[1] In the edition of Oviedo's work published at Salamanca in 1547,
the account (_lib._ xiv. cap. 4) runs thus: "Ay assi mismo enesta
ysla vnos paxaricos tan negros como vn terciopelo negro muy bueno &
son tan pequenos que ningunos he yo visto en Indias menores excepto
el que aca se llama paxaro mosquito. El qual es tan pequeno que el
bulto del es menor harto o assaz que le cabeca del dedo pulgar de la
mano. Este no le he visto enesta Ysla pero dizen me que aqui los ay:
& por esso dexo de hablar enel pa lo dezir dode los he visto que es
en la tierra firme quado della se trate." A modern Spanish version of
this passage will be found in the beautiful edition of Oviedo's works
published by the Academy of Madrid in 1851 (i. 444).
[2] See also Morley's _Life of Girolamo Cardano_ (ii. 152, 153).
[3] Under this name Pliny perpetuated (_Hist. naturalis_, viii. 25)
the confusion that had doubtless arisen before his time of two very
distinct birds. As Sundevall remarks (_Tentamen_, p. 87, note),
[Greek: trochilos] was evidently the name commonly given by the
ancient Greeks to the smaller plovers, and was not improperly applied
by Herodotus (ii. 68) to the species that feeds in the open mouth of
the crocodile--the _Pluvianus aegyptius_ of modern ornithologists--in
which sense Aristotle (_Hist. animalium_, ix. 6) also uses it. But
the received text of Aristotle has two other passages (ix. 1 and 11)
wherein the word appears in a wholly different connexion, and can
there be only taken to mean the wren--the usual Greek name of which
would seem to be [Greek: orchilos] (Sundevall, _Om Aristotl.
Djurarter_, No. 54). Though none of his editors or commentators has
suggested the possibility of such a thing, one can hardly help
suspecting that in these passages some early copyist has substituted
[Greek: trochilos] for [Greek: orchilos], and so laid the foundation
of a curious error. It may be remarked that the crocodile of Santo
Domingo is said to have the like office done for it by some kind of
bird, which is called by Descourtilz (_Voyage_, iii. 26), a "Todier,"
but, as Geoffr. St Hilaire observes (_Descr. de l'Egypte_, ed. 2,
xxiv. 440), is more probably a plover. Unfortunately the fauna of
Hispaniola is not much better known now than in Oviedo's days.
[4] Thus _Docimastes ensifer_, in which the bill is longer than both
head and body together.
[5] This is especially the case with the smaller species of the
group, for the larger, though shooting with equal celerity from place
to place, seem to flap their wings with comparatively slow but not
less powerful strokes. The difference was especially observed with
respect to the largest of all humming-birds, _Patagona gigas_, by
Darwin.
[6] The resemblance, so far as it exists, must be merely the result
of analogical function, and certainly indicates no affinity between
the families.
[7] It is probable that in various members of the _Trochilidae_ the
structure of the tongue, and other parts correlated therewith, will
be found subject to several and perhaps considerable modifications,
as is the case in various members of the _Picidae_.
[8] These are especially observable in _Rhamphodon naevius_ and
_Androdon aequatorialis_.
[9] P. H. Gosse (_Birds of Jamaica_, p. 130) says that _Mellisuga
minima_, the smallest species of the family, has "a real song"--but
the like is not recorded of any other.
[10] _A Monograph of the Trochilidae or Humming-birds_, 5 vols. imp.
fol. (London, 1861, with Introduction in 8vo).
[11] _Histoire naturelle des oiseaux-mouches, ou colibris_, 4 vols.,
with supplement, imp. 4to (Lyon-Geneve-Bale, 1874-1877).
[12] _Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge_, No. 317, _A
Classification and Synopsis of the Trochilidae_, 1 vol. imp. 4to
(Washington, 1879).
[13] Salerne must be excepted, especially as he was rebuked by Buffon
for doing what we now deem right.
[14] For example _Avocettula recurvirostris_ of Guiana and _A.
euryptera_ of Colombia.
[15] The specific name of a species of Chrysolampis, commonly written
by many writers _moschitus_, would lead to the belief that it was a
mistake for _moschatus_, i.e. "musky," but in truth it originates
with their carelessness, for though they quote Linnaeus as their
authority they can never have referred to his works, or they would
have found the word to be _mosquitus_, the "mosquito" of Oviedo,
awkwardly, it is true, Latinized. If emendation be needed,
_muscatus_, after Gesner's example, is undoubtedly, preferable.
HUMMOCK (of uncertain derivation; cf. hump or hillock), a boss or
rounded knoll of ice rising above the general level of an ice-field,
making sledge travelling in the Arctic and Antarctic region extremely
difficult and unpleasant. Hummocky ice is caused by slow and unequal
pressure in the main body of the packed ice, and by unequal structure
and temperature at a later period.
HUMOUR (Latin _humor_), a word of many meanings and of strange fortune
in their evolution. It began by meaning simply "liquid." It passed
through the stage of being a term of art used by the old
physicians--whom we should now call physiologists--and by degrees has
come to be generally understood to signify a certain "habit of the
mind," shown in speech, in literature and in action, or a quality in
things and events observed by the human intelligence. The word reached
its full development by slow degrees. When Dr Johnson compiled his
dictionary, he gave nine definitions of, or equivalents for, "humour."
They may be conveniently quoted: "(1) Moisture. (2) The different kinds
of moisture in man's body, reckoned by the old physicians to be phlegm,
blood, choler and melancholy, which as they predominate are supposed to
determine the temper of mind. (3) General turn or temper of mind. (4)
Present disposition. (5) Grotesque imagery, jocularity, merriment. (6)
Tendency to disease, morbid disposition. (7) Petulance, peevishness. (8)
A trick, a practice. (9) Caprice, whim, predominant inclination." The
list was not quite complete, even in Dr Johnson's own time. Humour was
then, as it is now, the name of the semi-fluid parts of the eye. Yet no
dictionary-maker has been more successful than Johnson in giving the
literary and conversational meaning of an English word, or the main
lines of its history. It is therefore instructive to note that in no one
of his nine clauses does humour bear the meaning it has for Thackeray or
for George Meredith. "General turn or temper of mind" is at the best too
vague, and has moreover another application. His list of equivalents
only carries the history of the word up to the beginning of the last
stage of its growth.
The limited original sense of liquid, moisture, mere wet, in which
"humour" is used in Wycliffe's translation of the Bible, continued to
attach to it until the 17th century. Thus Shakespeare, in the first
scene of the second act of _Julius Caesar_, makes Portia say to her
husband:--
"Is Brutus sick? and is it physical
To walk unbraced and suck up the humours
Of the dank morning?"
In the same scene Decius employs the word in the wide metaphorical sense
in which it was used, and abused, then and afterwards. "Let me work," he
says, referring to Caesar--
"For I can give his humour the true bent,
And I will bring him to the Capitol."
Here we have "the general turn or temper of mind," which can be
flattered, or otherwise directed to "present disposition." We have
travelled far from mere fluid, and have been led on the road by the old
physiologists. We are not concerned with their science, but it is
necessary to see what they mean by "primary humours," and "second or
third concoctions," if we are to understand how it was that a name for
liquid could come to mean "general turn" or "present disposition," or
"whim" or "jocularity." Part I., Section 1, Member 2, Subsection 2, of
Burton's _Anatomy of Melancholy_ will supply all that is necessary for
literary purposes. "A humour is a liquid or fluent part of the body
comprehended in it, and is either born with us, or is adventitious and
acquisite." The first four primary humours are--"Blood, a hot, sweet,
tempered, red humour, prepared in the meseraic veins, and made of the
most temperate parts of the chylus (chyle) in the liver, whose office it
is to nourish the whole body, to give it strength and colour, being
dispersed through every part of it. And from it spirits are first
begotten in the heart, which afterwards in the arteries are communicated
to the other parts. Pituita or phlegm is a cold and moist humour,
begotten of the colder parts of the chylus (or white juice coming out of
the meat digested in the stomach) in the liver. His office is to nourish
and moisten the members of the body," &c. "Choler is hot and dry,
begotten of the hotter parts of the chylus, and gathered to the gall. It
helps the natural heat and senses. Melancholy, cold and dry, thick,
black and sour, begotten of the more feculent part of nourishment, and
purged from the spleen, is a bridle to the other two hot humours, blood
and choler, preserving them in the blood, and nourishing the bones."
Mention must also be made of serum, and of "those excrementitious
humours of the third concoction, sweat and tears." An exact balance of
the four primary humours makes the justly constituted man, and allows
for the undisturbed production of the "concoctions"--or processes of
digestion and assimilation. Literature seized upon these terms and
definitions. Sometimes it applied them gravely in the moral and
intellectual sphere. Thus the Jesuit Bouhours, a French critic of the
17th century, in his _Entretiens d'Ariste et d'Eugene_, says that in the
formation of a _bel esprit_, "La bile donne le brillant et la
penetration, la melancolie donne le bon sens et la solidite; le sang
donne l'agrement et la delicatesse." It was, in fact, taken for granted
that the character and intellect of men were produced by--were, so to
speak, concoctions dependent on--the "humours." In the fallen state of
mankind it rarely happens that an exact balance is maintained. One or
other humour predominates, and thus we have the long-established
doctrine of the existence of the sanguine, the phlegmatic, the choleric,
or the melancholy _temperaments_. Things being so, nothing was more
natural than the passage of these terms of art into common speech, and
their application in a metaphorical sense, when once they had been
adopted by the literary class. The process is admirably described by
Asper in the introduction to Ben Jonson's play--_Every Man out of his
Humour_:--
"Why humour, as it is 'ens,' we thus define it,
To be a quality of air or water;
And in itself holds these two properties
Moisture and fluxure: as, for demonstration
Pour water on this floor. 'Twill wet and run.
Likewise the air forced through a horn or trumpet
Flows instantly away, and leaves behind
A kind of dew; and hence we do conclude
That whatsoe'er hath fluxure and humidity
As wanting power to contain itself
Is humour. So in every human body
The choler, melancholy, phlegm and blood
By reason that they flow continually
In some one part and are not continent
Receive the name of humours. Now thus far
It may, by metaphor, apply itself
Unto the general disposition;
As when some one peculiar quality
Doth so possess a man that it doth draw
All his effects, his spirits and his powers,
In their confluxion all to run one way,--
This may be truly said to be a humour."
A humour in this sense is a "ruling passion," and has done excellent
service to English authors of "comedies of humours," to the Spanish
authors of _comedias de figuron_, and to the French followers of
Moliere. Nor is the metaphor racked out of its fair proportions if we
suppose that there may be a temporary, or even an "adventitious and
acquisite" "predominance of a humour," and that "deliveries of a man's
self" to passing passion, or to imitation, are also "humours," though
not primary, but only second or third concoctions. By a natural
extension, therefore, "humours" might come to mean oddities, tricks,
practices, mere whims, and the aping of some model admired for the time
being. "But," as Falstaff has told us, "it was always yet the trick of
our English, if they have a good thing, to make it too common." The word
"humour" was a good thing, but the Elizabethans certainly made it too
common. It became a hack epithet of all work, to be used with no more
discretion, though with less imbecile iteration, than the modern
"awful." Shakespeare laughed at the folly, and pinned it for ever to the
ridiculous company of Corporal Nym--"I like not the humour of lying. He
hath wronged me in some humours. I should have borne the humoured letter
to her ... I love not the humour of bread and cheese; and there's the
humour of it." The humour of Jonson was that he tried to clear the air
of thistledown by stamping on it. Asper ends in denunciation:--
"But that a rook by wearing a pied feather,
The sable hat-band, or the three-piled ruff,
A yard of shoe tie, or the Switzer knot
On his French gaiters, should affect a humour,
O! it is more than most ridiculous."
The abuse of the word was the peculiar practice of England. The use of
it was not confined wholly to English writers. The Spaniards of the 16th
and 17th centuries knew _humores_ in the same sense, and still employ
the word as a name for caprices, whims and vapours. _Humorada_ was, and
is, the correct Spanish for a festive saying or writing of epigrammatic
form. Martial's immortal reply to the critic who admired only dead
poets--
Ignoscas petimus Vacerra: tanti
Non est, ut placeam tibi perire,--
is a model _humorada_. It would be a difficult and would certainly be a
lengthy task to exhaust all the applications given to so elastic a
word. We still continue to use it in widely different senses. "Good
humour" or "bad humour" are simply good temper or bad temper. There is a
slight archaic flavour about the phrases "grim humour," "the humour they
were in," in the sense of suspicious, or angry or careless mood, which
were favourites with Carlyle, but though somewhat antiquated they are
not affected, or very unusual. With the proviso that the exceptions must
always be excepted, we may say that for a long time "humour" came to
connote comic matter less refined than the matter of wit. It had about
it a smack of the Boar's Head Tavern in Eastcheap, and of the unyoked
"humour" of the society in which Prince Henry was content to imitate the
sun--
"Who doth permit the base contagious clouds
To smother up his beauty from the world."
The presence of a base contagious cloud is painfully felt in the
so-called humorous literature of England till the 18th century. The
reader who does not sometimes wonder whether humour in the mouths of
English writers of that period did not stand for maniacal tricks,
horse-play, and the foul names of foul things, material and moral, must
be very determined to prove himself a whole-hearted admirer of the
ancient literature. Addison, who did much to clean it of mere nastiness,
gives an excellent example of the base use of the word in his day. In
Number 371 of the _Spectator_ he introduces an example of the "sort of
men called Whims and Humourists." It is the delight of this person to
play practical jokes on his guests. He is proud when "he has packed
together a set of oglers" who had "an unlucky cast in the eye," or has
filled his table with stammerers. The humorist, in fact, was a mere
practical joker, who was very properly answered by a challenge from a
military gentleman of peppery temper. Indeed, the pump and a horse-whip
would appear to have been the only effective forms of criticism on the
prevalent humour and humours of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. But
the pump and the horse-whip were themselves humours. Carlo Buffone in
Jonson's play is put "out of his humour" by the counter humour of Signor
Puntarvolo, who knocks him down and gags him with candle wax. The brutal
pranks of Fanny Burney's Captain Mirvan, who belongs to the earlier part
of the 18th century, were meant for humour, and were accepted as such.
Examples might easily be multiplied. A briefer and also a more
convincing method of demonstration is to take the deliberate judgment of
a great authority. No writer of the 18th century possessed a finer sense
of humour in the noble meaning than Goldsmith. What did he understand
the word to mean? Not what he himself wrote when he created Dr Primrose.
We have his express testimony in the 9th chapter of _The Present State
of Polite Learning_. Goldsmith complains that "the critic, by demanding
an impossibility from the comic poet, has, in effect, banished true
comedy from the stage." This he has done by banning "low" subjects, and
by proscribing "the comic or satirical muse from every walk but high
life, which, though abounding in fools as well as the humbler station,
is by no means so fruitful in absurdity.... Absurdity is the poet's
game, and good breeding is the nice concealment of absurdity. The truth
is, the critic generally mistakes 'humour' for 'wit,' which is a very
different excellence; wit raises human nature above its level; humour
acts a contrary part, and equally depresses it. To expect exalted humour
is a contradiction in terms.... The poet, therefore, must place the
object he would have the subject of humour in a state of inferiority; in
other words, the subject of humour must be _low_."
That no doubt may remain in his reader's mind, Goldsmith gives an
example of true humour. It is nothing more or less than the absurdity
and incongruity obvious in a man who, though "wanting a nose," is
extremely curious in the choice of his snuffbox. We applaud "the humour
of it," for "we here see him guilty of an absurdity of which we imagine
it impossible for ourselves to be guilty, and therefore applaud our own
good sense on the comparison."
Nothing could be more true as an account of what the Elizabethans, the
Restoration, the Queen Anne men, and the 18th century meant by "humour."
Nothing could be more false as an example of what we mean by the humour
of Falstaff or of _The Vicar of Wakefield_.
When we pass from Goldsmith to Hazlitt--one of the greatest names in
English criticism--we find that "humour" has grown in meaning, without
quite reaching its full development. In the introduction to his
_Lectures on the English Comic Writers_ he attempts a classification of
the comic spirit into wit and humour. "Humour," he says, "is the
describing the ludicrous as it is in itself; wit is the exposing it, by
comparing or contrasting it with something else. Humour is, as it were,
the growth of nature and accident; wit is the product of art and fancy.
Humour, as it is shown in books, is an imitation of the natural or
acquired absurdities of mankind, or of the ludicrous in accident,
situation and character; wit is the illustrating and heightening the
sense of that absurdity by some sudden and unexpected likeness or
opposition of one thing to another, which sets off the quality we laugh
at or despise in a still more contemptible or striking point of view."
Hazlitt's definition will, indeed, not stand analysis. The element of
comparison is surely as necessary for humour as for wit. Yet his
classification is valuable as illustrating the growth of the meaning of
the word. Observe that Hazlitt has transferred to wit that power of
pleasing as by a flattering sense of our own superiority which Goldsmith
attributed to humour. He had not thought, and had not heard, that
sympathy is necessary to complete humour. He cannot have thought it
needful, for if he had he would hardly have said of the _Arabian Nights_
that they are "an inexhaustible mine of comic humour and invention,"
"which from the manners of the East, which they describe, carry the
principle of callous indifference in the jest as far as it can go." He
might, and probably would, have dismissed Goldsmith's illustration as
"low" in every conceivable sense. He would not have added, as we should
to-day, that humour does not lie in laughter, according to the
definition of Hobbes, in a "sudden glory," in a guffaw of self-conceited
triumph over the follies and deficiencies of others. If there is any
place for humour in Goldsmith's sordid example, it must be made by pity,
and shown by a deft introduction of the _de te fabula_ dear to
Thackeray, by a reminder that the world is full of people, who, though
wanting noses, are extremely curious in their choice of snuff-boxes, and
that the more each of us thinks himself above the weakness the more
likely he is to fall into it.
The critical value of Hazlitt's examination of the differences between
wit and humour lies in this, that he ignores the doctrine that the
quality of humour lies in the thing or the action and not in the mind of
the observer. The examples quoted above, to which any one with a
moderate share of reading in English literature could add with ease,
show that humour was first held to lie in the trick, the whim, the act,
or the event and clash of incidents. It might even be a mere flavour, as
when men spoke of the salt humour of sea-sand. Even when it stood for
the "general turn or temper of mind" it was a form of the ruling passion
which inspires men's actions and words. It was used in that sense by
Decius when he spoke of the humour of Caesar, which is a liability to be
led by one who can play on his weakness--
"for he loves to hear
That unicorns may be betrayed with trees
And bears with glasses, elephants with holes,
Lions with toils, and men with flatterers;
But when I tell him he hates flatterers
He says he does; being then most flattered."
It is plain that this is not what Hazlitt meant, or we now mean, by the
humour displayed in "describing the ludicrous as it is shown in itself."
Nor did he, any more than we do, suppose with Goldsmith that a "low"
quality of actions and persons is inseparable from humour. It had become
for Hazlitt what Addison called cheerfulness, "a habit of the mind" as
distinguished from mirth, which is "an act." If in Addison's sentences
the place of cheerfulness is taken by humour, and that of mirth by wit,
we have a very fair description of the two. "I have always preferred
cheerfulness to mirth. The latter I consider as an act, the former as a
habit of the mind. Mirth is short and transient, cheerfulness is fixed
and permanent." Humour is the fixed and permanent appreciation of the
ludicrous, of which wit may be the short and transient expression.
If now we pass to an attempt to define "humour," the temptation to take
refuge in the use of an evasion employed by Dr Johnson is very strong.
When Boswell asked him, "Then, Sir, what is poetry?" the doctor
answered, "Why, Sir, it is much easier to say what it is not. We all
know what light is, but it is not easy to tell what it is." But George
Meredith has come to our assistance in two passages of his _Essay on
Comedy and the uses of the Comic Spirit_. "If you laugh all round him
(to wit, the ridiculous person), tumble him, roll him about, deal him a
smack, and drop a tear on him, own his likeness to you, and yours to
your neighbour, spare him as little as you shun, pity him as much as you
expose, it is spirit of Humour that is moving you.... The humourist of
mean order is a refreshing laugher, giving tone to the feelings, and
sometimes allowing the feelings to be too much for him. But the
humourist, if high, has an embrace of contrasts beyond the scope of the
comic poet." The third sentence is required to complete the first. The
tumbling and rolling, the smacks and the exposure, may be out of place
where there is humour of the most humorous quality. Who could associate
them with Sir Walter Scott's characters of Bradwardine or Monkbarns?
Bradwardine, one feels, would have stopped them as he did the ill-timed
jests of Sir Hew Halbert, "who was so unthinking as to deride my family
name." Monkbarns was a man of peace who loved the company of Sir Priest
better than that of Sir Knight. But there is that in him which cows mere
ridicule, be it ever so genial. He cared not who knew so much of his
valour, and by that very avowal of his preference took his position
sturdily in the face of the world. But Meredith has given its due
prominence to the quality which, for us, distinguishes humour from pure
wit and the harder forms of jocularity. It is the sympathy, the
appreciation, the love, which include the follies of Don Quixote, the
prosaic absurdities of Sancho Panza, the oddities of Bradwardine, Dr
Primrose or Monkbarns, and the jovial animalism of Falstaff, in "an
embrace of contrasts beyond the scope of the comic poets."
It is needless to insist that humour of this order is far older than the
very modern application of the name. It is assuredly present in Horace.
Chaucer, who knew the word only as meaning "liquid," has left a
masterpiece of humour in his prologue to the _Canterbury Pilgrims_. We
look for the finest examples in Shakespeare. And if it is old, it is
also more universal than is always allowed. National, or at least
racial, partiality, has led to the unfortunate judgment that humour is a
virtue of the northern peoples. Yet Rabelais came from Touraine, and if
the creator of Panurge has not humour, who has? The Italians may say
that _umore_ in the English sense is unknown to them. They mean the
word, not the thing, for it is in Ariosto. To claim the quality for
Cervantes would indeed be to push at an open door. The humour of the
Germans has been rarely indeed of so high an order as his. It has been
found wherever humanity has been combined with a keen appreciation of
the ludicrous. The appreciation may exist without the humanity. When
Rivarol met the Chevalier Florian with a manuscript sticking out of his
pocket, and said, "How rash you are! if you were not known you would be
robbed," he was making use of the comic spirit, but he was not humorous.
When Rivarol himself, a man of dubious claim to nobility, was holding
forth on the rights of the nobles, and calling them "our rights," one of
the company smiled. "Do you find anything singular in what I say?" asked
he. "It is the plural which I find singular," was the answer. There is
certainly something humorous in the neat overthrow of an insolent wit by
a rival insolence, but the humour is in the spectator, not in the
answer. The spirit of humour as described by George Meredith cannot be
so briefly shown as in the rapid flash of the Frenchmen's wit. It
lingers and expatiates, as in Dr Johnson's appreciation of Bet Flint.
"Oh, a fine character, Madam! She was habitually a slut and a drunkard,
and occasionally a thief and a harlot. And for heaven's sake how came
you to know her? Why, Madam, she figured in the literary world too! Bet
Flint wrote her own life, and called herself Cassandra, and it was in
verse; it began:--
'When nature first ordained my birth
A diminutive I was born on earth
And then I came from a dark abode
Into a gay and gaudy world.'
"So Bet brought her verses to me to correct; but I gave her
half-a-crown, and she liked it as well. Bet had a fine spirit; she
advertised for a husband, but she had no success, for she told me no man
aspired to her. Then she hired very handsome lodgings and a footboy, and
she got a harpsichord, but Bet could not play; however, she put herself
in fine attitudes and drummed. And pray what became of her, Sir? Why,
Madam, she stole a quilt from the man of the house, and he had her taken
up; but Bet Flint had a spirit not to be subdued, so when she found
herself obliged to go to gaol, she ordered a sedan chair, and bid her
footboy walk before her. However, the footboy proved refractory, for he
was ashamed, though his mistress was not. And did she ever get out of
gaol, Sir? Yes, Madam, when she came to her trial, the judge acquitted
her. 'So now,' she said to me, 'the quilt is my own, and now I'll make a
petticoat of it.' Oh! I loved Bet Flint."
The subject is low enough to please Goldsmith. The humour may be of that
mean order which has only a refreshing laugh, and gives tone to the
feelings, but it is the pure spirit of humour.
We need not labour to demonstrate that a kindly appreciation of the
ludicrous may find expression in art as well as in literature. But
humour in art tends so inevitably to become caricature, which can be
genial as well as ferocious, that the reader must be referred to the
article on Caricature for an account of its manifestations in that
field. (D. H.)
HUMPBACK WHALE (_Megaptera longimana_ or _M. boops_), the representative
of a genus of whalebone whales distinguished by the great length of the
flippers. This whale (or a closely allied species) is found in nearly
all seas; and when full-grown may reach from 45 ft. to 50 ft. in length,
the flippers which are indented along their edges measuring from 10 ft.
to 12 ft. or more. The general colour is black, but there are often
white markings on the under surface; and the flippers may be entirely
white, or parti-coloured like the body. Deep longitudinal furrows, folds
or plaits occur on the throat and chest. It is said that the popular
name refers to a prominence on which the back fin is set; but this
"hump" varies greatly in size in different individuals. The humpback is
a coast-whale, irregular in its movements, sometimes found in "schools,"
at others singly. The whalebone is short, broad and coarse; but the
yield of oil from a single whale has been as much as 75 barrels. A few
examples of this whale have been taken in Scotland and the north of
England (see CETACEA).
[Illustration: Humpback Whale (_Megaptera longimana_ or _boops_).]
HUMPERDINCK, ENGELBERT (1854- ), German musical composer, was born at
Siegburg, in the Rhine Province, and studied under F. Hiller at Cologne,
and F. Lachner and J. Rheinberger at Munich. In 1879, by means of a
scholarship, he went to Italy, where he met Wagner at Naples; and on the
latter's invitation he went to Bayreuth and helped to produce _Parsifal_
there next year. He travelled for the next few years in Italy and Spain
but in 1890 became a professor at Frankfort, where he remained till
1896. In 1900 he became the head of a school in Berlin. His fame as a
composer was made by his charming children's opera _Hansel und Gretel_
in 1893, founded very largely (like his later operas) on folk-tunes; but
his works also include other forms of music, in all of which his
mastery of technique is apparent.
HUMPHREY (or HUMFREY), LAWRENCE (1527?-1590), president of Magdalen
College, Oxford, and dean successively of Gloucester and Winchester, was
born at Newport Pagnel. He was elected demy of Magdalen College in 1546
and fellow in 1548. He graduated B.A. in 1549, M.A. in 1552, and B.D.
and D.D. in 1562. He was noted as one of the most promising pupils of
Peter Martyr, and on Mary's accession obtained leave from his college to
travel abroad. He lived at Basel, Zurich, Frankfort and Geneva, making
the acquaintance of the leading Swiss divines, whose ecclesiastical
views he adopted. His leave of absence having expired in 1556, he ceased
to be fellow of Magdalen. He returned to England at Elizabeth's
accession, was appointed regius professor of divinity at Oxford in 1560,
and was recommended by Archbishop Parker and others for election as
president of Magdalen. The fellows refused at first to elect so
pronounced a reformer, but they yielded in 1561, and Humphrey gradually
converted the college into a stronghold of Puritanism. In 1564 he and
his friend Thomas Sampson, dean of Christ Church, were called before
Parker for refusing to wear the prescribed ecclesiastical vestments; and
a prolonged controversy broke out, in which Bullinger and other foreign
theologians took part as well as most of the leading divines in England.
In spite of Bullinger's advice, Humphrey refused to conform; and Parker
wished to deprive him as well as Sampson. But the presidency of Magdalen
was elective and the visitor of the college was not Parker but the
bishop of Winchester; and Humphrey escaped with temporary retirement.
Parker, in fact, was not supported by the council; in 1566 Humphrey was
selected to preach at St Paul's Cross, and was allowed to do so without
the vestments. In the same year he took a prominent part in the
ceremonies connected with Elizabeth's visit to Oxford. On this occasion
he wore his doctor's gown and habit, which the queen told him "became
him very well"; and his resistance now began to weaken. He yielded on
the point before 1571 when he was made dean of Gloucester. In 1578 he
was one of the divines selected to attend a diet at Schmalkalde to
discuss the project of a theological accommodation between the Lutheran
and Reformed churches; and in 1580 he was made dean of Winchester. In
1585 he was persuaded by his bishop, Cooper, to restore the use of
surplices in Magdalen College chapel. He died on the 1st of February
1590 and was buried in the college chapel, where there is a mural
monument to his memory; a portrait is in Magdalen College school.
Humphrey was a voluminous writer on theological and other subjects. At
Parker's desire he wrote a life of his friend and patron Bishop Jewel,
which was published in 1573 and was also prefixed to the edition of
Jewel's works issued in 1600. One of his books against the Jesuits was
included in vol. iii. of the _Doctrina Jesuitarum per varios
authores_, published at La Rochelle (6 vols., 1585-1586).
See Bloxam's _Register of Magdalen College_, iv. 104-132; Cooper's
_Athenae Cantabrigienses_; Wood's _Athenae Oxonienses_; Gough's _Index
to Parker Soc. Publ._; Strype's _Works: Cal. State Papers_ (Dom.
1547-1590); _Acts of the Privy Council_; Burnet's _Hist. Ref._;
Collier's _Eccles. Hist._; Dixon's _Church Hist._ vol. vi.; _Dict.
Nat. Biog._ (A. F. P.)
HUMPHREYS, ANDREW ATKINSON (1810-1883), American soldier and engineer,
was born at Philadelphia on the 2nd of November 1810. He was the son of
Samuel Humphreys (1778-1846), chief constructor U.S.N., and grandson of
Joshua Humphreys (1751-1838), the designer of the "Constitution" and
other famous frigates of the war of 1812, sometimes known as the "father
of the American navy." Graduating from West Point in 1831, he served
with the 2nd Artillery in the Florida war in 1835. He resigned soon
afterwards and devoted himself to civil engineering. In 1838 he returned
to the army for survey duties, and from 1842 to 1849 was assistant in
charge of the Coast Survey Office. Later he did similar work in the
valley of the Mississippi, and, with Lieut. H. L. Abbott, produced in
1861 a valuable _Report on the Physics and Hydraulics of the Mississippi
River_. In connexion with this work he visited Europe in 1851. In the
earlier part of the Civil War Humphreys was employed as a topographical
engineer with the Army of the Potomac, and rendered conspicuous services
in the Seven Days' Battles. It is stated that he selected the famous
position of Malvern Hill, before which Lee's army was defeated. Soon
after this he was assigned to command a division of the V. corps, and at
the battle of Fredericksburg he distinguished himself greatly in the
last attack of Marye's heights. General Burnside recommended him for
promotion to the rank of major-general U.S.V., which was not however
awarded to Humphreys until after Gettysburg. He took part in the battle
of Chancellorsville, and at Gettysburg commanded a division of the III.
corps under Sickles. Upon Humphreys' division fell the brunt of Lee's
attack on the second day, by which in the end the III. corps was
dislodged from its advanced position. His handling of his division in
this struggle excited great attention, and was compared to Sheridan's
work at Stone river. A few days later he became chief of staff to
General Meade, and this position he held throughout the Wilderness
campaign. Towards the end of the war General Humphreys succeeded General
Hancock in command of the famous II. corps. The short campaign of 1865,
which terminated in Lee's surrender, afforded him a greater opportunity
of showing his capacity for leadership. His corps played a conspicuous
part in the final operations around Petersburg, and the credit of the
vigorous and relentless pursuit of Lee's army may be claimed hardly less
for Humphreys than for Sheridan. After the war, now brevet
major-general, he returned to regular engineer duty as chief engineer of
the U.S. army, and retired in 1879. He was a member of the American
Philosophical Society (1857) and of the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences (1863), and received the degree of LL.D. from Harvard
University in 1868. He died at Washington on the 27th of December 1883.
Amongst his works may be mentioned _From Gettysburg to the Rapidan_
(1882) and _The Virginia Campaigns of 1864-1865_ (1882).
See Wilson, _Critical Sketches of some Commanders_ (Boston, 1895).
HUMPHRY, OZIAS (1742-1810), English miniature painter, was born at
Honiton and educated at the Grammar School of that town. Attracted by
the gallery of casts opened by the duke of Richmond, Humphry came to
London and studied at Shipley's school; and later he left for Bath,
where he lodged with Linley and became a great friend of his beautiful
daughter, afterwards Mrs Sheridan. In 1766 he was in London warmly
encouraged by Sir Joshua Reynolds, who was always interested in
Devonshire painters. He was a great friend of Romney, with whom in 1773
he went to Italy, staying, on his way to Dover, at Knole, where the duke
of Dorset gave him many commissions. In 1785 he went to India, visiting
the native courts, painting a large number of miniatures, and making
many beautiful sketches. His sight failed him in 1797, and he died in
Hampstead in 1810. The bulk of his possessions came into the hands of
his natural son, William Upcott, the book collector. From him the
British Museum acquired a large number of papers relating to Humphry. He
was Opie's first master, and is alluded to in some lines by Hayley. His
miniatures are exquisite in detail and delightful in colouring. Many of
the finest are in the collection of Mr J. Pierpont Morgan.
See _The History of Portrait Miniatures_, by G. C. Williamson, vol.
ii. (London, 1904). (G. C. W.)
HUMUS (a Latin word meaning the ground), a product of decomposing
organic matter. It is especially present in peat bogs, and also occurs
in surface soils, to which it imparts a brown or black colour. It is one
of the most important soil-constituents from the agricultural point of
view; it is the chief source of nitrogenous food for plants, and
modifies the properties of the soil by increasing its water-holding
capacity and diminishing its tenacity. Little is known with regard to
its chemical composition. By treating with a dilute acid to remove the
bases present, and then acting on the residue with ammonia, a solution
is obtained from which a mineral acid precipitates humic acid; the
residue from the ammonia extraction is termed humin. Both the humic acid
and humin are mixtures, and several constituents have been separated;
ulmic acid and ulmin, in addition to humic acid and humin, are perhaps
the best characterized.
HUNALD, DUKE OF AQUITAINE, succeeded his father Odo, or Eudes, in 735.
He refused to recognize the high authority of the Frankish mayor of the
palace, Charles Martel, whereupon Charles marched south of the Loire,
seized Bordeaux and Blaye, but eventually allowed Hunald to retain
Aquitaine on condition that he should promise fidelity. From 736 to 741
the relations between Charles and Hunald seem to have remained amicable.
But at Charles's death in 741 Hunald declared war against the Franks,
crossed the Loire and burned Chartres. Menaced by Pippin and Carloman,
Hunald begged for peace in 745 and retired to a monastery, probably on
the Isle of Re. We find him later in Italy, where he allied himself with
the Lombards and was stoned to death. He had left the duchy of Aquitaine
to Waifer, who was probably his son, and who struggled for eight years
in defending his independence against King Pippin. At the death of
Pippin and at the beginning of the reign of Charlemagne, there was a
last rising of the Aquitanians. This revolt was directed by a certain
Hunald, and was repressed in 768 by Charlemagne and his brother
Carloman. Hunald sought refuge with the duke of the Gascons, Lupus, who
handed him over to his enemies. In spite of the opinion of certain
historians, this Hunald seems to have been a different person from the
old duke of Aquitaine.
See J. Vaissette, _Histoire generale de Languedoc_, vol. i. (ed. of 1872
seq.); Th. Breysig, H. Hahn, L. Oelsner, S. Abel and B. Simson,
_Jahrbucher des deutschen Reichs_. (C. Pf.)
HU-NAN, a central province of China, bounded N. by Hu-peh, E. by
Kiang-si, S. by Kwang-si and Kwang-tung, and W. by Kwei-chow and
Szech'uen. It occupies an area of 84,000 sq. m., and its population is
estimated at 22,000,000. The provincial capital is Chang-sha Fu, in
addition to which it has eight prefectural cities. It is essentially a
province of hills, the only considerable plain being that around the
Tung-t'ing lake, but this extends little beyond the area which in summer
forms part of the lake. To the north of Heng-chow Fu detached groups of
higher mountains than are found in the southern portion of the province
are met with. Among these is the Heng-shan, one of the Wu-yo or five
sacred mountains of China, upon which the celebrated tablet of Yu was
placed. The principal rivers of the province are: (1) The Siang-kiang,
which takes its rise in the Nan-shan, and empties into the Tung-t'ing
lake; it is navigable for a great distance from its mouth, and the area
of its basin is 39,000 sq. m.; (2) the Tsze-kiang, the basin of which
covers an area of 10,000 sq. m., and which is full of rapids and
navigable only for the smallest boats; (3) the Yuen-kiang, a large
river, which has some of its head-waters in the province of Kwei-chow,
and empties into the Tung-t'ing lake in the neighbourhood of Chang-te
Fu; its basin has an area of 35,000 sq. m., 22,500 of which are in the
province of Hu-nan and 12,500 in that of Kwei-chow; its navigation is
dangerous, and only small boats are able to pass beyond Hang-kia, a mart
about 180 m. above Chang-te Fu; and (4) the Ling-kiang, which flows from
the tea district of Ho-feng Chow to the Tung-t'ing lake. Its basin
covers an area of about 8000 sq. m., and it is navigable only in its
lowest portion. The principal places of commerce are: (1) Siang-t'an, on
the Siang-kiang, said to contain 1,000,000 inhabitants, and to extend 3
m. long by nearly 2 m. deep; (2) Chang-sha Fu, the provincial capital
which stands on the same river 60 m. above the treaty port of Yo-chow,
and between which mart and Han-kow steamers of 500 tons burden run; and
(3) Chang-te Fu, on the Yuen-kiang. The products of the province are tea
(the best quality of which is grown at Gan-hwa and the greatest quantity
at Ping-kiang), hemp, cotton, rice, paper, tobacco, tea-oil and coal.
The whole of the south-eastern portion of the province is one vast
coal-field, extending over an area of 21,700 sq. m. This area is divided
into nearly two equal parts--one, the Lei river coal-fields, yielding
anthracite, and the other the Siang river coal-fields, yielding
bituminous coal. The people have been, as a rule, more anti-foreign in
their ideas, and more generally prosperous than the inhabitants of the
other provinces. Baron von Richthofen noticed with surprise the number
of fine country seats, owned by rich men who had retired from business,
scattered over the rural districts. Almost all the traffic is conveyed
through Hu-nan by water-ways, which lead northward to Han-kow on the
Yangtsze Kiang, and Fan-cheng on the Han River, eastward to Fu-kien,
southward to Kwang-tung and Kwang-si and westward to Sze-ch'uen. One of
the leading features of the province is the Tung-t'ing lake. Yo Chow,
the treaty port of the province, stands at the outlet of the river Siang
into this lake.
HUNDRED, the English name of the cardinal number equal to ten times ten.
The O. Eng. _hundred_ is represented in other Teutonic languages; cf.
Dutch _honderd_, Ger. _Hundert_, Dan. _hundrede_, &c. It is properly a
compound, _hund-red_, the suffix meaning "reckoning"; the first part
_hund_ is the original Teutonic word for 100 which became obsolete in
English in the 13th century. It represents the Indo-European form
_kanta_, seen in Gr. [Greek: hekaton], Lat. _centum_, Sans. _catano_;
_kanta_ stands for _dakanta_ and meant the tenth ten, and is therefore
connected with Gr. [Greek: deka], Lat. _decem_ and Eng. "ten," the
Teutonic form of Indo-European _dakan_ being _tehan_, cf. Ger. _zehn_.
In England the term "hundred" is particularly applied to an ancient
territorial division intermediate between the _villa_ and the county.
Such subordinate districts were also known in different parts of the
country by other names, e.g. _wapentakes_ in Yorkshire, Lincolnshire,
Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Rutland and Leicestershire; _wards_ in
Northumberland, Durham and Cumberland; while some of the hundreds of
Cornwall were formerly called _shires_. In some parts of England a
further intermediate division is to be found between the hundred and the
county. Thus we have the _trithing_, or as it is now called the
_riding_, in Yorkshire, the _lathe_ in Kent, and the _rape_ in Sussex.
In Lincolnshire the arrangement is peculiar. The whole county was
divided into the three sub-counties of Lindsey, Kesteven and Holland;
and of these Lindsey was again divided into three ridings. The division
into hundreds is generally ascribed to the creative genius of Alfred,
who, according to William of Malmesbury, divided his kingdom into
counties, the counties into hundreds, and the hundreds into tithings or
_villae_. It is probable, however, that he merely rearranged existing
administrative districts in that part of England which was subject to
his rule. The significance of the name hundred is a matter of some
difficulty. The old theory, and perhaps the best, is that the hundred
denoted first a group of a hundred families, and then the district which
these families occupied. This is not inconsistent with another view,
according to which the hundred was originally a term of measurement
denoting a hundred hides of land, for there is good reason for
considering that the hide was originally as much land as supported one
family. It is important to notice that in the document compiled before
the Norman Conquest, and now known as the _County Hidage_, the number of
hides in all the counties are multiples of a hundred, and that in many
cases the multiples agree with the number of hundreds ascribed to a
county in Domesday Book. The hundreds of Devon, however, seem never to
have contained a hundred hides; but various multiples of five, such as
twenty, forty and sixty. Here, and in some of the other western
counties, the hundreds are geographical divisions, to which a varying
number of hides was attributed for fiscal purposes.
In the middle ages the hundred was chiefly important for its court of
justice; and the word _hundredum_ was as often applied to the court as
to the district over which the court had jurisdiction. According to the
compilation known as _Leges Henrici_, written shortly before 1118, it
was held twelve times a year, but an ordinance of 1234, after stating
that it had been held fortnightly in the reign of Henry II., declares
that its ordinary sessions were henceforth to take place every three
weeks (_Dunstable Annals_, 139). Existing court rolls show that from the
13th to the 15th centuries it usually sat seventeen times a year, in
some hundreds in a fixed place, in others in various places, but in no
regular course of rotation. Twice a year a specially full court was
held, to which various names such as _hundredum legale_ or _hundredum
magnum_ were applied. This was the sheriffs' turn held after Easter and
Michaelmas in accordance with the Magna Carta of 1217. The chief object
of these sessions was to see that all who ought to be were in the
frank-pledge, and that the articles of the view of frank-pledge had been
properly observed during the preceding half-year. Each township of the
hundred was represented by a varying number of suitors who were bound to
attend at these half-yearly sessions without individual summons. If the
proper number failed to appear the whole township was amerced, the entry
on the rolls being frequently of the form "_Villata de A. est in
misericordia quia non venit plenarie_." All the seventeen courts,
including the two full courts, had jurisdiction in trespass covenant and
debt of less than forty shillings, and in these civil cases such of the
freeholders of the county as were present were judges. But the sheriff
or the lord of the hundred was the sole judge in the criminal business
transacted at the full courts. A hundred court, especially in the west
of England, was often appurtenant to the chief manor in the hundred, and
passed with a grant of the manor without being expressly mentioned. In
the 13th century a large number of hundreds had come into private hands
by royal grant, and in Devonshire there was scarcely a hundred which
still belonged to the king. In private hundreds the lord's steward took
the place of the king's sheriff.
Owing to the great fall in the value of money the hundred court began to
decay rapidly under the Tudor sovereigns. They were for the most part
extinguished by a section in the County Courts Act 1867, which enacts
that no action which can be brought in a county court shall thenceforth
be brought in a hundred or other inferior court not being a court of
record. Until lately the most important of the surviving duties of the
hundred was its liability to make good damages occasioned by rioters.
This liability was removed by the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, which threw
the liability on the police rate.
See Pollock and Maitland, _History of English Law_; F. W. Maitland,
_Domesday Book and Beyond_ (1897); J. H. Round, _Feudal England_
(1895); _Annales monastici_, "Rolls" series, iii. (Dunstable), 139;
various court rolls at the Public Record Office, London.
(G. J. T.)
HUNDRED DAYS (Fr. _Cent Jours_), the name commonly given to the period
between the 20th of March 1815, the date on which Napoleon arrived in
Paris after his return from Elba, and the 28th of June 1815, the date of
the restoration of Louis XVIII. The phrase _Cent Jours_ was first used
by the prefect of Paris, the comte de Chabrol, in his speech welcoming
the king. See NAPOLEON, and FRANCE: _History_.
HUNDRED YEARS' WAR. This name is given to the protracted conflict
between France and England from 1337 to 1453, which continued through
the reigns of the French kings Philip VI., John II., Charles V., Charles
VI., Charles VII., and of the English kings Edward III., Richard II.,
Henry IV., Henry V. and Henry VI. The principal causes of the war, which
broke out in Guienne in 1337, were the disputes arising in connexion
with the French possessions of the English kings, in respect to which
they were vassals of the kings of France; the pretensions of Edward III.
to the French throne after the accession of Philip VI.; Philip's
intervention in the affairs of Flanders and Scotland; and, finally, the
machinations of Robert of Artois.
During Philip VI.'s reign fortune favoured the English. The French fleet
was destroyed at Sluys on the 24th of June 1340. After the siege of
Tournai a truce was arranged on the 25th of September 1340; but the next
year the armies of England and France were again at war in Brittany on
account of the rival pretensions of Charles of Blois and John of
Montfort to the succession of that duchy. In 1346, while the French were
trying to invade Guienne, Edward III. landed in Normandy, ravaged that
province, part of the Ile de France and Picardy, defeated the French
army at Crecy on the 26th of August 1346, and besieged Calais, which
surrendered on the 3rd of August 1347. Hostilities were suspended for
some years after this, in consequence of the truce of Calais concluded
on the 28th of September 1347.
The principal feats of arms which mark the first years of John the
Good's reign were the taking of St Jean d'Angely by the French in 1351,
the defeat of the English near St Omer in 1352, and the English victory
near Guines in the same year. In 1355 Edward III. invaded Artois while
the Black Prince was pillaging Languedoc. In 1356 the battle of Poitiers
(September 19), in which John was taken prisoner, was the signal for
conflicts in Paris between Stephen Marcel and the dauphin, and for the
outbreak of the Jacquerie. The treaty of Bretigny, concluded on the 8th
of May 1360, procured France several years' repose.
Under Charles V. hostilities at first obtained only between French,
Anglo-Navarrais (Du Guesclin's victory at Cocherel, May 16, 1364) and
Bretons. In 1369, on the pretext that Edward III. had failed to observe
the terms of the treaty of Bretigny, the king of France declared war
against him. Du Guesclin, having been appointed Constable, defeated the
English at Pontvallain in 1370, at Chize in 1373, and drove them from
their possessions between the Loire and the Gironde, while the duke of
Anjou retook part of Guienne. Edward III. thereupon concluded the truce
of Bruges (June 27, 1375), which was prolonged until the 24th of June
1377. Upon the death of Edward III. (June 21, 1377) Charles V.
recommenced war in Artois and Guienne and against Charles the Bad, but
failed in his attempt to reunite Brittany and France. Du Guesclin, who
had refused to march against his compatriots, died on the 13th of July
1380, and Charles V. on the 16th of the following September.
In the beginning of Charles VI.'s reign the struggle between the two
countries seemed to slacken. An attempt at reconciliation even took
place on the marriage of Richard II. with Isabella of France, daughter
of Charles VI. (September 26, 1396). But Richard, having been dethroned
by Henry of Lancaster (Henry IV.), hostilities were resumed, Henry
profiting little by the internal discords of France. In 1415 his son,
Henry V., landed in Normandy on the expiry of the truce of the 25th of
September 1413, which had been extended in 1414 and 1415. He won the
victory of Agincourt (October 25, 1415), and then seized Caen and part
of Normandy, while France was exhausting herself in the feuds of
Armagnacs and Burgundians. By the treaty of Troyes (May 21, 1415) he
obtained the hand of Catherine, Charles VI.'s daughter, with the titles
of regent and heir to the kingdom of France. Having taken Meaux on the
2nd of May 1429, and made his entry into Paris on the 30th of May, he
died on the 31st of August in the Bois de Vincennes, leaving the throne
to his son, Henry VI., with the duke of Bedford as regent in France.
Charles VI. died shortly afterwards, on the 21st of October.
His son, who styled himself Charles VII., suffered a series of defeats
in the beginning of his reign: Cravant on the Yonne (1423), Verneuil
(1424), St James de Beuvron (1426) and Rouvray (1429). Orleans, the last
bulwark of royalty, had been besieged since the 12th of October 1428,
and was on the point of surrender when Joan of Arc appeared. She saved
Orleans (May 8, 1429), defeated the English at Patay on the 16th of
June, had Charles VII. crowned at Reims on the 17th of July, was taken
at Compiegne on the 24th of May 1430, and was burned at Rouen on the
30th of May 1431 (see JOAN OF ARC). From this time on the English lost
ground steadily, and the treaty of Arras (March 20, 1435), by which good
relations were established between Charles VII. and Philip the Good,
duke of Burgundy, dealt them a final blow. Normandy rose against them,
while the constable De Richemont[1] drove them from Paris (1436) and
retook Nemours, Montereau (1437) and Meaux (1439). The quickly repressed
revolt of the Praguerie made no break in Charles VII.'s successes. In
1442 he relieved successively Saint Sever, Dax, Marmande, La Reole, and
in 1444 Henry VI. had to conclude the truce of Tours. In 1448 the
English were driven from Mans; and in 1449, while Richemont was
capturing Cotentin and Fougeres, Dunois conquered Lower Normandy and
Charles VII. entered Rouen. The defeat of Sir Thomas Kyriel, one of
Bedford's veteran captains, at Formigny in 1450, and the taking of
Cherbourg, completed the conquest of the province. During this time
Dunois in Guienne was taking Bordeaux and Bayonne. Guienne revolted
against France, whereupon Talbot returned there with an army of 5000
men, but was vanquished and killed at Castillon on the 17th of July
1453. Bordeaux capitulated on the 9th of October, and the Hundred Years'
War was terminated by the expulsion of the English, who were by this
time so fully occupied with the Wars of the Roses as to be unable to
take the offensive against France anew.
AUTHORITIES.--The chronicles of Jean le Bel, Adam Murimuth, Robert of
Avesbury, Froissart and "Le Religieux de Saint Denis." See Simeon
Luce, _Hist. de Bertrand du Guesclin_ (3rd ed., Paris, 1896); G. du
Fresne de Beaucourt, _Hist. de Charles VII_ (6 vols., Paris,
1881-1891); F. J. Snell, articles in the _United Service Magazine_
(1906-1907). (J. V.*)