Part 2 — Chapter III. (These four articles abrogated by the four articles following them, 118-122.) Article 118. The Federal Constitution may at any time be amended. (continued 76)

A. H. Sayee, The Hittites, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: W. Wright, The Empire of the Hittites.

See, also, AMORITES; and ITALY, ANCIENT: EARLY ITALIANS.

HIVITES, The.

The "Midlanders," who dwelt in the middle of Canaan when the Israelites invaded it.

See AMALEKITES.

HLÆFDIGE.

See LADY.

HLAFORD.

See LORD.

HLUDWIG.

See LOUIS.

HOARD. HORDERE.

See STALLER.

HOBKIRK'S HILL, Battle of (1781).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.

HOCHE, Campaigns of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER), PROGRESS OF THE WAR; 1794-1796; 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

HOCHELAGA.

The name of an Indian village found by Cartier on the site of the present city of Montreal. An extensive region of surrounding country seems to have likewise borne the name Hochelaga, and Cartier calls the river St. Lawrence "the river of Hochelaga," or "the great river of Canada."

See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535, and CANADA: NAMES.

HOCHHEIM, The storming of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

HOCHKIRCH, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

HÖCHST, Battle of (1622).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

—————HOCHSTADT: Start————

HOCHSTADT, Battle of (1704).

The great battle which English historians name from the village of Blenheim, is named by the French from the neighboring town of Hochstadt.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

HOCHSTADT: Battle of (1800).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

—————HOCHSTADT: End————

{1657}

HODEIBIA, Truce of.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

HOFER, Andrew, and the Tyrolese revolt.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809-1810 (APRIL-FEBRUARY).

HOHENFRIEDBERG, Battle of (1745).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

HOHENLINDEN, Battle of (1800).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

HOHENSTAUFEN OR SUABIAN FAMILY, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268; and ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to A. D. 1183-1250.

HOHENZOLLERN: Rise of the House of.

"Hohenzollern lies far south in Schwaben (Suabia), on the sunward slope of the Rauhe-Alp Country; no great way north from Constance and its Lake; but well aloft, near the springs of the Danube; its back leaning on the Black Forest; it is perhaps definable as the southern summit of that same huge old Hercynian Wood, which is still called the Schwarzwald (Black Forest), though now comparatively bare of trees. Fanciful Dryasdust, doing a little etymology, will tell you the name 'Zollern' is equivalent to 'Tollery' or Place of Tolls. Whereby Hohenzollern' comes to mean the 'High' or Upper 'Tollery';—and gives one the notion of antique pedlars climbing painfully, out of Italy and the Swiss valleys, thus far; unstrapping their packhorses here, and chaffering in unknown dialect about 'toll.' Poor souls;—it may be so, but we do not know, nor shall it concern us. This only is known: That a human kindred, probably of some talent for coercing anarchy and guiding mankind, had, centuries ago, built its 'Burg' there, and done that function in a small but creditable way ever since."

T. Carlyle, Frederick the Great, book 2, chapter 5.

"The title, Count of Zollern, was conferred by Henry IV. in the eleventh century. … In 1190 Henry VI. appointed the Count of Zollern to the imperial office of Burgrave of Nuremberg. By fortunate marriages and prudent purchases, his descendants, who retained the office, gradually acquired extensive estates in Franconia, Moravia, and Burgundy, and their wisdom and growing power steadily increased their weight in the councils of the German princes. … Frederick VI. was enriched by Sigismund with large gifts of money, and was made his deputy in Brandenburg in 1411. The marches were in utter confusion, under the feuds and ravages of the unrestrained knighthood. Frederick reduced them to order, and at the Council of Constance, in 1417, received from Sigismund the margraviate of Brandenburg with the dignity of Elector."

C. T. Lewis, History of Germany, book 3, chapter 12, section 1.

See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168-1417.

HOHENZOLLERN INCIDENT, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY).

—————HOLLAND: Start————

HOLLAND: The country and its Name.

See NETHERLANDS.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1430. Absorbed in the dominions of the House of Burgundy.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1417-1430.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1477. The "Great Privilege" granted by Mary of Burgundy.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1488-1491. The Bread and Cheese War. End of the Party of the Hooks.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1494. The Great Privilege disputed by Philip the Handsome. Friesland detached.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1506-1609. The Austro-Spanish tyranny. Revolt and independence of the United Provinces.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519, to 1594-1609.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1651-1660. Supremacy in the Republic of the United Provinces.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1651-1660.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1665-1747. Wars with England and France.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1665-1666.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1746. The restored Stadtholdership.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1787.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1793-1810. French invasion and conquest. The Batavian Republic. The kingdom of Louis Bonaparte. Annexation to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL); 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY); and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1813-1814. Independence regained. Belgium annexed. The kingdom of the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1813; FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE); and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1830-1832. Dissolution of the kingdom of the Netherlands. Creation of the kingdoms of Holland and Belgium.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.

—————HOLLAND: Start————

HOLLAND PURCHASE, The.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

HOLLY SPRINGS, Confederate capture.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (DECEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

HOLOCAUST.

"The sacrifice of a whole burnt-offering, where nothing was kept back for the enjoyment of men," was called a holocaust by the ancient Greeks.

G. F. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State, page 60.

—————HOLSTEIN: Start————

HOLSTEIN: A. D. 1848-1866. The Schleswig-Holstein question.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862; and GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

HOLSTEIN: A. D. 1866. Annexation to Prussia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

—————HOLSTEIN: End————

HOLY ALLIANCE, The.

"The document called the Holy Alliance was originally sketched at Paris [during the occupation of the French capital by the Allies, after Waterloo, in 1815], in the French language, by [the Czar] Alexander's own hand, after a long and animated conversation with Madame de Krüdener and Bergasse. It was suggested, perhaps, by words spoken by the king of Prussia after the battle of Bautzen, but was chiefly the result of the influence, upon a mind always inclined to religious ideas, of the conversation of Madame de Krüdener and of the philosopher Bader, the admirer of Tauler, Jacob Boehm, and St. Martin, the deadly foe of Kant and his successors in Germany. … The Czar dreamt of founding a Communion of states, bound together by the first principles of Christianity. … The king of Prussia signed the paper from motives of friendship for the Czar, without attaching much importance to what he did. … The emperor of Austria, the least sentimental of mankind, at first declined to sign, 'because,' he said, 'if the secret is a political one, I must tell it, to Metternich; if it is a religious one, I must tell it to my confessor.' Metternich accordingly was told; and observed scornfully, 'C'est du verbiage.' {1658} Indeed no one of the princes who adhered to the Holy Alliance, with the single exception of Alexander himself, ever took it seriously. It was doomed from its birth. As M. de Bernhardi observes: 'It sank without leaving a trace in the stream of events, never became a reality, and never had the slightest real importance.' What had real importance was the continuance of the good understanding between the powers who had put down Napoleon, and their common fear of France. This good understanding and that common fear led to the treaty of the 20th November 1815, by which it was stipulated that the Powers should, from time to time, hold Congresses with a view to regulating the welfare of nations and the peace of Europe. It was these Congresses, and not the Holy Alliance, which kept up close relations between the rulers of Russia, Prussia, and Austria, and enabled them, when the liberal movement on the Continent, which followed the conclusion of the war, began to be alarming, to take measures for a combined system of repression."

M. E. G. Duff, Studies in European Polities, chapter 2.

The text of the Treaty is as follows:

"In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity: Holy Alliance of Sovereigns of Austria, Prussia, and Russia. Their Majesties the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, and the Emperor of Russia, having, in consequence of the great events which have marked the course of the three last years in Europe, and especially of the blessings which it has pleased Divine Providence to shower down upon those States which place their confidence and their hope on it alone, acquired the intimate conviction of the necessity of settling the steps to be observed by the Powers, in their reciprocal relations, upon the sublime truths which the Holy Religion of our Saviour teaches; They solemnly declare that the present Act has no other object than to publish, in the face of the whole world, their fixed resolution, both in the administration of their respective States, and in their political relations with every other Government, to take for their sole guide the precepts of that Holy Religion, namely, the precepts of Justice, Christian Charity, and Peace, which, far from being applicable only to private concerns, must have an immediate influence on the councils of Princes, and guide all their steps, as being the only means of consolidating human institutions and remedying their imperfections. In consequence, their Majesties have agreed on the following Articles:—

Art. I. Conformably to the words of the Holy Scriptures, which command all men to consider each other as brethren, the Three contracting Monarchs will remain united by the bonds of a true and indissoluble fraternity, and considering each other as fellow countrymen, they will, on all occasions and in all places, lend each other aid and assistance; and, regarding themselves towards their subjects and armies as fathers of families, they will lead them, in the same spirit of fraternity with which they are animated, to protect Religion, Peace, and Justice.

Art II. In consequence, the sole principle of force, whether between the said Governments or between their Subjects, shall be that of doing each other reciprocal service, and of testifying by unalterable good will the mutual affection with which they ought to be animated, to consider themselves all as members of one and the same Christian nation; the three allied Princes looking on themselves as merely delegated by Providence to govern three branches of the One family, namely, Austria, Prussia, and Russia, thus confessing that the Christian world, of which they and their people form a part, has in reality no other Sovereign than Him to whom alone power really belongs, because in Him alone are found all the treasures of love, science, and infinite wisdom, that is to say, God, our Divine Saviour, the Word of the Most High, the Word of Life. Their Majesties consequently recommend to their people, with the most tender solicitude, as the sole means of enjoying that Peace which arises from a good conscience, and which alone is durable, to strengthen themselves every day more and more in the principles and exercise of the duties which the Divine Saviour has taught to mankind.

Art. III. All the Powers who shall choose solemnly to avow the sacred principles which have dictated the present Act, and shall acknowledge how important it is for the happiness of nations, too long agitated, that these truths should henceforth exercise over the destinies of mankind all the influence which belongs to them, will be received with equal ardour and affection into this Holy Alliance. Done in triplicate, and signed at Paris, the year of Grace 1815, 14/26th September."

"It is stated in 'Martens' Treaties' that the greater part of the Christian Powers acceded to this Treaty. France acceded to it in 1815; the Netherlands and Wurtemberg did so in 1816; and Saxony, Switzerland, and the Hansa Towns in 1817. But neither the Pope nor the Sultan were invited to accede."

E. Hertslet, Map of Europe by Treaty, volume 1, number 36, pages 317-319.

"The Treaty of the Holy Alliance was not graced with the name of the Prince Regent [of Great Britain], but the Czar received a letter declaring that his principles had the personal approval of this great authority on religion and morality. The Kings of Naples and Sardinia were the next to subscribe, and in due time the names of the witty glutton, Louis XVIII., and of the abject Ferdinand of Spain were added."

C. A. Fyffe, History of Modern Europe, volume 2, chapter 1.

"Metternich, the worldly-wise, smiled at this manifesto as 'nothing more than a philanthropic aspiration clothed in a religious garb.' He suspected that the evil-minded would misinterpret and that the jokers would ridicule it, but none knew better than he the flimsiness of diplomatic agreements, and accordingly he consented to it. Christianity has had many crimes committed in its name; the Holy Alliance made Christianity the cloak under which the kings of Europe conspired to perpetuate the helotage of their subjects. Metternich found it all the easier to direct kings whose common interest it was to uphold the paternal system therein approved. He exerted his influence over each of them separately; if the monarch were obdurate, he wheedled his minister; if the minister were wary, he prejudiced the monarch against him. Now by flattery, and now by specious argument, he won his advantage. … Like a trickster at cards, he marked every card in the pack and could always play the ace. … He told the truth when he knew it would not be believed; he prevaricated when he intended his falsehood should pass for truth. This was diplomacy, these the 'Christian precepts' by which one hundred and fifty millions of Europeans were governed. {1659} In a society where everyone lies, falsehoods of equal cunning nullify each other. Metternich took care that his should excel in verisimilitude and in subtlety. It was an open battle of craft; but his craft was as superior to that of his competitors as a slow, undetectable poison is more often fatal than the hasty stab of a bravo. He fished both with hooks and nets; if one broke, the other held. … He was, we may affirm, sincerely insincere; strongly attached to the Hapsburg dynasty, and patriotic in so far as the aggrandizement of that House corresponded with the interests of the Austrian State. But the central figure in his perspective was always himself, whom he regarded as the savior of a social order whose preservation held back the world from chaos. … He spoke of his mission as an 'apostolate.' … To resist all change,—that was his policy; to keep the surface smooth,—that was his peace. … He likened himself to a spider, spinning a vast web. 'I begin to know the world well,' he said, 'and I believe that the flies are eaten by the spiders only because they die naturally so young that they have no time to gain experience, and do not know what is the nature of a spider's web.' How many flies he caught during his forty years' spinning! but his success, he admitted, was due quite as much to their blindness as to his cunning. … He seemed to delight in royal conferences in order that he might have the excitement of manipulating Alexander and Frederick William; for his own Emperor, Francis, was as pliable as putty in his hands. Such was Metternich, 'the most worldly, the most dexterous, the most fortunate of politicians,' the embodiment of that Old Régime strangely interpolated in the nineteenth century. Knowing him, we shall know the nature of the resistance which checked every patriotic impulse, every effort towards progress in Italy, between 1815 and 1848. Few names have been hated as his was hated, or feared as his was feared. The Italians pictured to themselves a monster, a worse than Herod, who gloated over human suffering, and spent his time in inventing new tortures for his victims. He regarded them, and all liberals, as natural enemies to the order in which he flourished; and he had no more mercy for them than the Spanish Inquisitors had for heretics."

W. R. Thayer, The Dawn of Italian Independence, book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

HOLY BROTHERHOOD, OR HERMANDAD, The.

Before the close of the 13th century, there first arose in Spain "an anomalous institution peculiar to Castile, which sought to secure the public tranquillity by means scarcely compatible themselves with civil subordination. I refer to the celebrated Hermandad, or Holy Brotherhood, as the association was sometimes called,—a name familiar to most readers in the lively fictions of Le Sage, though conveying there no very adequate idea of the extraordinary functions which it assumed at the period under review [13th-14th centuries]. Instead of a regularly organized police, it then consisted of a confederation of the principal cities, bound together by a solemn league and covenant for the defence of their liberties in seasons of civil anarchy. Its affairs were conducted by deputies, who assembled at stated intervals for this purpose, transacting their business under a common seal, enacting laws which they were careful to transmit to the nobles and even the sovereign himself, and enforcing their measures by an armed force. … One hundred cities associated in the Hermandad of 1315. In that of 1295, were thirty-four. The knights and inferior nobility frequently made part of the association. … In one of [the articles of confederation] it is declared that if any noble shall deprive a member of the association of his property, and refuse restitution, his house shall be razed to the ground. In another, that if any one, by command of the king, shall attempt to collect an unlawful tax, he shall be put to death on the spot." Under the government of Ferdinand and Isabella, among the measures adopted for checking the license and disorder which had become prevalent in Castile, and restoring a more effective administration of justice, was one for a reorganization of the Santa Hermandad. "The project for the reorganization of this institution was introduced into the cortes held, the year after Isabella's accession, at Madrigal, 1476. … The new institution differed essentially from the ancient hermandades, since, instead of being partial in its extent, it was designed to embrace the whole kingdom; and, instead of being directed, as had often been the case, against the crown itself, it was set in motion at the suggestion of the latter, and limited in its operation to the maintenance of public order. The crimes reserved for its jurisdiction were all violence or theft committed on the highways or in the open country, and in cities by such offenders as escaped into the country; house-breaking; rape; and resistance of justice. … An annual contribution of 18,000 maravedis was assessed on every 100 vecinos or householders, for the equipment and maintenance of a horseman, whose duty it was to arrest offenders and enforce the sentence of the law. On the flight of a criminal, the tocsins of the villages through which he was supposed to have passed were sounded, and the quadrilleros or officers of the brotherhood, stationed on the different points, took up the pursuit with such promptness as left little chance of escape. A court of two alcaldes was established in every town containing thirty families, for the trial of all crimes within the jurisdiction of the hermandad; and an appeal lay from them in specified cases to a supreme council. A general junta, composed of deputies from the cities throughout the kingdom was annually convened for the regulation of affairs, and their instructions were transmitted to provincial juntas, who superintended the execution of them. … Notwithstanding the popular constitution of the hermandad, and the obvious advantages attending its introduction at this juncture, it experienced so decided an opposition from the nobility, who discerned the check it was likely to impose on their authority, that it required all the queen's address and perseverance to effect its general adoption. … The important benefits resulting from the institution of the hermandad secured its confirmation by successive cortes, for the period of 22 years, in spite of the repeated opposition of the aristocracy. At length, in 1498, the objects for which it was established having been completely obtained, it was deemed advisable to relieve the nation from the heavy charges which its maintenance imposed. The great salaried officers were dismissed; a few subordinate functionaries were retained for the administration of justice, over whom the regular courts of criminal law possessed appellate jurisdiction; and the magnificent apparatus of the Santa Hermandad, stripped of all but the terrors of its name, dwindled into an ordinary police, such as it has existed, with various modifications of form, down to the present century."

W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, introduction, section 1, with foot-note, and part 1, chapter 6.

{1660}

HOLY BROTHERHOOD IN MEXICO.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1535-1822.

HOLY GHOST, The military Order of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

HOLY JUNTA, The.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.

—————HOLY LEAGUES: Start————

HOLY LEAGUES: Pope Julius II. against Louis XII. of France.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

Pope Clement VII. against Charles V.

See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

German Catholic princes against the Protestant League of Smalcald.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.

Spain, Venice and Pope Pius V. against the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

Of the Catholic party in the Religious Wars of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585, to 1593-1598.

Pope Innocent XI., the Emperor, Venice, Poland and Russia against the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

—————HOLY LEAGUES: End————

HOLY LION, Battle of the (1568).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.

HOLY OFFICE, The.

See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE: Its origin.

See ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963.

Its extinction.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

HOLY ROOD OF SCOTLAND, The.

"A certified fragment of the true cross preserved in a shrine of gold or silver gilt. It was brought over by St. Margaret, and left as a sacred legacy to her descendants and their kingdom. … The rood had been the sanctifying relic round which King David I. raised the house of canons regular of the Holy Rood, devoted to the rule of St. Augustin, at Edinburgh. The kings of Scotland afterwards found it so convenient to frequent this religious house that they built alongside of it a royal residence or palace, well known to the world as Holyrood House."

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 20 (volume 2).

The Holy Rood, or Black Rood as it was sometimes called, was carried away from Scotland, along with the "coronation stone," by Edward I. of England, afterwards got back by treaty, and then lost again at the battle of Neville's Cross, from which it went as a trophy to Durham Abbey.

HOLY WAR, Mahometan.

See DAR-UL-ISLAM.

HOMAGE.

See FEUDAL TENURES.

HOME RULE MOVEMENT, The Irish.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879, to 1893.

HOMER AND THE HOMERIC POEMS.

"When we use the word Homer, we do not mean a person historically known to us, like Pope or Milton. We mean in the main the author, whoever or whatever he was, of the wonderful poems called respectively, not by the author, but by the world, the 'Iliad' and the 'Odyssey.' His name is conventional, and its sense in etymology is not very different from that which would be conveyed by our phrase, 'the author.' … At the first dawn of the historic period, we find the poems established in popular renown; and so prominent that a school of minstrels takes the name of 'Homeridæ' from making it their business to preserve and to recite them. Still, the question whether the poems as we have them can be trusted, whether they present substantially the character of what may be termed original documents, is one of great but gradually diminishing difficulty. It is also of importance, because of the nature of their contents. In the first place, they give a far greater amount of information than is to be found in any other literary production of the same compass. In the second place, that information, speaking of it generally, is to be had nowhere else. In the third place, it is information of the utmost interest, and even of great moment. It introduces to us, in the very beginnings of their experience, the most gifted people of the world, and enables us to judge how they became such as in later times we know them. … And this picture is exhibited with such a fulness both of particulars and of vital force, that perhaps never in any country has an age been so completely placed upon record. … We are … probably to conceive of Homer as of a Bard who went from place to place to earn his bread by his profession, to exercise his knowledge in his gift of song, and to enlarge it by an ever-active observation of nature and experience of men. … It has … been extensively believed that he was a Greek of Asia Minor. And as there were no Greeks of Asia Minor at the time of the Trojan War, nor until a wide and searching revolution in the peninsula had substituted Dorian manners for those of the earlier Achaian age, which Homer sang, this belief involves the further proposition that the poet was severed by a considerable interval of time from the subjects of his verse. The last-named opinion depends very much upon the first; and the first chiefly, if not wholly, upon a perfectly vague tradition, which has no pretence to an historical character. … The question … has to be decided … by the internal evidence of the poems. This evidence, I venture to say, strongly supports the belief that Homer was an European, and if an European, then certainly also an Achaian Greek: a Greek, that is to say, of the pre-Doric period, when the Achaian name prevailed and principally distinguished the race. … Until the 18th century of our era was near its close, it may be said that all generations had believed Troy was actually Troy, and Homer in the main Homer; neither taking the one for a fable, or (quaintest of all dreams) for a symbol of solar phenomena, nor resolving the other into a multiform assemblage of successive bards, whose verses were at length pieced together by a clever literary tailor. … After slighter premonitory movements, it was Wolf that made, by the publication of his 'Prolegomena' in 1795, the serious attack. … Wolf maintained that available writing was not known at, or till long after, the period of their composition; and that works of such length, not intrusted to the custody of written characters, could not have been transmitted through a course of generations with any approach to fidelity. Therefore they could only be a number of separate songs, brought together at a later date."

W. E. Gladstone, Homer (Literature Primers), chapters 1-2.

{1661}

"Homeric geography is entirely pre-Dorian. Total unconsciousness of any such event as the Dorian invasion reigns both in the Iliad and Odyssey. … A silence so remarkable can be explained only by the simple supposition that when they were composed the revolution in question had not yet occurred. Other circumstances confirm this view."

A. M. Clerke, Familiar Studies in Homer, chapter 1.

"It is … in the discoveries of Dr. Schliemann that we have the impulse which seems to be sending the balance over towards the belief in the European instead of in the Asiatic origin of the poems. We now know that at the very point which Homer makes the chief royal city of Greece there did, in fact, exist a civilisation which did, in fact, offer just the conditions for the rise of a poetry such as the Homeric—a great city 'rich in gold,' with a cultivation of the material arts such as is wont to go hand in hand with the growth of poetry. …

See GREECE: MYCENÆ AND ITS KINGS.

It is no longer possible to doubt that the world which the poems describe was one which really existed in the place where they put it. Even in details the poems have received striking illustration from the remains of Mykenai. … It appears that we may date the oldest part of the Iliad at least to some time before the Dorian invasion, which, according to the traditional chronology, took place about 1000 B. C. … But the poems can hardly be much earlier than the invasion; for there are various signs which indicate that the civilisation which they depict had made some advance beyond that of which we find the material remains in the 'shaft tombs,' discovered by Dr. Schliemann in the Acropolis of Mykenai. And the date of these has now been fixed by Mr. Petrie, from comparison with Egyptian remains, at about 1150. We can therefore hardly be far wrong, if the poems were composed in Achaian Greece, in dating their origin at about 1050 B. C. There still remains the question of the historical basis which may underlie the story of the Iliad. The poem may give us a true picture of Achaian Greece and its civilisation, and yet be no proof that the armies of Agamemnon fought beneath the walls of Troy. But here again the discoveries of recent years, and notably those of Schliemann at Hissarlik, have tended on the whole to confirm the belief that there is a historic reality behind the tale of Troy. … The hypothesis that the Iliad and Odyssey are the work of more than one poet … is one which has been gaining ground ever since it was seriously taken up and argued at length by Wolf in his famous 'Prolegomena,' just a century ago. But it has from the first encountered strong opposition, and is still regarded, in England at least, as the heretical view."

W. Leaf, Companion to the Iliad, introd.

"It seems clear that the author or authors of the Iliad and Odyssey lived long before the time when Æolian, Ionian, Dorian, were the three great tribal names of Greece, and far from the coast on which these three names were attached to successive portions of territory. If we are to decide the ancient controversy about the birthplace of Homer, we must turn away from Asia, and set ourselves to consider the claims of three districts of Greece proper: Thessaly, the home of the chief hero and the most ancient worship; Bœotia, the ancient seat of the Muses, and the first in the very ancient (if not actually Homeric) muster-roll of the ships; and Argolis, the seat of Achæan empire."

D. B. Monro, Homer and the Early History of Greece (English Historical Review, January, 1886).

"I hold that the original nucleus of the Iliad was due to a single Achaean poet, living in Thessaly before the immigration which partly displaced the primitive Hellenes there. This primary Iliad may have been as old as the eleventh century B. C. It was afterwards brought by Achaean emigrants to Ionia, and there enlarged by successive Ionian poets. The original nucleus of the Odyssey was also composed, probably, in Greece proper, before the Dorian conquest of the Peloponnesus; was carried to Ionia by emigrants whom the conquerors drove out; and was there expanded into an epic which blends the local traits of its origin with the spirit of Ionian adventure and Ionian society."

R. C. Jebb, The growth and influence of Classical Greek Poetry, page 14.

R. C. Jebb, Homer: An Introduction to the Iliad and the Odyssey.

"We accept the Iliad as one epic by one hand. The inconsistencies which are the basis of the opposite theory seem to us reconcileable in many places, in others greatly exaggerated. … To us the hypothesis of a crowd of great harmonious poets, working for centuries at the Iliad, and sinking their own fame and identity in Homer's, appears more difficult of belief than the opinion that one great poet may make occasional slips and blunders." As for the Odyssey, "we have … to deal with critics who do not recognise the unity, the marshalling of incidents towards a given end. We have to do with critics who find, in place of unity, patchwork and compilation, and evident traces of diverse dates, and diverse places of composition. Thus argument is inefficient, demonstration is impossible, and the final judge must be the opinion of the most trustworthy literary critics and of literary tradition. These are unanimous, as against the 'microscope-men,' in favor of the unity of the Odyssey."

A. Lang, Homer and the Epic, chapters 7 and 13.

HOMERITES, The.

See ABYSSINIA: 6TH TO 16TH CENTURIES.

HOMESTEAD ACT, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY).

HOMILDON HILL, Battle of.

A victory for the English, under "Hotspur," over a raiding army of the Scots, A. D. 1402. It was won almost entirely by the English cross-bow. By some historians it is called the Battle of Humbledon.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1400-1436.

HOMOOUSION AND HOMOIOUSION.

SEE ARIANISM.

HOMS, Battle of (1832).

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

HONDSCHOTTEN, Battle of (1793).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

—————HONDURAS: Start————

HONDURAS: Aboriginal inhabitants. Ruins of Ancient Civilization.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS, and QUICHES.

HONDURAS: A. D. 1502. Discovery by Columbus.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.

HONDURAS: A. D. 1524. Conquest by Olid and Cortes.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.

{1662}

HONDURAS: A. D. 1821-1871. Separation from Spain and independence. Brief annexation to Mexico. Attempted federations and their failure. The British colony.

See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

—————HONDURAS: End————

HONDURAS, British: A. D. 1850. The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

HONE, William, The Trials of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

HONEIN, Battle of.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

HONG-KONG: A. D. 1842. Ceded to Great Britain.

See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

HONG MERCHANTS.

See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

HONORIUS, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 395-423. Honorius I., Pope, 625-638. Honorius II., Pope, 1124-1130. Honorius III., Pope, 1216-1227. Honorius IV., Pope, 1285-1287;

HONOURS, Escheated.

"When a great barony by forfeiture or escheat fell into the hands of the [English] crown, instead of being incorporated with the general body of the county or counties in which it lay, it retained a distinct corporate existence and the whole apparatus of jurisdiction which it had possessed before. Under the title of an Honour, it either continued in the possession of the king and was farmed like a shire, or was granted out again to another lord as a hereditary fief."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 11, section 129 (volume 1).

HOOD, General John B. The Atlanta campaign.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA) to (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

HOOKER, General Joseph, Commander of the Army of the Potomac.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JANUARY-APRIL: VIRGINIA), and (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).

Transfer to Chattanooga.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

At Chattanooga.—The Battle above the Clouds.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

HOOKS AND KABELJAUWS, OR HOOKS AND CODS.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354; also, 1482-1493.

HOOVER'S GAP, Battle at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).

HOPLITES.

Heavy-armed foot-soldiers of the Greeks.

See PHYLÆ.

HORESTII, The.

See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

HORIKANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HORIKANS.

HORITES, The.

The aborigines of Canaan,—dwellers in caves, Troglodytes. "At the time of the Israelitish conquest … there still existed many remains of the Aborigines scattered through the land. They were then ordinarily designated by a name which suggests very different ideas—Rephaim, or Giants."

H. Ewald, History of Israel, introduction, section 4.

F. Lenormant considers the Rephaim a distinct race, divided into the Rephaim of Bashan, the Emim, the Zamzummim, the Zumim and the Anakim.

Manual of Ancient History, book 6, chapter 1.

See, also, JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY.

HORMUZ, Battle of.

The decisive battle, fought A. D. 226, on the plain of Hormuz, in Persia Proper, in which the Parthian monarchy was overthrown, its last king, Artabanus, slain, and the New Persian, or Sassanian empire established by Artaxerxes I.

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 3.

HORN, Count, and the struggle in the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

HORN, Cape. Discovered by Drake (1578).

See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

HORTENSIAN LAWS, The.

See ROME: B. C. 286.

HOSEIN, The martyrdom of.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.

HOSPES. HOSPITES. HOSPITIUM.

"In the earlier stages of society, especially in Greece and Italy, where the population consisted of numerous independent tribes constantly at variance with each other, every stranger was looked upon with suspicion. … Hence it became common for a person who was engaged in commerce, or any other occupation which might compel him to visit a foreign country, to form previously a connection with a citizen of that country, who might be ready to receive him as a friend and act as his protector. Such a connection was always strictly reciprocal. … An alliance of this description was termed Hospitium, the parties who concluded it were termed Hospites in relation to each other, and thus the word Hospes bore a double signification, denoting, according to circumstances, either an entertainer or a guest. The obligations imposed by the covenant were regarded as of the most sacred character. … The league of Hospitium, when once formed, was hereditary. … The parties interchanged tokens, by which they or their descendants might recognise each other. This token, called 'tessera hospitalis,' was carefully preserved. … In process of time, among both the Greeks and Romans, it became common for a state, when it desired to pay a marked compliment to any individual, to pass a resolution declaring him the Hospes of the whole community."

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 3.

—————HOSPITALLERS: Start————

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM, The Knights: A. D. 1115-1310. The origin and rise of the order.

"Some citizens of Amalfi, in Italy, who traded to the East, had [some time before the first crusade], with the permission of the Egyptian khaleefeh, built a convent near the church of the Resurrection [at Jerusalem], which was dedicated to the Virgin, and named Santa Maria de Latina, whose abbot and monks were to receive and entertain pilgrims from the West. A nunnery was afterwards added, and as the confluence of pilgrims increased, a new 'hospitium' was erected, dedicated to St. John Eleëmon ('compassionate'), a former patriarch of Alexandria, or, as is asserted, with perhaps more probability, to St. John the Baptist. This hospital was supported by the bounty of the abbot of Sta. Maria and the alms of the faithful, and the sick and poor of the pilgrims here met with attention and kindness. At the time of the taking of Jerusalem, Gerhard, a native of Provence, presided over the hospital; and the care taken by him and his brethren of the sick and wounded of the crusaders won them universal favour. Godfrey bestowed on them his domain of Monboire, in Brabant; his example was followed by others, and the brethren of the Hospital soon found themselves rich enough to separate from the monastery. {1663} They adopted the rule of the Augustinian canons, and assumed for their habit a black mantle, with a white cross of eight points on the left breast. Many knights who had come to Asia to combat the Infidels now laid aside their swords, and, as brethren of the Hospital, devoted themselves to the tending of the sick and relieving of the poor. Among these was a knight of Dauphiné, named Raymond Dupuy, who, on the death of Gerhard, was chosen to be his successor in office. Raymond, in the year 1118, gave the order its first regular organization."

T. Keightley, The Crusaders, chapter 2.

To Raymond Dupuy "the Order owed its distinctly military character, and that wonderful organization, combining the care of the sick and poor with the profession of arms, which characterized the Knights of St. John during all their subsequent history. … A new and revised constitution was drawn up, by which it was provided that there should be three classes of members. First, the Knights, who should bear arms and form a military body for service in the field against the enemies of Christ in general, and of the kingdom of Jerusalem in particular. These were to be of necessity men of noble or gentle birth. Secondly, the Clergy, or Chaplains. … Thirdly, the Serving Brethren, who were not required to be men of rank, and who acted as Esquires to the Knights, and assisted in the care of the hospitals. All persons of these three classes were considered alike members of the Order, and took the usual three monastic vows, and wore the armorial bearings of the Order, and enjoyed its rights and privileges. As the Order spread and the number of its members and convents increased, it was found desirable to divide it further into nations or 'Langes' [tongues, or languages], of which there were ultimately seven, viz., those of Provence, Auvergne, France, Italy, Aragon, Germany, and England. The habit was a black robe with a cowl, having a cross of white linen of eight points upon the left breast. This was at first worn by all Hospitallers, to whichever of the three classes they belonged; but Pope Alexander IV. afterwards ordered that the Knights should be distinguished by a white cross upon a red ground. … It was not long before the new Order found a field for the exercise of its arms. … From this time the Hospitallers were always found in the ranks of the Christian army in every battle that was fought with the Moslems, and the fame of their gallantry and bravery soon spread far and wide, and attracted fresh recruits to their ranks from the noblest families of every country of Europe. They became the right hand of the King of Jerusalem," sharing the fortunes of the nominal kingdom for nearly two centuries, and almost sharing its ultimate fate. The handful who escaped from Acre in 1291 (see JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291) took refuge in Cyprus and rallied there the Knights scattered in other lands. Rebuilding and fortifying the town of Limisso, they made that their citadel and capital for a few years, finding a new vocation for their pious valor. They now took up war upon the naval side, and turned their arms specially against the Moslem pirates of the Mediterranean. They fitted out armed ships "which began to cruise between Palestine and European ports, conveying pilgrims, rescuing captives, and engaging and capturing the enemy's galleys." But not finding in Cyprus the independence they desired, the Knights, ere long, established themselves in a more satisfactory home on the island of Rhodes.

F. C. Woodhouse, Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages, part 1, chapter 3-6.

ALSO IN: Abbe de Vertot, History of the Knights Hospitallers, books 1-3 (volume 1).

A. Sutherland, Achievements of the Knights of Malta, chapters 1-9 (volume 1).

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1310. Conquest and occupation of Rhodes.

"The most important conquest of the time … was that of Rhodes, by the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem, both from its durability and from the renown of the conquerors. The knights had settled in Cyprus after they had been expelled from Acre, but they were soon discontented to remain as vassals of the King of Cyprus. They aspired to form a sovereign state, but it was not easy to make any conquests from the Infidels in a position which they could hope to maintain for any length of time. They therefore solicited permission from the Pope to turn their arms against the Greeks. His Holiness applauded their Christian zeal, and bestowed on them innumerable blessings and indulgences, besides nine thousand ducats to aid their enterprise. Under the pretext of a crusade for the recovery of Christ's tomb, the knights collected a force with which they besieged Rhodes. So great was their contempt for the Greek emperor that they sent an embassy to Constantinople, requiring Adronicus to withdraw his garrisons, and cede the island and its dependencies to them as feudatories, offering to supply him with a subsidiary force of three hundred cavalry. Adronicus dismissed the ambassadors, and sent an army to raise the siege; but his troops were defeated, and the knights took the city of Rhodes on the 15th August, 1310. As sovereigns of this beautiful island, they were long the bulwark of Christian Europe against the Turkish power; and the memory of the chivalrous youth who for successive ages found an early tomb at this verge of the Christian world, will long shed a romantic colouring on the history of Rhodes. They sustained the declining glory of a state of society that was hastening to become a vision of the past; they were the heroes of a class of which the Norse sea-kings had been the demigods. The little realm they governed as an independent state consisted of Rhodes, with the neighbouring islands of Kos, Kalymnos, Syme, Leros, Nisyros, Telos, and Chalke; on the opposite continent they possessed the classic city of Halicarnassus, and several strong forts, of which the picturesque ruins still overhang the sea."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, book 4, chapter 2 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: W. Porter, History of the Knights of Malta, chapters 7-10 (volume 1).

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1482. Treatment of the Turkish Prince Jemshid or Zizim.

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1522. Siege and surrender of Rhodes to the Turks

In 1522, the Turkish sultan, Solyman the Magnificent, "turned his victorious arms against the island of Rhodes, the seat at that time of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. This small state he attacked with such a numerous army as the lords of Asia have been accustomed, in every age, to bring into the field. Two hundred thousand men, and a fleet of 400 sail, appeared against a town defended by a garrison consisting of 5,000 soldiers and 600 knights, under the command of Villiers de L'Isle Adam, the grand-master, whose wisdom and valour rendered him worthy of that station at such a dangerous juncture. {1664} No sooner did he begin to suspect the destination of Solyman's vast armaments than he despatched messengers to all the Christian courts, imploring their aid against the common enemy. But though every prince in that age acknowledged Rhodes to be the great bulwark of Christendom in the East, and trusted to the gallantry of its knights as the best security against the progress of the Ottoman arms,—though Adrian, with a zeal which became the head and father of the Church, exhorted the contending powers to forget their private quarrels, and, by uniting their arms, to prevent the infidels from destroying a society which did honour to the Christian name,—yet so violent and implacable was the animosity of both parties [in the wars of the Emperor Charles V. and Francis I. of France], that, regardless of the danger to which they exposed all Europe, … they suffered Solyman to carry on his operations against Rhodes without disturbance. The grand-master, after incredible efforts of courage, of patience, and of military conduct, during a siege of six months,—after sustaining many assaults, and disputing every post with amazing obstinacy,—was obliged at last to yield to numbers; and, having obtained an honourable capitulation from the sultan, who admired and respected his virtue, he surrendered the town, which was reduced to a heap of rubbish, and destitute of every resource. Charles and Francis, ashamed of having occasioned such a loss to Christendom by their ambitious contests, endeavoured to throw the blame of it on each other, while all Europe, with greater justice, imputed it equally to both. The emperor, by way of reparation, granted the Knights of St. John the small island of Malta, in which they fixed their residence, retaining, though with less power and splendour, their ancient spirit and implacable enmity to the infidels."

W. Robertson, History of the Reign of Charles V., book 2 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: C. Torr, Rhodes in Modern Times, chapter 1.

J. S. Brewer, The Reign of Henry VIII., chapter 10 (volume 1).

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1530-1565. Occupation of Malta. Improvement and fortification of the island. The great siege. The Turks repelled.

"Malta, which had been annexed by Charles [the Fifth's] predecessors to Sicily, had descended to that monarch as part of the dominions of the crown of Aragon. In … ceding it to the Knights of St. John, the politic prince consulted his own interests quite as much as those of the order. He drew no revenue from the rocky isle, but, on the contrary, was charged with its defence against the Moorish corsairs, who made frequent descents on the spot, wasting the country, and dragging off the miserable people into slavery. By this transfer of the island to the military order of St. John, he not only relieved himself of all further expense on its account, but secured a permanent bulwark for the protection of his own dominions. … In October, 1530, L'Isle Adam and his brave associates took possession of their new domain. … It was not very long before the wilderness before them was to blossom like the rose, under their diligent culture. Earth was brought in large quantities, and at great cost, from Sicily. Terraces to receive it were hewn in the steep sides of the rock; and the soil, quickened by the ardent sun of Malta, was soon clothed with the glowing vegetation of the South. … In a short time, too, the island bristled with fortifications, which, combined with its natural defences, enabled its garrison to defy the attacks of the corsair. To these works was added the construction of suitable dwellings for the accommodation of the order. But it was long after, and not until the land had been desolated by the siege on which we are now to enter, that it was crowned with the stately edifices that eclipsed those of Rhodes itself, and made Malta the pride of the Mediterranean. … Again their galleys sailed forth to battle with the corsairs, and returned laden with the spoils of victory. … It was not long before the name of the Knights of Malta became as formidable on the southern shores of the Mediterranean as that of the Knights of Rhodes had been in the East." At length the Turkish sultan, Solyman the Magnificent, "resolved to signalize the close of his reign by driving the knights from Malta, as he had the commencement of it by driving them from Rhodes," and he made his preparations on a formidable scale. The grand-master of Malta, Jean Parisot de la Valette, had his spies at Constantinople, and was not long in ignorance of the Turkish project. He, too, prepared himself for the encounter with prodigious energy and forethought. He addressed appeals for help to all the Christian powers. "He summoned the knights absent in foreign lands to return to Malta, and take part with their brethren in the coming struggle. He imported large supplies of provisions and military stores from Sicily and Spain. He drilled the militia of the island, and formed an effective body of more than 3,000 men; to which was added a still greater number of Spanish and Italian troops. … The fortifications were put in repair, strengthened with outworks, and placed in the best condition for resisting the enemy. … The whole force which La Valette could muster in defence of the island amounted to about 9,000 men. This included 700 knights, of whom about 600 had already arrived [when the siege began]. The remainder were on their way; and joined him at a later period of the siege." The Turkish fleet made its appearance on the 18th of May, 1565. It comprised 130 royal galleys, with fifty of lesser size, and a number of transports. "The number of soldiers on board, independently of the mariners, and including 6,000 janizaries, was about 30,000,—the flower of the Ottoman army. … The command of the expedition was intrusted to two officers. One of these, Piali, was the same admiral who defeated the Spaniards at Gelves.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

He had the direction of the naval operations. The land forces were given to Mustapha, a veteran nearly 70 years of age. … The Turkish armada steered for the southeastern quarter of the island, and cast anchor in the port of St. Thomas. The troops speedily disembarked, and spread themselves in detached bodies over the land, devastating the country. … It was decided, in the Turkish council of war, to begin operations with the siege of the castle of St. Elmo"—a small but strong fort, built at the point of a promontory which separates Port Musiette, on the west, from what is now known as Valetta harbor, then called the Great Port. The heroic defense of St. Elmo, where a mere handful of knights and soldiers withstood the whole army and navy of the Turks for an entire month, is one of the grand episodes of war in the 16th century. {1665} The few surviving defenders were overwhelmed in the final assault, which took place on the 23d of June. "The number of Christians who fell in this siege amounted to about 1,500. Of these 123 were members of the order, and among them several of its most illustrious warriors. The Turkish loss is estimated at 8,000, at the head of whom stood Dragut," the famous pasha of Tripoli, who had joined the besiegers, with ships and men, and who had received a mortal wound in one of the assaults. After the loss of St. Elmo, "the strength of the order was … concentrated on the two narrow slips of land which run out from the eastern side of the Great Port. … The northern peninsula, occupied by the town of Il Borgo, and at the extreme point by the castle of St. Angelo, was defended by works stronger and in better condition than the fortifications of St. Elmo. … The parallel slip of land was crowned by the fort of St. Michael." Early in July, the Turks opened their batteries on both St. Angelo and St. Michael, and on the 15th they attempted the storming of the latter, but were bloodily repulsed, losing 3,000 or 4,000 men, according to the Christian account. Two weeks later they made a general assault and were again repelled. On the 25th of August, the valiant knights, wasted and worn with watching and fighting, were relieved by long-promised re-enforcements from Sicily, and the disheartened Turks at once raised the siege. "The arms of Solyman II., during his long and glorious reign, met with no reverse so humiliating as his failure in the siege of Malta. … The waste of life was prodigious, amounting to more than 30,000 men. … Yet the loss in this siege fell most grievously on the Christians. Full 200 knights, 2,500 soldiers, and more than 7,000 inhabitants,—men, women, and children,—are said to have perished."

W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Philip II., book 4, chapters 2-5.

ALSO IN: W. Porter, History of the Knights of Malta, chapters 15-18 (volume 2).

S. Lane-Poole, Story of the Barbary Corsairs, chapter 13.

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1565-1879. Decline and practical disappearance of the order.

"The Great Siege of 1565 was the last eminent exploit of the Order of St. John. From that time their fame rested rather on the laurels of the past than the deeds of the present. Rest and affluence produced gradually their usual consequences—diminished vigour and lessened independence. The 'esprit de corps' of the Knights became weaker after long years, in which there were no events to bind them together in united sympathies and common struggles. Many of them had become susceptible of bribery and petty jealousies. In 1789 the French Revolution burst out and aroused all European nations to some decided policy. The Order of St. John had received special favours from Louis XVI., and now showed their grateful appreciation of his kindness by cheerfully contributing a large portion of their revenue to assist him in his terrible emergencies. For this they suffered the confiscation of all the property of the Order in France, when the revolutionists obtained supreme power."

W. Tallack, Malta, section 8.

"In September, 1792, a decree was passed, by which the estates and property of the Order of St. John in France were annexed to the state. Many of the knights were seized, imprisoned, and executed as aristocrats. The principal house of the Order in Paris, called the Temple, was converted into a prison, and there the unfortunate Louis XVI. and his family were incarcerated. The Directory also did its best to destroy the Order in Germany and Italy. … All this time the Directory had agents in Malta, who were propagating revolutionary doctrines, and stirring up the lowest of the people to rebellion and violence. There were in the island 332 knights (of whom many, however, were aged and infirm), and about 6,000 troops. On June 9, 1798, the French fleet appeared before Malta, with Napoleon himself on board, and a few days after troops were landed, and began pillaging the country. They were at first successfully opposed by the soldiers of the Grand Master, but the seeds of sedition, which had been so freely sown, began to bear fruit, and the soldiers mutinied, and refused to obey their officers. All the outlying forts were taken, and the knights who commanded them, who were all French, were dragged before Napoleon. He accused them of taking up arms against their country, and declared that he would have them shot as traitors. Meanwhile sedition was rampant within the city. The people rose and attacked the palace of the Grand Master, and murdered several of the knights. They demanded that the island should be given up to the French, and finally opened the gates, and admitted Napoleon and his troops. After some delay, articles of capitulation were agreed upon, Malta was declared part of France, and all the knights were required to quit the island within three days. Napoleon sailed for Egypt on June 19, taking with him all the silver, gold, and jewels that could be collected from the churches and the treasury. … In the following September, 1798, Nelson besieged, and quickly obtained possession of the island, which has ever since remained in the hands of the English. In this way the ancient Order of St. John ceased to be a sovereign power, and practically its history came to an end. The last Grand Master, Baron Ferdinand von Hompesch, after the loss of Malta, retired to Trieste, and shortly afterwards abdicated and died at Montpelier, in 1805. Many of the knights, however, had in the mean time gone to Russia, and before the abdication of Hompesch, they elected the Emperor Paul Grand Master, who had for some time been protector of the Order. This election was undoubtedly irregular and void. By the terms of the Treaty of Amiens, in 1802, it was stipulated that Malta should be restored to the Order, but that there should be neither French nor English knights. But before the treaty could be carried into effect Napoleon returned from Elba, and war broke out again. By the treaty of Paris, in 1814, Malta was ceded to England. … In 1801, the assembly of the Knights at St. Petersburg … petitioned Pope Pius VII. to select a Grand Master from certain names which they sent. This he declined to do, but, some time afterwards, at the request of the Emperor Alexander, and the King of Naples, and without consulting the knights, the Pope appointed Count Giovanni di Tommasi Grand Master. He died in 1805, and no Grand Master has been since appointed. On his death-bed, Tommasi nominated the bailiff, Guevara Suardo, Lieutenant Master. … {1666} [Such] lieutenants have presided over an association of titular knights at Rome, which is styled 'the Sacred Council.' In 1814, the French knights assembled at Paris and elected a capitulary commission for the government of the Order. … In or about the year 1826, the English 'Lange' of the Order of the Knights of Malta was revived. … A regular succession of Priors has been continued to the present time [1879], and the Duke of Manchester is the present Prior. The members of the Order devote themselves to relieving the poor, and assisting hospitals."

F. C. Woodhouse, Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages, part 1, chapter 20.

—————HOSPITALLERS: End————

HOSPODAR.

"A title of Slavonic or Russian origin (Russian, Gospodin = Lord)."

J. Samuelson, Roumania, page 209, foot-note.

HOSTIS.

See PEREGRINI.

HOTTENTOTS, The.

See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS, and A. D. 1486-1806; also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH; and KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.

HOUSE OF KEYS, The.

See MANX KINGDOM.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

See LORDS, HOUSE OF.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

HOUSECARLS.

"No English King or Ealdorman had hitherto kept a permanent military force in his pay. But Cnut [or Canute, A. D. 1018-1035] now organized a regular paid force, kept constantly under arms, and ready to march at a moment's notice. These were the famous Thingmen, the Housecarls, of whom we hear so much under Cnut and under his successors. … The Housecarls were in fact a standing army, and a standing army was an institution which later Kings and great Earls, English as well as Danish, found it to be their interest to continue. Under Cnut they formed a sort of military guild with the king at their head."

E. A. Freeman, Norman Conquest, chapter 6, section 2, and appendix, note kkk (volume 1).

HOUSEHOLD FRANCHISE.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

HOUSTON, Sam, and the independence of Texas.

See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

HOVAS, The.

See MALAYAN RACE.

HOWE, George Augustus, Lord, Death at Ticonderoga.

See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

HOWE, Richard, Admiral Lord, and the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST)

Naval Victory (1794).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

HOWE, General Sir William, and the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY), (JUNE); 1776 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER); 1776-1777; 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER); 1778 (JUNE).

HRINGS OF THE AVARS.

See AVARS, RINGS OF THE.

HUAMABOYA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

HUANCAS, The.

See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

HUASTECS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.

HUAYNA CAPAC, The Inca.

See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.

HUBERTSBURG, The Peace of.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY.

See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

HUDSON'S BAY TERRITORY, Relinquished by France to Great Britain (1713).

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

HUDSON'S VOYAGES, Explorations and Discoveries.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1607-1608, and 1609.

HUECOS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

HUGH CAPET, King of France, A. D. 987-996.

—————HUGUENOTS: Start————

HUGUENOTS. First appearance and disputed origin of the name. Quick formation of the Calvinistic Protestant Party in France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1528-1562. Ascendancy in Navarre.

See NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1554-1565. Attempted colonization in Brazil and in Florida. The Massacre at Fort Caroline.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563, to 1567-1568.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1560-1598. The Wars of Religion in France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563, to 1593-1598.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1598-1599. The Edict of Nantes.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1598-1599.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1620-1622. Their formidable organization and political pretensions. Continued desertion of nobles. Leadership of the clergy. Revolt and unfavorable Treaty of Montpellier.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1625-1626. Renewed revolt. Second Treaty of Montpellier.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1627-1628. Revolt in alliance with England. Richelieu's siege and capture of La Rochelle. End of political Huguenotism in France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1661-1680. Revived persecution under Louis XIV.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1680.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1681-1698. The climax of persecution in France. The Dragonnades. The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. The great exodus.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1702-1710. The Camisard uprising in the Cévennes.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.

—————HUGUENOTS: End————

HULL, Commodore Isaac.—Naval exploits.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

HULL, General William, and the surrender of Detroit.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

HULL: Siege by the Royalists.

Hull, occupied by the Parliamentary forces under Lord Fairfax, after their defeat at Adwalton Moor, was besieged by the Royalists under the Earl of Newcastle, from September 2 until October 11, 1643, when they were driven off.

C. R. Markham, Life of the Great Lord Fairfax, chapter 12.

See, also, WINCEBY FIGHT.

HÜLSEMANN LETTER, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-1851.

HULST, Battle of (1642).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

HUMANISM.

See RENAISSANCE.

HUMAS, OR OUMAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

{1667}

HUMAYUN, Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1530-1556.

HUMBERT, King of Italy, A. D. 1878-.

HUMBLE PETITION AND ADVICE, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1654-1658.

HUMBLEDON, Battle of.

See HOMILDON HILL, BATTLE OF.

HUNDRED, The.

"The union of a number of townships for the purpose of judicial administration, peace, and defence, formed what is known as the 'hundred,' or 'wapentake'; a district answering to the 'pagus' of Tacitus, the 'hærred' of Scandinavia, the 'huntari' or 'gau' of Germany. … The name of the hundred, which, like the wapentake, first appears in the laws of Edgar, has its origin far back in the remotest antiquity, but the use of it as a geographical expression is discoverable only in comparatively late evidences. The 'pagus' of the Germania sent its hundred warriors to the host, and appeared by its hundred judges in the court of the 'princeps.' The Lex Salica contains abundant evidence that in the fifth century the administration of the hundred was the chief, if not the only, machinery of the Frank judicial system; and the word in one form or other enters into the constitution of all the German nations. It may be regarded then as a certain vestige of primitive organisation. But the exact relation of the territorial hundred to the hundred of the Germania is a point which is capable of, and has received, much discussion. It has been regarded as denoting simply a division of a hundred hides of land; as the district which furnished a hundred warriors to the host; as representing the original settlement of the hundred warriors; or as composed of a hundred hides, each of which furnished a single warrior. The question is not peculiar to English history, and the same result may have followed from very different causes as probably as from the same causes, here and on the continent. It is very probable, as already stated, that the colonists of Britain arranged themselves in hundreds of warriors; it is not probable that the country was carved into equal districts. The only conclusion that seems reasonable is that, under the name of geographical hundreds, we have the variously sized pagi or districts in which the hundred warriors settled. … The hundred-gemot, or wapentake court, was held every month; it was called six days before the day of meeting, and could not be held on Sunday. It was attended by the lords of lands within the hundred, or their stewards representing them, and by the parish priest, the reeve, and four best men of each township. … The criminal jurisdiction of the hundred is perpetuated in the manorial court leet."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 5, section 45 (volume 1).

"By the 13th century the importance of the hundred had much diminished. The need for any such body, intermediate between township and county, ceased to be felt, and the functions of the hundred were gradually absorbed by the county. Almost everywhere in England, by the reign of Elizabeth, the hundred had fallen into decay. It is curious that its name and some of its peculiarities should have been brought to America, and should in one state have remained to the present day. Some of the early settlements in Virginia were called hundreds, but they were practically nothing more than parishes, and the name soon became obsolete, except upon the map, where we still see, for example, Bermuda Hundred. But in Maryland the hundred flourished and became the political unit, like the township in New England. The hundred was the militia district, and the district for the assessment of taxes. In the earliest times it was also the representative district. … The hundred had also its assembly of all the people, which was in many respects like the New England town-meeting. These hundred-meetings enacted by-laws, levied taxes, appointed committees, and often exhibited a vigorous political life. But after the Revolution they fell into disuse, and in 1824 the hundred became extinct in Maryland; its organization was swallowed up in that of the county. In Delaware, however, the hundred remains to this day."

J. Fiske, Civil Government in the United States, chapter 4, section 1.

HUNDRED DAYS, The.

The period of Napoleon's recovery of power in France, on his return from the Isle of Elba, and until his overthrow at Waterloo and final abdication, is often referred to as The Hundred Days.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815, to 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

HUNDRED YEARS WAR, The

See FRANCE: A. D.1337-1360.

—————HUNGARIANS: Start————

HUNGARIANS, The.

"Gibbon is correct in connecting the language of the Hungarians with that of the Finnish or Tschudish race. The original abode of the Hungarians was in the country called Ugria or Jugoria, in the southern part of the Uralian mountains, which is now inhabited by the Voguls and Ostiaks, who are the eastern branches of the Finnish race, while the most important of the western branches are the Finns and Lappes. Ugria is called Great Hungary by the Franciscan monk Piano Carpini, who travelled in 1426 to the court of the Great Khan. From Ugria the Hungarians were expelled by the Turkish tribes of Petcheneges and Chazars, and sought refuge in the plains of the Lower Danube, where they first appeared in the reign of the Greek Emperor Theophilus, between 829 and 842. They called themselves Magyars, but the Russians gave them the name of Ugri, as originating from Ugria; and this name has been corrupted into Ungri and Hungarians. Although it is difficult to believe that the present Magyars, who are the foremost people in Eastern Europe, are of the same race as the degraded Voguls and Ostiaks, this fact is not only attested by historical authority, and the unerring affinity of language; but, when they first appeared in the central parts of Europe, the description given of them by an old chronicler of the ninth century (quoted by Zeuss, page 746) accords precisely with that of the Voguls and Ostiaks."

Dr. W. Smith, Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 55.

"That a Majiar female ever made her way from the Ural Mountains to Hungary is more than I can find; the presumptions being against it. Hence it is just possible that a whole-blooded Majiar was never born on the banks of the Danube. Whether the other elements are most Turk or most Slavonic is more than I venture to guess."

R. G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 11.

"According to their own primitive traditions, the ruling caste, the main body of the nation, were the children of Mogor the son of Magog. The Hebrew name Mogor signifies 'Terror'; and slightly varied by the Orientals into Magyar became the rallying cry of the once-splendid Hungarian nationality."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: A. J. Patterson, The Magyars, volume 1, chapter 1.

{1668}

HUNGARIANS: Ravages in Europe and settlement in Hungary.

"The Magyars (the idiomatic synonym for Hungarians, and probably the proper name of one of their tribes), driven by internal dissensions from their native deserts, found a home for centuries around the Caucasus and along the barren shores of the Wolga. About the end of the 9th century they suddenly struck their tents, and pressed irresistibly forward to the very heart of Europe. … Immediately after crossing the eastern frontier (A. D. 889), the Magyars elected for their chief Arpad, the son of Almos, who conducted them to the frontiers of Hungary. The latter did not survive to see the conquest. The whole body under Arpad's guidance consisted of about a million, numbering among them about 200,000 warriors, and divided into seven tribes, each having its chief. The country which they prepared to take possession of, and the central part of which was then called Pannonia, was broken up into small parts, and inhabited by races dissimilar in origin and language; as Sclavonians, Wallachians, a few Huns and Avars, as well as some Germans. … Arpad soon descended with his followers on those wide plains, whence Attila, four centuries before, swayed two parts of the globe. Most dexterous horsemen, armed with light spears and almost unerring bows, these invaders followed their leader from victory to victory, soon rendering themselves masters of the land lying between the Theiss and the Danube, carrying at the same time their devastations, on the one hand, to the Adriatic, and, on the other, towards the German frontiers. Having achieved the conquest, Arpad took up his residence on the Danubian isle, Csepel, though the seat of the court was Buda or Attelburg. … The love of their new dominion was far from curbing the passion of the Magyars for distant bloody adventure and plunder. The most daring deeds were undertaken by single chiefs, during the reign of Zoltan and his successor Taksony, which filled up the first part of the tenth century. The enervated and superstitious population of Europe thought the Magyars to be the scourge of God, directly dropped down from heaven; the very report of their approach was sufficient to drive thousands into the recesses of mountains and depths of forests, while the priests increased the common panic by mingling in their litanies the words, 'God preserve us from the Magyars.' … The irruptions of the Magyars were simultaneously felt on the shores of the Baltic, among the inhabitants of the Alps, and at the very gates of Constantinople. The emperors of the East and of Germany were repeatedly obliged to purchase momentary peace by heavy tributes; but Germany, as may be conceived from her geographical position, was chiefly exposed to the ravages of these new neighbours."

E. Szabad, Hungary, Past and Present, part 1, chapter 1.

See GERMANY: A. D. 911-936.

HUNGARIANS: A. D. 900-924. Ravages in Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 900-924.

HUNGARIANS: A. D. 934-955. Repulse from Germany.

"The deliverance of Germany and Christendom was achieved by the Saxon princes, Henry the Fowler and Otho the Great, who, in two memorable battles, forever broke the power of the Hungarians." Twenty years after their defeat by Henry the Fowler (A. D. 934) the Hungarians invaded the empire of his son (A. D. 955), "and their force is defined, in the lowest estimate, at 100,000 horse. They were invited by domestic faction; the gates of Germany were treacherously unlocked, and they spread, far beyond the Rhine and the Meuse, into the heart of Flanders. But the vigour and prudence of Otho dispelled the conspiracy; the princes were made sensible that, unless they were true to each other, their religion and country were irrecoverably lost; and the national powers were reviewed in the plains of Augsburg. They marched and fought in eight legions, according to the division of provinces and tribes [Bavarians, Franconians, Saxons, Swabians, Bohemians]. … The Hungarians were expected in the front; they secretly passed the Lech, a river of Bavaria that falls into the Danube, turned the rear of the Christian army, plundered the baggage, and disordered the legions of Bohemia and Swabia. The battle [near Augsburg, August 10, 955] was restored by the Franconians, whose duke, the valiant Conrad, was pierced with an arrow as he rested from his fatigues; the Saxons fought under the eyes of their king, and his victory surpassed, in merit and importance, the triumphs of the last two hundred years. The loss of the Hungarians was still greater in the flight than in the action; they were encompassed by the rivers of Bavaria; and their past cruelties excluded them from the hope of mercy."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire chapter 55.

ALSO IN: W. Menzel, History of Germany, chapter 135 (volume 1).

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, volume 2, pages 656-665.

A. W. Grube, Heroes of History and Legend, chapter 8.

—————HUNGARIANS: End————

HUNGARY: Ancient.

See DACIA, and PANNONIA.

HUNGARY: The Huns in possession.

See HUNS.

HUNGARY: The Avars in possession.

See AVARS.

HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114. Christianization of the Magyars. Kingship conferred on the Duke by the Pope. Annexation of Croatia and conquest of Dalmatia.

"King Geiza [of the house of Arpad—see HUNGARIANS: RAVAGES IN EUROPE] (972-997) was the first pacific ruler of pagan Hungary. … Hungary was enclosed within limits which she was never again able to cross, and even within these limits the Magyars were not the only inhabitants; in almost every part they were surrounded by Slavs, whose language and laws were to exercise over them a lasting influence, and on the southeast they touched on that Romance or Wallachian element which, from the time of the Roman colonies of Trajan, had continued to develop there. Numerous marriages with these neighbours gradually modified the primitive type of the Magyars. … Geiza I. had married as his second wife a sister of the duke of Poland, Mieczyslaw. She had been converted to Christianity, and, like Clotilde of France, this princess knew how to use her influence in favour of her religion. {1669} She persuaded her husband to receive the missionaries who came to preach the Gospel in the country of the Magyars, and Pilgrim, archbishop of Lorch, undertook the systematic conversion of the nation. The mention of him in the 'Nibelungen Lied' in connection with Etzel (Attila), king of the Huns, is doubtless due to the memory of this mission. He sent priests from his diocese into Hungary, and in 974 he was able to announce to the pope 5,000 conversions. … The great Chekh apostle, St. Adalbert or Vojtech, bishop of Prague, continued the work begun by Pilgrim. About 994, he went to Gran (Esztergom), where the duke of Hungary then dwelt, and solemnly baptized the son of Geiza, to whom he gave the name of Stephen. Henceforth the court of the duke became the resort of knights from all the neighbouring countries, but especially from Germany, and these knights, entering into intimate relations with the native nobility, drew Hungary and the empire into still closer union. Prince Stephen, heir presumptive to the throne, married the princess Gisella, daughter of the duke of Bavaria, while one of the daughters of Geiza became the wife of the Polish duke Boleslaw, and another married Urseolus, doge of Venice. Through these alliances, Hungary obtained for itself a recognized place among European states, and the work begun so well by Geiza was completed by Stephen, to whom was reserved the honour of establishing the position of his kingdom in Europe and of completing its conversion. … 'Hungary became Catholic,' says a Magyar historian, 'not through apostolic teaching, nor through the invitation of the Holy See, but through the laws of king Stephen' (Verböczy). He was not always content to use persuasion alone to lead his subjects to the new faith; he hesitated not to use threats also. … Stephen sent an ambassador to Rome, to treat directly with pope Sylvester, who graciously received the homage done by him for his kingdom, and, by a letter dated the 27th of March, 1000, announced that he took the people of Hungary under the protection of the Church. By the same brief he granted the royal crown to Stephen. … Besides this, he conferred on him the privilege of having the cross always borne before him, as a symbol of the apostolic power which he granted to him. The authenticity of this pontifical letter has indeed been disputed; but, however that may be, the emperor of Austria, king of Hungary, still bears the title of Apostolic Majesty. … Under this great king, Hungary became a completely independent kingdom between the two empires of the East and West. … The laws of Stephen are contained in 56 articles divided into two books. His ideas on all matters of government are also to be found in the counsels which he wrote, or caused to be written, for his son Emerich. … The son for whom the great king had written his maxims died before his father, in 1031, and is honoured as a saint by the Church. The last years of king Stephen were harassed by rivalries and plots. He died on the 15th of August, 1038. … Stephen had chosen as his successor his nephew Peter, the son of the doge Urseolus." But Peter was driven out and sought help in Germany, bringing war into the country. The Hungarians chose for their king, Samuel Ala, a tribal chief; but soon deposed him and elected Andrew, son of Ladislas the Bald (1046). Andrew was dethroned by his brother Bela, in 1061. Both Andrew and Bela had bitter struggles with revived paganism, which was finally suppressed. Bela died in 1063. "According to the Asiatic custom, which still prevails in Turkey, he was succeeded by his nephew Solomon. … This prince was only twelve years of age, and the emperor, Henry IV., took advantage of his youth to place him in a humiliating position of tutelage. … The enemies of Solomon accused him of being the creature of the Germans, and reproached him for having done homage to the emperor for a state which belonged to St. Peter. Pope Gregory VII., who was then struggling against the emperor [see PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122], encouraged the rebels. 'The kingdom of Hungary,' he said, owes obedience to none but the Church.' Prince Geiza was proclaimed king in the place of Solomon, but he died without having reigned. He was succeeded by Ladislas the Holy (1077), who was able to make himself equally independent of emperor and pope. … The dying Ladislas chose his nephew Koloman as his successor. … The most important act of this reign [Koloman's, 1095-1114] was the annexation of Croatia. In 1090, St. Ladislas had been elected to the throne of Croatia, and he, on his death, left the government of it to his nephew Almos, who very soon made himself unpopular. Koloman drove him out of Croatia, and had himself proclaimed king. He next set about the conquest of Dalmatia from the Venetians, seized the principal towns, Spalato (Spljet), Zara (Zadir), and Trogir (Trau), and granted them full power of self-government. Then (1102) he had himself crowned, at Belgrade, king of Croatia and Dalmatia. From this time the position of Croatia, as regarded Hungary, was very much the same as the position of Hungary in regard to Austria in later times."

L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, chapters 5-6.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES, 9TH-16TH CENTURIES (BOSNIA, SERVIA, ETC.).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1096. Hostilities with the first Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301. The Golden Bull of King Bela. Invasion and frightful devastation by the Tartars. The end of the Arpad dynasty.

"Coloman was succeeded on the throne by his son Stephen, who, after a short reign, was succeeded by Bela the Blind. The most important event of these reigns was the war with Venice about the possession of Dalmatia, and the annexation to the Hungarian crown of Rama, a part of Servia. In 1141, Geisa II. ascended the throne of St. Stephen. His reign was marked by several important events. Having entirely reduced Transylvania, he invited many Saxons and Flemish into his kingdom, some of whom settled in the Banat, in the south of Hungary, and others in Transylvania. In this principality the German settlers received from the king a separate district, being, besides, exempted from many taxes and endowed with particular privileges. … The following years of the 12th century, filled up by the reigns of Stephen III., Bela III., and Emerick, are marked by the continuance of the Venetian war, but present no incidents deserving of particular notice. More important was the reign of Andrew II., who ascended the throne in 1205. … {1670} Andrew, by the advice of the Pope, set out with a large army to the Holy Land [1216—see CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229], nominating the Ban, called Banko, viceroy of Hungary. While the Hungarian king spent his time in Constantinople, and afterwards in operations round Mount Tabor, Hungary became a scene of violence and rapine, aggravated by the careless and unconstitutional administration of the queen's foreign favourites, as well as by the extortions committed by the oligarchy on their inferiors. Receiving no support from the king of Jerusalem, Andrew resolved on returning home. On his arrival in Hungary, he had the mortification of finding, in addition to a disaffected nobility, a rival to the throne in the person of his son Bela. As the complaints of the nobles became daily louder, … the king resolved to confirm the privileges of the country by a new charter, called The Golden Bull. This took place in the year 1222. The chief provisions of this charter were as follows:

1st, That the states were henceforth to be annually convoked either under the presidency of the king or the palatine;

2d, That no nobleman was to be arrested without being previously tried and legally sentenced;

3d, That no contribution or tax was to be levied on the property of the nobles;

4th, That if called to military service beyond the frontiers of the country, they were to be paid by the king;

5th, That high offices should neither be made hereditary nor given to foreigners without the consent of the Diet.

The most important point, however, was article 31st, which conferred on the nobles the right of appealing to arms in case of any violation of the laws by the crown. Other provisions contained in this charter refer to the exemption of the lower clergy from the payment of taxes and tolls, and to the determination of the tithes to be paid by the cultivators of the soil. … Andrew died soon after the promulgation of the charter, and was succeeded by his son Bela IV. The beginning of this prince's reign was troubled with internal dissensions caused by the Cumans [an Eastern tribe which invaded Hungary in the later half of the 11th century—see COSSACKS], who, after having been vanquished by St. Ladislaus, settled in Hungary between the banks of the Theiss and Marosch. But a greater and quite unexpected danger, which threatened Hungary with utter destruction, arose from the invasion of the Tartars. Their leader Batu, after having laid waste Poland and Silesia, poured with his innumerable bands into the heart of Hungary [see MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294]. Internal dissensions facilitated the triumph of the foe, and the battle fought on the banks of the river Sajo (A. D. 1241) terminated in the total defeat of the Hungarians. The Tartar hordes spread with astonishing rapidity throughout the whole country, which in a few weeks was converted into a chaos of blood and flames. Not contented with wholesale massacre, the Tartar leader devised snares to destroy the lives of those who succeeded in making their escape into the recesses of the mountains and the depths of the forests. Among those who perished in the battle of Sajo was the Hungarian chancellor, who carried with him the seal of state. Batu having got possession of the seal, caused a proclamation to be made in the name of the Hungarian king [calling the people back to their homes], to which he affixed the royal stamp. … Trusting to this appeal, the miserable people issued from their hiding-places, and returned to their homes. The cunning barbarian first caused them to do the work of harvest in order to supply his hordes with provisions, and then put them to an indiscriminate death. The king Bela, in the meantime, succeeded in making his way through the Carpathian Mountains into Austria; but instead of receiving assistance from the arch-duke Frederick, he was retained as a prisoner. Having pledged three counties of Hungary to Frederick, Bela was allowed to depart. … In the meantime Batu was as prompt in leaving Hungary, in consequence of the death of the Tartar khan. … Bela was succeeded on the throne by his son Stephen, in the year 1270." The reign of Stephen was short. He was followed by Ladislaus IV., who allied himself with Rudolph of Hapsburg in the war which overthrew and destroyed Ottoacer or Ottocar, king of Bohemia (see AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282). "The reign of this prince, called the Cuman, was, besides, troubled by most devastating internal dissensions, caused by the Cumans, whose numbers were continually augmented by fresh arrivals … from their own tribe as well as from the Tartars." Ladislaus, dying in 1290, was succeeded by Andrew III., the last Hungarian king of the house of Arpad. "This prince had to dispute his throne with Rudolph of Hapsburg, who coveted the crown of Hungary for his son Albert. The appearance, however, of the Hungarian troops before the gates of Vienna compelled the Austrian emperor to sue for peace, which was cemented by a family alliance, Andrew having espoused Agnes, daughter of Albert. … Nor did this matrimonial alliance with Austria secure peace to Hungary. Pope Nicholas IV. was bent upon gaining the crown of St. Stephen for Charles Martel, son of Charles d'Anjou of Naples, who put forward his claims to the Hungarian crown in virtue of his mother, Mary, daughter of king Stephen V.," transferring them at his death to Charles Robert, nephew of the king of Naples. Andrew III., the last Arpad, died in 1301.

E. Szabad, Hungary, Past and Present, part 1, chapter 2.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1285. Wallachian struggle for independence.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES, 14TH-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, etc.).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442. The House of Anjou and the House of Luxembourg. Conquests of Louis the Great. Beginning of wars with the Turks. The House of Austria and the disputed crown.

On the extinction of the ancient race of kings, in the male line of descent, by the death of Andrew III., in 1301, the crown was "contested by several competitors, and at length fell into the hands of the House of Anjou, the reigning family of Naples [see ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389]. Charles Robert, grandson of Charles II. King of Naples, by Mary of Hungary, outstripped his rivals (1310), and transmitted the crown to his son LOUIS, surnamed the Great [1342]. This prince, characterized by his eminent qualities, made a distinguished figure among the Kings of Hungary. He conquered from the Venetians the whole of Dalmatia from the frontiers of Istria, as far as Durazzo; he reduced the princes of Moldavia, Wallachia, Bosnia and Bulgaria to a state of dependence; and at length mounted the throne of Poland, on the death of his uncle, Casimir the Great. Mary, his eldest daughter, succeeded him in the kingdom of Hungary (1382). {1671} This princess married Sigismund of Luxembourg [afterwards Emperor, 1411-1437-see GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493], who thus united the monarchy of Hungary to the Imperial crown. The reign of Sigismund in Hungary was most unfortunate. … He had to sustain the first war against the Ottoman Turks; and, with the Emperor of Constantinople as his ally, he assembled a formidable army, with which he undertook the siege of Nicopolis in Bulgaria [see TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1389-1403]. In his retreat he was compelled to embark on the Danube, and directed his flight towards Constantinople. This disaster was followed by new misfortunes. The male contents of Hungary offered their crown to Ladislaus, called the Magnanimous, King of Naples, who took possession of Dalmatia, which he afterwards surrendered to the Venetians. Desirous to provide for the defence and security of his kingdom, Sigismund acquired, by treaty with the Prince of Servia, the fortress of Belgrade (1425), which, by its situation at the confluence of the Danube and the Save, seemed to him a proper bulwark to protect Hungary against the Turks. He transmitted the crown of Hungary [in 1437, when he died] to his son-in-law, Albert of Austria, who reigned only two years."

C. W. Koch, The Revolutions of Europe, period 5.

"Albert, afterwards the Emperor Albert II., was the first prince of the House of Habsburg that enjoyed the crowns of Hungary and Bohemia, which he owed to his father-in-law, the Emperor Sigismund, whose only daughter, Elizabeth, he had married. Elizabeth was the child of Barbara von Cilly, Sigismund's second wife, whose notorious vices had procured for her the odious epithets of the 'Bad,' and the 'German Messalina.' Barbara had determined to supplant her daughter, to claim the two crowns as her dowry, and to give them, with her hand, to Wladislaus, the young King of Poland, who, though 40 years her junior, she had marked out for her future husband. With this view she was courting the Hussite party in Bohemia: but Sigismund, a little before his death, caused her to be arrested; and, assembling the Hungarian and Bohemian nobles at Znaym, in Moravia, persuaded them, almost with his dying breath, to elect Albert as his successor. Sigismund expired the next day (December 9th, 1437). Albert was soon after recognised as king by the Hungarian diet, and immediately released his mother-in-law Barbara, upon her agreeing to restore some fortresses which she held in Hungary. He did not so easily obtain possession of the Bohemian crown. … The short reign of Albert in Hungary was disastrous both to himself and to the country. Previously to his fatal expedition against the Turks in 1439, … the Hungarian diet, before it would agree to settle the succession to the throne, forced him to accept a constitution which destroyed all unity and strength of government. By the famous 'Decretum Alberti Regis,' he reduced himself to be the mere shadow of a king; while by exalting the Palatine [a magistrate next to the king in rank, who presided over the legal tribunals, and discharged the functions of the king in the absence of the latter], the clergy, and the nobles, he perpetuated all the evils of the feudal system. … The most absurd and pernicious regulations were now adopted respecting the military system of the kingdom, and such as rendered it almost impossible effectually to resist the Turks. … On the death of Albert, Wladislaus [Ladislaus] III., King of Poland [the second Polish king of the dynasty of Jagellon], was … elected to the throne of Hungary. … Albert, besides two daughters, had left his wife Elizabeth pregnant; and the Hungarians, dreading a long minority in case she should give birth to a son, compelled her to offer her hand to Wladislaus, agreeing that the crown should descend to their issue; but at the same time engaging that if Elizabeth's child should prove a male, they would endeavour to procure for him the kingdom of Bohemia and the duchy of Austria; and that he should moreover succeed to the Hungarian throne in case Wladislaus had no issue by Elizabeth. … Scarcely had the Hungarian ambassador set off for the court of Wladislaus with these proposals, when Elizabeth brought forth a son, who, from the circumstances of his birth, was christened Ladislaus Posthumus. Elizabeth now repented of the arrangement that had been made; and the news having arrived that the archduke Frederick had been elected Emperor of Germany, she was induced to withdraw her consent to marry the King of Poland. Messengers were despatched to recall the Hungarian ambassadors; but it was too late—Wladislaus had accepted her hand, and prepared to enter Hungary with an army. … The party of the King of Poland, especially as it was headed by John of Hunyad, proved the stronger. Elizabeth was compelled to abandon Lower Hungary and take refuge at Vienna, carrying with her the crown of St. Stephen, which, with her infant son, she intrusted to the care of the Emperor Frederick III. (August 3rd, 1440). … In November 1442, Elizabeth and Wladislaus had an interview at Raab, when a peace was agreed upon, the terms of which are unknown; but it is probable that one of the chief conditions was a marriage between the contracting parties. The sudden death of Elizabeth, December 24th, 1442, not without suspicion of poison, prevented the ratification of a treaty which had never been agreeable to the great party led by John of Hunyad, whose recent victories over the Turks gave him enormous influence."