great meeting in St Peter’s Field, Manchester, which developed into a riot and was called the “Peterloo massacre.” He was arrested and was tried for conspiracy, being sentenced to imprisonment for two years and a half. In August 1830 he was elected member of parliament for Preston, but he lost his seat in 1833. While in parliament Hunt presented a petition in favour of women’s rights, probably the first of this kind, and he moved for a repeal of the corn laws. He died on the 15th of February 1835. During his imprisonment Hunt wrote his Memoirs which were published in 1820.

See R. Huish, Life of Hunt (1836); and S. Bamford, Passages in the Life of a Radical (2nd ed., 1893).

HUNT, HENRY JACKSON (1819-1889), American soldier, was born in Detroit, Michigan, on the 14th of September 1819, and graduated at the U.S. military academy in 1839. He served in the Mexican War under Scott, and was breveted for gallantry at Contreras and Churubusco and at Chapultepec. He became captain in 1852 and major in 1861. His professional attainments were great, and in 1856 he was a member of a board entrusted with the revision of light artillery drill and tactics. He took part in the first battle of Bull Run in 1861, and soon afterwards became chief of artillery in the Washington defences. As a colonel on the staff of General M’Clellan he organized and trained the artillery reserve of the Army of the Potomac. Throughout the Civil War he contributed more than any officer to the effective employment of the artillery arm. With the artillery reserve he rendered the greatest assistance at the battle of Malvern Hill, and soon afterwards he became chief of artillery in the Army of the Potomac. On the day after the battle of South Mountain he was made brigadier-general of volunteers. At the Antietam, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, he rendered further good service, and at Gettysburg his handling of the artillery was conspicuous in the repulse of Pickett’s charge, and he was rewarded with the brevet of colonel. He served in Virginia to the end of the war, attaining the brevet ranks of major-general of volunteers and brigadier-general of regulars. When the U.S. army was reorganized in 1866 he became colonel of the 5th artillery and president of the permanent Artillery Board. He held various commands until 1883, when he retired to become governor of the Soldiers’ Home, Washington, D.C. He died on the 11th of February 1889. He was the author of Instructions for Field Artillery (1860), and of papers on Gettysburg in the “Battles and Leaders” series.

His brother, Lewis Cass Hunt (1824-1886), served throughout the Civil War in the infantry arm, becoming brigadier-general of volunteers in 1862, and brevet brigadier-general U.S.A. in 1865.

HUNT, JAMES HENRY LEIGH (1784-1859), English essayist and miscellaneous writer, was born at Southgate, Middlesex, on the 19th of October 1784, His father, the son of a West Indian clergyman, had settled as a lawyer in Philadelphia, and his mother was the daughter of a merchant there. Having embraced the loyalist side, Leigh Hunt’s father was compelled to fly to England, where he took orders, and acquired some reputation as a popular preacher, but want of steadiness, want of orthodoxy, and want of interest conspired to prevent his obtaining any preferment. He was engaged by James Brydges, 3rd duke of Chandos, to act as tutor to his nephew, James Henry Leigh, after whom Leigh Hunt was called. The boy was educated at Christ’s Hospital, of which school he has left a lively account in his autobiography. As a boy at school he was an ardent admirer of Gray and Collins, writing many verses in imitation of them. An impediment in his speech, afterwards removed, prevented his being sent to the university. “For some time after I left school,” he says, “I did nothing but visit my school-fellows, haunt the book-stalls and write verses.” These latter were published in 1801 under the title of Juvenilia, and contributed to introduce him into literary and theatrical society. He began to write for the newspapers, and published in 1807 a volume of theatrical criticisms, and a series of Classic Tales with critical essays on the authors.

In 1808 he quitted the War Office, where he had for some time been a clerk, to become editor of the Examiner newspaper, a speculation of his brother John. The new journal with which Leigh Hunt was connected for thirteen years soon acquired a high reputation. It was perhaps the only newspaper of the time which owed no allegiance to any political party, but assailed whatever seemed amiss, “from a principle of taste,” as Keats happily expressed it. The taste of the attack itself, indeed, was not always unexceptionable; and one upon the Prince Regent, the chief sting of which lay in its substantial truth, occasioned (1813) a prosecution and a sentence of two years’ imprisonment for each of the brothers. The effect was to give a political direction to what should have been the career of a man of letters. But the cheerfulness and gaiety with which Leigh Hunt bore his imprisonment attracted general attention and sympathy, and brought him visits from Byron, Moore, Brougham and others, whose acquaintance exerted much influence on his future destiny.

In 1810-1811 he edited for his brother John a quarterly magazine, the Reflector, for which he wrote “The Feast of the Poets,” a satire which gave offence to many contemporary poets, and particularly offended William Gifford of the Quarterly. The essays afterwards published under the title of the Round Table (2 vols., 1816-1817), conjointly with William Hazlitt, appeared in the Examiner. In 1816 he made a permanent mark in English literature by the publication of his Story of Rimini. There is perhaps no other instance of a poem short of the highest excellence having produced so important and durable an effect in modifying the accepted standards of literary composition. The secret of Hunt’s success consists less in superiority of genius than of taste. His refined critical perception had detected the superiority of Chaucer’s versification, as adapted to the present state of the language by Dryden, over the sententious epigrammatic couplet of Pope which had superseded it. By a simple return to the old manner he effected for English poetry in the comparatively restricted domain of metrical art what Wordsworth had already effected in the domain of nature; his is an achievement of the same class, though not of the same calibre. His poem is also a triumph in the art of poetical narrative, abounds with verbal felicities, and is pervaded throughout by a free, cheerful and animated spirit, notwithstanding the tragic nature of the subject. It has been remarked that it does not contain one hackneyed or conventional rhyme. But the writer’s occasional flippancy and familiarity, not seldom degenerating into the ludicrous, made him a mark for ridicule and parody on the part of his opponents, whose animosity, however, was rather political than literary.

In 1818 appeared a collection of poems entitled Foliage, followed in 1819 by Hero and Leander, and Bacchus and Ariadne. In the same year he reprinted these two works with The Story of Rimini and The Descent of Liberty with the title of Poetical Works, and started the Indicator, in which some of his best work appeared. Both Keats and Shelley belonged to the circle gathered around him at Hampstead, which also included William Hazlitt, Charles Lamb, Bryan Procter, Benjamin Haydon, Cowden Clarke, C. W. Dilke, Walter Coulson,1 John Hamilton Reynolds,2 and in general almost all the rising young men of letters of liberal sympathies. He had now for some years been married to Marianne Kent, who seems to have been sincerely attached to him, but was not in every respect a desirable partner. His own affairs were by this time in the utmost confusion, and he was only saved from ruin by the romantic generosity of Shelley. In return he was lavish of sympathy to Shelley at the time of the latter’s domestic distresses, and defended him with spirit in the Examiner, although he does not appear to have at this date appreciated his genius with either the discernment or the warmth of his generous adversary, Professor Wilson. Keats he welcomed with enthusiasm, and introduced to Shelley. He also wrote a very generous appreciation of him in the Indicator, and, before leaving for Italy, Keats stayed with Hunt at Hampstead. Keats seems, however, to have subsequently felt that Hunt’s example as a poet had been in some respects detrimental to him. After Shelley’s departure for Italy (1818) Leigh Hunt’s affairs became still more embarrassed, and the prospects of political reform less and less satisfactory. His health and his wife’s failed, and he was obliged to discontinue his charming series of essays entitled the Indicator (1819-1821), having, he says, “almost died over the last numbers.” These circumstances induced him to listen to a proposal, which seems to have originated with Shelley, that he should proceed to Italy and join Shelley and Byron in the establishment of a quarterly magazine in which Liberal opinions should be advocated with more freedom than was possible at home. The project was injudicious from every point of view; it would have done little for Hunt or the Liberal cause at the best, and depended entirely upon the co-operation of Byron, the most capricious of allies, and the most parsimonious of paymasters. Byron’s principal motive for acceding to it appears to have been the expectation of acquiring influence over the Examiner, and he was exceedingly mortified on discovering when too late that Hunt had parted, or was considered to have parted, with his interest in the journal. Leigh Hunt left England for Italy in November 1821, but storm, sickness and misadventure retarded his arrival until the 1st of July 1822, a rate of progress which T. L. Peacock appropriately compares to the navigation of Ulysses.

The tragic death of Shelley, a few weeks later, destroyed every prospect of success for the Liberal. Hunt was now virtually a dependant upon Byron, whose least amiable qualities were called forth by the relation of patron to an unsympathetic dependant, burdened with a large and troublesome family. He was moreover incessantly wounded by the representations of his friends that he was losing caste by the connexion. The Liberal lived through four quarterly numbers, containing contributions no less memorable than Byron’s “Vision of Judgment” and Shelley’s translations from Faust; but in 1823 Byron sailed for Greece, leaving his coadjutor at Genoa to shift for himself. The Italian climate and manners, however, were entirely to Hunt’s taste, and he protracted his residence until 1825, producing in the interim Ultra-Crepidarius, a Satire on William Gifford (1823), and his matchless translation (1825) of Francesco Redi’s Bacco in Toscana. In 1825 an unfortunate litigation with his brother brought him back to England, and in 1828 he committed his greatest mistake by the publication of his Lord Byron and some of his Contemporaries. The work is of considerable value as a corrective of merely idealized estimates of Lord Byron. But such a corrective should not have come from one who had lain under obligations to Byron. British ideas of what was decent were shocked, and the author especially writhed under the withering satire of Moore. For many years ensuing the history of Hunt’s life is that of a painful struggle with poverty and sickness. He worked unremittingly, but one effort failed after another. Two journalistic ventures, the Tatler (1830-1832), a daily devoted to literary and dramatic criticism, and Leigh Hunt’s London Journal (1834-1835), were discontinued for want of subscribers, although in the latter Leigh Hunt had able coadjutors, and it contained some of his best writing. His editorship (1837-1838) of the Monthly Repository, in which he succeeded W. J. Fox, was also unsuccessful. The adventitious circumstances which had for a time made the fortune of the Examiner no longer existed, and Hunt’s strong and weak points, his refinement and his affectations, were alike unsuited to the general body of readers.

In 1832 a collected edition of his poems was published by subscription, the list of subscribers including many of his opponents. In the same year was printed for private circulation Christianism, the work afterwards published (1853) as The Religion of the Heart. A copy sent to Carlyle secured his friendship, and Hunt went to live next door to him in Cheyne Row in 1833. Sir Ralph Esher, a romance of Charles II.’s period, had a success, and Captain Sword and Captain Pen (1835), a spirited contrast between the victories of peace and the victories of war, deserves to be ranked among his best poems. In 1840 his circumstances were improved by the successful representation at Covent Garden of his Legend of Florence, a play of considerable merit. Lover’s Amazements, a comedy, was acted several years afterwards, and was printed in Leigh Hunt’s Journal (1850-1851); and other plays remained in MS. In 1840 he wrote introductory notices to the work of R. B. Sheridan and to Moxon’s edition of the works of Wycherley, Congreve, Vanbrugh and Farquhar, a work which furnished the occasion of Macaulay’s essay on the Dramatists of the Restoration. The pretty narrative poem of The Palfrey was published in 1842.