VOLUME XIV SLICE I Husband to Hydrolysis

Articles in This Slice

HUSBAND HYADES

HUSBAND AND WIFE HYATT, ALPHEUS

HUSHI HYBLA

HUSKISSON, WILLIAM HYBRIDISM

HUSS HYDANTOIN

HUSSAR HYDE (17th century English family)

HUSSITES HYDE, THOMAS

HUSTING HYDE (market town)

HUSUM HYDE DE NEUVILLE, JEAN GUILLAUME

HUTCHESON, FRANCIS HYDE PARK

HUTCHINSON, ANNE HYDERABAD (city of India)

HUTCHINSON, JOHN (Puritan soldier) HYDERABAD (state of India)

HUTCHINSON, JOHN (English theological writer) HYDERABAD (capital of Hyderabad)

HUTCHINSON, SIR JONATHAN HYDER ALI

HUTCHINSON, THOMAS HYDRA (island of Greece)

HUTCHINSON (Kansas, U.S.A.) HYDRA (legendary monster)

HUTTEN, PHILIPP VON HYDRA (constellation)

HUTTEN, ULRICH VON HYDRACRYLIC ACID

HUTTER, LEONHARD HYDRANGEA

HUTTON, CHARLES HYDRASTINE

HUTTON, JAMES HYDRATE

HUTTON, RICHARD HOLT HYDRAULICS

HUXLEY, THOMAS HENRY HYDRAZINE

HUY HYDRAZONE

HUYGENS, CHRISTIAAN HYDROCARBON

HUYGENS, SIR CONSTANTIJN HYDROCELE

HUYSMANS (Flemish painters) HYDROCEPHALUS

HUYSMANS, JORIS KARL HYDROCHARIDEAE

HUYSUM, JAN VAN HYDROCHLORIC ACID

HWANG HO HYDRODYNAMICS

HWICCE HYDROGEN

HYACINTH (flower) HYDROGRAPHY

HYACINTH (gem-stone) HYDROLYSIS

HYACINTHUS

INITIALS USED IN VOLUME XII. TO IDENTIFY INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTORS,1 WITH THE HEADINGS OF THE ARTICLES IN THIS VOLUME SO SIGNED.

A. Ba. Adolfo Bartoli (1833-1894). Formerly Professor of Literature at the Istituto di studi superiori at Florence. Author of Storia della letteratura Italiana; &c. Italian Literature (in part).

A. Bo.* Auguste Boudinhon, D.D., D.C.L. Professor of Canon Law at the Catholic University of Paris. Honorary Canon of Paris. Editor of the Canoniste contemporain. Index Librorum Prohibitorum; Infallibility.

A. Cy. Arthur Ernest Cowley, M.A., Litt.D. Sub-Librarian of the Bodleian Library, Oxford. Fellow of Magdalen College. Ibn Gabirol; Inscriptions: Semitic.

A. C. G. Albert Charles Lewis Gotthilf Günther, M.A., M.D., Ph.D., F.R.S. Keeper of Zoological Department, British Museum, 1875-1895. Gold Medallist, Royal Society, 1878. Author of Catalogues of Colubrine Snakes, Batrachia Salientia, and Fishes in the British Museum; Reptiles of British India; Fishes of Zanzibar; Reports on the “Challenger” Fishes; &c. Ichthyology (in part).

A. E. G.* Rev. Alfred Ernest Garvie, M.A., D.D. Principal of New College, Hampstead. Member of the Board of Theology and the Board of Philosophy, London University. Author of Studies in the inner Life of Jesus; &c. Immortality; Inspiration.

A. E. H. L. Augustus Edward Hough Love, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. Sedleian Professor of Natural Philosophy in the University of Oxford. Hon. Fellow of Queen’s College, Oxford; formerly Fellow of St John’s College, Cambridge. Secretary to the London Mathematical Society. Infinitesimal Calculus.

A. F. C. Alexander Francis Chamberlain, A.M., Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts. Member of American Antiquarian Society; Hon. Member of American Folk-lore Society. Author of The Child and Childhood in Folk Thought. Indians, North American.

A. G. Major Arthur George Frederick Griffiths (d. 1908). H.M. Inspector of Prisons, 1878-1896. Author of The Chronicles of Newgate; Secrets of the Prison House; &c. Identification.

A. Ge. Sir Archibald Geikie, LL.D. See the biographical article, Geikie, Sir A. Hutton, James.

A. Go.* Rev. Alexander Gordon, M.A. Lecturer on Church History in the University of Manchester. Illuminati.

A. G. G. Sir Alfred George Greenhill, M.A., F.R.S. Formerly Professor of Mathematics in the Ordnance College, Woolwich. Author of Differential and Integral Calculus with Applications; Hydrostatics; Notes on Dynamics; &c. Hydromechanics.

A. H.-S. Sir A. Houtum-Schindler, C.I.E. General in the Persian Army. Author of Eastern Persian Irak. Isfahān (in part).

A. M. C. Agnes Mary Clerke. See the biographical article, Clerke, A. M. Huygens, Christiaan.

A. N. Alfred Newton, F.R.S. See the biographical article, Newton, Alfred. Ibis; Icterus.

A. So. Albrecht Socin, Ph.D. (1844-1899). Formerly Professor of Semitic Philology in the Universities of Leipzig and Tübingen. Author of Arabische Grammatik; &c. Irak-Arabi (in part).

A. S. Wo. Arthur Smith Woodward, LL.D., F.R.S. Keeper of Geology, Natural History Museum, South Kensington. Secretary of the Geological Society, London. Ichthyosaurus; Iguanodon.

A. W. H.* Arthur William Holland. Formerly Scholar of St John’s College, Oxford. Bacon Scholar of Gray’s Inn, 1900. Imperial Cities; Instrument of Government.

A. W. Po. Alfred William Pollard, M.A. Assistant Keeper of Printed Books, British Museum. Fellow of King’s College, London. Hon. Secretary Bibliographical Society. Editor of Books about Books and Bibliographica. Joint-editor of The Library. Chief Editor of the “Globe” Chaucer. Incunabula.

A. W. R. Alexander Wood Renton, M.A., LL.B. Puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Ceylon. Editor of Encyclopaedia of the Laws of England. Inebriety, Law of; Insanity: Law.

C. F. A. Charles Francis Atkinson. Formerly Scholar of Queen’s College, Oxford. Captain, 1st City of London (Royal Fusiliers). Author of The Wilderness and Cold Harbour. Infantry; Italian Wars.

C. G. Colonel Charles Grant. Formerly Inspector of Military Education in India. India: Costume.

C. H. Ha. Carlton Huntley Hayes, A.M., Ph.D. Assistant Professor of History at Columbia University, New York City. Member of the American Historical Association. Innocent V., VIII.

C. Ll. M. Conway Lloyd Morgan, LL.D., F.R.S. Professor of Psychology at the University of Bristol. Principal of University College, Bristol, 1887-1909. Author of Animal Life and Intelligence; Habit and Instinct. Instinct; Intelligence in Animals.

C. R. B. Charles Raymond Beazley, M.A., D.Litt., F.R.G.S., F.R.Hist.S. Professor of Modern History in the University of Birmingham. Formerly Fellow of Merton College, Oxford; and University Lecturer in the History of Geography. Lothian Prizeman, Oxford, 1889. Lowell Lecturer, Boston, 1908. Author of Henry the Navigator; The Dawn of Modern Geography; &c. Ibn Batuta (in part); Idrisi.

C. S.* Carlo Salvioni. Professor of Classical and Romance Languages, University of Milan. Italian Language (in part).

C. T. L. Charlton Thomas Lewis, Ph.D. (1834-1904). Formerly Lecturer on Life Insurance, Harvard and Columbia Universities, and on Principles of Insurance, Cornell University. Author of History of Germany; Essays; Addresses; &c. Insurance (in part).

C. We. Cecil Weatherly. Formerly Scholar of Queen’s College, Oxford. Barrister-at-Law, Inner Temple. Infant Schools.

D. B. Ma. Duncan Black MacDonald, M.A., D.D. Professor of Semitic Languages, Hartford Theological Seminary, U.S.A. Author of Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence and Constitutional Theory; Selection from Ibn Khaldum; Religious Attitude and Life in Islam; &c. Imām.

D. G. H. David George Hogarth, M.A. Keeper of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. Fellow of the British Academy. Excavated at Paphos, 1888; Naucratis, 1899 and 1903; Ephesus, 1904-1905; Assiut, 1906-1907; Director, British School at Athens, 1897-1900; Director, Cretan Exploration Fund, 1899. Ionia (in part); Isauria.

D. H. David Hannay. Formerly British Vice-Consul at Barcelona. Author of Short History of Royal Navy, 1217-1688; Life of Emilio Castelar; &c. Impressment.

D. F. T. Donald Francis Tovey. Author of Essays in Musical Analysis; comprising The Classical Concerto, The Goldberg Variations, and analyses of many other classical works. Instrumentation.

D. S. M. Dugald Sutherland MacColl, M.A., LL.D. Keeper of the National Gallery of British Art (Tate Gallery). Lecturer on the History of Art, University College, London; Fellow of University College, London. Author of Nineteenth Century Art; &c. Impressionism.

E. A. M. Edward Alfred Minchin, M.A., F.Z.S. Professor of Protozoology in the University of London. Formerly Fellow of Merton College, Oxford; and Lecturer on Comparative Anatomy in the University of Oxford. Author of “Sponges and Sporozoa” in Lankester’s Treatise on Zoology; &c. Hydromedusae; Hydrozoa.

E. Br. Ernest Barker, M.A. Fellow and Lecturer in Modern History, St John’s College, Oxford. Formerly Fellow and Tutor of Merton College. Craven Scholar, 1895. Imperial Chamber.

E. Bra. Edwin Bramwell, M.B., F.R.C.P., F.R.S. (Edin.). Assistant Physician, Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh. Hysteria (in part).

E. C. B. Right Rev. Edward Cuthbert Butler, O.S.B., D.Litt. Abbot of Downside Abbey, Bath. Author of “The Lausiac History of Palladius” in Cambridge Texts and Studies. Imitation of Christ.

E. C. Q. Edmund Crosby Quiggin, M.A. Fellow, Lecturer in Modern History, and Monro Lecturer in Celtic, Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. Ireland: Early History.

E. F. S. Edward Fairbrother Strange. Assistant Keeper, Victoria and Albert Museum, South Kensington. Member of Council, Japan Society. Author of numerous works on art subjects. Joint-editor of Bell’s “Cathedral” Series. Illustration: Technical Developments.

E. F. S. D. Lady Dilke. See the biographical article: Dilke, Sir C. W., Bart. Ingres.

E. G. Edmund Gosse, LL.D. See the biographical article, Gosse, Edmund. Huygens, Sir Constantijn; Ibsen; Idyl.

E. Hü. Emil Hübner. See the biographical article, Hübner, Emil. Inscriptions: Latin (in part).

E. H. B. Sir Edward Herbert Bunbury, Bart., M.A., F.R.G.S. (d. 1895). M.P. for Bury St Edmunds, 1847-1852. Author of a History of Ancient Geography; &c. Ionia (in part).

E. H. M. Ellis Hovell Minns, M.A. Lecturer and Assistant Librarian, and formerly Fellow, Pembroke College, Cambridge University Lecturer in Palaeography. Iazyges; Issedones.

E. H. P. Edward Henry Palmer, M.A. See the biographical article, Palmer, E. H. Ibn Khaldun (in part).

E. K. Edmund Knecht, Ph.D., M.Sc.Tech.(Manchester), F.I.C. Professor of Technological Chemistry, Manchester University. Head of Chemical Department, Municipal School of Technology, Manchester. Examiner in Dyeing, City and Guilds of London Institute. Author of A Manual of Dyeing; &c. Editor of Journal of the Society of Dyers and Colourists. Indigo.

E. L. H. The Right Rev. the Bishop of Lincoln (Edward Lee Hicks). Honorary Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. Formerly Canon Residentiary of Manchester. Fellow and Tutor of Corpus Christi College. Author of Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions; &c. Inscriptions: Greek (in part).

Ed. M. Eduard Meyer, Ph.D., D.Litt.(Oxon.), LL.D. Professor of Ancient History in the University of Berlin. Author of Geschichte des Alterthums; Geschichte des alten Aegyptens; Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme. Hystaspes; Iran.

E. M. T. Sir Edward Maunde Thompson, G.C.B., I.S.O., D.C.L., Litt.D., LL.D. Director and Principal Librarian, British Museum, 1898-1909. Sandars Reader in Bibliography, Cambridge, 1895-1896. Hon. Fellow of University College, Oxford. Correspondent of the Institute of France and of the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences. Author of Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography. Editor of Chronicon Angliae. Joint-editor of publications of the Palaeographical Society, the New Palaeographical Society, and of the Facsimile of the Laurentian Sophocles. Illuminated MSS.

E. O.* Edmund Owen, M.B., F.R.C.S., LL.D., D.Sc. Consulting Surgeon to St Mary’s Hospital, London, and to the Children’s Hospital, Great Ormond Street; late Examiner in Surgery at the Universities of Cambridge, Durham and London. Author of A Manual of Anatomy for Senior Students. Hydrocephalus.

F. A. F. Frank Albert Fetter, Ph.D. Professor of Political Economy and Finance, Cornell University. Member of the State Board of Charities. Author of The Principles of Economics; &c. Interstate Commerce.

F. C. C. Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, M.A., D.Th.(Giessen). Fellow of the British Academy. Formerly Fellow of University College, Oxford. Author of The Ancient Armenian Texts of Aristotle; Myth, Magic and Morals; &c. Iconoclasts; Image Worship.

F. G. M. B. Frederick George Meeson Beck, M.A. Fellow and Lecturer in Classics, Clare College, Cambridge. Hwicce.

F. J. H. Francis John Haverfield, M.A., LL.D., F.S.A. Camden Professor of Ancient History in the University of Oxford. Fellow of Brasenose College. Fellow of the British Academy. Formerly Censor, Student, Tutor and Librarian of Christ Church, Oxford. Ford’s Lecturer, 1906-1907. Author of Monographs on Roman History, especially Roman Britain; &c. Icknield Street.

F. Ll. G. Francis Llewellyn Griffith, M.A., Ph.D., F.S.A. Reader in Egyptology, Oxford University. Editor of the Archaeological Survey and Archaeological Reports of the Egypt Exploration Fund. Fellow of Imperial German Archaeological Institute. Hyksos; Isis.

F. P.* Frederick Peterson, M.D., Ph.D. Professor of Psychiatry, Columbia University. President of New York State Commission in Lunacy, 1902-1906. Author of Mental Diseases; &c. Insanity: Hospital Treatment.

F. S. P. Francis Samuel Philbrick, A.M., Ph.D. Formerly Fellow of Nebraska State University, and Scholar and Resident Fellow of Harvard University. Member of American Historical Association. Independence, Declaration of.

F. Wa. Francis Watt, M.A. Barrister-at-Law, Middle Temple. Author of Law’s Lumber Room. Inn and Innkeeper.

F. W. R.* Frederick William Rudler, I.S.O., F.G.S. Curator and Librarian of the Museum of Practical Geology, London, 1879-1902. President of the Geologists’ Association, 1887-1889. Hyacinth; Iolite.

F. Y. P. Frederick York Powell, D.C.L., LL.D. See the biographical article, Powell, Frederick York. Iceland: History, and Ancient Literature.

G. A. B. George A. Boulenger, F.R.S., D.Sc., Ph.D. In charge of the collections of Reptiles and Fishes, Department of Zoology, British Museum. Vice-President of the Zoological Society of London. Ichthyology (in part).

G. A. Gr. George Abraham Grierson, C.I.E., Ph.D., D.Litt.(Dublin). Member of the Indian Civil Service, 1873-1903. In charge of Linguistic Survey of India, 1898-1902. Gold Medallist, Royal Asiatic Society, 1909. Vice-President of the Royal Asiatic Society. Formerly Fellow of Calcutta University. Author of The Languages of India; &c. Indo-Aryan Languages.

G. A. J. C. Grenville Arthur James Cole. Director of the Geological Survey of Ireland. Professor of Geology, Royal College of Science for Ireland, Dublin. Author of Aids in Practical Geology; &c. Ireland: Geology.

G. B. Sir George Christopher Molesworth Birdwood, K.C.I.E. See the biographical article, Birdwood, Sir G. C. M. Incense.

G. F. H.* George Francis Hill, M.A. Assistant in Department of Coins and Medals, British Museum. Author of Sources for Greek History 478-431 B.C.; Handbook of Greek and Roman Coins; &c. Inscriptions: Greek (in part).

G. G. Co. George Gordon Coulton, M.A. Birkbeck Lecturer in Ecclesiastical History, Trinity College, Cambridge. Author of Medieval Studies; Chaucer and his England; &c. Indulgence.

G. H. C. George Herbert Carpenter, B.Sc. (Lond.). Professor of Zoology in the Royal College of Science, Dublin. Author of Insects: their Structure and Life. Hymenoptera; Ichneumon-Fly; Insect.

G. I. A. Graziadio I. Ascoli. Senator of the Kingdom of Italy. Professor of Comparative Grammar at the University of Milan. Author of Codice Islandese; &c. Italian Language (in part).

G. J. George Jamieson, C.M.G., M.A. Formerly Consul-General at Shanghai, and Consul and Judge of the Supreme Court, Shanghai. Hwang Ho.

G. K. Gustav Krüger, Ph.D. Professor of Church History in the University of Giessen. Author of Das Papstthum; &c. Irenaeus.

G. P. M. George Percival Mudge, A.R.C.S., F.Z.S. Lecturer on Biology, London Hospital Medical College, and London School of Medicine for Women, University of London. Author of A Text Book of Zoology; &c. Incubation and Incubators.

G. W. K. Very Rev. George William Kitchin, M.A., D.D., F.S.A. Dean of Durham, and Warden of the University of Durham. Hon. Student of Christ Church, Oxford. Fellow of King’s College, London. Dean of Winchester, 1883-1894. Author of A History of France; &c. Hutten, Ulrich von.

G. W. T. Rev. Griffithes Wheeler Thatcher, M.A., B.D. Warden of Camden College, Sydney, N.S.W. Formerly Tutor in Hebrew and Old Testament History at Mansfield College, Oxford. Author of a Commentary on Judges; An Arabic Grammar; &c. Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi; Ibn ‘Arabi; Ibn Athīr; Ibn Duraid; Ibn Faradī; Ibn Fārid; Ibn Hazm; Ibn Hisham; Ibn Isḥaq; Ibn Jubair; Ibn Khaldūn (in part); Ibn Khallikān; Ibn Qutaiba; Ibn Ṣa‘d; Ibn Ṭufail; Ibn Usaibi‘a; Ibrahīm Al-Mauṣilī.

H. Ch. Hugh Chisholm, M.A. Formerly Scholar of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. Editor the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica; Co-editor of the 10th edition. Iron Mask; Ismail.

H. C. R. Sir Henry Creswicke Rawlinson, Bart., K.C.B. See the biographical article, Rawlinson, Sir Henry Creswicke. Isfahan: History.

H. L. H. Harriet L. Hennessy, M.D., (Brux.) L.R.C.P.I., L.R.C.S.I. Infancy; Intestinal Obstruction.

H. M. H. Henry Marion Howe, A.M., LL.D. Professor of Metallurgy, Columbia University. Author of Metallurgy of Steel; &c. Iron and Steel.

H. N. D. Henry Newton Dickson, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.G.S. Professor of Geography, University College, Reading. Author of Elementary Meteorology; Papers on Oceanography; &c. Indian Ocean.

H. O. Hermann Oelsner, M.A., Ph.D. Taylorian Professor of the Romance Languages in University of Oxford. Member of Council of the Philological Society. Author of A History of Provencal Literature; &c. Italian Literature (in part).

H. St. Henry Sturt, M.A. Author of Idola Theatri; The Idea of a Free Church; and Personal Idealism. Induction.

H. T. A. Rev. Herbert Thomas Andrews. Professor of New Testament Exegesis, New College, London. Author of the “Commentary on Acts” in the Westminster New Testament; Handbook on the Apocryphal Books in the “Century Bible.” Ignatius.

H. Y. Sir Henry Yule, K.C.S.I., C.B. See the biographical article, Yule, Sir Henry. Ibn Batuta (in part).

I. A. Israel Abrahams, M.A. Reader in Talmudic and Rabbinic Literature in the University of Cambridge. Formerly President, Jewish Historical Society in England. Author of A Short History of Jewish Literature; Jewish Life in the Middle Ages; &c. Ibn Tibbon; Immanuel Ben Solomon.

J. A. F. John Ambrose Fleming, M.A., F.R.S., D.Sc. Pender Professor of Electrical Engineering in the University of London. Fellow of University College, London. Formerly Fellow of St John’s College, Cambridge, and Lecturer on Applied Mechanics in the University. Author of Magnets and Electric Currents. Induction Coil.

J. Bs. James Burgess, C.I.E., LL.D., F.R.S.(Edin.), F.R.G.S., Hon.A.R.I.B.A. Formerly Director General of Archaeological Survey of India. Author of Archaeological Survey of Western India. Editor of Fergusson’s History of Indian Architecture. Indian Architecture.

J. B. T. Sir John Batty Tuke, Kt., M.D., F.R.S.(Edin.), D.Sc., LL.D. President of the Neurological Society of the United Kingdom. Medical Director of New Saughton Hall Asylum, Edinburgh. M.P. for the Universities of Edinburgh and St Andrews, 1900-1910. Hysteria (in part); Insanity: Medical.

J. C. H. Right Rev. John Cuthbert Hedley, O.S.B., D.D. R.C. Bishop of Newport. Author of The Holy Eucharist; &c. Immaculate Conception.

J. C. Van D. John Charles Van Dyke. Professor of the History of Art, Rutgers College, New Brunswick, N.J. Formerly Editor of The Studio and Art Review. Author of Art for Art’s Sake; History of Painting; Old English Masters; &c. Inness, George.

J. C. W. James Claude Webster. Barrister-at-Law, Middle Temple. Inns of Court.

J. D. B. James David Bourchier, M.A., F.R.G.S. King’s College, Cambridge. Correspondent of The Times in South-Eastern Europe. Commander of the Orders of Prince Danilo of Montenegro and of the Saviour of Greece, and Officer of the Order of St Alexander of Bulgaria. Ionian Islands.

J. F. F. John Faithfull Fleet, C.I.E., Ph.D. Commissioner of Central and Southern Divisions of Bombay, 1891-1897. Author of Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings; &c. Inscriptions: Indian.

J. F.-K. James Fitzmaurice-Kelly, Litt.D., F.R.Hist.S. Gilmour Professor of Spanish Language and Literature, Liverpool University. Norman McColl Lecturer, Cambridge University. Fellow of the British Academy. Member of the Royal Spanish Academy. Knight Commander of the Order of Alphonso XII. Author of A History of Spanish Literature; &c. Isla, J. F. de.

J. G. K. John Graham Kerr, M.A., F.R.S. Regius Professor of Zoology in the University of Glasgow. Formerly Demonstrator in Animal Morphology in the University of Cambridge. Fellow of Christ’s College, Cambridge, 1898-1904. Walsingham Medallist, 1898. Neill Prizeman, Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1904. Ichthyology (in part).

J. G. Sc. Sir James George Scott, K.C.I.E. Superintendent and Political Officer, Southern Shan States. Author of Burma, a Handbook; The Upper Burma Gazetteer; &c. Irrawaddy.

J. H. A. H. John Henry Arthur Hart, M.A. Fellow, Theological Lecturer and Librarian, St John’s College, Cambridge. Hyrcanus.

J. H. Mu. John Henry Muirhead, M.A., LL.D. Professor of Philosophy in the University of Birmingham. Author of Elements of Ethics; Philosophy and Life; &c. Editor of Library of Philosophy. Idealism.

J. H. Be. Very Rev. John Henry Bernard, M.A., D.D., D.C.L. Dean of St Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin. Archbishop King’s Professor of Divinity and formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin. Joint-editor of the Irish Liber Hymnorum; &c. Ireland, Church of.

J. H. van’t H. Jacobus Henricus van’t Hoff, LL.D., D.Sc., D.M. See the biographical article van’t Hoff, Jacobus Henricus. Isomerism.

J. L. M. John Lynton Myres, M.A., F.S.A., F.R.G.S. Wykeham Professor of Ancient History in the University of Oxford. Formerly Gladstone Professor of Greek and Lecturer in Ancient Geography, University of Liverpool. Lecturer in Classical Archaeology in University of Oxford. Iberians; Ionians.

J. Mn. John Macpherson, M.D. Formerly Inspector-General of Hospitals, Bengal. Insanity: Medical (in part).

J. M. A. de L. Jean Marie Antoine de Lanessan. See the biographical article, Lanessan, J. M. A. de. Indo-China, French (in part).

J. M. M. John Malcolm Mitchell. Sometime Scholar of Queen’s College, Oxford. Lecturer in Classics, East London College (University of London). Joint-editor of Grote’s History of Greece. Hyacinthus.

J. P. E. Jean Paul Hippolyte Emmanuel Adhémar Esmein. Professor of Law in the University of Paris. Officer of the Legion of Honour. Member of the Institute of France. Author of Cours élémentaire d’histoire du droit français; &c. Intendant.

J. P. Pe. Rev. John Punnett Peters, Ph.D., D.D. Canon Residentiary, Cathedral of New York. Formerly Professor of Hebrew in the University of Pennsylvania. Director of the University Expedition to Babylonia, 1888-1895. Author of Nippur, or Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates. Irak-Arabi (in part).

J. S. Bl. John Sutherland Black, M.A., LL.D. Assistant Editor of the 9th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Joint-editor of the Encyclopaedia Biblica. Huss, John.

J. S. Co. James Sutherland Cotton, M.A. Editor of the Imperial Gazetteer of India. Hon. Secretary of the Egyptian Exploration Fund. Formerly Fellow and Lecturer of Queen’s College, Oxford. Author of India; &c. India: Geography and Statistics (in part); History (in part); Indore.

J. S. F. John Smith Flett, D.Sc., F.G.S. Petrographer to the Geological Survey. Formerly Lecturer on Petrology in Edinburgh University. Neill Medallist of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Bigsby Medallist of the Geological Society of London. Itacolumite.

J. T. Be. John Thomas Bealby. Joint-author of Stanford’s Europe. Formerly Editor of the Scottish Geographical Magazine. Translator of Sven Hedin’s Through Asia, Central Asia and Tibet; &c. Irkutsk (in part).

J. V.* Jules Viard. Archivist at the National Archives, Paris. Officer of Public Instruction. Author of La France sous Philippe VI. de Valois; &c. Isabella of Bavaria.

Jno. W. John Westlake, K.C., LL.D. Professor of International Law, Cambridge, 1888-1908. One of the Members for the United Kingdom of International Court of Arbitration under the Hague Convention, 1900-1906. Bencher of Lincoln’s Inn. Author of A Treatise on Private International Law, or the Conflict of Laws: Chapters on the Principles of International Law, pt. i. “Peace,” pt. ii. “War.” International Law: Private.

L. Count Lützow, Litt.D. (Oxon.), Ph.D. (Prague), F.R.G.S. Chamberlain of H.M. the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia. Hon. Member of the Royal Society of Literature. Member of the Bohemian Academy; &c. Author of Bohemia, a Historical Sketch; The Historians of Bohemia (Ilchester Lecture, Oxford, 1904); The Life and Times of John Hus; &c. Hussites.

L. C. B. Lewis Campbell Bruce, M.D., F.R.C.P. Author of Studies in Clinical Psychiatry. Insanity: Medical (in part).

L. Ho. Laurence Housman. See the biographical article, Housman, L. Illustration (in part).

L. J. S. Leonard James Spencer, M.A. Assistant in Department of Mineralogy, British Museum. Formerly Scholar of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, and Harkness Scholar. Editor of the Mineralogical Magazine. Hypersthene; Ilmenite.

L. T. D. Sir Lewis Tonna Dibdin, M.A., D.C.L., F.S.A. Dean of the Arches; Master of the Faculties; and First Church Estates Commissioner. Bencher of Lincoln’s Inn. Author of Monasticism in England; &c. Incense: Ritual Use.

M. Ha. Marcus Hartog, M.A., D.Sc., F.L.S. Professor of Zoology, University College, Cork. Author of “Protozoa” in Cambridge Natural History; and papers for various scientific journals. Infusoria.

M. Ja. Morris Jastrow, Jun., Ph.D. Professor of Semitic Languages, University of Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Author of Religion of the Babylonians and Assyrians; &c. Ishtar.

M. O. B. C. Maximilian Otto Bismarck Caspari, M.A. Reader in Ancient History at London University. Lecturer in Greek at Birmingham University, 1905-1908. Irene (752-803).

N. M. Norman McLean, M.A. Fellow, Lecturer and Librarian of Christ’s College, Cambridge. University Lecturer in Aramaic. Examiner for the Oriental Languages Tripos and the Theological Tripos at Cambridge. Isaac of Antioch.

O. J. R. H. Osbert John Radcliffe Howarth, M.A. Christ Church, Oxford. Geographical Scholar, 1901. Assistant Secretary of the British Association. Ireland: Geography.

P. A. Paul Daniel Alphandéry. Professor of the History of Dogma, École pratique des hautes études, Sorbonne, Paris. Author of Les Idées morales chez les hétérodoxes latines au début du XIIIe. siècle. Inquisition.

P. A. K. Prince Peter Alexeivitch Kropotkin. See the biographical article, Kropotkin, Prince P. A. Irkutsk (in part).

P. C. M. Peter Chalmers Mitchell, M.A., F.R.S., F.Z.S., D.Sc., LL.D. Secretary to the Zoological Society of London. University Demonstrator in Comparative Anatomy and Assistant to Linacre Professor at Oxford, 1888-1891. Examiner in Zoology to the University of London, 1903. Author of Outlines of Biology; &c. Hybridism.

P. Gi. Peter Giles, M.A., LL.D., Litt.D. Fellow and Classical Lecturer of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and University Reader in Comparative Philology. Formerly Secretary of the Cambridge Philological Society. Author of Manual of Comparative Philology; &c. I; Indo-European Languages.

P. Sm. Preserved Smith, Ph.D. Rufus B. Kellogg Fellow, Amherst College, Amherst, Mass. Innocent I., II.

R. The Right Hon. Lord Rayleigh. See the biographical article, Rayleigh, 3rd Baron. Interference of Light.

R. A. S. M. Robert Alexander Stewart Macalister, M.A., F.S.A. St John’s College, Cambridge. Director of Excavations for the Palestine Exploration Fund. Idumaea.

R. Ba. Richard Bagwell, M.A., LL.D. Commissioner of National Education for Ireland. Author of Ireland under the Tudors; Ireland under the Stuarts. Ireland: Modern History.

R. C. J. Sir Richard Claverhouse Jebb, D.C.L., LL.D. See the biographical article, Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse. Isaeus; Isocrates.

R. G. Richard Garnett. LL.D. See the biographical article, Garnett, Richard. Irving, Washington.

R. H. C. Rev. Robert Henry Charles, M.A., D.D., D.Litt. Grinfield Lecturer, and Lecturer in Biblical Studies, Oxford. Fellow of the British Academy. Formerly Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin. Author of Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life; Book of Jubilees; &c. Isaiah, Ascension of.

R. L.* Richard Lydekker, F.R.S., F.Z.S., F.G.S. Member of the Staff of the Geological Survey of India 1874-1882. Author of Catalogues of Fossil Mammals, Reptiles and Birds in the British Museum; The Deer of all Lands; &c. Hyracoidea; Ibex (in part); Indri; Insectivora.

R. P. S. R. Phené Spiers, F.S.A., F.R.I.B.A. Formerly Master of the Architectural School, Royal Academy, London. Past President of Architectural Association. Associate and Fellow of King’s College, London. Corresponding Member of the Institute of France. Editor of Fergusson’s History of Architecture. Author of Architecture; East and West; &c. Hypaethros.

R. S. C. Robert Seymour Conway, M.A., D.Litt.(Cantab.). Professor of Latin and Indo-European Philology in the University of Manchester. Formerly Professor of Latin in University College, Cardiff; and Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. Author of The Italic Dialects. Iguvium; Iovilae.

S. The Right Hon. the Earl of Selborne. See the biographical article, Selborne, 1st Earl of. Hymns.

R. Tr. Roland Truslove, M.A. Formerly Scholar of Christ Church, Oxford. Dean, Fellow and Lecturer in Classics at Worcester College, Oxford. Indo-China, French (in part).

S. A. C. Stanley Arthur Cook, M.A. Lecturer in Hebrew and Syriac, and formerly Fellow, Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. Editor for Palestine Exploration Fund. Author of Glossary of Aramaic Inscriptions; The Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi; Critical Notes on Old Testament History; Religion of Ancient Palestine; &c. Ishmael.

S. Bl. Sigfus Blöndal. Librarian of the University of Copenhagen. Iceland: Recent Literature.

T. As. Thomas Ashby, M.A., D.Litt. (Oxon.). Director of British School of Archaeology at Rome. Formerly Scholar of Christ Church, Oxford. Craven Fellow, 1897. Conington Prizeman, 1906. Member of the Imperial German Archaeological Institute. Interamna Lirenas; Ischia.

T. A. I. Thomas Allan Ingram, M.A., LL.D. Trinity College, Dublin. Illegitimacy; Insurance (in part).

T. Ba. Sir Thomas Barclay, M.P. Member of the Institute of International Law. Member of the Supreme Council of the Congo Free State. Officer of the Legion of Honour. Author of Problems of International Practice and Diplomacy; &c. M.P. for Blackburn, 1910. Immunity; International Law.

T. F. Rev. Thomas Fowler, M.A., D.D., LL.D. (1832-1904). President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, 1881-1904. Honorary Fellow of Lincoln College. Professor of Logic, 1873-1888. Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford, 1899-1901. Author of Elements of Deductive Logic; Elements of Inductive Logic; Locke (“English Men of Letters”); Shaftesbury and Hutcheson (“English Philosophers”); &c. Hutcheson, Francis (in part).

T. F. C. Theodore Freylinghuysen Collier, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of History, Williams College, Williamstown, Mass., U.S.A. Innocent IX.-XIII.

T. H. H.* Colonel Sir Thomas Hungerford Holdich, K.C.M.G., K.C.I.E., Hon.D.Sc. Superintendent, Frontier Surveys, India, 1892-1898. Gold Medallist, R.G.S., London, 1887. Author of The Indian Borderland; The Countries of the King’s Award; India; Tibet; &c. Indus.

T. K. C. Rev. Thomas Kelly Cheyne, D.D. See the biographical article, Cheyne, T. K. Isaiah.

Th. T. Thorvaldur Thoroddsen. Icelandic Expert and Explorer. Honorary Professor in the University of Copenhagen. Author of History of Icelandic Geography; Geological Map of Iceland; &c. Iceland: Geography and Statistics.

W. A. B. C. Rev. William Augustus Brevoort Coolidge, M.A., F.R.G.S., Ph.D.(Bern). Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. Professor of English History, St David’s College, Lampeter, 1880-1881. Author of Guide du Haut Dauphiné; The Range of the Tödi; Guide to Grindelwald; Guide to Switzerland; The Alps in Nature and in History; &c. Editor of The Alpine Journal, 1880-1881; &c. Hyères; Innsbruck; Interlaken; Iseo, Lake of; Isère (River); Isère (Department).

W. A. P. Walter Alison Phillips, M.A. Formerly Exhibitioner of Merton College and Senior Scholar of St John’s College, Oxford. Author of Modern Europe; &c. Innocent III., IV.

W. C. U. William Cawthorne Unwin, LL.D., F.R.S., M.Inst.C.E., M.Inst.M.E., A.R.I.B.A. Emeritus Professor, Central Technical College, City and Guilds of London Institute. Author of Wrought Iron Bridges and Roofs; Treatise on Hydraulics; &c. Hydraulics.

W. F. C. William Feilden Craies, M.A. Barrister-at-Law, Inner Temple. Lecturer on Criminal Law, King’s College, London. Editor of Archbold’s Criminal Pleading (23rd edition). Indictment.

W. F. Sh. William Fleetwood Sheppard, M.A. Senior Examiner in the Board of Education, London. Formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Senior Wrangler, 1884. Interpolation.

W. G. William Garnett, M.A., D.C.L. Educational Adviser to the London County Council. Formerly Fellow and Lecturer of St John’s College, Cambridge. Principal and Professor of Mathematics, Durham College of Science, Newcastle-on-Tyne. Author of Elementary Dynamics; &c. Hydrometer.

W. Go. William Gow, M.A., Ph.D. Secretary of the British and Foreign Marine Insurance Co. Ltd., Liverpool. Lecturer on Marine Insurance at University College, Liverpool. Author of Marine Insurance; &c. Insurance: Marine.

W. H. F. Sir William Henry Flower, F.R.S. See the biographical article, Flower, Sir W. H. Ibex (in part).

W. H. Po. W. Haldane Porter. Barrister-at-Law, Middle Temple. Ireland: Statistics and Administration.

W. Ma. Sir William Markby, K.C.I.E. See the biographical article, Markby, Sir William. Indian Law.

W. McD. William McDougall, M.A. Wilde Reader in Mental Philosophy in the University of Oxford. Formerly Fellow of St John’s College, Cambridge. Hypnotism.

W. M. L. Wallace Martin Lindsay, M.A., Litt.D., LL.D. Professor of Humanity, University of St Andrews. Fellow of the British Academy. Formerly Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford. Author of Handbook of Latin Inscriptions; The Latin Language; &c. Inscriptions; Latin (in part).

W. M. Ra. Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, Litt.D., D.C.L. See the biographical article, Ramsay, Sir W. Mitchell. Iconium.

W. R. So. William Ritchie Sorley, M.A., Litt.D., LL.D. Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Cambridge. Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge. Fellow of the British Academy. Formerly Fellow of Trinity College. Author of The Ethics of Naturalism; The Interpretation of Evolution; &c. Iamblichus.

W. T. T.-D. Sir William Turner Thiselton-Dyer, F.R.S., K.C.M.G., C.I.E., D.Sc., LL.D., Ph.D., F.L.S. Hon. Student of Christ Church, Oxford. Director, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 1885-1905. Botanical Adviser to Secretary of State for Colonies, 1902-1906. Joint-author of Flora of Middlesex. Editor of Flora Capenses and Flora of Tropical Africa. Huxley.

W. Wn. William Watson, D.Sc., F.R.S., A.R.C.S. Assistant Professor of Physics, Royal College of Science, London. Vice-President of the Physical Society. Author of A Text Book of Practical Physics; &c. Inclinometer.

W. W. H. Sir William Wilson Hunter. See the biographical article. Hunter, Sir William Wilson. India: History (in part); Geography and Statistics (in part).

1 A complete list, showing all individual contributors, appears in the final volume.

PRINCIPAL UNSIGNED ARTICLES

Husband and Wife. Hyacinth. Hyderabad. Hydrogen. Hydropathy. Hydrophobia. Ice. Ice-Yachting. Idaho. Illinois. Illumination. Illyria. Image. Impeachment. Income Tax. Indiana. Indian Mutiny. Indicator. Infant. Infanticide. Infinite. Influenza. Inheritance. Injunction. Ink. Inkerman. International, The. Intestacy. Inverness-shire. Investiture. Iodine. Iowa. Ipecacuanha. Iris. Iron. Irrigation.

HUSBAND, properly the “head of a household,” but now chiefly used in the sense of a man legally joined by marriage to a woman, his “wife”; the legal relations between them are treated below under Husband and Wife. The word appears in O. Eng. as húsbonda, answering to the Old Norwegian húsbóndi, and means the owner or freeholder of a hus, or house. The last part of the word still survives in “bondage” and “bondman,” and is derived from bua, to dwell, which, like Lat. colere, means also to till or cultivate, and to have a household. “Wife,” in O. Eng. wif, appears in all Teutonic languages except Gothic; cf. Ger. Weib, Dutch wijf, &c., and meant originally simply a female, “woman” itself being derived from wifman, the pronunciation of the plural wimmen still preserving the original i. Many derivations of “wife” have been given; thus it has been connected with the root of “weave,” with the Gothic waibjan, to fold or wrap up, referring to the entangling clothes worn by a woman, and also with the root of vibrare, to tremble. These are all merely guesses, and the ultimate history of the word is lost. It does not appear outside Teutonic languages. Parallel to “husband” is “housewife,” the woman managing a household. The earlier húswif was pronounced hussif, and this pronunciation survives in the application of the word to a small case containing scissors, needles and pins, cottons, &c. From this form also derives “hussy,” now only used in a depreciatory sense of a light, impertinent girl. Beyond the meaning of a husband as a married man, the word appears in connexion with agriculture, in “husbandry” and “husbandman.” According to some authorities “husbandman” meant originally in the north of England a holder of a “husbandland,” a manorial tenant who held two ox-gangs or virgates, and ranked next below the yeoman (see J. C. Atkinson in Notes and Queries, 6th series, vol. xii., and E. Bateson, History of Northumberland, ii., 1893). From the idea of the manager of a household, “husband” was in use transferred to the manager of an estate, and the title was held by certain officials, especially in the great trading companies. Thus the “husband” of the East India Company looked after the interests of the company at the custom-house. The word in this sense is practically obsolete, but it still appears in “ship’s husband,” an agent of the owners of a ship who looks to the proper equipping of the vessel, and her repairs, procures and adjusts freights, keeps the accounts, makes charter-parties and acts generally as manager of the ship’s employment. Where such an agent is himself one of the owners of the vessel, the name of “managing owner” is used. The “ship’s husband” or “managing owner” must register his name and address at the port of registry (Merchant Shipping Act 1894, § 59). From the use of “husband” for a good and thrifty manager of a household, the verb “to husband” means to economize, to lay up a store, to save.

HUSBAND AND WIFE, Law relating to. For the modes in which the relation of husband and wife may be constituted and dissolved, see Marriage and Divorce. The present article will deal only with the effect of marriage on the legal position of the spouses. The person chiefly affected is the wife, who probably in all political systems becomes subject, in consequence of marriage, to some kind of disability. The most favourable system scarcely leaves her as free as an unmarried woman; and the most unfavourable subjects her absolutely to the authority of her husband. In modern times the effect of marriage on property is perhaps the most important of its consequences, and on this point the laws of different states show wide diversity of principles.

The history of Roman law exhibits a transition from an extreme theory to its opposite. The position of the wife in the earliest Roman household was regulated by the law of Manus. She fell under the “hand” of her husband,—became one of his family, along with his sons and daughters, natural or adopted, and his slaves. The dominion which, so far as the children was concerned, was known as the patria potestas, was, with reference to the wife, called the manus. The subject members of the family, whether wife or children, had, broadly speaking, no rights of their own. If this institution implied the complete subjection of the wife to the husband, it also implied a much closer bond of union between them than we find in the later Roman law. The wife on her husband’s death succeeded, like the children, to freedom and a share of the inheritance. Manus, however, was not essential to a legal marriage; its restraints were irksome and unpopular, and in course of time it ceased to exist, leaving no equivalent protection of the stability of family life. The later Roman marriage left the spouses comparatively independent of each other. The distance between the two modes of marriage may be estimated by the fact that, while under the former the wife was one of the husband’s immediate heirs, under the latter she was called to the inheritance only after his kith and kin had been exhausted, and only in preference to the treasury. It seems doubtful how far she had, during the continuance of marriage, a legal right to enforce aliment from her husband, although if he neglected her she had the unsatisfactory remedy of an easy divorce. The law, in fact, preferred to leave the parties to arrange their mutual rights and obligations by private contracts. Hence the importance of the law of settlements (Dotes). The Dos and the Donatio ante nuptias were settlements by or on behalf of the husband or wife, during the continuance of the marriage, and the law seems to have looked with some jealousy on gifts made by one to the other in any less formal way, as possibly tainted with undue influence. During the marriage the husband had the administration of the property.

The manus of the Roman law appears to be only one instance of an institution common to all primitive societies. On the continent of Europe after many centuries, during which local usages were brought under the influence of principles derived from the Roman law, a theory of marriage became established, the leading feature of which is the community of goods between husband and wife. Describing the principle as it prevails in France, Story (Conflict of Laws, § 130) says: “This community or nuptial partnership (in the absence of any special contract) generally extends to all the movable property of the husband and wife, and to the fruits, income and revenue thereof.... It extends also to all immovable property of the husband and wife acquired during the marriage, but not to such immovable property as either possessed at the time of the marriage, or which came to them afterwards by title of succession or by gift. The property thus acquired by this nuptial partnership is liable to the debts of the parties existing at the time of the marriage; to the debts contracted by the husband during the community, or by the wife during the community with the consent of the husband; and to debts contracted for the maintenance of the family.... The husband alone is entitled to administer the property of the community, and he may alien, sell or mortgage it without the concurrence of the wife.” But he cannot dispose by will of more than his share of the common property, nor can he part with it gratuitously inter vivos. The community is dissolved by death (natural or civil), divorce, separation of body or separation of property. On separation of body or of property the wife is entitled to the full control of her movable property, but cannot alien her immovable property, without her husband’s consent or legal authority. On the death of either party the property is divided in equal moieties between the survivor and the heirs of the deceased.

Law of England.—The English common law as usual followed its own course in dealing with this subject, and in no department were its rules more entirely insular and independent. The text writers all assumed two fundamental principles, which between them established a system of rights totally unlike that just described. Husband and wife were said to be one person in the eye of the law—unica persona, quia caro una et sanguis unus. Hence a man could not grant or give anything to his wife, because she was himself, and if there were any compacts between them before marriage they were dissolved by the union of persons. Hence, too, the old rule of law, now greatly modified, that husband and wife could not be allowed to give evidence against each other, in any trial, civil or criminal. The unity, however, was one-sided only; it was the wife who was merged in the husband, not the husband in the wife. And when the theory did not apply, the disabilities of “coverture” suspended the active exercise of the wife’s legal faculties. The old technical phraseology described husband and wife as baron and feme; the rights of the husband were baronial rights. From one point of view the wife was merged in the husband, from another she was as one of his vassals. A curious example is the immunity of the wife in certain cases from punishment for crime committed in the presence and on the presumed coercion of the husband. “So great a favourite,” says Blackstone, “is the female sex of the laws of England.”

The application of these principles with reference to the property of the wife, and her capacity to contract, may now be briefly traced.

The freehold property of the wife became vested in the husband and herself during the coverture, and he had the management and the profits. If the wife had been in actual possession at any time during the marriage of an estate of inheritance, and if there had been a child of the marriage capable of inheriting, then the husband became entitled on his wife’s death to hold the estate for his own life as tenant by the curtesy of England (curialitas).1 Beyond this, however, the husband’s rights did not extend, and the wife’s heir at last succeeded to the inheritance. The wife could not part with her real estate without the concurrence of the husband; and even so she must be examined apart from her husband, to ascertain whether she freely and voluntarily consented to the deed.

With regard to personal property, it passed absolutely at common law to the husband. Specific things in the possession of the wife (choses in possession) became the property of the husband at once; things not in possession, but due and recoverable from others (choses in action), might be recovered by the husband. A chose in action not reduced into actual possession, when the marriage was dissolved by death, reverted to the wife if she was the survivor; if the husband survived he could obtain possession by taking out letters of administration. A chose in action was to be distinguished from a specific thing which, although the property of the wife, was for the time being in the hands of another. In the latter case the property was in the wife, and passed at once to the husband; in the former the wife had a mere jus in personam, which the husband might enforce if he chose, but which was still capable of reverting to the wife if the husband died without enforcing it.

The chattels real of the wife (i.e., personal property, dependent on, and partaking of, the nature of realty, such as leaseholds) passed to the husband, subject to the wife’s right of survivorship, unless barred by the husband by some act done during his life. A disposition by will did not bar the wife’s interest; but any disposition inter vivos by the husband was valid and effective.

The courts of equity, however, greatly modified the rules of the common law by the introduction of the wife’s separate estate, i.e. property settled to the wife for her separate use, independently of her husband. The principle seems to have been originally admitted in a case of actual separation, when a fund was given for the maintenance of the wife while living apart from her husband. And the conditions under which separate estate might be enjoyed had taken the Court of Chancery many generations to develop. No particular form of words was necessary to create a separate estate, and the intervention of trustees, though common, was not necessary. A clear intention to deprive the husband of his common law rights was sufficient to do so. In such a case a married woman was entitled to deal with her property as if she was unmarried, although the earlier decisions were in favour of requiring her binding engagements to be in writing or under seal. But it was afterwards held that any engagements, clearly made with reference to the separate estate, would bind that estate, exactly as if the woman had been a feme sole. Connected with the doctrine of separate use was the equitable contrivance of restraint on anticipation with which later legislation has not interfered, whereby property might be so settled to the separate use of a married woman that she could not, during coverture, alienate it or anticipate the income. No such restraint is recognized in the ease of a man or of a feme sole, and it depends entirely on the separate estate; and the separate estate has its existence only during coverture, so that a woman to whom such an estate is given may dispose of it so long as she is unmarried, but becomes bound by the restraint as soon as she is married. In yet another way the court of Chancery interfered to protect the interests of married women. When a husband sought the aid of that court to get possession of his wife’s choses in action, he was required to make a provision for her and her children out of the fund sought to be recovered. This is called the wife’s equity to a settlement, and is said to be based on the original maxim of Chancery jurisprudence, that “he who seeks equity must do equity.” Two other property interests of minor importance are recognised. The wife’s pin-money is a provision for the purchase of clothes and ornaments suitable to her husband’s station, but it is not an absolute gift to the separate use of the wife; and a wife surviving her husband cannot claim for more than one year’s arrears of pin-money. Paraphernalia are jewels and other ornaments given to the wife by her husband for the purpose of being worn by her, but not as her separate property. The husband may dispose of them by act inter vivos but not by will, unless the will confers other benefits on the wife, in which case she must elect between the will and the paraphernalia. She may also on the death of the husband claim paraphernalia, provided all creditors have been satisfied, her right being superior to that of any legatee.

The corresponding interest of the wife in the property of the husband is much more meagre and illusory. Besides a general right to maintenance at her husband’s expense, she has at common law a right to dower (q.v.) in her husband’s lands, and to a pars rationabilis (third) of his personal estate, if he dies intestate. The former, which originally was a solid provision for widows, has by the ingenuity of conveyancers, as well as by positive enactment, been reduced to very slender dimensions. It may be destroyed by a mere declaration to that effect on the part of the husband, as well as by his conveyance of the land or by his will.

The common practice of regulating the rights of husband, wife and children by marriage settlements obviates the hardships of the common law—at least for the women of the wealthier classes. The legislature by the Married Women’s Property Acts of 1870, 1874, 1882 (which repealed and consolidated the acts of 1870 and 1874), 1893 and 1907 introduced very considerable changes. The chief provisions of the Married Women’s Property Act 1882, which enormously improved the position of women unprotected by marriage settlement, are, shortly, that a married woman is capable of acquiring, holding and disposing of by will or otherwise, any real and personal property, in the same manner as if she were a feme sole, without the intervention of any trustee. The property of a woman married after the beginning of the act, whether belonging to her at the time of marriage or acquired after marriage, is held by her as a feme sole. The same is the case with property acquired after the beginning of the act by a woman married before the act. After marriage a woman remains liable for antenuptial debts and liabilities, and as between her and her husband, in the absence of contract to the contrary, her separate property is deemed primarily liable. The husband is only liable to the extent of property acquired from or through his wife. The act also contained provisions as to stock, investment, insurance, evidence and other matters. The effect of the act was to render obsolete the law as to what created a separate use or a reduction into possession of choses in action, as to equity to a settlement, as to fraud on the husband’s marital rights, and as to the inability of one of two married persons to give a gift to the other. Also, in the case of a gift to a husband and wife in terms which would make them joint tenants if unmarried, they no longer take as one person but as two. The act contained a special saving of existing and future settlements; a settlement being still necessary where it is desired to secure only the enjoyment of the income to the wife and to provide for children. The act by itself would enable the wife, without regard to family claims, instantly to part with the whole of any property which might come to her. Restraint on anticipation was preserved by the act, subject to the liability of such property for antenuptial debts, and to the power given by the Conveyancing Act 1881 to bind a married woman’s interest notwithstanding a clause of restraint. The Married Women’s Property Act of 1893 repealed two clauses in the act of 1882, the exact bearing of which had been a matter of controversy. It provided specifically that every contract thereinafter entered into by a married woman, otherwise than as an agent, should be deemed to be a contract entered into by her with respect to and be binding upon her separate property, whether she was or was not in fact possessed of or entitled to any separate property at the time when she entered into such contract, that it should bind all separate property which she might at any time or thereafter be possessed of or entitled to, and that it should be enforceable by process of law against all property which she might thereafter, while discovert, be possessed of or entitled to. The act of 1907 enabled a married woman, without her husband, to dispose of or join in disposing of, real or personal property held by her solely or jointly as trustee or personal representative, in like manner as if she were a feme sole. It also provided that a settlement or agreement for settlement whether before or after marriage, respecting the property of the woman, should not be valid unless executed by her if she was of full age or confirmed by her after she attained full age. The Married Women’s Property Act 1908 removed a curious anomaly by enacting that a married woman having separate property should be equally liable with single women and widows for the maintenance of parents who are in receipt of poor relief.

The British colonies generally have adopted the principles of the English acts of 1882 and 1893.

Law of Scotland.—The law of Scotland differs less from English law than the use of a very different terminology would lead us to suppose. The phrase communio bonorum has been employed to express the interest which the spouses have in the movable property of both, but its use has been severely censured as essentially inaccurate and misleading. It has been contended that there was no real community of goods, and no partnership or societas between the spouses. The wife’s movable property, with certain exceptions, and subject to special agreements, became as absolutely the property of the husband as it did in English law. The notion of a communio was, however, favoured by the peculiar rights of the wife and children on the dissolution of the marriage. Previous to the Intestate Movable Succession (Scotland) Act 1855 the law stood as follows. The fund formed by the movable property of both spouses may be dealt with by the husband as he pleases during life; it is increased by his acquisitions and diminished by his debts. The respective shares contributed by husband and wife return on the dissolution of the marriage to them or their representatives if the marriage be dissolved within a year and a day, and without a living child. Otherwise the division is into two or three shares, according as children are existing or not at the dissolution of the marriage. On the death of the husband, his children take one-third (called legitim), the widow takes one-third (jus relictae), and the remaining one-third (the dead part) goes according to his will or to his next of kin. If there be no children, the jus relictae and the dead’s part are each one-half. If the wife die before the husband, her representatives, whether children or not, are creditors for the value of her share. The statute above-mentioned, however, enacts that “where a wife shall predecease her husband, the next of kin, executors or other representatives of such wife, whether testate or intestate, shall have no right to any share of the goods in communion; nor shall any legacy or bequest or testamentary disposition thereof by such wife, affect or attach to the said goods or any portion thereof.” It also abolishes the rule by which the shares revert if the marriage does not subsist for a year and a day. Several later acts apply to Scotland some of the principles of the English Married Women’s Property Acts. These are the Married Women’s Property (Scotland) Act 1877, which protects the earnings, &c., of wives, and limits the husband’s liability for antenuptial debts of the wife, the Married Women’s Policies of Assurance (Scotland) Act 1880, which enables a woman to contract for a policy of assurance for her separate use, and the Married Women’s Property (Scotland) Act 1881, which abolished the jus mariti.

A wife’s heritable property does not pass to the husband on marriage, but he acquires a right to the administration and profits. His courtesy, as in English law, is also recognized. On the other hand, a widow has a terce or life-rent of a third part of the husband’s heritable estate, unless she has accepted a conventional provision.

Continental Europe.—Since 1882 English legislation in the matter of married women’s property has progressed from perhaps the most backward to the foremost place in Europe. By a curious contrast, the only two European countries where, in the absence of a settlement to the contrary, independence of the wife’s property was recognized, were Russia and Italy. But there is now a marked tendency towards contractual emancipation. Sweden adopted a law on this subject in 1874, Denmark in 1880, Norway in 1888. Germany followed, the Civil Code which came into operation in 1900 (Art. 1367) providing that the wife’s wages or earnings shall form part of her Vorbehaltsgut or separate property, which a previous article (1365) placed beyond the husband’s control. As regards property accruing to the wife in Germany by succession, will or gift inter vivos, it is only separate property where the donor has deliberately stipulated exclusion of the husband’s right.

In France it seemed as if the system of community of property was ingrained in the institutions of the country. But a law of 1907 has brought France into line with other countries. This law gives a married woman sole control over earnings from her personal work and savings therefrom. She can with such money acquire personalty or realty, over the former of which she has absolute control. But if she abuses her rights by squandering her money or administering her property badly or imprudently the husband may apply to the court to have her freedom restricted.

American Law.—In the United States, the revolt against the common law theory of husband and wife was carried farther than in England, and legislation early tended in the direction of absolute equality between the sexes. Each state has, however, taken its own way and selected its own time for introducing modifications of the existing law, so that the legislation on this subject is now exceedingly complicated and difficult. James Schouler (Law of Domestic Relations) gives an account of the general result in the different states to which reference may be made. The peculiar system of Homestead Laws in many of the states (see Homestead and Exemption Laws) constitutes an inalienable provision for the wife and family of the householder.

1 Curtesy or courtesy has been explained by legal writers as “arising by favour of the law of England.” The word has nothing to do with courtesy in the sense of complaisance.

HUSHI (Rumanian Huşi), the capital of the department of Falciu, Rumania; on a branch of the Jassy-Galatz railway, 9 m. W. of the river Pruth and the Russian frontier. Pop. (1900) 15,404, about one-fourth being Jews. Hushi is an episcopal see. The cathedral was built in 1491 by Stephen the Great of Moldavia. There are no important manufactures, but a large fair is held annually in September for the sale of live-stock, and wine is produced in considerable quantities. Hushi is said to have been founded in the 15th century by a colony of Hussites, from whom its name is derived. The treaty of the Pruth between Russia and Turkey was signed here in 1711.

HUSKISSON, WILLIAM (1770-1830), English statesman and financier, was descended from an old Staffordshire family of moderate fortune, and was born at Birch Moreton, Worcestershire, on the 11th of March 1770. Having been placed in his fourteenth year under the charge of his maternal great-uncle Dr Gem, physician to the English embassy at Paris, in 1783 he passed his early years amidst a political fermentation which led him to take a deep interest in politics. Though he approved of the French Revolution, his sympathies were with the more moderate party, and he became a member of the “club of 1789,” instituted to support the new form of constitutional monarchy in opposition to the anarchical attempts of the Jacobins. He early displayed his mastery of the principles of finance by a Discours delivered in August 1790 before this society, in regard to the issue of assignats by the government. The Discours gained him considerable reputation, but as it failed in its purpose he withdrew from the society. In January 1793 he was appointed by Dundas to an office created to direct the execution of the Aliens Act; and in the discharge of his delicate duties he manifested such ability that in 1795 he was appointed under-secretary at war. In the following year he entered parliament as member for Morpeth, but for a considerable period he took scarcely any part in the debates. In 1800 he inherited a fortune from Dr Gem. On the retirement of Pitt in 1801 he resigned office, and after contesting Dover unsuccessfully he withdrew for a time into private life. Having in 1804 been chosen to represent Liskeard, he was on the restoration of the Pitt ministry appointed secretary of the treasury, holding office till the dissolution of the ministry after the death of Pitt in January 1806. After being elected for Harwich in 1807, he accepted the same office under the duke of Portland, but he withdrew from the ministry along with Canning in 1809. In the following year he published a pamphlet on the currency system, which confirmed his reputation as the ablest financier of his time; but his free-trade principles did not accord with those of his party. In 1812 he was returned for Chichester. When in 1814 he re-entered the public service, it was only as chief commissioner of woods and forests, but his influence was from this time very great in the commercial and financial legislation of the country. He took a prominent part in the corn-law debates of 1814 and 1815; and in 1819 he presented a memorandum to Lord Liverpool advocating a large reduction in the unfunded debt, and explaining a method for the resumption of cash payments, which was embodied in the act passed the same year. In 1821 he was a member of the committee appointed to inquire into the causes of the agricultural distress then prevailing, and the proposed relaxation of the corn laws embodied in the report was understood to have been chiefly due to his strenuous advocacy. In 1823 he was appointed president of the board of trade and treasurer of the navy, and shortly afterwards he received a seat in the cabinet. In the same year he was returned for Liverpool as successor to Canning, and as the only man who could reconcile the Tory merchants to a free trade policy. Among the more important legislative changes with which he was principally connected were a reform of the Navigation Acts, admitting other nations to a full equality and reciprocity of shipping duties; the repeal of the labour laws; the introduction of a new sinking fund; the reduction of the duties on manufactures and on the importation of foreign goods, and the repeal of the quarantine duties. In accordance with his suggestion Canning in 1827 introduced a measure on the corn laws proposing the adoption of a sliding scale to regulate the amount of duty. A misapprehension between Huskisson and the duke of Wellington led to the duke proposing an amendment, the success of which caused the abandonment of the measure by the government. After the death of Canning in the same year Huskisson accepted the secretaryship of the colonies under Lord Goderich, an office which he continued to hold in the new cabinet formed by the duke of Wellington in the following year. After succeeding with great difficulty in inducing the cabinet to agree to a compromise on the corn laws, Huskisson finally resigned office in May 1829 on account of a difference with his colleagues in regard to the disfranchisement of East Retford. On the 15th of September of the following year he was accidentally killed by a locomotive engine while present at the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester railway.

See the Life of Huskisson, by J. Wright (London, 1831).

HUSS (or Hus), JOHN (c. 1373-1415), Bohemian reformer and martyr, was born at Hussinecz,1 a market village at the foot of the Böhmerwald, and not far from the Bavarian frontier, between 1373 and 1375, the exact date being uncertain. His parents appear to have been well-to-do Czechs of the peasant class. Of his early life nothing is recorded except that, notwithstanding the early loss of his father, he obtained a good elementary education, first at Hussinecz, and afterwards at the neighbouring town of Prachaticz. At, or only a very little beyond, the usual age he entered the recently (1348) founded university of Prague, where he became bachelor of arts in 1393, bachelor of theology in 1394, and master of arts in 1396. In 1398 he was chosen by the Bohemian “nation” of the university to an examinership for the bachelor’s degree; in the same year he began to lecture also, and there is reason to believe that the philosophical writings of Wycliffe, with which he had been for some years acquainted, were his text-books. In October 1401 he was made dean of the philosophical faculty, and for the half-yearly period from October 1402 to April 1403 he held the office of rector of the university. In 1402 also he was made rector or curate (capellarius) of the Bethlehem chapel, which had in 1391 been erected and endowed by some zealous citizens of Prague for the purpose of providing good popular preaching in the Bohemian tongue. This appointment had a deep influence on the already vigorous religious life of Huss himself; and one of the effects of the earnest and independent study of Scripture into which it led him was a profound conviction of the great value not only of the philosophical but also of the theological writings of Wycliffe.

This newly-formed sympathy with the English reformer did not, in the first instance at least, involve Huss in any conscious opposition to the established doctrines of Catholicism, or in any direct conflict with the authorities of the church; and for several years he continued to act in full accord with his archbishop (Sbynjek, or Sbynko, of Hasenburg). Thus in 1405 he, with other two masters, was commissioned to examine into certain reputed miracles at Wilsnack, near Wittenberg, which had caused that church to be made a resort of pilgrims from all parts of Europe. The result of their report was that all pilgrimage thither from the province of Bohemia was prohibited by the archbishop on pain of excommunication, while Huss, with the full sanction of his superior, gave to the world his first published writing, entitled De Omni Sanguine Christi Glorificato, in which he declaimed in no measured terms against forged miracles and ecclesiastical greed, urging Christians at the same time to desist from looking for sensible signs of Christ’s presence, but rather to seek Him in His enduring word. More than once also Huss, together with his friend Stanislaus of Znaim, was appointed to be synod preacher, and in this capacity he delivered at the provincial councils of Bohemia many faithful admonitions. As early as the 28th of May 1403, it is true, there had been held a university disputation about the new doctrines of Wycliffe, which had resulted in the condemnation of certain propositions presumed to be his; five years later (May 20, 1408) this decision had been refined into a declaration that these, forty-five in number, were not to be taught in any heretical, erroneous or offensive sense. But it was only slowly that the growing sympathy of Huss with Wycliffe unfavourably affected his relations with his colleagues in the priesthood. In 1408, however, the clergy of the city and archiepiscopal diocese of Prague laid before the archbishop a formal complaint against Huss, arising out of strong expressions with regard to clerical abuses of which he had made use in his public discourses; and the result was that, having been first deprived of his appointment as synodal preacher, he was, after a vain attempt to defend himself in writing, publicly forbidden the exercise of any priestly function throughout the diocese. Simultaneously with these proceedings in Bohemia, negotiations had been going on for the removal of the long-continued papal schism, and it had become apparent that a satisfactory solution could only be secured if, as seemed not impossible, the supporters of the rival popes, Benedict XIII. and Gregory XII., could be induced, in view of the approaching council of Pisa, to pledge themselves to a strict neutrality. With this end King Wenceslaus of Bohemia had requested the co-operation of the archbishop and his clergy, and also the support of the university, in both instances unsuccessfully, although in the case of the latter the Bohemian “nation,” with Huss at its head, had only been overborne by the votes of the Bavarians, Saxons and Poles. There followed an expression of nationalist and particularistic as opposed to ultramontane and also to German feeling, which undoubtedly was of supreme importance for the whole of the subsequent career of Huss. In compliance with this feeling a royal edict (January 18, 1409) was issued, by which, in alleged conformity with Paris usage, and with the original charter of the university, the Bohemian “nation” received three votes, while only one was allotted to the other three “nations” combined; whereupon all the foreigners, to the number of several thousands, almost immediately withdrew from Prague, an occurrence which led to the formation shortly afterwards of the university of Leipzig.

It was a dangerous triumph for Huss; for his popularity at court and in the general community had been secured only at the price of clerical antipathy everywhere and of much German ill-will. Among the first results of the changed order of things were on the one hand the election of Huss (October 1409) to be again rector of the university, but on the other hand the appointment by the archbishop of an inquisitor to inquire into charges of heretical teaching and inflammatory preaching brought against him. He had spoken disrespectfully of the church, it was said, had even hinted that Antichrist might be found to be in Rome, had fomented in his preaching the quarrel between Bohemians and Germans, and had, notwithstanding all that had passed, continued to speak of Wycliffe as both a pious man and an orthodox teacher. The direct result of this investigation is not known, but it is impossible to disconnect from it the promulgation by Pope Alexander V., on the 20th of December 1409, of a bull which ordered the abjuration of all Wycliffite heresies and the surrender of all his books, while at the same time—a measure specially levelled at the pulpit of Bethlehem chapel—all preaching was prohibited except in localities which had been by long usage set apart for that use. This decree, as soon as it was published in Prague (March 9, 1410), led to much popular agitation, and provoked an appeal by Huss to the pope’s better informed judgment; the archbishop, however, resolutely insisted on carrying out his instructions, and in the following July caused to be publicly burned, in the courtyard of his own palace, upwards of 200 volumes of the writings of Wycliffe, while he pronounced solemn sentence of excommunication against Huss and certain of his friends, who had in the meantime again protested and appealed to the new pope (John XXIII.). Again the populace rose on behalf of their hero, who, in his turn, strong in the conscientious conviction that “in the things which pertain to salvation God is to be obeyed rather than man,” continued uninterruptedly to preach in the Bethlehem chapel, and in the university began publicly to defend the so-called heretical treatises of Wycliffe, while from king and queen, nobles and burghers, a petition was sent to Rome praying that the condemnation and prohibition in the bull of Alexander V. might be quashed. Negotiations were carried on for some months, but in vain; in March 1411 the ban was anew pronounced upon Huss as a disobedient son of the church, while the magistrates and councillors of Prague who had favoured him were threatened with a similar penalty in ease of their giving him a contumacious support. Ultimately the whole city, which continued to harbour him, was laid under interdict; yet he went on preaching, and masses were celebrated as usual, so that at the date of Archbishop Sbynko’s death in September 1411, it seemed as if the efforts of ecclesiastical authority had resulted in absolute failure.

The struggle, however, entered on a new phase with the appearance at Prague in May 1412 of the papal emissary charged with the proclamation of the papal bulls by which a religious war was decreed against the excommunicated King Ladislaus of Naples, and indulgence was promised to all who should take part in it, on terms similar to those which had been enjoyed by the earlier crusaders to the Holy Land. By his bold and thorough-going opposition to this mode of procedure against Ladislaus, and still more by his doctrine that indulgence could never be sold without simony, and could not be lawfully granted by the church except on condition of genuine contrition and repentance, Huss at last isolated himself, not only from the archiepiscopal party under Albik of Unitschow, but also from the theological faculty of the university, and especially from such men as Stanislaus of Znaim and Stephen Paletz, who until then had been his chief supporters. A popular demonstration, in which the papal bulls had been paraded through the streets with circumstances of peculiar ignominy and finally burnt, led to intervention by Wenceslaus on behalf of public order; three young men, for having openly asserted the unlawfulness of the papal indulgence after silence had been enjoined, were sentenced to death (June 1412); the excommunication against Huss was renewed, and the interdict again laid on all places which should give him shelter—a measure which now began to be more strictly regarded by the clergy, so that in the following December Huss had no alternative but to yield to the express wish of the king by temporarily withdrawing from Prague. A provincial synod, held at the instance of Wenceslaus in February 1413, broke up without having reached any practical result; and a commission appointed shortly afterwards also failed to bring about a reconciliation between Huss and his adversaries. The so-called heretic meanwhile spent his time partly at Kozihradek, some 45 m. south of Prague, and partly at Krakowitz in the immediate neighbourhood of the capital, occasionally giving a course of open-air preaching, but finding his chief employment in maintaining that copious correspondence of which some precious fragments still are extant, and in the composition of the treatise, De Ecclesia, which subsequently furnished most of the material for the capital charges brought against him, and was formerly considered the most important of his works, though it is mainly a transcript of Wycliffe’s work of the same name.

During the year 1413 the arrangements for the meeting of a general council at Constance were agreed upon between Sigismund and Pope John XXIII. The objects originally contemplated had been the restoration of the unity of the church and its reform in head and members; but so great had become the prominence of Bohemian affairs that to these also a first place in the programme of the approaching oecumenical assembly required to be assigned, and for their satisfactory settlement the presence of Huss was necessary. His attendance was accordingly requested, and the invitation was willingly accepted as giving him a long-wished-for opportunity both of publicly vindicating himself from charges which he felt to be grievous, and of loyally making confession for Christ. He set out from Bohemia on the 14th of October 1414, not, however, until he had carefully ordered all his private affairs, with a presentiment, which he did not conceal, that in all probability he was going to his death. The journey, which appears to have been undertaken with the usual passport, and under the protection of several powerful Bohemian friends (John of Chlum, Wenceslaus of Duba, Henry of Chlum) who accompanied him, was a very prosperous one; and at almost all the halting-places he was received with a consideration and enthusiastic sympathy which he had hardly expected to meet with anywhere in Germany. On the 3rd of November he arrived at Constance; shortly afterwards there was put into his hands the famous imperial “safe conduct,” the promise of which had been one of his inducements to quit the comparative security he had enjoyed in Bohemia. This safe conduct, which had been frequently printed, stated that Huss should, whatever judgment might be passed on him, be allowed to return freely to Bohemia. This by no means provided for his immunity from punishment. If faith to him had not been broken he would have been sent back to Bohemia to be punished by his sovereign, the king of Bohemia. The treachery of King Sigismund is undeniable, and was indeed admitted by the king himself. The safe conduct was probably indeed given by him to entice Huss to Constance. On the 4th of December the pope appointed a commission of three bishops to investigate the case against the heretic, and to procure witnesses; to the demand of Huss that he might be permitted to employ an agent in his defence a favourable answer was at first given, but afterwards even this concession to the forms of justice was denied. While the commission was engaged in the prosecution of its enquiries, the flight of Pope John XXIII. took place on the 20th of March, an event which furnished a pretext for the removal of Huss from the Dominican convent to a more secure and more severe place of confinement under the charge of the bishop of Constance at Gottlieben on the Rhine. On the 4th of May the temper of the council on the doctrinal questions in dispute was fully revealed in its unanimous condemnation of Wycliffe, especially of the so-called “forty-five articles” as erroneous, heretical, revolutionary. It was not, however, until the 5th of June that the case of Huss came up for hearing; the meeting, which was an exceptionally full one, took place in the refectory of the Franciscan cloister. Autograph copies of his work De Ecclesia and of the controversial tracts which he had written against Paletz and Stanislaus of Znaim having been acknowledged by him, the extracted propositions on which the prosecution based their charge of heresy were read; but as soon as the accused began to enter upon his defence, he was assailed by violent outcries, amidst which it was impossible for him to be heard, so that he was compelled to bring his speech to an abrupt close, which he did with the calm remark: “In such a council as this I had expected to find more propriety, piety and order.” It was found necessary to adjourn the sitting until the 7th of June, on which occasion the outward decencies were better observed, partly no doubt from the circumstance that Sigismund was present in person. The propositions which had been extracted from the De Ecclesia were again brought up, and the relations between Wycliffe and Huss were discussed, the object of the prosecution being to fasten upon the latter the charge of having entirely adopted the doctrinal system of the former, including especially a denial of the doctrine of transubstantiation. The accused repudiated the charge of having abandoned the Catholic doctrine, while expressing hearty admiration and respect for the memory of Wycliffe. Being next asked to make an unqualified submission to the council, he expressed himself as unable to do so, while stating his willingness to amend his teaching wherever it had been shown to be false. With this the proceedings of the day were brought to a close. On the 8th of June the propositions extracted from the De Ecclesia were again taken up with some fulness of detail; some of these he repudiated as incorrectly given, others he defended; but when asked to make a general recantation he steadfastly declined, on the ground that to do so would be a dishonest admission of previous guilt. Among the propositions he could heartily abjure was that relating to transubstantiation; among those he felt constrained unflinchingly to maintain was one which had given great offence, to the effect that Christ, not Peter, is the head of the church to whom ultimate appeal must be made. The council, however, showed itself inaccessible to all his arguments and explanations, and its final resolution, as announced by Pierre d’Ailly, was threefold: first, that Huss should humbly declare that he had erred in all the articles cited against him; secondly, that he should promise on oath neither to hold nor teach them in the future; thirdly, that he should publicly recant them. On his declining to make this submission he was removed from the bar. Sigismund himself gave it as his opinion that it had been clearly proved by many witnesses that the accused had taught many pernicious heresies, and that even should he recant he ought never to be allowed to preach or teach again or to return to Bohemia, but that should he refuse recantation there was no remedy but the stake. During the next four weeks no effort was spared to shake the determination of Huss; but he steadfastly refused to swerve from the path which conscience had once made clear. “I write this,” says he, in a letter to his friends at Prague, “in prison and in chains, expecting to-morrow to receive sentence of death, full of hope in God that I shall not swerve from the truth, nor abjure errors imputed to me by false witnesses.” The sentence he expected was pronounced on the 6th of July in the presence of Sigismund and a full sitting of the council; once and again he attempted to remonstrate, but in vain, and finally he betook himself to silent prayer. After he had undergone the ceremony of degradation with all the childish formalities usual on such occasions, his soul was formally consigned by all those present to the devil, while he himself with clasped hands and uplifted eyes reverently committed it to Christ. He was then handed over to the secular arm, and immediately led to the place of execution, the council meanwhile proceeding unconcernedly with the rest of its business for the day. Many incidents recorded in the histories make manifest the meekness, fortitude and even cheerfulness with which he went to his death. After he had been tied to the stake and the faggots had been piled, he was for the last time urged to recant, but his only reply was: “God is my witness that I have never taught or preached that which false witnesses have testified against me. He knows that the great object of all my preaching and writing was to convert men from sin. In the truth of that gospel which hitherto I have written, taught and preached, I now joyfully die.” The fire was then kindled, and his voice as it audibly prayed in the words of the “Kyrie Eleison” was soon stifled in the smoke. When the flames had done their office, the ashes that were left and even the soil on which they lay were carefully removed and thrown into the Rhine.

Not many words are needed to convey a tolerably adequate estimate of the character and work of the “pale thin man in mean attire,” who in sickness and poverty thus completed the forty-sixth year of a busy life at the stake. The value of Huss as a scholar was formerly underrated. The publication of his Super IV. Sententiarum has proved that he was a man of profound learning. Yet his principal glory will always be founded on his spiritual teaching. It might not be easy to formulate precisely the doctrines for which he died, and certainly some of them, as, for example, that regarding the church, were such as many Protestants even would regard as unguarded and difficult to harmonize with the maintenance of external church order; but his is undoubtedly the honour of having been the chief intermediary in handing on from Wycliffe to Luther the torch which kindled the Reformation, and of having been one of the bravest of the martyrs who have died in the cause of honesty and freedom, of progress and of growth towards the light.

(J. S. Bl.)

The works of Huss are usually classed under four heads: the dogmatical and polemical, the homiletical, the exegetical and the epistolary. In the earlier editions of his works sufficient care was not taken to distinguish between his own writings and those of Wycliffe and others who were associated with him. In connexion with his sermons it is worthy of note that by means of them and by his public teaching generally Huss exercised a considerable influence not only on the religious life of his time, but on the literary development of his native tongue. The earliest collected edition of his works, Historia et monumenta Joannis Hus et Hieronymi Pragensis, was published at Nuremberg in 1558 and was reprinted with a considerable quantity of new matter at Frankfort in 1715. A Bohemian edition of the works has been edited by K. J. Erben (Prague, 1865-1868), and the Documenta J. Hus vitam, doctrinam, causam in Constantiensi concilio (1869), edited by F. Palacky, is very valuable. More recently Joannis Hus. Opera omnia have been edited by W. Flojšhaus (Prague, 1904 fol.). The De Ecclesia was published by Ulrich von Hutten in 1520; other controversial writings by Otto Brumfels in 1524; and Luther wrote an interesting preface to Epistolae Quaedam, which were published in 1537. These Epistolae have been translated into French by E. de Bonnechose (1846), and the letters written during his imprisonment have been edited by C. von Kügelgen (Leipzig, 1902).

The best and most easily accessible information for the English reader on Huss is found in J. A. W. Neander’s Allgemeine Geschichte der christlichen Religion und Kirche, translated by J. Torrey (1850-1858); in G. von Lechler’s Wiclif und die Vorgeschichte der Reformation, translated by P. Lorimer (1878); in H. H. Milman’s History of Latin Christianity, vol. viii. (1867); and in M. Creighton’s History of the Papacy (1897). Among the earlier authorities is the Historia Bohemica of Aeneas Sylvius (1475). The Acta of the council of Constance (published by P. Labbe in his Concilia, vol. xvi., 1731; by H. von der Haardt in his Magnum Constantiense concilium, vol. vi., 1700; and by H. Finke in his Acta concilii Constantiensis, 1896); and J. Lenfant’s Histoire de la guerre des Hussites (1731) and the same writer’s Histoire du concile de Constance (1714) should be consulted. F. Palacky’s Geschichte Böhmens (1864-1867) is also very useful. Monographs on Huss are very numerous. Among them may be mentioned J. A. von Helfert, Studien über Hus und Hieronymus (1853; this work is ultramontane in its sympathies); C. von Höfler, Hus und der Abzug der deutschen Professoren und Studenten aus Prag (1864); W. Berger, Johannes Hus und König Sigmund (1871); E. Denis, Huss et la guerre des Hussites (1878); P. Uhlmann, König Sigmunds Geleit für Hus (1894); J. Loserth, Hus und Wiclif (1884), translated into English by M. J. Evans (1884); A. Jeep, Gerson, Wiclefus, Hussus, inter se comparati (1857); and G. von Lechler, Johannes Hus (1889). See also Count Lützow, The Life and Times of John Hus (London, 1909).

1 From which the name Huss, or more properly Hus, an abbreviation adopted by himself about 1396, is derived. Prior to that date he was invariably known as Johann Hussynecz, Hussinecz, Hussenicz or de Hussynecz.

HUSSAR, originally the name of a soldier belonging to a corps of light horse raised by Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary, in 1458, to fight against the Turks. The Magyar huszar, from which the word is derived, was formerly connected with the Magyar husz, twenty, and was explained by a supposed raising of the troops by the taking of each twentieth man. According to the New English Dictionary the word is an adaptation of the Italian corsaro, corsair, a robber, and is found in 15th-century documents coupled with praedones. The hussar was the typical Hungarian cavalry soldier, and, in the absence of good light cavalry in the regular armies of central and western Europe, the name and character of the hussars gradually spread into Prussia, France, &c. Frederick the Great sent Major H. J. von Zieten to study the work of this type of cavalry in the Austrian service, and Zieten so far improved on the Austrian model that he defeated his old teacher, General Baranyai, in an encounter between the Prussian and Austrian hussars at Rothschloss in 1741. The typical uniform of the Hungarian hussar was followed with modifications in other European armies. It consisted of a busby or a high cylindrical cloth cap, jacket with heavy braiding, and a dolman or pelisse, a loose coat worn hanging from the left shoulder. The hussar regiments of the British army were converted from light dragoons at the following dates: 7th (1805), 10th and 15th (1806), 18th (1807, and again on revival after disbandment, 1858), 8th (1822), 11th (1840), 20th (late 2nd Bengal European Cavalry) (1860), 13th, 14th, and 19th (late 1st Bengal European Cavalry) (1861). The 21st Lancers were hussars from 1862 to 1897.

HUSSITES, the name given to the followers of John Huss (1369-1415), the Bohemian reformer. They were at first often called Wycliffites, as the theological theories of Huss were largely founded on the teachings of Wycliffe. Huss indeed laid more stress on church reform than on theological controversy. On such matters he always writes as a disciple of Wycliffe. The Hussite movement may be said to have sprung from three sources, which are however closely connected. Bohemia, which had first received Christianity from the East, was from geographical and other causes long but very loosely connected with the Church of Rome. The connexion became closer at the time when the schism with its violent controversies between the rival pontiffs, waged with the coarse invective customary to medieval theologians, had brought great discredit on the papacy. The terrible rapacity of its representatives in Bohemia, which increased in proportion as it became more difficult to obtain money from western countries such as England and France, caused general indignation; and this was still further intensified by the gross immorality of the Roman priests. The Hussite movement was also a democratic one, an uprising of the peasantry against the landowners at a period when a third of the soil belonged to the clergy. Finally national enthusiasm for the Slavic race contributed largely to its importance. The towns, in most cases creations of the rulers of Bohemia who had called in German immigrants, were, with the exception of the “new town” of Prague, mainly German; and in consequence of the regulations of the university, Germans also held almost all the more important ecclesiastical offices—a condition of things greatly resented by the natives of Bohemia, which at this period had reached a high degree of intellectual development.

The Hussite movement assumed a revolutionary character as soon as the news of the death of Huss reached Prague. The knights and nobles of Bohemia and Moravia, who were in favour of church reform, sent to the council at Constance (September 2nd, 1415) a protest, known as the “protestatio Bohemorum” which condemned the execution of Huss in the strongest language. The attitude of Sigismund, king of the Romans, who sent threatening letters to Bohemia declaring that he would shortly “drown all Wycliffites and Hussites,” greatly incensed the people. Troubles broke out in various parts of Bohemia, and many Romanist priests were driven from their parishes. Almost from the first the Hussites were divided into two sections, though many minor divisions also arose among them. Shortly before his death Huss had accepted a doctrine preached during his absence by his adherents at Prague, namely that of “utraquism,” i.e. the obligation of the faithful to receive communion in both kinds (sub utraque specie). This doctrine became the watchword of the moderate Hussites who were known as the Utraquists or Calixtines (calix, the chalice), in Bohemian, podoboji; while the more advanced Hussites were soon known as the Taborites, from the city of Tabor that became their centre.

Under the influence of his brother Sigismund, king of the Romans, King Wenceslaus endeavoured to stem the Hussite movement. A certain number of Hussites lead by Nicolas of Hus—no relation of John Huss—left Prague. They held meetings in various parts of Bohemia, particularly at Usti, near the spot where the town of Tabor was founded soon afterwards. At these meetings Sigismund was violently denounced, and the people everywhere prepared for war. In spite of the departure of many prominent Hussites the troubles at Prague continued. On the 30th of July 1419, when a Hussite procession headed by the priest John of Želivo (in Ger. Selau) marched through the streets of Prague, stones were thrown at the Hussites from the windows of the town-hall of the “new town.” The people, headed by John Žižka (1376-1424), threw the burgomaster and several town-councillors, who were the instigators of this outrage, from the windows and they were immediately killed by the crowd. On hearing this news King Wenceslaus was seized with an apoplectic fit, and died a few days afterwards. The death of the king resulted in renewed troubles in Prague and in almost all parts of Bohemia. Many Romanists, mostly Germans—for they had almost all remained faithful to the papal cause—were expelled from the Bohemian cities. In Prague, in November 1419, severe fighting took place between the Hussites and the mercenaries whom Queen Sophia (widow of Wenceslaus and regent after the death of her husband) had hurriedly collected. After a considerable part of the city had been destroyed a truce was concluded on the 13th of November. The nobles, who though favourable to the Hussite cause yet supported the regent, promised to act as mediators with Sigismund; while the citizens of Prague consented to restore to the royal forces the castle of Vyšehrad, which had fallen into their hands. Žižka, who disapproved of this compromise, left Prague and retired to Plzeň (Pilsen). Unable to maintain himself there he marched to southern Bohemia, and after defeating the Romanists at Sudoměř—the first pitched battle of the Hussite wars—he arrived at Usti, one of the earliest meeting-places of the Hussites. Not considering its situation sufficiently strong, he moved to the neighbouring new settlement of the Hussites, to which the biblical name of Tabor was given. Tabor soon became the centre of the advanced Hussites, who differed from the Utraquists by recognizing only two sacraments—Baptism and Communion—and by rejecting most of the ceremonial of the Roman Church. The ecclesiastical organization of Tabor had a somewhat puritanic character, and the government was established on a thoroughly democratic basis. Four captains of the people (hejtmane) were elected, one of whom was Žižka; and a very strictly military discipline was instituted.

Sigismund, king of the Romans, had, by the death of his brother Wenceslaus without issue, acquired a claim on the Bohemian crown; though it was then, and remained till much later, doubtful whether Bohemia was an hereditary or an elective monarchy. A firm adherent of the Church of Rome, Sigismund was successful in obtaining aid from the pope. Martin V. issued a bull on the 17th of March 1420 which proclaimed a crusade “for the destruction of the Wycliffites, Hussites and all other heretics in Bohemia.” The vast army of crusaders, with which were Sigismund and many German princes, and which consisted of adventurers attracted by the hope of pillage from all parts of Europe, arrived before Prague on the 30th of June and immediately began the siege of the city, which had, however, soon to be abandoned (see Žižka, John). Negotiations took place for a settlement of the religious differences. The united Hussites formulated their demands in a statement known as the “articles of Prague.” This document, the most important of the Hussite period, runs thus in the wording of the contemporary chronicler, Laurence of Brezova:—

I. The word of God shall be preached and made known in the kingdom of Bohemia freely and in an orderly manner by the priests of the Lord....

II. The sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist shall be freely administered in the two kinds, that is bread and wine, to all the faithful in Christ who are not precluded by mortal sin—according to the word and disposition of Our Saviour.

III. The secular power over riches and worldly goods which the clergy possesses in contradiction to Christ’s precept, to the prejudice of its office and to the detriment of the secular arm, shall be taken and withdrawn from it, and the clergy itself shall be brought back to the evangelical rule and an apostolic life such as that which Christ and his apostles led....

IV. All mortal sins, and in particular all public and other disorders, which are contrary to God’s law shall in every rank of life be duly and judiciously prohibited and destroyed by those whose office it is.

These articles, which contain the essence of the Hussite doctrine, were rejected by Sigismund, mainly through the influence of the papal legates, who considered them prejudicial to the authority of the Roman see. Hostilities therefore continued. Though Sigismund had retired from Prague, the castles of Vyšehrad and Hradčany remained in possession of his troops. The citizens of Prague laid siege to the Vyšehrad, and towards the end of October (1420) the garrison was on the point of capitulating through famine. Sigismund attempted to relieve the fortress, but was decisively defeated by the Hussites on the 1st of November near the village of Pankrác. The castles of Vyšehrad and Hradčany now capitulated, and shortly afterwards almost all Bohemia fell into the hands of the Hussites. Internal troubles prevented them from availing themselves completely of their victory. At Prague a demagogue, the priest John of Želivo, for a time obtained almost unlimited authority over the lower classes of the townsmen; and at Tabor a communistic movement (that of the so-called Adamites) was sternly suppressed by Žižka. Shortly afterwards a new crusade against the Hussites was undertaken. A large German army entered Bohemia, and in August 1421 laid siege to the town of Zatec (Saaz). The crusaders hoped to be joined in Bohemia by King Sigismund, but that prince was detained in Hungary. After an unsuccessful attempt to storm Zatec the crusaders retreated somewhat ingloriously, on hearing that the Hussite troops were approaching. Sigismund only arrived in Bohemia at the end of the year 1421. He took possession of the town of Kutna Hora (Kuttenberg), but was decisively defeated by Žižka at Německy Brod (Deutschbrod) on the 6th of January 1422. Bohemia was now again for a time free from foreign intervention, but internal discord again broke out caused partly by theological strife, partly by the ambition of agitators. John of Želivo was on the 9th of March 1422 arrested by the town council of Prague and decapitated. There were troubles at Tabor also, where a more advanced party opposed Žižka’s authority. Bohemia obtained a temporary respite when, in 1422, Prince Sigismund Korybutovič of Poland became for a short time ruler of the country. His authority was recognized by the Utraquist nobles, the citizens of Prague, and the more moderate Taborites, including Žižka. Korybutovič, however, remained but a short time in Bohemia; after his departure civil war broke out, the Taborites opposing in arms the more moderate Utraquists, who at this period are also called by the chroniclers the “Praguers,” as Prague was their principal stronghold. On the 27th of April 1423, Žižka now again leading, the Taborites defeated at Horic the Utraquist army under Čenek of Wartemberg; shortly afterwards an armistice was concluded at Konopišt.