[1] See the table in Seton-Watson's _Racial Problems in Hungary_,
Appendix xiii. p. 470, and Drage, _Austria-Hungary_, p. 289. Of the
emigrants in 1906, 52,121 were Magyars, 32,904 Slovaks, 30,551
Germans, 20,859 Rumanians and 16,016 Croats.
[2] _Racial Problems_, p. 202.
[3] The colouring of ordinary ethnographical maps is necessarily
somewhat misleading. When an attempt is made to represent in colour
the actual distribution of the races (as in Dr Chavanne's
_Geographischer und statistischer Handatlas)_ the effect is that of
occasional blotches of solid colour on a piece of shot silk.
[4] The distribution of the races is analysed in greater detail in Mr
Seton-Watson's _Racial Problems_, p. 3 seq.
[5] Seton-Watson, _op. cit._ pp. 173, 188, 252; Drage,
Austria-Hungary, pp. 280, 588; Gonnard, La Hongrie, p. 72.
[6] An admirable account of this "little world, which produces almost
everything and is almost self-sufficient" is given by M. Gonnard in
his _Hongrie au XX^me siecle_, p. 159 seq.
[7] _Ib._ p. 349 seq.
[8] Merchandise passing the boundaries is subject to declaration; the
respective values are stated by a special commission of experts
residing in Budapest.
[9] The acquisition of the Austrian Staatsbahn in 1891 practically
gave to the state the control of the whole railway net of Hungary. By
1900 all the main lines, except the Sudbahn and the
Kaschan-Oberbergar Bahn, were in its hands.
[10] The franchise is "probably the most illiberal in Europe."
Servants, in the widest sense of the word, apprenticed workmen and
agricultural labourers are carefully excluded. The result is that the
working classes are wholly unrepresented in the parliament, only 6%
of them, and 13% of the small trading class, possessing the
franchise, which is only enjoyed by 6% of the entire population (see
Seton-Watson, _Racial Problems_, 250, 251). For the question of
franchise reform which played so great a part in the Austro-Hungarian
crisis of 1909-1910 see _History_, below.--[ED.]
[11] i.e. Catholics of the Oriental rite in communion with Rome.
[12] The methods pursued to this end are exposed in pitiless detail
by Mr Seton-Watson in his chapter on the Education Laws of Hungary,
in _Racial Problems_, 205.
[13] Ger. Ottrik, in religion Anastasius.
[14] At its worst, c. 1030-1033, cannibalism was common.
[15] The English title of lord-lieutenant is generally used as the
best translation of _Foispan_ or _comes_ (in this connexion). The
title of count (_grof_) was assumed later (15th century) by those
nobles who had succeeded, in spite of the Golden Bull, in making
their authority over whole counties independent and
hereditary.--[ED.]
[16] The ban is equivalent to the margrave, or count of the marches.
[17] Andrassy, _Development of Hung. Const. Liberty_ (Eng. trans., p.
93); _Knatchbull-Hugessen_, i. 26 seq., where its provisions are
given in some detail.
[18] The full title of the palatine (Mag. _nador_ or _nador-ispan_,
Lat. _palatinus_) was _comes palatii regni_, the first palatine being
Abu Samuel (c. 1041). By the Golden Bull the palatine acquired
something of the quality of a responsible minister, as "intermediary
between the crown and people, guardian of the nation's rights, and
keeper of the king's conscience" (_Knatchbull-Hugessen_, i. 30).
[19] _Knatchbull-Hugessen_, i. 41.
[20] That is to say the western portion of Walachia, which lies
between the Aluta and the Danube.
[21] Though elected king of the Romans in 1411, he cannot be regarded
as the legal emperor till his coronation at Rome in 1423, and if he
was titular king of Bohemia as early as 1419, he was not acknowledged
as king by the Czechs themselves till 1436.
[22] In 1412 he pawned the twenty-four Zips towns to Poland, and, in
1411 he pledged his margraviate of Brandenburg to the Hohenzollerns.
[23] Some of these were of gigantic size, e.g. the Varga Mozsar, or
great mortar, which sixty horses could scarce move from its place,
and a ballistic machine invented by Matthias which could hurl stones
of 3 cwt.
[24] We know actually of fifteen, but there may have been many more.
[25] It should be remembered that at this time one-third of the land
belonged to the church, and the remainder was in the hands of less
than a dozen great families who had also appropriated the royal
domains.
[26] The _Opus tripartitum juris consuetudinarii regni Hungariae_ was
drawn up by Verboczy at the instance of the diet in 1507. It was
approved by a committee of the diet and received the royal
_imprimatur_ in 1514, but was never published. In the constitutional
history of Hungary the _Tripartitum_ is of great importance as
reasserting the fundamental equality of all the members of the
populus (i.e. the whole body of the nobles) and, more especially, as
defining the co-ordinate power of the king and "people" in
legislation: i.e. the king may propose laws, but they had no force
without the consent of the people, and vice versa. See
Knatchbull-Hugessen, i. 64.
[27] He was just twenty.
[28] It was kept secret for some years for fear of Turkish
intervention.
[29] In contradistinction to Turkish Hungary and Transylvanian
Hungary.
[30] At first the Habsburgs held their court at Prague instead of at
Vienna.
[31] According to contemporary records the number of prelates and
priests in the three parts of Hungary at the beginning of the 17th
century was but 103, all told, and of the great families not above
half a dozen still clung to Catholicism.
[32] The counties of Szatmar, Ugocsa and Bereg and the fortress of
Tokaj were formally ceded to him.
[33] He was the first Protestant palatine.
[34] The jobbagyok, or under-tenants, had to follow the example of
their lords; they were, by this time, mere serfs with no privileges
either political or religious.
[35] E.g. in Esztergom, the primatial city, there were only two
buildings still standing.
[36] Charles VI. as emperor.
[37] _Litterae credentiales_, nearly equivalent to a coronation oath.
[38] Up to 1848 the Hungarian diet was usually held at Pressburg.
[39] Franz Phillip, Count von Lamberg (1791-1848), a field-marshal in
the Austrian army, who had seen service in the campaigns of 1814-1815
in France, belonged to the Stockerau branch of the ancient countly
family of Orteneck-Ottenstein. He was chosen for this particular
mission as being himself a Hungarian magnate conversant with
Hungarian affairs, but at the same time of the party devoted to the
court.
[40] The crowning atrocities, which the Magyars have never wholly
forgiven, were the shooting and hanging of the "Arad Martyrs" and the
execution of Batthyany. On October 6, 1849, thirteen generals who had
taken part in the war, including Damjanics and Counts Vecsey and
Leiningen, were hanged or shot at Arad. On the same day Count Louis
Batthyany, who had taken no part in the war and had done his utmost
to restrain his countrymen within the bounds of legality, was shot at
Pest.
[41] Transylvania, Croatio-Slavonia with Fiume and the Temes Banat
were separated from the kingdom and provided with local governments.
[42] This _Reichsrath_ was a purely consultative body, the ultimate
control of all important affairs being reserved to the emperor. Its
representative element consisted of 100 members elected by the
provinces.
[43] Beust was the only "imperial chancellor" in Austro-Hungarian
history: even Metternich bore only the title of "chancellor"; and
Andrassy, who succeeded Beust, styled himself "minister of the
imperial and royal household and for foreign affairs."
[44] See for this Mr Seton-Watson's _Racial Problems of Hungary,
passim_.
[45] _Ibid._ p. 168.
[46] Especially the Electoral Law of 1874, which established a very
unequal distribution of electoral areas, a highly complicated
franchise, and voting by public declaration, thus making it easy for
the government to intimidate the electors and generally to
gerrymander the elections.
[47] The Austrian court resented especially the decree proclaiming
national mourning for Louis Kossuth, though no minister was present
at the funeral.
[48] Subsequently extended till 1907.
[49] The question involves rather complex issues. Apart from the
question of constitutional right, the Magyars objected to German as
the medium of military education as increasing the difficulty of
magyarizing the subordinate races of Hungary (see
_Knatchbull-Hugessen_, ii. 296). On the other hand the Austrians
pointed out that not only would failure to understand each other's
language cause fatal confusion on a battlefield, but also tend to
disintegrate the forces even in peace time. They also laid stress on
the fact that Magyar was not, any more than German, the language of
many Hungarian regiments, consisting as these did mainly of Slovaks,
Vlachs, Serbs and Croats. In resisting the Magyar word of command,
then, the king-emperor was able to appeal to the anti-Magyar feeling
of the other Hungarian races. (W. A. P.)
[50] Of the 16,000,000 inhabitants of Hungary barely a half were
Magyar; and the franchise was possessed by only 800,000, of whom the
Magyars formed the overwhelming majority.
[51] The cabinet consisted of Dr Wekerle (premier and finance),
Ferencz Kossuth (commerce), Count Gyula Andrassy (interior), Count
Albert Apponyi (education), Davanyi (agriculture), Polonyi (justice)
and Count Aladar Zichy (court).
[52] Seton-Watson, _Racial Problems_, p. 194.
[53] _The Times_, March 14, 1907.
[54] _Ibid._ October 11, 1907.
[55] _Ibid._ October 15, 1907.
[56] _The Times_, September 27, 1908.
[57] The People's party first emerged during the elections of 1896,
when it contested 98 seats. Its object was to resist the
anti-clerical tendencies of the Liberals, and for this purpose it
appealed to the "nationalities" against the dominant Magyar parties,
the due enforcement of the Law of Equal Rights of Nationalities
(1868) forming a main item of its programme. Its leader, Count Zichy,
in a speech of Jan. 1, 1897, declared it to be neither national, nor
Liberal, nor Christian to oppress the nationalities. See
Seton-Watson, p. 185.
[58] See Hunfalvy's "Die ungarische Sprachwissenschaft,"
_Literarische Berichte aus Ungarn_, pp. 80-87 (Budapest, 1877).
[59] _Specimen usus linguae Gothicae in eruendis atque illustrandis
obscurissimis quibusdam Sacrae Scripturae locis; addita analogia
linguae Gothicae cum Sinica, necnon Finnicae cum Ungarica_ (Upsala,
1717).
[60] Hunfalvy, p. 81.
[61] Id. pp. 82-86.
[62] _Demonstratio Idioma Ungarorum et Lapponum idem esse_
(Copenhagen und Tyrnau, 1770).
[63] See Count Geza Kuun's "Lettere Ungheresi," _La Rivista Europea_,
anno vi., vol. ii. fasc. 3, pp. 561-562 (Florence, 1875).
[64] So also Jambor (_A Magyar Irod. Tort._, Pest, 1864, p. 104).
Kornyei, Imre and others incline to the belief that it was Bela I.
and that consequently the "anonymous notary" belongs rather to the
11th than to the 12th century.
[65] An example of this work, printed on vellum in Gothic letter
(Augsburg, 1488), and formerly belonging to the library of Matthias
Corvinus, king of Hungary, may be seen in the British Museum. Of the
three first-mentioned chronicles Hungarian translations by Charles
Szabo appeared at Budapest in 1860, 1861 and 1862.
[66] Both this and the later editions of Frankfort (1581), Cologne
(1690) and Pressburg (1744) are represented in the British Museum.
[67] The only copy existing at the present time appears to have been
transcribed at the beginning of the 16th century. Both this and the
_Halotti Beszed_ (Pray Codex) are preserved in the National Museum at
Budapest.
[68] This codex contains Ruth, the lesser prophets, and part of the
Apocrypha. According to Toldy, it is copied from an earlier one of
the 14th century.
[69] First made known by Coloman Thaly (1871) from a discovery by MM.
E. Nagy and D. Veghelyi in the archives of the Csicsery family, in
the county of Ung.
[70] One of the only seven perfect copies extant of the Vienna (1574)
edition is in the British Museum library.
[71] A copy, with the autograph of the editor, is in the British
Museum.
[72] A copy is in the British Museum library.
[73] There are two copies of this edition in the British Museum
library.
[74] The earliest, styled "Song on the Discovery of the right hand of
the Holy King Stephen," and printed at Nuremberg by Anton Koburger in
1484, is lost.
[75] See Chas. Szabo's _Regi Magyar Konyvtar_ (Budapest, 1879). Cf.
also _Lit. Ber. aus Ungarn for 1879_, Bd. iii. Heft 2, pp. 433-434.
[76] The subject is similar to that of Grillparzer's tragedy, _Ein
treuer Diener seines Herrn_.
[77] It was founded in 1825 through the generosity of Count
Szechenyi, who devoted his whole income for one year (60,000 florins)
to the purpose. It was soon supported by contributions from all
quarters except from the government.
[78] Among the earlier publications of the academy were the
_Tudomanytar_ (Treasury of Sciences, 1834-1844), with its supplement
_Literatura_; the _Kulfoldi jatekszin_ (Foreign Theatres); the
_Magyar nyelv rendszere_ (System of the Hungarian language, 1846; 2nd
ed., 1847); various dictionaries of scientific, mathematical,
philosophical and legal terms; a Hungarian-German dictionary
(1835-1838), and a Glossary of Provincialisms (1838). The
_Nagy-Szotar_ (Great Dictionary), begun by Czuczor and Fogarasi in
1845, was not issued till 1862-1874. Among the regular organs of the
academy are the _Transactions_ (from 1840), in some 60 vols., and the
_Annuals_.
[79] Among its earlier productions were the _Nemzeti konyvtar_
(National Library), published 1843-1847, and continued in 1852 under
the title _Ujabb Nemzeti konyvtar_, a repository of works by
celebrated authors; the _Kulfoldi Regenytar_ (Treasury of Foreign
Romances), consisting of translations; and some valuable collections
of proverbs, folk-songs, traditions and fables. Of the many later
publications of the Kisfaludy society the most important as regards
English literature is the _Shakspere Minden Munkai_ (Complete Works
of Shakespeare), in 19 vols. (1864-1878), to which a supplementary
vol., _Shakspere Palyaja_ (1880), containing a critical account of
the life and writings of Shakespeare, has been added by Professor A.
Greguss. Translations from Moliere, Racine, Corneille, Calderon and
Moreto have also been issued by the Kisfaludy society. The _Evlapok
uj folyama_, or "New Series of Annuals," from 1860 (Budapest, 1868,
&c.), is a chrestomathy of prize orations, and translations and
original pieces, both in poetry and prose.
[80] Unitarian bishop of Transylvania, author of _Vadrozsak_, or
"Wild Roses" (1863), a collection of Szekler folk-songs, ballads and
sayings.
[81] Besides the various translators from the English, as for
instance William Gyori, Augustus Greguss, Ladislaus Arany, Sigismond
Acs, Stephen Fejes and Eugene Rakosy, who, like those already
incidentally mentioned, assisted in the Kisfaludy society's version
of Shakespeare's complete works, metrical translations from foreign
languages were successfully made by Emil Abranyi, Dr Ignatius Barna,
Anthony Varady, Andrew Szabo, Charles Berczy, Julius Greguss, Lewis
Doczi, Bela Erodi, Emeric Gaspar and many others. A Magyar version,
by Ferdinand Barna, of the _Kalewala_ was published at Pest in 1871.
Faithful renderings by Lewis Szeberenyi, Theodore Lehoczky and
Michael Fincicky of the popular poetry of the Slavic nationalities
appeared in vols. i. and ii. of the _Hazai nep kolteszet tara_
(Treasury of the Country's Popular Song), commenced in 1866, under
the auspices of the Kisfaludy society. In vol. iii. Rumanian
folk-songs were Magyarized by George Ember, Julian Grozescu and
Joseph Vulcanu, under the title _Roman nepdalok_ (Budapest, 1877).
The Rozsak (Zombor, 1875) is a translation by Eugene Pavlovits from
the Servian of Jovan Jovanovits. Both the last-mentioned works are
interesting from an ethnographical point of view. We may here note
that for foreigners unacquainted with Hungarian there are, besides
several special versions of Petofi and of Arany, numerous anthologies
of Magyar poetry in German, by Count Majlath (1825), J. Fenyery and
F. Toldy (1828), G. Steinacker (1840, 1875), G. Stier (1850), K. M.
Kertbeny (1854, 1860), A. Dux (1854), Count Pongracz (1859-1861), A.
M. Riedl (1860), J. Nordheim (1872), G. M. Henning (1874), A. von der
Heide (1879) and others. Selections have also been published in
English by Sir John Bowring (1830), S. Wekey in his grammar (1852)
and E. D. Butler (1877), and in French by H. Desbordes-Valmore and C.
E. de Ujfalvy (1873).
[82] The translator of Macaulay.
[83] See, however, J. Szinnyei & Son's _Bibliotheca Hungarica
historiae naturalis et matheseos_, 1472-1875 (Budapest, 1878), where
the number of Magyar works bearing on the natural sciences and
mathematics printed from the earliest date to the end of 1875 is
stated to be 3811, of which 106 are referred to periodicals.
[84] This will appear even more striking by a consideration of the
number of periodical publications published in Hungary in languages
other than Magyar. Thus, while of German periodicals appearing in
Hungary there were in 1871 only 85, they increased in 1880 to 114, in
1885 to 141; and they were, at the beginning of 1895, still 128, in
spite of the constant spread of that process of Magyarization which
has, since 1880, considerably changed the linguistic habits of the
people of Hungary.
HUNGER and THIRST. These terms are used to express peculiar sensations
which are produced by and give expression to general wants of the
system, satisfied respectively by the ingestion of organic solids
containing substances capable of acting as food, and by water or liquids
and solids containing water.
_Hunger_ (a word common to Teutonic languages) is a peculiarly
indefinite sensation of craving or want which is referred to the
stomach, but with which is often combined, always indeed in its most
pronounced stages, a general feeling of weakness or faintness. The
earliest stages are unattended with suffering, and are characterized as
"appetite for food." Hunger is normally appeased by the introduction of
solid or semi-solid nutriment into the stomach, and it is probable that
the almost immediate alleviation of the sensation in these circumstances
is in part due to a local influence, perhaps connected with a free
secretion of gastric juice. Essentially, however, the sensation of
hunger is a mere local expression of a general want, and this local
expression ceases when the want is satisfied, even though no food be
introduced into the stomach, the needs of the economy being satisfied by
the introduction of food through other channels, as, for example, when
food which admits of being readily absorbed is injected into the large
intestine.
_Thirst_ (a word of Teutonic origin, Ger. _Durst_, Swed. and Dan.
_torst_, akin to the Lat. _torrere_, to parch) is a peculiar sensation
of dryness and heat localized in the tongue and throat. Although thirst
may be artificially produced by drying, as by the passage of a current
of air over the mucous membrane of the above parts, normally it depends
upon an impoverishment of the system in water. And, when this
impoverishment ceases, in whichever way this be effected, the sensation
likewise ceases. The injection of water into the blood, the stomach, or
the large intestine appeases thirst, though no fluid is brought in
contact with the part to which the sensation is referred.
The sensations of hunger and thirst lead us, or when urgent compel us,
to take food and drink into the mouth. Once in the mouth, the entrance
to the alimentary canal, the food begins to undergo a series of
processes, the object of which is to extract from it as much as possible
of its nutritive constituents. Food in the alimentary canal is, strictly
speaking, outside the confines of the body; as much so as the fly
grasped in the leaves of the insectivorous _Dionea_ is outside of the
plant itself. The mechanical and chemical processes to which the food is
subjected have their seat and conditions outside the body which it is
destined to nourish, though unquestionably the body is no passive agent,
and innumerable glands come into action to supply the chemical agents
which dissolve and render assimilable those constituents of the food
capable of being absorbed into the organism, and of forming part and
parcel of its substance (see further under NUTRITION).
HUNGERFORD, WALTER HUNGERFORD, BARON (d. 1449), English soldier,
belonged to a Wiltshire family. His father, Sir Thomas Hungerford (d.
1398), was speaker of the House of Commons in 1377, a position which he
owed to his friend John of Gaunt, and is the first person formally
mentioned in the rolls of parliament as holding the office. Walter
Hungerford also served as speaker, but he is more celebrated as a
warrior and diplomatist, serving in the former capacity at Agincourt and
in the latter at the council of Constance and the congress of Arras. An
executor of Henry V.'s will and a member of the council under Henry VI.,
Hungerford became a baron in 1426, and he was lord treasurer from 1426
to 1431. Remains of his benefactions still exist at Heytesbury, long the
principal residence of the family.
Hungerford's son Robert (c. 1400-1459) was also called to parliament as
a baron; he was very wealthy, both his mother and his wife being
heiresses. Like several other members of the family, Robert was buried
in the cathedral at Salisbury.
Robert's son and heir, Robert, Lord Moleyns and Hungerford (c.
1420-1464), married Eleanor, daughter of Sir William de Moleyns, and was
called to parliament as Lord de Moleyns in 1445. He is chiefly
remembered through his dispute with John Paston over the possession of
the Norfolk manor of Gresham. After losing this case he was taken
prisoner in France in 1452, not securing his release until 1459, During
the Wars of the Roses he fought for Henry VI., with whom he fled to
Scotland; then he was attainted, was taken prisoner at the battle of
Hexham, and was executed at Newcastle in May 1464.
His eldest son, Sir Thomas Hungerford (d. 1469), was attainted and
executed for attempting the restoration of Henry VI.; a younger son, Sir
Walter Hungerford (d. 1516), who fought for Henry VII. at Bosworth,
received some of the estates forfeited by his ancestors. Sir Thomas, who
had no sons, left an only daughter Mary (d. c. 1534). When the
attainders of her father and grandfather were reversed in 1485 this lady
became Baroness Hungerford and Baroness de Moleyns; she married into the
Hastings family and was the mother of George Hastings, 1st earl of
Huntingdon.
Sir Walter Hungerford's son Edward (d. 1522) was the father of Walter,
Lord Hungerford of Heytesbury (1503-1540), who was created a baron in
1536, but was attainted for his alleged sympathy with the Pilgrimage of
Grace; he was beheaded on the 28th of July 1540, the same day as his
patron Thomas Cromwell. As his sons Sir Walter (1532-1596) and Sir
Edward (d. 1607) both died without sons the estates passed to another
branch of the family.
Sir Edward Hungerford (1596-1648), who inherited the estates of his
kinsman Sir Edward in 1607, was the son of Sir Anthony (1564-1627) and a
descendant of Walter, Lord Hungerford. He was a member of both the Short
and Long Parliaments in 1640; during the Civil War he attached himself
to the parliamentary party, fighting at Lansdowne and at Roundway Down.
His half-brother Anthony (d. 1657) was also a member of both the Short
and the Long Parliaments, but was on the royalist side during the war.
This Anthony's son and heir was Sir Edward Hungerford (1632-1711), the
founder of Hungerford market at Charing Cross, London. He was a member
of parliament for over forty years, but was very extravagant and was
obliged to sell much of his property; and little is known of the family
after his death.
See Sir R. C. Hoare, _History of Modern Wiltshire_ (1822-1844).
HUNGERFORD, a market town in the Newbury parliamentary division of
Berkshire, England, extending into Wiltshire, 61 m. W. by S. of London
by the Great Western railway. Pop. (1901) 2906. It is beautifully
situated in the narrow valley of the Kennet at the junction of tributary
valleys from the south and south-west, the second of which is followed
by the Bath road, an important highway from London to the west. The
town, which lies on the Kennet and Avon canal, has agricultural trade.
John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, presented to the citizens manorial
rights, including common pasture and fishing. The fishing is valuable,
for the trout of the Kennet and other streams in the locality are
numerous and carefully preserved. Hungerford is also a favourite hunting
centre. A horn given to the town by John of Gaunt is preserved in the
town hall, another horn dating from 1634 being used to summon the
manorial court of twelve citizens called feoffees (the president being
called the constable), at Hocktide, the Tuesday following Easter week.
In 1774, when a number of towns had taken action against the imposition
of a fee for the delivery of letters from their local post-offices,
Hungerford was selected as a typical case, and was first relieved of the
imposition.
HUNINGEN, a town of Germany, in Alsace-Lorraine, situated on the left
bank of the Rhine, on a branch of the Rhine-Rhone canal, and 3 m. N. of
Basel by rail. Pop. (1905) 3304. The Rhine is here crossed by an iron
railway bridge. The town boasts a handsome Roman Catholic church, and
has manufactures of silk, watches, chemicals and cigars. Huningen is an
ancient place and grew up round a stronghold placed to guard the passage
of the Rhine. It was wrested from the Imperialists by the duke of
Lauenburg in 1634, and subsequently passed by purchase to Louis XIV. of
France. It was fortified by Vauban (1679-1681) and a bridge was built
across the Rhine. The fortress capitulated to the Austrians on the 26th
of August 1815 and the works were shortly afterwards dismantled. In
1871, the town passed, with Alsace-Lorraine, to the German empire.
See Tschamber, _Geschichte der Stadt und ehemaligen Festung Huningen_
(St Ludwig, 1894); and Latruffe, _Huningue et Bale devant les traites
de 1815_ (Paris, 1863).
HUNNERIC (d. 484), king of the Vandals, was a son of King Gaiseric, and
was sent to Italy as a hostage in 435 when his father made a treaty with
the emperor Valentinian III. After his return to the Vandal court at
Carthage, he married a daughter of Theodoric I., king of the Visigoths;
but when this princess was suspected of attempting to poison her
father-in-law, she was mutilated and was sent back to Europe. Hunneric
became king of the Vandals on his father's death in 477. Like Gaiseric
he was an Arian, and his reign is chiefly memorable for his cruel
persecution of members of the orthodox Christian Church in his
dominions. Hunneric's second wife was Eudocia, a daughter of Valentinian
III. and his wife Eudocia. (See VANDALS.)
HUNNIS, WILLIAM (d. 1597), English musician and poet, was as early as
1549 in the service of William Herbert, afterwards earl of Pembroke. His
friend Thomas Newton, in a poem prefixed to _The Hive of Hunnye_ (1578),
says: "In prime of youth thy pleasant Penne depaincted Sonets sweete,"
and mentions his interludes, gallant lays, rondelets and songs,
explaining that it was in the winter of his age that he turned to sacred
lore and high philosophy. In 1550 he published _Certayne Psalms ... in
Englishe metre_, and shortly afterwards was made a gentleman of the
Chapel Royal. At Mary's accession he retained his appointment, but in
1555 he is said to have been one of a party of twelve conspirators who
had determined to take Mary's life. Nothing came of this plot, but
shortly afterwards he was party to a conspiracy to dethrone Mary in
favour of Elizabeth. Hunnis, having some knowledge of alchemy, was to go
abroad to coin the necessary gold, but this doubtful mission was
exchanged for the task of making false keys to the treasury in London,
which he was able to do because of his friendship with Nicholas Brigham,
the receiver of the exchequer. The conspirators were, however, betrayed
by one of their number, Thomas Whyte. Some of them were executed, but
Hunnis escaped with imprisonment. The death of Mary made him a free man,
and in 1559 he married Margaret, Brigham's widow, but she died within
the year, and Hunnis married in 1560 the widow of a grocer. He himself
became a grocer and freeman of the City of London, and supervisor of the
Queen's Gardens at Greenwich. In 1566 he was made Master of the Children
of the Chapel Royal. No complete piece of his is extant, perhaps because
of the rule that the plays acted by the Children should not have been
previously printed. In his later years he purchased land at Barking,
Essex. If the lines above his signature on a 1557 edition of Sir Thomas
More's works are genuine, he remained a poor man, for he refuses to make
a will on the ground that "the good that I shall leave, will not pay
all I owe." In Harleian MS. 6403 is a story that one of his sons, in the
capacity of page, drank the remainder of the poisoned cup supposed to
have been provided by Leicester for Walter Devereux, 1st earl of Essex,
but escaped with no injury beyond the loss of his hair.
Hunnis's extant works include _Certayne Psalms_ (1549), _A Hive full
of Hunnye_ (1578), _Seven Sobbes of a sorrowful Soule for Sinne_
(1583), _Hunnies Recreations_ (1588), sixteen poems in the _Paradise
of Dainty Devices_ (1576), and two in _England's Helicon_ (1600). See
Mrs C. Carmichael Stopes's tract on William Hunnis, reprinted (1892)
from the _Jahrbuch der deutschen Shakespeare Gesellschaft_.
HUNS. This or some similar name is given to at least four peoples, whose
identity cannot be regarded as certain. (1) The Huns, who invaded the
East Roman empire from about A.D. 372 to 453 and were most formidable
under the leadership of Attila. (2) The Hungarians or Magyars. The
Magyars crossed the Carpathians into Hungary in A.D. 898 and mingled
with the races they found there. The modern Hungarians (excluding
Slavonic elements) are probably a mixture of these Magyars with the
remnants of older invaders such as Huns, Petchenegs and Kumans. (3) The
White Huns ([Greek: Leukoi Ounnoi] or Ephthalites), who troubled the
Persian empire from about 420 to 557 and were known to the Byzantines.
(4) The Hunas, who invaded India during the same period. There is not
much doubt that the third and fourth of these tribes are the same, and
it is quite likely that the Magyars are descended from the horde which
sent forth the Huns in the 4th century, but it is not demonstrable.
Neither can it be proved that the Huns and Magyars belonged either
physically or linguistically to the same section as the Hunas and
Ephthalites. But the occurrence of the name in both India and Europe is
prima facie evidence in favour of a connexion between those who bore it,
for, though civilized races often lumped all their barbarian neighbours
together under one general name, it would seem that, when the same name
is applied independently to similar invaders in both India and eastern
Europe, the only explanation can be that they gave themselves that name,
and this fact probably indicates that they were members of the same
tribe or group. What we know of the history and distribution of the Huns
does not conflict with this idea. They appear in Europe towards the end
of the 4th century and the Ephthalites and Hunas in western Asia about
fifty years later. It may be supposed that some defeat in China (and the
Chinese were successful in driving back the Hiung-nu in the 1st century
A.D.) had sent them westwards some time earlier. One body remained in
Transoxiana and, after resting for a time, pushed their way through the
mountains into Afghanistan and India, exactly as the Yue-Chi had done
before them. Another division pressed farther westwards and probably
made its headquarters near the northern end of the Caspian Sea and the
southern part of the Ural Mountains. It was from here that the Huns
invaded Europe, and when their power collapsed, after the death of
Attila, many of them may have returned to their original haunts.
Possibly the Bulgarians and Khazars were offshoots of the same horde.
The Magyars may very well have gradually spread first to the Don and
then beyond it, until in the 9th century they entered Hungary. But this
sketch of possible migrations is largely conjectural, and authorities
are not even agreed as to the branch of the Turanians to which the Huns
should be referred. The physical characteristics of these nomadic armies
were very variable, since they continually increased their numbers by
slaves, women and soldiers of fortune drawn from all the surrounding
races. The language of the Magyars is Finno-Ugric and most nearly allied
to the speech of the Ostiaks now found on the east of the Ural, but we
have no warrant for assuming that the Huns, and still less that the
Ephthalites and Hunas, spoke the same language. Neither can we assume
that the Huns and Hunas are the same as the Hiung-nu Of the Chinese. The
names may be identical, but it is not certain, for in Hun may lurk some
such designation as the ten (Turkish _on_ or _un_) tribes. Also Hiung-nu
seems to be the name of warlike nomads in general, not of a particular
section. Again the Finnish languages spoken in various parts of Russia
and more or less allied to Magyar must have spread gradually westwards
from the Urals, and their development and diffusion seem to postulate a
long period (for the history of the Finns shows that they were not
mobile like the Turks and Mongols), so that the ancestral language from
which spring Finnish and Magyar can hardly have been brought across Asia
after the Christian era. The warlike and vigorous temper of the Huns has
led many writers to regard them as Turks. The Turks were perhaps not
distinguished by name or institutions from other tribes before the 5th
century, but the Huns may have been an earlier offshoot of the same
stock. Apart from this the Hungarians may have received an infusion of
Turkish blood not only from the Osmanlis but from the Kumans and other
tribes who settled in the country.
_History._--The authentic history of the Huns in Europe practically
begins about the year A.D. 372, when under a leader named Balamir (or,
according to some MSS., Balamber) they began a westward movement from
their settlements in the steppes lying to the north of the Caspian.
After crushing, or compelling the alliance of, various nations unknown
to fame (Alpilzuri, Alcidzuri, Himari, Tuncarsi, Boisci), they at length
reached the Alani, a powerful nation which had its seat between the
Volga and the Don; these also, after a struggle, they defeated and
finally enlisted in their service. They then proceeded, in 374, to
invade the empire of the Ostrogoths (Greutungi), ruled over by the aged
Ermanaric, or Hermanric, who died (perhaps by his own hand) while the
critical attack was still impending. Under his son Hunimund a section of
his subjects promptly made a humiliating peace; under Withemir
(Winithar), however, who succeeded him in the larger part of his
dominions, an armed resistance was organized; but it resulted only in
repeated defeat, and finally in the death of the king. The
representatives of his son Witheric put an end to the conflict by
accepting the condition of vassalage. Balamir now directed his
victorious arms still farther westward against that portion of the
Visigothic nation (or Tervingi) which acknowledged the authority of
Athanaric. The latter entrenched himself on the frontier which had
separated him from the Ostrogoths, behind the "Greutungrampart" and the
Dniester; but he was surprised by the enemy, who forded the river in the
night, fell suddenly upon his camp, and compelled him to abandon his
position. Athanaric next attempted to establish himself in the territory
between the Pruth and the Danube, and with this object set about
heightening the old Roman wall which Trajan had erected in north-eastern
Dacia; before his fortifications, however, were complete, the Huns were
again upon him, and without a battle he was forced to retreat to the
Danube. The remainder of the Visigoths, under Alavivus and Fritigern,
now began to seek, and ultimately were successful in obtaining (376),
the permission of the emperor Valens to settle in Thrace; Athanaric
meanwhile took refuge in Transylvania, thus abandoning the field without
any serious struggle to the irresistible Huns. For more than fifty years
the Roman world was undisturbed by any aggressive act on the part of the
new invaders, who contented themselves with over-powering various tribes
which lived to the north of the Danube. In some instances, in fact, the
Huns lent their aid to the Romans against third parties; thus in 404-405
certain Hunnic tribes, under a chief or king named Uldin, assisted
Honorius in the struggle with Radagaisus (Ratigar) and his Ostrogoths,
and took a prominent part in the decisive battle fought in the
neighbourhood of Florence. Once indeed, in 409, they are said to have
crossed the Danube and invaded Bulgaria under perhaps the same chief
(Uldin), but extensive desertions soon compelled a retreat.
About the year 432 a Hunnic king, Ruas or Rugulas, made himself of such
importance that he received from Theodosius II. an annual stipend or
tribute of 350 pounds of gold (L14,000), along with the rank of Roman
general. Quarrels soon arose, partly out of the circumstance that the
Romans had sought to make alliances with certain Danubian tribes which
Ruas chose to regard as properly subject to himself, partly also because
some of the undoubted subjects of the Hun had found refuge on Roman
territory; and Theodosius, in reply to an indignant and insulting
message which he had received about this cause of dispute, was
preparing to send off a special embassy when tidings arrived that Ruas
was dead and that he had been succeeded in his kingdom by Attila and
Bleda, the two sons of his brother Mundzuk (433). Shortly afterwards the
treaty of Margus (not far from the modern Belgrade), where both sides
negotiated on horseback, was ratified. By its stipulations the yearly
stipendium or tribute payable to Attila by the Romans was doubled; the
fugitives were to be surrendered, or a fine of L8 to be paid for each of
those who should be missing; free markets, open to Hun and Roman alike,
were to be instituted; and any tribe with which Attila might be at any
time at war was thereby to be held as excluded from alliance with Rome.
For eight years afterwards there was peace so far as the Romans were
concerned; and it was probably during this period that the Huns
proceeded to the extensive conquests to which the contemporary historian
Priscus so vaguely alludes in the words: "He (Attila) has made the whole
of Scythia his own, he has laid the Roman empire under tribute, and he
thinks of renewing his attacks upon Persia. The road to that eastern
kingdom is not untrodden by the Huns; already they have marched fifteen
days from a certain lake, and have ravaged Media." They also appear
before the end of this interval to have pushed westward as far as to the
Rhone, and to have come into conflict with the Burgundians. Overt acts
of hostility, however, occurred against the Eastern empire when the town
of Margus (by the treachery of its bishop) was seized and sacked (441),
and against the Western when Sirmium was invested and taken.
In 445 Bleda died, and two years afterwards Attila, now sole ruler,
undertook one of his most important expeditions against the Eastern
empire; on this occasion he pushed southwards as far as Thermopylae,
Gallipoli and the walls of Constantinople; peace was cheaply purchased
by tripling the yearly tribute (which accordingly now stood at 2100
pounds of gold, or L84,000 sterling) and by the payment of a heavy
indemnity. In 448 again occurred various diplomatic negotiations, and
especially the embassy of Maximinus, of which many curious details have
been recorded by Priscus his companion. Then followed, in 451, that
westward movement across the Rhine which was only arrested at last, with
terrible slaughter, on the Catalaunian plains (according to common
belief, in the neighbourhood of the modern Chalons, but more probably at
a point some 50 m. to the south-east, near Mery-sur-Seine). The
following year (452), that of the Italian campaign, was marked by such
events as the sack of Aquileia, the destruction of the cities of
Venetia, and finally, on the banks of the Mincio, that historical
interview with Pope Leo I. which resulted in the return of Attila to
Pannonia, where in 453 he died (see ATTILA). Almost immediately
afterwards the empire he had amassed rather than consolidated fell to
pieces. His too numerous sons began to quarrel about their inheritance,
while Ardaric, the king of the Gepidae, was placing himself at the head
of a general revolt of the dependent nations. The inevitable struggle
came to a crisis near the river Netad in Pannonia, in a battle in which
30,000 of the Huns and their confederates, including Ellak, Attila's
eldest son, were slain. The nation, thus broken, rapidly dispersed,
exactly as the White Huns did after a similar defeat about a hundred
years later. One horde settled under Roman protection in Little Scythia
(the Dobrudzha), others in Dacia Ripensis (on the confines of Servia and
Bulgaria) or on the southern borders of Pannonia. Many, however, appear
to have returned to what is now South Russia, and may perhaps have taken
part in the ethnical combinations which produced the Bulgarians.
The chief original authorities are Ammianus Marcellinus, Priscus,
Jordanes, Procopius, Sidonius Apollinaris and Menander Protector. See
also Gibbon, _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_; J. B. Bury,
_History of the Later Roman Empire_ (1889); H. H. Howorth, _History of
the Mongols_ (1876-1888); J. Hodgkin, _Italy and her Invaders_ (1892);
and articles in the _Revue orientale pour les etudes Ouralaltaiques_.
For the Chinese sources see E. H. Parker, _A Thousand Years of the
Tartars_ (1905), and numerous articles by the same author in the
_Asiatic Quarterly_; also articles by Chavannes, O. Franke, Stein and
others in various learned periodicals. For the literature on the White
Huns see EPHTHALITES. (C. El.)
HUNSDON, HENRY CAREY, 1ST BARON (c. 1524-1596), English soldier and
courtier, was a son of William Carey (d. 1529); his mother was Mary (d.
1543), a sister of Anne Boleyn, and he was consequently cousin to Queen
Elizabeth. Member of parliament for Buckingham under Edward VI. and
Mary, he was knighted in 1558, was created Baron Hunsdon in 1559, and in
1561 became a privy councillor and a knight of the Garter. In 1568 he
became governor of Berwick and warden of the east Marches, and he was
largely instrumental in quelling the rising in the north of England in
1569, gaining a decisive victory over Leonard Dacre near Carlisle in
February 1570. Hunsdon received very little money to cover his expenses,
but Elizabeth lavished honours upon him, although he did not always
carry out her wishes. In 1583 he became lord chamberlain, but he did not
relinquish his post at Berwick. Hunsdon was one of the commissioners
appointed to try Mary queen of Scots; after Mary's execution he went on
a mission to James VI. of Scotland, and when the Spanish Armada was
expected he commanded the queen's bodyguard. He died in London, at
Somerset House, on the 23rd of July 1596.
His eldest son, GEORGE (1547-1603), 2nd Baron Hunsdon, was a member of
parliament, a diplomatist, a soldier and lord chamberlain. He was also
captain-general of the Isle of Wight during the time of the Spanish
Armada. He was succeeded by his brother John (d. 1617). In 1628 John's
son Henry, 4th Baron Hunsdon, was created earl of Dover. This title
became extinct on the death of the 2nd earl, John, in 1677, and a like
fate befell the barony of Hunsdon on the death of the 8th baron, William
Ferdinand, in June 1765. Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John Spencer of
Althorp, and wife of the 2nd Lord Hunsdon, is celebrated as the
patroness of her kinsman, the poet Spenser; and either this lady or her
daughter Elizabeth was the author of the _Tragedie of Marian_ (1613).
The 1st lord's youngest son, ROBERT CAREY (c. 1560-1639), was for a long
time a member of the English parliament. He was frequently employed on
the Scottish borders; he announced the death of Elizabeth to James VI.
of Scotland; and he was created earl of Monmouth in 1626. He wrote some
interesting _Memoirs_, first published in 1759. His son and successor,
Henry (1596-1661), is known as a translator of various French and
Italian books. The title of earl of Monmouth became extinct on his death
in June 1661.
HUNSTANTON [commonly pronounced Hunston], a seaside resort in the
north-western parliamentary division of Norfolk, England, on the east
shore of the Wash, 112 m. N. by E. from London by the Great Eastern
railway. Pop. of urban district of New Hunstanton (1901) 1893. The new
watering-place is about 1 m. from the old village. It has a good beach,
a golf course and a pier. The parish church of St Mary is a fine
Decorated building, containing monuments of the L'Estrange family, whose
mansion, Hunstanton Hall, is a picturesque Tudor building of brick in a
well-wooded park. A convalescent home (1872) commemorates the recovery
from illness of King Edward VII. when Prince of Wales. At Brancaster, 6
m. E., there is a Roman fort which formed part of the defences of the
_Litus Saxonicum_ (4th century A.D.)
HUNT, ALFRED WILLIAM (1830-1896), English painter, son of Andrew Hunt, a
landscape painter, was born at Liverpool in 1830. He began to paint
while at the Liverpool Collegiate School; but as the idea of adopting
the artist's profession was not favoured by his father, he went in 1848
to Corpus Christi College, Oxford. His career there was distinguished;
he won the Newdigate Prize in 1851, and became a Fellow of Corpus in
1858. He did not, however, abandon his artistic practice, for,
encouraged by Ruskin, he exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1854, and
thenceforward regularly contributed landscapes in oil and water-colour
to the London and provincial exhibitions. In 1861 he married, gave up
his Fellowship, and was elected an Associate of the Royal Society of
Painters in Water-Colours, receiving full membership three years later.
His work is distinguished mainly by its exquisite quality and a poetic
rendering of atmosphere. Hunt died on 3rd May 1896. Mrs A. W. Hunt
(_nee_ Margaret Raine) wrote several works of fiction; and one of her
daughters, Violet Hunt, is well known as a novelist.
See Frederick Wedmore, "Alfred Hunt," _Magazine of Art_ (1891);
_Exhibition of Drawings in Water Colour by Alfred William Hunt_,
Burlington Fine Arts Club (1897).
HUNT, HENRY (1773-1835), English politician, commonly called "Orator
Hunt," was born at Widdington Farm, Upavon, Wiltshire, on the 6th of
November 1773. While following the vocation of a farmer he made the
acquaintance of John Horne Tooke, with whose advanced views he soon
began to sympathize. At the general election of 1806 he came to the
front in Wiltshire; he soon associated himself with William Cobbett, and
in 1812 he was an unsuccessful candidate for Bristol. He was one of the
speakers at the meeting held in Spa Fields, London, in November 1816; in
1818 he tried in vain to become member of parliament for Westminster,
and in 1820 for Preston. In August 1819 Hunt presided over the great
meeting in St Peter's Field, Manchester, which developed into a riot and
was called the "Peterloo massacre." He was arrested and was tried for
conspiracy, being sentenced to imprisonment for two years and a half. In
August 1830 he was elected member of parliament for Preston, but he lost
his seat in 1833. While in parliament Hunt presented a petition in
favour of women's rights, probably the first of this kind, and he moved
for a repeal of the corn laws. He died on the 15th of February 1835.
During his imprisonment Hunt wrote his _Memoirs_ which were published in
1820.
See R. Huish, _Life of Hunt_ (1836); and S. Bamford, _Passages in the
Life of a Radical_ (2nd ed., 1893).
HUNT, HENRY JACKSON (1819-1889), American soldier, was born in Detroit,
Michigan, on the 14th of September 1819, and graduated at the U.S.
military academy in 1839. He served in the Mexican War under Scott, and
was breveted for gallantry at Contreras and Churubusco and at
Chapultepec. He became captain in 1852 and major in 1861. His
professional attainments were great, and in 1856 he was a member of a
board entrusted with the revision of light artillery drill and tactics.
He took part in the first battle of Bull Run in 1861, and soon
afterwards became chief of artillery in the Washington defences. As a
colonel on the staff of General M'Clellan he organized and trained the
artillery reserve of the Army of the Potomac. Throughout the Civil War
he contributed more than any officer to the effective employment of the
artillery arm. With the artillery reserve he rendered the greatest
assistance at the battle of Malvern Hill, and soon afterwards he became
chief of artillery in the Army of the Potomac. On the day after the
battle of South Mountain he was made brigadier-general of volunteers. At
the Antietam, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, he rendered further
good service, and at Gettysburg his handling of the artillery was
conspicuous in the repulse of Pickett's charge, and he was rewarded with
the brevet of colonel. He served in Virginia to the end of the war,
attaining the brevet ranks of major-general of volunteers and
brigadier-general of regulars. When the U.S. army was reorganized in
1866 he became colonel of the 5th artillery and president of the
permanent Artillery Board. He held various commands until 1883, when he
retired to become governor of the Soldiers' Home, Washington, D.C. He
died on the 11th of February 1889. He was the author of _Instructions
for Field Artillery_ (1860), and of papers on Gettysburg in the "Battles
and Leaders" series.
His brother, LEWIS CASS HUNT (1824-1886), served throughout the Civil
War in the infantry arm, becoming brigadier-general of volunteers in
1862, and brevet brigadier-general U.S.A. in 1865.
HUNT, JAMES HENRY LEIGH (1784-1859), English essayist and miscellaneous
writer, was born at Southgate, Middlesex, on the 19th of October 1784,
His father, the son of a West Indian clergyman, had settled as a lawyer
in Philadelphia, and his mother was the daughter of a merchant there.
Having embraced the loyalist side, Leigh Hunt's father was compelled to
fly to England, where he took orders, and acquired some reputation as a
popular preacher, but want of steadiness, want of orthodoxy, and want of
interest conspired to prevent his obtaining any preferment. He was
engaged by James Brydges, 3rd duke of Chandos, to act as tutor to his
nephew, James Henry Leigh, after whom Leigh Hunt was called. The boy
was educated at Christ's Hospital, of which school he has left a lively
account in his autobiography. As a boy at school he was an ardent
admirer of Gray and Collins, writing many verses in imitation of them.
An impediment in his speech, afterwards removed, prevented his being
sent to the university. "For some time after I left school," he says, "I
did nothing but visit my school-fellows, haunt the book-stalls and write
verses." These latter were published in 1801 under the title of
_Juvenilia_, and contributed to introduce him into literary and
theatrical society. He began to write for the newspapers, and published
in 1807 a volume of theatrical criticisms, and a series of _Classic
Tales_ with critical essays on the authors.
In 1808 he quitted the War Office, where he had for some time been a
clerk, to become editor of the _Examiner_ newspaper, a speculation of
his brother John. The new journal with which Leigh Hunt was connected
for thirteen years soon acquired a high reputation. It was perhaps the
only newspaper of the time which owed no allegiance to any political
party, but assailed whatever seemed amiss, "from a principle of taste,"
as Keats happily expressed it. The taste of the attack itself, indeed,
was not always unexceptionable; and one upon the Prince Regent, the
chief sting of which lay in its substantial truth, occasioned (1813) a
prosecution and a sentence of two years' imprisonment for each of the
brothers. The effect was to give a political direction to what should
have been the career of a man of letters. But the cheerfulness and
gaiety with which Leigh Hunt bore his imprisonment attracted general
attention and sympathy, and brought him visits from Byron, Moore,
Brougham and others, whose acquaintance exerted much influence on his
future destiny.
In 1810-1811 he edited for his brother John a quarterly magazine, the
_Reflector_, for which he wrote "The Feast of the Poets," a satire which
gave offence to many contemporary poets, and particularly offended
William Gifford of the _Quarterly_. The essays afterwards published
under the title of the _Round Table_ (2 vols., 1816-1817), conjointly
with William Hazlitt, appeared in the _Examiner_. In 1816 he made a
permanent mark in English literature by the publication of his _Story of
Rimini_. There is perhaps no other instance of a poem short of the
highest excellence having produced so important and durable an effect in
modifying the accepted standards of literary composition. The secret of
Hunt's success consists less in superiority of genius than of taste. His
refined critical perception had detected the superiority of Chaucer's
versification, as adapted to the present state of the language by
Dryden, over the sententious epigrammatic couplet of Pope which had
superseded it. By a simple return to the old manner he effected for
English poetry in the comparatively restricted domain of metrical art
what Wordsworth had already effected in the domain of nature; his is an
achievement of the same class, though not of the same calibre. His poem
is also a triumph in the art of poetical narrative, abounds with verbal
felicities, and is pervaded throughout by a free, cheerful and animated
spirit, notwithstanding the tragic nature of the subject. It has been
remarked that it does not contain one hackneyed or conventional rhyme.
But the writer's occasional flippancy and familiarity, not seldom
degenerating into the ludicrous, made him a mark for ridicule and parody
on the part of his opponents, whose animosity, however, was rather
political than literary.
In 1818 appeared a collection of poems entitled _Foliage_, followed in
1819 by _Hero and Leander_, and _Bacchus and Ariadne_. In the same year
he reprinted these two works with _The Story of Rimini_ and _The Descent
of Liberty_ with the title of _Poetical Works_, and started the
_Indicator_, in which some of his best work appeared. Both Keats and
Shelley belonged to the circle gathered around him at Hampstead, which
also included William Hazlitt, Charles Lamb, Bryan Procter, Benjamin
Haydon, Cowden Clarke, C. W. Dilke, Walter Coulson,[1] John Hamilton
Reynolds,[2] and in general almost all the rising young men of letters
of liberal sympathies. He had now for some years been married to
Marianne Kent, who seems to have been sincerely attached to him, but was
not in every respect a desirable partner. His own affairs were by this
time in the utmost confusion, and he was only saved from ruin by the
romantic generosity of Shelley. In return he was lavish of sympathy to
Shelley at the time of the latter's domestic distresses, and defended
him with spirit in the _Examiner_, although he does not appear to have
at this date appreciated his genius with either the discernment or the
warmth of his generous adversary, Professor Wilson. Keats he welcomed
with enthusiasm, and introduced to Shelley. He also wrote a very
generous appreciation of him in the _Indicator_, and, before leaving for
Italy, Keats stayed with Hunt at Hampstead. Keats seems, however, to
have subsequently felt that Hunt's example as a poet had been in some
respects detrimental to him. After Shelley's departure for Italy (1818)
Leigh Hunt's affairs became still more embarrassed, and the prospects of
political reform less and less satisfactory. His health and his wife's
failed, and he was obliged to discontinue his charming series of essays
entitled the _Indicator_ (1819-1821), having, he says, "almost died over
the last numbers." These circumstances induced him to listen to a
proposal, which seems to have originated with Shelley, that he should
proceed to Italy and join Shelley and Byron in the establishment of a
quarterly magazine in which Liberal opinions should be advocated with
more freedom than was possible at home. The project was injudicious from
every point of view; it would have done little for Hunt or the Liberal
cause at the best, and depended entirely upon the co-operation of Byron,
the most capricious of allies, and the most parsimonious of paymasters.
Byron's principal motive for acceding to it appears to have been the
expectation of acquiring influence over the _Examiner_, and he was
exceedingly mortified on discovering when too late that Hunt had parted,
or was considered to have parted, with his interest in the journal.
Leigh Hunt left England for Italy in November 1821, but storm, sickness
and misadventure retarded his arrival until the 1st of July 1822, a rate
of progress which T. L. Peacock appropriately compares to the navigation
of Ulysses.
The tragic death of Shelley, a few weeks later, destroyed every prospect
of success for the _Liberal_. Hunt was now virtually a dependant upon
Byron, whose least amiable qualities were called forth by the relation
of patron to an unsympathetic dependant, burdened with a large and
troublesome family. He was moreover incessantly wounded by the
representations of his friends that he was losing caste by the
connexion. The _Liberal_ lived through four quarterly numbers,
containing contributions no less memorable than Byron's "Vision of
Judgment" and Shelley's translations from Faust; but in 1823 Byron
sailed for Greece, leaving his coadjutor at Genoa to shift for himself.
The Italian climate and manners, however, were entirely to Hunt's taste,
and he protracted his residence until 1825, producing in the interim
_Ultra-Crepidarius, a Satire on William Gifford_ (1823), and his
matchless translation (1825) of Francesco Redi's _Bacco in Toscana_. In
1825 an unfortunate litigation with his brother brought him back to
England, and in 1828 he committed his greatest mistake by the
publication of his _Lord Byron and some of his Contemporaries_. The work
is of considerable value as a corrective of merely idealized estimates
of Lord Byron. But such a corrective should not have come from one who
had lain under obligations to Byron. British ideas of what was decent
were shocked, and the author especially writhed under the withering
satire of Moore. For many years ensuing the history of Hunt's life is
that of a painful struggle with poverty and sickness. He worked
unremittingly, but one effort failed after another. Two journalistic
ventures, the _Tatler_ (1830-1832), a daily devoted to literary and
dramatic criticism, and _Leigh Hunt's London Journal_ (1834-1835), were
discontinued for want of subscribers, although in the latter Leigh Hunt
had able coadjutors, and it contained some of his best writing. His
editorship (1837-1838) of the _Monthly Repository_, in which he
succeeded W. J. Fox, was also unsuccessful. The adventitious
circumstances which had for a time made the fortune of the _Examiner_ no
longer existed, and Hunt's strong and weak points, his refinement and
his affectations, were alike unsuited to the general body of readers.
In 1832 a collected edition of his poems was published by subscription,
the list of subscribers including many of his opponents. In the same
year was printed for private circulation _Christianism_, the work
afterwards published (1853) as _The Religion of the Heart_. A copy sent
to Carlyle secured his friendship, and Hunt went to live next door to
him in Cheyne Row in 1833. _Sir Ralph Esher_, a romance of Charles II.'s
period, had a success, and _Captain Sword and Captain Pen_ (1835), a
spirited contrast between the victories of peace and the victories of
war, deserves to be ranked among his best poems. In 1840 his
circumstances were improved by the successful representation at Covent
Garden of his _Legend of Florence_, a play of considerable merit.
_Lover's Amazements_, a comedy, was acted several years afterwards, and
was printed in _Leigh Hunt's Journal_ (1850-1851); and other plays
remained in MS. In 1840 he wrote introductory notices to the work of R.
B. Sheridan and to Moxon's edition of the works of Wycherley, Congreve,
Vanbrugh and Farquhar, a work which furnished the occasion of Macaulay's
essay on the _Dramatists of the Restoration_. The pretty narrative poem
of _The Palfrey_ was published in 1842.
The time of Hunt's greatest difficulties was between 1834 and 1840. He
was at times in absolute want, and his distress was aggravated by
domestic complications. By Macaulay's recommendation he began to write
for the _Edinburgh Review_. In 1844 he was further benefited by the
generosity of Mrs Shelley and her son, who, on succeeding to the family
estates, settled an annuity of L120 upon him; and in 1847 Lord John
Russell procured him a civil list pension of L200. The fruits of the
improved comfort and augmented leisure of these latter years were
visible in the production of some charming volumes. Foremost among these
are the companion books, _Imagination and Fancy_ (1844), and _Wit and
Humour_ (1846), two volumes of selections from the English poets. In
these Leigh Hunt shows himself within a certain range the most refined,
appreciative and felicitous of critics. Homer and Milton may be upon the
whole beyond his reach, though even here he is great in the detection of
minor and unapprehended beauties; with Spenser and the old English
dramatists he is perfectly at home, and his subtle and discriminating
criticism upon them, as well as upon his own great contemporaries, is
continually bringing to light unsuspected beauties. His companion volume
on the pastoral poetry of Sicily, quaintly entitled _A Jar of Honey from
Mount Hybla_ (1848), is almost equally delightful. _The Town_ (2 vols.,
1848) and _Men, Women and Books_ (2 vols., 1847) are partly made up from
former material. _The Old Court Suburb_ (2 vols., 1855; ed. A. Dobson,
1902) is an anecdotic sketch of Kensington, where he long resided before
his final removal to Hammersmith. In 1850 he published his
_Autobiography_ (3 vols.), a naive and accurate piece of
self-portraiture, full of affectations, but on that account free from
the affectation of unreality. It contains very detailed accounts of some
of the most interesting periods of the author's life, his education at
Christ's Hospital, his imprisonment, and his residence in Italy. _A Book
for a Corner_ (2 vols.) was published in 1849, and his _Table Talk_
appeared in 1851. In 1855 his narrative poems, original and translated,
were collected under the title of _Stories in Verse_, with an
interesting preface. He died at Putney on the 28th of August 1859.
Leigh Hunt's virtues were charming rather than imposing or brilliant; he
had no vices, but very many foibles. His great misfortune was that these
foibles were for the most part of an undignified sort. His affectation
is not comparable to Byron's, nor his egotism to Wordsworth's, but their
very pettiness excites a sensation of the ludicrous. The very sincerity
of his nature is detrimental to him; the whole man seems to be revealed
in everything he ever wrote, and hence the most beautiful productions
of his pen appear in a manner tainted by his really very pardonable
weaknesses. Some of these, such as his helplessness in money matters,
and his facility in accepting the obligations which he would have
delighted to confer, involved him in painful and humiliating
embarrassments, which seem to have been aggravated by the mismanagement
of those around him. The notoriety of these things has deprived him of
much of the honour due to him for his fortitude under the severest
calamities, for his unremitting literary industry under the most
discouraging circumstances, and for his uncompromising independence as a
journalist and an author. It was his misfortune to be involved in
politics, for he was as thorough a man of letters as ever existed, and
most of his failings were more or less incidental to that character. But
it is not every consummate man of letters of whom it can be
unhesitatingly affirmed that he was brave, just and pious. When it was
suggested that Leigh Hunt was the original of Harold Skimpole in _Bleak
House_, Charles Dickens denied that any of the shadows in the portrait
were suggested by Hunt, who was, he said, "the very soul of truth and
honour."
Leigh Hunt's character as an author was the counterpart of his character
as a man. In some respects his literary position is unique. Few men have
effected so much by mere exquisiteness of taste in the absence of high
creative power; fewer still, so richly endowed with taste, have so
frequently and conspicuously betrayed the want of it; and he was
incapable of discovering where familiarity became flippancy. But his
poetry possesses a brightness, animation, artistic symmetry and metrical
harmony, which lift the author out of the rank of minor poets,
particularly when the influence of his example upon his contemporaries
is taken into account. He excelled especially in narrative poetry, of
which, upon a small scale, there are probably no better examples than
"Abou ben Adhem" and "Solomon's Ring." He possessed every qualification
for a translator; and as an appreciative critic, whether literary or
dramatic, he has hardly been equalled.
Leigh Hunt's other works include: _Amyntas, A Tale of the Woods_
(1820), translated from Tasso; _The Seer, or Common-Places refreshed_
(2 pts., 1840-1841); three of the Canterbury Tales in _The Poems of
Geoffrey Chaucer, modernized_ (1841); _Stories from the Italian Poets_
(1846); compilations such as _One Hundred Romances of Real Life_
(1843); selections from Beaumont and Fletcher (1855); and, with S.
Adams Lee, _The Book of the Sonnet_ (Boston, 1867). His _Poetical
Works_ (2 vols.), revised by himself and edited by Lee, were printed
at Boston, U.S.A., in 1857, and an edition (London and New York) by
his son, Thornton Hunt, appeared in 1860. Among volumes of selections
are: _Essays_ (1887), ed. A. Symons; _Leigh Hunt as Poet and Essayist_
(1889), ed. C. Kent; _Essays and Poems_ (1891), ed. R. B. Johnson for
the "Temple Library."
His _Autobiography_ was revised by himself shortly before his death,
and edited (1859) by his son Thornton Hunt, who also arranged his
_Correspondence_ (2 vols., 1862). Additional letters were printed by
the Cowden Clarkes in their _Recollections of Writers_ (1878). The
_Autobiography_ was edited (2 vols., 1903) with full bibliographical
note by R. Ingpen. A bibliography of his works was compiled by
Alexander Ireland (_List of the Writings of William Hazlitt and Leigh
Hunt_, 1868). There are short lives of Hunt by Cosmo Monkhouse ("Great
Writers," 1893) and by R. B. Johnson (1896).