(d. 945), Arabian geographer, also known as Ibn ul-Ha'ik. Little is
known of him except that he belonged to a family of Yemen, was held in
repute as a grammarian in his own country, wrote much poetry, compiled
astronomical tables, devoted most of his life to the study of the
ancient history and geography of Arabia, and died in prison at San'a in
945. His _Geography of the Arabian Peninsula_ (_Kitab Jazirat ul-'Arab_)
is by far the most important work on the subject. After being used in
manuscript by A. Sprenger in his _Post- und Reiserouten des Orients_
(Leipzig, 1864) and further in his _Alte Geographie Arabiens_ (Bern,
1875), it was edited by D. H. Muller (Leiden, 1884; cf. A. Sprenger's
criticism in _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft_,
vol. 45, pp. 361-394). Much has also been written on this work by E.
Glaser in his various publications on ancient Arabia. The other great
work of Hamdani is the _Iklil_ (Crown) concerning the genealogies of the
Himyarites and the wars of their kings in ten volumes. Of this, part 8,
on the citadels and castles of south Arabia, has been edited and
annotated by D. H. Muller in _Die Burgen und Schlosser Sudarabiens_
(Vienna, 1879-1881).
For other works said to have been written by Hamdani cf. G. Flugel's
_Die grammatischen Schulen der Araber_ (Leipzig, 1862), pp. 220-221.
(G. W. T.)
HAMELIN, FRANCOIS ALPHONSE (1796-1864), French admiral, was born at Pont
l'Eveque on the 2nd of September 1796. He went to sea with his uncle, J.
F. E. Hamelin, in the "Venus" frigate in 1806 as cabin boy. The "Venus"
was part of the French squadron in the Indian Ocean, and young Hamelin
had an opportunity of seeing much active service. She, in company with
another and a smaller vessel, captured the English frigate "Ceylon" in
1810, but was immediately afterwards captured herself by the "Boadicea,"
under Commodore Rowley (1765-1842). Young Hamelin was a prisoner of war
for a short time. He returned to France in 1811. On the fall of the
Empire he had better fortune than most of the Napoleonic officers who
were turned ashore. In 1821 he became lieutenant, and in 1823 took part
in the French expedition under the duke of Angouleme into Spain. In 1828
he was appointed captain of the "Acteon," and was engaged till 1831 on
the coast of Algiers and in the conquest of the town and country. His
first command as flag officer was in the Pacific, where he showed much
tact during the dispute over the Marquesas Islands with England in 1844.
He was promoted vice-admiral in 1848. During the Crimean War he
commanded in the Black Sea, and co-operated with Admiral Dundas in the
bombardment of Sevastopol 17th of October 1854. His relations with his
English colleague were not very cordial. On the 7th of December 1854 he
was promoted admiral. Shortly afterwards he was recalled to France, and
was named minister of marine. His administration lasted till 1860, and
was remarkable for the expeditions to Italy and China organized under
his directions; but it was even more notable for the energy shown in
adopting and developing the use of armour. The launch of the "Gloire" in
1859 set the example of constructing sea-going iron-clads. The first
English iron-clad, the "Warrior," was designed as an answer to the
"Gloire." When Napoleon III. made his first concession to Liberal
opposition, Admiral Hamelin was one of the ministers sacrificed. He held
no further command, and died on the 10th of January 1864.
HAMELN, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hanover, at the
confluence of the Weser and Hamel, 33 m. S.W. of Hanover, on the line to
Altenbeken, which here effects a junction with railways to Lohne and
Brunswick. Pop. (1905) 20,736. It has a venerable appearance and has
many interesting and picturesque houses. The chief public buildings of
interest are the minster, dedicated to St Boniface and restored in
1870-1875; the town hall; the so-called Rattenfangerhaus (rat-catcher's
house) with mural frescoes illustrating the legend (see below); and the
Hochzeitshaus (wedding house) with beautiful gables. There are
classical, modern and commercial schools. The principal industries are
the manufacture of paper, leather, chemicals and tobacco, sugar
refining, shipbuilding and salmon fishing. By the steamboats on the
Weser there is communication with Karlshafen and Minden. In order to
avoid the dangerous part of the river near the town a channel was cut in
1734, the repairing and deepening of which, begun in 1868, was completed
in 1873. The Weser is here crossed by an iron suspension bridge 830 ft.
in length, supported by a pier erected on an island in the middle of the
river.
The older name of Hameln was Hameloa or Hamelowe, and the town owes its
origin to an abbey. It existed as a town as early as the 11th century,
and in 1259 it was sold by the abbot of Fulda to the bishop of Minden,
afterwards passing under the protection of the dukes of Brunswick. About
1540 the Reformation gained an entrance into the town, which was taken
by both parties during the Thirty Years' War. In 1757 it capitulated to
the French, who, however, vacated it in the following year. Its
fortifications were strengthened in 1766 by the erection of Fort George,
on an eminence to the west of the town, across the river. On the
capitulation of the Hanoverian army in 1803 Hameln fell into the hands
of the French; it was retaken by the Prussians in 1806, but, after the
battle of Jena, again passed to the French, who dismantled the
fortifications and incorporated the town in the kingdom of Westphalia.
In 1814 it again became Hanoverian, but in 1866 fell with that kingdom
to Prussia.
_Legend of the Pied Piper._--Hameln is famed as the scene of the myth of
the piper of Hameln. According to the legend, the town in the year 1284
was infested by a terrible plague of rats. One day there appeared upon
the scene a piper clad in a fantastic suit, who offered for a certain
sum of money to charm all the vermin into the Weser. His conditions were
agreed to, but after he had fulfilled his promise the inhabitants, on
the ground that he was a sorcerer, declined to fulfil their part of the
bargain, whereupon on the 26th of June he reappeared in the streets of
the town, and putting his pipe to his lips began a soft and curious
strain. This drew all the children after him and he led them out of the
town to the Koppelberg hill, in the side of which a door suddenly
opened, by which he entered and the children after him, all but one who
was lame and could not follow fast enough to reach the door before it
shut again. Some trace the origin of the legend to the Children's
Crusade of 1211; others to an abduction of children; and others to a
dancing mania which seized upon some of the young people of Hameln who
left the town on a mad pilgrimage from which they never returned. For a
considerable time the town dated its public documents from the event.
The story is the subject of a poem by Robert Browning, and also of one
by Julius Wolff. Curious evidence that the story rests on a basis of
truth is given by the fact that the Koppelberg is not one of the
imposing hills by which Hameln is surrounded, but no more than a slight
elevation of the ground, barely high enough to hide the children from
view as they left the town.
See C. Langlotz, _Geschichte der Stadt Hameln_ (Hameln, 1888 fol.);
Sprenger, _Geschichte der Stadt Hameln_ (1861); O. Meinardus, _Der
historische Kern der Rattenfangersage_ (Hameln, 1882); Jostes, _Der
Rattenfanger von Hameln_ (Bonn, 1885); and S. Baring-Gould, _Curious
Myths of the Middle Ages_ (1868).
HAMERLING, ROBERT (1830-1889), Austrian poet, was born at
Kirchenberg-am-Walde in Lower Austria, on the 24th of March 1830, of
humble parentage. He early displayed a genius for poetry and his
youthful attempts at drama excited the interest and admiration of some
influential persons. Owing to their assistance young Hamerling was
enabled to attend the gymnasium in Vienna and subsequently the
university. In 1848 he joined the student's legion, which played so
conspicuous a part in the revolutions of the capital, and in 1849 shared
in the defence of Vienna against the imperialist troops of Prince
Windischgratz, and after the collapse of the revolutionary movement he
was obliged to hide for a long time to escape arrest. For the next few
years he diligently pursued his studies in natural science and
philosophy, and in 1855 was appointed master at the gymnasium at
Trieste. For many years he battled with ill-health, and in 1866 retired
on a pension, which in acknowledgment of his literary labours was
increased by the government to a sum sufficient to enable him to live
without care until his death at his villa in Stiftingstal near Graz, on
the 13th of July 1889. Hamerling was one of the most remarkable of the
poets of the modern Austrian school; his imagination was rich and his
poems are full of life and colour. His most popular poem, _Ahasver in
Rom_ (1866), of which the emperor Nero is the central figure, shows at
its best the author's brilliant talent for description. Among his other
works may be mentioned _Venus im Exil_ (1858); _Der Konig von Sion_
(1869), which is generally regarded as his masterpiece; _Die sieben
Todsunden_ (1872); _Blatter im Winde_ (1887); _Homunculus_ (1888); _Amor
und Psyche_ (1882). His novel, _Aspasia_ (1876) gives a finely-drawn
description of the Periclean age, but like his tragedy _Danton und
Robespierre_ (1870), is somewhat stilted, showing that Hamerling's
genius, though rich in imagination, was ill-suited for the realistic
presentation of character.
A popular edition of Hamerling's works in four volumes was published
by M. M. Rabenlechner (Hamburg, 1900). For the poet's life, see his
autobiographical writings, _Stationen meiner Lebenspilgerschaft_
(1889) and _Lehrjahre der Liebe_ (1890); also M. M. Rabenlechner,
_Hamerling, sein Leben und seine Werke_, i. (Hamburg, 1896); a short
biography by the same (Dresden, 1901); R. H. Kleinert, _R. Hamerling,
ein Dichter der Schonheit_ (Hamburg, 1889); A. Polzer, _Hamerling,
sein Wesen und Wirken_ (Hamburg, 1890).
HAMERTON, PHILIP GILBERT (1834-1894), English artist and author, was
born at Laneside, near Shaw, close to Oldham, on the 10th of September
1834. His mother died at his birth, and having lost his father ten years
afterwards, he was educated privately under the direction of his
guardians. His first literary attempt, a volume of poems, proving
unsuccessful, he devoted himself for a time entirely to landscape
painting, encamping out of doors in the Highlands, where he eventually
rented the island of Innistrynych, upon which he settled with his wife,
a French lady, in 1858. Discovering after a time that his qualifications
were rather those of an art critic than of a painter he removed to the
neighbourhood of his wife's relatives in France, where he produced his
_Painter's Camp in the Highlands_ (1863), which obtained a great success
and prepared the way for his standard work on _Etching and Etchers_
(1866). In the following year he published a book, entitled
_Contemporary French Painters_, and in 1868 a continuation, _Painting in
France after the Decline of Classicism_. He had meanwhile become art
critic to the _Saturday Review_, a position which, from the burden it
laid upon him of frequent visits to England, he did not long retain. He
proceeded (1870) to establish an art journal of his own, _The
Portfolio_, a monthly periodical, each number of which consisted of a
monograph upon some artist or group of artists, frequently written and
always edited by him. The discontinuance of his active work as a painter
gave him time for more general literary composition, and he successively
produced _The Intellectual Life_ (1873), perhaps the best known and most
valuable of his writings; _Round my House_ (1876), notes on French
society by a resident; and _Modern Frenchmen_ (1879), admirable short
biographies. He also wrote two novels, _Wenderholme_ (1870) and
_Marmorne_ (1878). In 1884 _Human Intercourse_, another valuable volume
of essays, was published, and shortly afterwards Hamerton began to write
his autobiography, which he brought down to 1858. In 1882 he issued a
finely illustrated work on the technique of the great masters of various
arts, under the title of The _Graphic Arts_, and three years later
another splendidly illustrated volume, _Landscape_, which traces the
influence of landscape upon the mind of man. His last books were:
_Portfolio Papers_ (1889) and _French and English_ (1889). In 1891 he
removed to the neighbourhood of Paris, and died suddenly on the 4th of
November 1894, occupied to the last with his labours on _The Portfolio_
and other writings on art.
In 1896 was published _Philip Gilbert Hamerton: an Autobiography_,
1834-1858; and a _Memoir by his Wife_, 1858-1894.
HAMI, a town in Chinese Turkestan, otherwise called KAMIL, KOMUL or
KAMUL, situated on the southern slopes of the Tian-Shan mountains, and
on the northern verge of the Great Gobi desert, in 42 deg. 48' N., 93
deg. 28' E., at a height above sea-level of 3150 ft. The town is first
mentioned in Chinese history in the 1st century, under the name I-wu-lu,
and said to be situated 1000 lis north of the fortress Yu-men-kuan, and
to be the key to the western countries. This evidently referred to its
advantageous position, lying as it did in a fertile tract, at the point
of convergence of two main routes running north and south of the
Tian-Shan and connecting China with the west. It was taken by the
Chinese in A.D. 73 from the Hiungnu (the ancient inhabitants of
Mongolia), and made a military station. It next fell into the bands of
the Uighurs or Eastern Turks, who made it one of their chief towns and
held it for several centuries, and whose descendants are said to live
there now. From the 7th to the 11th century I-wu-lu is said to have
borne the name of Igu or I-chu, under the former of which names it is
spoken of by the Chinese pilgrim, Hsuan tsang, who passed through it in
the 7th century. The name Hami is first met in the Chinese _Yuan-shi_ or
"History of the Mongol Dynasty," but the name more generally used there
is Homi-li or Komi-li. Marco Polo, describing it apparently from
hearsay, calls it Camul, and speaks of it as a fruitful place inhabited
by a Buddhist people of idolatrous and wanton habits. It was visited in
1341 by Giovanni de Marignolli, who baptized a number of both sexes
there, and by the envoys of Shah Rukh (1420), who found a magnificent
mosque and a convent of dervishes, in juxtaposition with a fine Buddhist
temple. Hadji Mahommed (Ramusio's friend) speaks of Kamul as being in
his time (c. 1550) the first Mahommedan city met with in travelling from
China. When Benedict Goes travelled through the country at the beginning
of the 17th century, the power of the king Mahommed Khan of Kashgar
extended over nearly the whole country at the base of the Tian-Shan to
the Chinese frontier, including Kamil. It fell under the sway of the
Chinese in 1720, was lost to them in 1865 during the great Mahommedan
rebellion, and the trade route through it was consequently closed, but
was regained in 1873. Owing to its commanding position on the principal
route to the west, and its exceptional fertility, it has very frequently
changed hands in the wars between China and her western neighbours. Hami
is now a small town of about 6000 inhabitants, and is a busy trading
centre. The Mahommedan population consists of immigrants from Kashgaria,
Bokhara and Samarkand, and of descendants of the Uighurs.
HAMILCAR BARCA, or BARCAS (Heb. _barak_ "lightning"), Carthaginian
general and statesman, father of Hannibal, was born soon after 270 B.C.
He distinguished himself during the First Punic War in 247, when he took
over the chief command in Sicily, which at this time was almost entirely
in the hands of the Romans. Landing suddenly on the north-west of the
island with a small mercenary force he seized a strong position on Mt.
Ercte (Monte Pellegrino, near Palermo), and not only maintained himself
against all attacks, but carried his raids as far as the coast of south
Italy. In 244 he transferred his army to a similar position on the
slopes of Mt. Eryx (Monte San Giuliano), from which he was able to lend
support to the besieged garrison in the neighbouring town of Drepanum
(Trapani). By a provision of the peace of 241 Hamilcar's unbeaten force
was allowed to depart from Sicily without any token of submission. On
returning to Africa his troops, which had been kept together only by his
personal authority and by the promise of good pay, broke out into open
mutiny when their rewards were withheld by Hamilcar's opponents among
the governing aristocracy. The serious danger into which Carthage was
brought by the failure of the aristocratic generals was averted by
Hamilcar, whom the government in this crisis could not but reinstate. By
the power of his personal influence among the mercenaries and the
surrounding African peoples, and by superior strategy, he speedily
crushed the revolt (237). After this success Hamilcar enjoyed such
influence among the popular and patriotic party that his opponents could
not prevent him being raised to a virtual dictatorship. After recruiting
and training a new army in some Numidian forays he led on his own
responsibility an expedition into Spain, where he hoped to gain a new
empire to compensate Carthage for the loss of Sicily and Sardinia, and
to serve as a basis for a campaign of vengeance against the Romans
(236). In eight years by force of arms and diplomacy he secured an
extensive territory in Spain, but his premature death in battle (228)
prevented him from completing the conquest. Hamilcar stood out far above
the Carthaginians of his age in military and diplomatic skill and in
strength of patriotism; in these qualities he was surpassed only by his
son Hannibal, whom he had imbued with his own deep hatred of Rome and
trained to be his successor in the conflict.
This Hamilcar has been confused with another general who succeeded to
the command of the Carthaginians in the First Punic War, and after
successes at Therma and Drepanum was defeated at Ecnomus (256 B.C.).
Subsequently, apart from unskilful operations against Regulus, nothing
is certainly known of him. For others of the name see CARTHAGE,
SICILY, Smith's _Classical Dictionary_. So far as the name itself is
concerned, _Milcar_ is perhaps the same as _Melkarth_, the Tyrian god.
See Polybius i.-iii.; Cornelius Nepos, _Vita Hamilcaris_; Appian, _Res
Hispanicae_, chs. 4, 5, Diodorus, _Excerpta_, xxiv., xxv.; O. Meitzer,
_Geschichte der Karthager_ (Berlin, 1877), ii. also PUNIC WARS.
(M. O. B. C.)
HAMILTON, the name of a famous Scottish family. Chief among the legends
still clinging to this important family is that which gives a descent
from the house of Beaumont, a branch of which is stated to have held the
manor of Hamilton in Leicestershire; and it is argued that the three
cinquefoils of the Hamilton shield bear some resemblance to the single
cinquefoil of the Beaumonts. In face of this it has been recently shown
that the single cinquefoil was also borne by the Umfravilles of
Northumberland, who appear to have owned a place called Hamilton in that
county. It may be pointed out that Simon de Montfort, the great earl of
Leicester, in whose veins flowed the blood of the Beaumonts, obtained
about 1245 the wardship of Gilbert de Umfraville, second earl of Angus,
and it is conceivable that this name Gilbert may somehow be responsible
for the legend of the Beaumont descent, seeing that the first authentic
ancestor of the Hamiltons is one Walter FitzGilbert. He first appears in
1294-1295 as one of the witnesses to a charter by James, the high
steward of Scotland, to the monks of Paisley; and in 1296 his name
appears in the Homage Roll as Walter FitzGilbert of "Hameldone." Who
this Gilbert of "Hameldone" may have been is uncertain, "but the fact
must be faced," Mr John Anderson points out (_Scots Peerage_, iv. 340)
"that in a charter of the 12th of December 1272 by Thomas of Cragyn or
Craigie to the monks of Paisley of his church of Craigie in Kyle, there
appears as witness a certain 'Gilbert de Hameldun _clericus_,' whose
name occurs along with the local clergy of Inverkip, Blackhall, Paisley
and Dunoon. He was therefore probably also a cleric of the same
neighbourhood, and it is significant that 'Walter FitzGilbert' appears
first in that district in 1294 and in 1296 is described as son of
Gilbert de Hameldone...." Walter FitzGilbert took some part in the
affairs of his time. At first he joined the English party but after
Bannockburn went over to Bruce, was knighted and subsequently received
the barony of Cadzow. His younger son John was father of Alexander
Hamilton who acquired the lands of Innerwick by marriage, and from him
descended a certain Thomas Hamilton, who acquired the lands of
Priestfield early in the 16th century. Another Thomas, grandson of this
last, who had with others of his house followed Queen Mary and with them
had been restored to royal favour, became a lord of session as Lord
Priestfield. Two of his younger sons enjoyed also this legal
distinction, while the eldest, Thomas, was made an ordinary lord of
session as early as 1592 and was eventually created earl of Haddington
(q.v.). It is interesting to note that the 5th earl of Haddington by his
marriage with Lady Margaret Leslie brought for a time the earldom of
Rothes to the Hamiltons to be added to their already numerous titles.
Sir "David FitzWalter FitzGilbert," who carried on the main line of the
Hamiltons, was taken prisoner at the battle of Neville's Cross (1346)
and treated as of great importance, being ransomed, it is stated, for a
large sum of money; in 1371 and 1373 he was one of the barons in the
parliament. Of the four sons attributed to him David succeeded in the
representation of the family, Sir John Hamilton of Fingaltoun was
ancestor of the Hamiltons of Preston, and Walter is stated to have been
progenitor of the Hamiltons of Cambuskeith and Sanquhar in Ayrshire.
David Hamilton, the first apparently to describe himself as lord of
Cadzow, died before 1392, leaving four or five sons, from whom descended
the Hamiltons of Bathgate and of Bardowie, and perhaps also of Udstown,
to which last belong the lords Belhaven.
Sir John Hamilton of Cadzow, the eldest son, was twice a prisoner in
England, but beyond this little is known of him; even the date of his
death is uncertain. His two younger sons are stated to have been
founders of the houses of Dalserf and Raploch. His eldest son, James
Hamilton of Cadzow, like his father and great-grandfather, visited
England as a prisoner, being one of the hostages for the king's ransom.
From him the Hamiltons of Silvertonhill and the lords Hamilton of
Dalzell claim descent, among the more distinguished members of the
former branch being General Sir Ian Hamilton, K.C.B. James Hamilton was
succeeded by his eldest son Sir James Hamilton of Cadzow, who was
created in 1445 an hereditary lord of parliament, and was thereafter
known as Lord Hamilton. He had allied himself some years before with the
great house of Douglas by marriage with Euphemia, widow of the 5th earl
of Douglas, and was at first one of its most powerful supporters in the
struggle with James II. Later, however, he obtained the royal favour and
married about 1474 Mary, sister of James III. and widow of Thomas Boyd,
earl of Arran. Of this marriage was born James, second Lord Hamilton,
who as a near relative took an active part in the arrangements at the
marriage of James IV. with Margaret Tudor; being rewarded on the same
day (the 8th of August 1503) with the earldom of Arran. A champion in
the lists he was scarcely so successful as a leader of men, his struggle
with the Douglases being destitute of any great martial achievement. Of
his many illegitimate children Sir James Hamilton of Finnart, beheaded
in 1540, was ancestor of the Hamiltons of Gilkerscleugh; and John,
archbishop of St Andrews, hanged by his Protestant enemies, was ancestor
of the Hamiltons of Blair, and is said also to have been ancestor of
Hamilton of London, baronet. James, second earl of Arran, son of the
first earl by his second wife Janet Beaton, was chosen governor to the
little Queen Mary, being nearest of kin to the throne through his
grandmother, though the question of the validity of his mother's
marriage was by no means settled. He held the governorship till 1554,
having in 1549 been granted the duchy of Chatellerault in France. In his
policy he was vacillating and eventually he retired to France, being
absent during the three momentous years prior to the deposition of Mary.
On his return he headed the queen's party, his property suffering in
consequence. He was succeeded in the title in 1579 by his eldest son
James, whose qualities were such that he was even proposed as a husband
for Queen Elizabeth, but unfortunately he soon after became insane, his
brother John, afterwards first marquess of Hamilton, administering the
estates. From the third son, Claud, descends the duke of Abercorn, heir
male of the house of Hamilton.
The first marquess of Hamilton had a natural son, Sir John Hamilton of
Lettrick, who was legitimated in 1600 and was ancestor of the lords
Bargany. His two legitimate sons were James, 3rd marquess and first duke
of Hamilton, and William, who succeeded his brother as 2nd duke and was
in turn succeeded under the special remainder contained in the patent of
dukedom, by his niece Anne, duchess of Hamilton, who was married in 1656
to William Douglas, earl of Selkirk. The history of the descendants of
this marriage belongs to the great house of Douglas, the 7th duke of
Hamilton becoming the male representative and chief of the house of
Douglas, earls of Angus.
The above mentioned Claud Hamilton, who with his brother, the first
marquess, had taken so large a part in the cause of Queen Mary, was
created a lord of parliament as Lord Paisley in 1587. He had five sons,
of whom three settled in Ireland, Sir Claud being ancestor of the
Hamiltons of Beltrim and Sir Frederick, distinguished in early life in
the Swedish wars, being ancestor of the viscounts Boyne.
James, the eldest son of Lord Paisley, found favour with James VI. and
was created in 1603 Lord of Abercorn, and three years later was advanced
in the peerage as earl of Abercorn and lord of Paisley, Hamilton,
Mountcastell and Kilpatrick. His eldest son James, 2nd earl of Abercorn,
eventually heir male of the house of Hamilton and successor to the
dukedom of Chatellerault, was created in his father's lifetime lord of
Strabane in Ireland, but he resigned this title in 1633 in favour of his
brother Claud, whose grandson, Claud, 5th Lord Strabane, succeeded
eventually as 4th earl of Abercorn. This earl, taking the side of James
II., was with him in Ireland, his estate and title being afterwards
forfeited, while his kinsman Gustavus Hamilton, afterwards first Lord
Boyne, raised several regiments for William III., and greatly
distinguished himself in the service of that monarch. His brother
Charles, 5th earl of Abercorn, who obtained a reversal of the attainder,
died without issue surviving in 1701 when the titles passed to his
kinsman James Hamilton, grandson of Sir George Hamilton of Donalong in
Ireland and great-grandson of the first earl. This branch, most faithful
to the house of Stuart, counted among its many members distinguished in
military annals Count Anthony Hamilton, author of the _Memoires du comte
de Gramont_ and brother of "la belle Hamilton." James, 6th earl of
Abercorn (whose brother William was ancestor of Hamilton of the Mount,
baronet), was a partizan of William III., and obtained in 1701 the
additional Irish titles of lord of Mountcastle and viscount of Strabane.
The 8th earl of Abercorn, who was summoned to the Irish house of peers
in his father's lifetime as Lord Mountcastle, was created a peer of
Great Britain in 1786 as Viscount Hamilton of Hamilton in
Leicestershire, and renewed the family's connexion with Scotland by
repurchasing the barony of Duddingston and later the lordship of
Paisley. His nephew and successor was created marquess of Abercorn in
1790, and was father of James, 1st duke of Abercorn.
See the article Hamilton and other articles on the different branches
of the family (e.g. Haddington and Belhaven) in Sir J. B. Paul's
edition of Sir R. Douglas's _Peerage of Scotland_; and also G.
Marshall, _Guide to Heraldry and Genealogy_.
HAMILTON, MARQUESSES AND DUKES OF. The holders of these titles descended
from Sir James Hamilton of Cadzow, who was made an hereditary lord of
parliament in 1445, his lands and baronies at the same time being
erected into the "lordship" of Hamilton. His first wife Euphemia, widow
of the 5th earl of Douglas, died in 1468, and probably early in 1474 he
married Mary, daughter of King James II. and widow of Thomas Boyd, earl
of Arran; the consequent nearness of the Hamiltons to the Scottish crown
gave them very great weight in Scottish affairs. The first Lord Hamilton
has been frequently confused with his father, James Hamilton of Cadzow,
who was one of the hostages in England for the payment of James I.'s
ransom, and is sometimes represented as surviving until 1451 or even
1479, whereas he certainly died, according to evidence brought forward
by J. Anderson in _The Scots Peerage_, before May 1441. James, 2nd Lord
Hamilton, son of the 1st lord and Princess Mary, was created earl of
Arran in 1503; and his son James, who was regent of Scotland from 1542
to 1554, received in February 1549 a grant of the duchy of Chatellerault
in Poitou.
JOHN, 1st marquess of Hamilton (c. 1542-1604), third son of James
Hamilton, 2nd earl of Arran (q.v.) and duke of Chatellerault, was given
the abbey of Arbroath in 1551. In politics he was largely under the
influence of his energetic and unscrupulous younger brother Claud,
afterwards Baron Paisley (c. 1543-1622), ancestor of the dukes of
Abercorn. The brothers were the real heads of the house of Hamilton,
their elder brother Arran being insane. At first hostile to Mary, they
later became her devoted partisans. Their uncle, John Hamilton,
archbishop of St Andrews, natural son of the 1st earl of Arran, was
restored to his consistorial jurisdiction by Mary in 1566, and in May of
the next year he divorced Bothwell from his wife. Lord Claud met Mary on
her escape from Lochleven and escorted her to Hamilton palace. John
appears to have been in France in 1568 when the battle of Langside was
fought, and it was probably Claud who commanded Mary's vanguard in the
battle. With others of the queen's party they were forfeited by the
parliament and sought their revenge on the regent Murray. Although the
Hamiltons disavowed all connexion with Murray's murderer, James Hamilton
of Bothwellhaugh, he had been provided with horse and weapons by the
abbot of Arbroath, and it was at Hamilton that he sought refuge after
the deed. Archbishop Hamilton was hanged at Stirling in 1571 for alleged
complicity in the murder of Darnley, and is said to have admitted that
he was a party to the murder of Murray. At the pacification of Perth in
1573 the Hamiltons abandoned Mary's cause, and a reconciliation with the
Douglases was sealed by Lord John's marriage with Margaret, daughter of
the 7th Lord Glamis, a cousin of the regent Morton. Sir William Douglas
of Lochleven, however, persistently sought his life in revenge for the
murder of Murray until, on his refusal to keep the peace, he was
imprisoned. On the uncertain evidence extracted from the assassin by
torture, the Hamiltons had been credited with a share in the murder of
the regent Lennox in 1571. In 1579 proceedings against them for these
two crimes were resumed, and when they escaped to England their lands
and titles were seized by their political enemies, James Stewart
becoming earl of Arran. John Hamilton presently dissociated himself from
the policy of his brother Claud, who continued to plot for Spanish
intervention on behalf of Mary; and Catholic plotters are even said to
have suggested his murder to procure the succession of his brother.
Hamilton had at one time been credited with the hope of marrying Mary;
his desires now centred on the peaceful enjoyment of his estates. With
other Scottish exiles he crossed the border in 1585 and marched on
Stirling; he was admitted on the 4th of November and formally reconciled
with James VI., with whom he was thenceforward on the friendliest terms.
Claud returned to Scotland in 1586, and the abbey of Paisley was erected
into a temporal barony in his favour in 1587. Much of his later years
was spent in strict retirement, his son being authorized to act for him
in 1598. John was created marquess of Hamilton and Lord Evan in 1599,
and died on the 6th of April 1604.
His eldest surviving son JAMES, 2nd marquess of Hamilton (c. 1589-1625),
was created baron of Innerdale and earl of Cambridge in the peerage of
England in 1619, and these honours descended to his son James, who in
1643 was created duke of Hamilton (q.v.). William, 2nd duke of Hamilton
(1616-1651), succeeded to the dukedom on his brother's execution in
1649. He was created earl of Lanark in 1639, and in the next year became
secretary of state in Scotland. Arrested at Oxford by the king's orders
in 1643 for "concurrence" with Hamilton, he effected his escape and was
temporarily reconciled with the Presbyterian party. He was sent by the
Scottish committee of estates to treat with Charles I. at Newcastle in
1646, when he sought in vain to persuade the king to consent to the
establishment of Presbyterianism in England. On the 26th of September
1647 he signed on behalf of the Scots the treaty with Charles known as
the "Engagement" at Carisbrooke Castle, and helped to organize the
second Civil War. In 1648 he fled to Holland, his succession in the next
year to his brother's dukedom making him an important personage among
the Royalist exiles. He returned to Scotland with Prince Charles in
1650, but, finding a reconciliation with Argyll impossible, he refused
to prejudice Charles's cause by pushing his claims, and lived in
retirement chiefly until the Scottish invasion of England, when he acted
as colonel of a body of his dependants. He died on the 12th of September
1651 from the effects of wounds received at Worcester. He left no male
heirs, and the title devolved on the 1st duke's eldest surviving
daughter Anne, duchess of Hamilton in her own right.
Anne married in 1656 William Douglas, earl of Selkirk (1635-1694), who
was created duke of Hamilton in 1660 on his wife's petition, receiving
also several of the other Hamilton peerages, but for his life only. The
Hamilton estates had been declared forfeit by Cromwell, and he himself
had been fined L1000. He supported Lauderdale in the early stages of his
Scottish policy, in which he adopted a moderate attitude towards the
Presbyterians, but the two were soon alienated, through the influence of
the countess of Dysart, according to Gilbert Burnet, who spent much time
at Hamilton Palace in arranging the Hamilton papers. With other Scottish
noblemen who resisted Lauderdale's measures Hamilton was twice summoned
to London to present his case at court, but without obtaining any
result. He was dismissed from the privy council in 1676, and on a
subsequent visit to London Charles refused to receive him. On the
accession of James II. he received numerous honours, but he was one of
the first to enter into communication with the prince of Orange. He
presided over the convention of Edinburgh, summoned at his request,
which offered the Scottish crown to William and Mary in March 1689. His
death took place at Holyrood on the 18th of April 1694. His wife
survived until 1716.
JAMES DOUGLAS, 4th duke of Hamilton (1658-1712), eldest son of the
preceding and of Duchess Anne, succeeded his mother, who resigned the
dukedom to him in 1698, and at the accession of Queen Anne he was
regarded as leader of the Scottish national party. He was an opponent of
the union with England, but his lack of decision rendered his political
conduct ineffective. He was created duke of Brandon in the peerage of
Great Britain in 1711; and on the 15th of November in the following year
he fought the celebrated duel with Charles Lord Mohun, narrated in
Thackeray's _Esmond_, in which both the principals were killed. His son,
James (1703-1743), became 5th duke, and his grandson James, 6th duke of
Hamilton and Brandon (1724-1758), married the famous beauty, Elizabeth
Gunning, afterwards duchess of Argyll. James George, 7th duke
(1755-1769), became head of the house of Douglas on the death in 1761 of
Archibald, duke of Douglas, whose titles but not his estates then
devolved on the duke of Hamilton as heir-male. Archibald's brother
Douglas (1756-1799) was the 8th duke, and when he died childless the
titles passed to his uncle Archibald (1740-1819). His son Alexander,
10th duke (1767-1852), who as marquess of Douglas was a great collector
and connoisseur of books and pictures (his collections realized L397,562
in 1882), was ambassador at St Petersburg in 1806-1807. His sister, Lady
Anne Hamilton, was lady-in-waiting and a faithful friend to Queen
Caroline, wife of George IV.; she did not write the _Secret History of
the Court of England ..._ (1832) to which her name was attached. William
Alexander, 11th duke of Hamilton (1811-1863), married Princess Marie
Amelie, daughter of Charles, grand-duke of Baden, and, on her mother's
side, a cousin of Napoleon III. The title of duke of Chatellerault,
granted to his remote ancestor in 1548, and claimed at different times
by various branches of the Hamilton family, was conferred on the 11th
duke's son, William Alexander, 12th duke of Hamilton (1845-1895), by the
emperor of the French in 1864. His sister, Lady Mary Douglas-Hamilton,
married in 1869 Albert, prince of Monaco, but their marriage was
declared invalid in 1880. She subsequently married Count Tassilo
Festetics, a Hungarian noble. The 12th duke left no male issue and was
succeeded in 1895 by his kinsman, Alfred Douglas, a descendant of the
4th duke. Claud Hamilton, 1st Baron Paisley, brother of the 1st marquess
of Hamilton, was, as mentioned above, ancestor of the Abercorn branch of
the Hamiltons. His son, who became earl of Abercorn in 1606, received
among a number of other titles that of Lord Hamilton. This title, and
also that of Viscount Hamilton, in the peerage of Great Britain,
conferred on the 8th earl of Abercorn in 1786, are borne by the dukes of
Abercorn, whose eldest son is usually styled by courtesy marquess of
Hamilton, a title which was added to the other family honours when the
2nd marquess of Abercorn was raised to the dukedom in 1868.
See John Anderson, _The House of Hamilton_ (1825); _Hamilton Papers_,
ed. J. Bain (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1890-1892); Gilbert Burnet, _Lives of
James and William, dukes of Hamilton_ (1677); _The Hamilton Papers
relative to 1638-1650_, ed. S. R. Gardiner for the Camden Society
(1880); G. E. C[okayne], _Complete Peerage_ (1887-1898); an article by
the Rev. J. Anderson in Sir J. B. Paul's edition of the _Scots
Peerage_, vol. iv. (1907).
HAMILTON, ALEXANDER (1757-1804), American statesman and economist, was
born, as a British subject, on the island of Nevis in the West Indies on
the 11th of January 1757. He came of good family on both sides. His
father, James Hamilton, a Scottish merchant of St Christopher, was a
younger son of Alexander Hamilton of Grange, Lanarkshire, by Elizabeth,
daughter of Sir R. Pollock. His mother, Rachael Fawcett (Faucette), of
French Huguenot descent, married when very young a Danish proprietor of
St Croix, John Michael Levine, with whom she lived unhappily and whom
she soon left, subsequently living with James Hamilton; her husband
procured a divorce in 1759, but the court forbade her remarriage.[1]
Such unions as hers with James Hamilton were long not uncommon in the
West Indies. By her James Hamilton had two sons, Alexander and James.
Business misfortunes having caused his father's bankruptcy, and his
mother dying in 1768, young Hamilton was thrown upon the care of
maternal relatives at St Croix, where, in his twelfth year, he entered
the counting-house of Nicholas Cruger. Shortly afterward Mr Cruger,
going abroad, left the boy in charge of the business. The extraordinary
specimens we possess of his mercantile correspondence and friendly
letters, written at this time, attest an astonishing poise and maturity
of mind, and self-conscious ambition. His opportunities for regular
schooling must have been very scant; but he had cultivated friends who
discerned his talents and encouraged their development, and he early
formed the habits of wide reading and industrious study that were to
persist through his life. An accomplishment later of great service to
Hamilton, common enough in the Antilles, but very rare in the English
continental colonies, was a familiar command of French. In 1772 some
friends, impressed by a description by him of the terrible West Indian
hurricane in that year, made it possible for him to go to New York to
complete his education. Arriving in the autumn of 1772, he prepared for
college at Elizabethtown, N.J., and in 1774 entered King's College (now
Columbia University) in New York City. His studies, however, were
interrupted by the War of American Independence.
A visit to Boston seems to have thoroughly confirmed the conclusion, to
which reason had already led him, that he should cast in his fortunes
with the colonists. Into their cause he threw himself with ardour. In
1774-1775 he wrote two influential anonymous pamphlets, which were
attributed to John Jay; they show remarkable maturity and controversial
ability, and rank high among the political arguments of the time.[2] He
organized an artillery company, was awarded its captaincy on
examination, won the interest of Nathanael Greene and Washington by the
proficiency and bravery he displayed in the campaign of 1776 around New
York City, joined Washington's staff in March 1777 with the rank of
lieutenant-colonel, and during four years served as his private
secretary and confidential aide. The important duties with which he was
entrusted attest Washington's entire confidence in his abilities and
character; then and afterwards, indeed, reciprocal confidence and
respect took the place, in their relations, of personal attachment.[3]
But Hamilton was ambitious for military glory--it was an ambition he
never lost; he became impatient of detention in what he regarded as a
position of unpleasant dependence, and (Feb. 1781) he seized a slight
reprimand administered by Washington as an excuse for abandoning his
staff position.[4] Later he secured a field command, through Washington,
and won laurels at Yorktown, where he led the American column in the
final assault on the British works. In 1780 he married Elizabeth,
daughter of General Philip Schuyler, and thus became allied with one of
the most distinguished families in New York.
Meanwhile, he had begun the political efforts upon which his fame
principally rests. In letters of 1779-1780[5] he correctly diagnoses the
ills of the Confederation, and suggests with admirable prescience the
necessity of centralization in its governmental powers; he was, indeed,
one of the first, if not to conceive, at least to suggest adequate
checks on the anarchic tendencies of the time. After a year's service in
Congress in 1782-1783, in which he experienced the futility of
endeavouring to attain through that decrepit body the ends he sought, he
settled down to legal practice in New York.[6] The call for the
Annapolis Convention (1786) was Hamilton's opportunity. A delegate from
New York, he supported Madison in inducing the Convention to exceed its
delegated powers and summon the Federal Convention of 1787 at
Philadelphia (himself drafting the call); he secured a place on the New
York delegation; and, when his anti-Federal colleagues withdrew from the
Convention, he signed the Constitution for his state. So long as his
colleagues were present his own vote was useless, and he absented
himself for some time from the debates after making one remarkable
speech (June 18th, 1787). In this he held up the British government as
the best model in the world.[7] Though fully conscious that monarchy in
America was impossible, he wished to obtain the next best solution in an
aristocratic, strongly centralized, coercive, but representative union,
with devices to give weight to the influence of class and property.[8]
His plan had no chance of success; but though unable to obtain what he
wished, he used his great talents to secure the adoption of the
Constitution.
To this struggle was due the greatest of his writings, and the greatest
individual contribution to the adoption of the new government, _The
Federalist_, which remains a classic commentary on American
constitutional law and the principles of government, and of which Guizot
said that "in the application of elementary principles of government to
practical administration" it was the greatest work known to him. Its
inception, and much more than half its contents were Hamilton's (the
rest Madison's and Jay's).[9] Sheer will and reasoning could hardly be
more brilliantly and effectively exhibited than they were by Hamilton
in the New York convention of 1788, whose vote he won, against the
greatest odds, for the ratification of the Constitution. It was the
judgment of Chancellor James Kent, the justice of which can hardly be
disputed, that "all the documentary proof and the current observation of
the time lead us to the conclusion that he surpassed all his
contemporaries in his exertions to create, recommend, adopt and defend
the Constitution of the United States."
When the new government was inaugurated, Hamilton became secretary of
the treasury in Washington's cabinet.[10] Congress immediately referred
to him a press of queries and problems, and there came from his pen a
succession of papers that have left the strongest imprint on the
administrative organization of the national government--two reports on
public credit, upholding an ideal of national honour higher than the
prevalent popular principles; a report on manufactures, advocating their
encouragement (e.g. by bounties paid from surplus revenues amassed by
tariff duties)--a famous report that has served ever since as a
storehouse of arguments for a national protective policy;[11] a report
favouring the establishment of a national bank, the argument being based
on the doctrine of "implied powers" in the Constitution, and on the
application that Congress may do anything that can be made, through the
medium of money, to subserve the "general welfare" of the United
States--doctrines that, through judicial interpretation, have
revolutionized the Constitution; and, finally, a vast mass of detailed
work by which order and efficiency were given to the national finances.
In 1793 he put to confusion his opponents who had brought about a
congressional investigation of his official accounts. The success of his
financial measures was immediate and remarkable. They did not, as is
often but loosely said, create economic prosperity; but they did prop
it, in an all-important field, with order, hope and confidence. His
ultimate purpose was always the strengthening of the union; but before
particularizing his political theories, and the political import of his
financial measures, the remaining events of his life may be traced.
His activity in the cabinet was by no means confined to the finances. He
regarded himself, apparently, as premier, and sometimes overstepped the
limits of his office in interfering with other departments. The
heterogeneous character of the duties placed upon his department by
Congress seemed in fact to reflect the English idea of its primacy.
Hamilton's influence was in fact predominant with Washington (so far as
any man could have predominant influence). Thus it happens that in
foreign affairs, whatever credit properly belongs to the Federalists as
a party (see also the article FEDERALIST PARTY) for the adoption of that
principle of neutrality which became the traditional policy of the
United States must be regarded as largely due to Hamilton. But allowance
must be made for the mere advantage of initiative which belonged to any
party that organized the government--the differences between Hamilton
and Jefferson, in this question of neutrality, being almost purely
factitious.[12] On domestic policy their differences were vital, and in
their conflicts over Hamilton's financial measures they organized, on
the basis of varying tenets and ideals which have never ceased to
conflict in American politics, the two great parties of Federalists and
Democrats (or Democratic-Republicans). On the 31st of January 1795
Hamilton resigned his position as secretary of the treasury and returned
to the practice of law in New York, leaving it for public service only
in 1798-1800, when he was the active head, under Washington (who
insisted that Hamilton should be second only to himself), of the army
organized for war against France. But though in private life he remained
the continual and chief adviser of Washington--notably in the serious
crisis of the Jay Treaty, of which Hamilton approved. Washington's
_Farewell Address_ (1796) was written for him by Hamilton.
After Washington's death the Federalist leadership was divided (and
disputed) between John Adams, who had the prestige of a varied and great
career, and greater strength than any other Federalist with the people,
and Hamilton, who controlled practically all the leaders of lesser rank,
including much the greater part of the most distinguished men of the
country, so that it has been very justly said that "the roll of his
followers is enough of itself to establish his position in American
history" (Lodge). But Hamilton was not essentially a popular leader.
When his passions were not involved, or when they were repressed by a
crisis, he was far-sighted, and his judgment of men was excellent.[13]
But as Hamilton himself once said, his heart was ever the master of his
judgment. He was, indeed, not above intrigue,[14] but he was
unsuccessful in it. He was a fighter through and through, and his
courage was superb; but he was indiscreet in utterance, impolitic in
management, opinionated, self-confident, and uncompromising in nature
and methods. His faults are nowhere better shown than in his quarrel
with John Adams. Three times, in order to accomplish ends deemed by him,
personally, to be desirable, Hamilton used the political fortunes of
John Adams, in presidential elections, as a mere hazard in his
manoeuvres; moreover, after Adams became president, and so the official
head of the party, Hamilton constantly advised the members of the
president's cabinet, and through them endeavoured to control Adams's
policy; and finally, on the eve of the crucial election of 1800, he
wrote a bitter personal attack on the president (containing much
confidential cabinet information), which was intended for private
circulation, but which was secured and published by Aaron Burr, his
legal and political rival.
The mention of Burr leads us to the fatal end of another great political
antipathy of Hamilton's life. He read Burr's character correctly from
the beginning; deemed it a patriotic duty to thwart him in his
ambitions; defeated his hopes successively of a foreign mission, the
presidency, and the governorship of New York; and in his conversations
and letters repeatedly and unsparingly denounced him. If these
denunciations were known to Burr they were ignored by him until his last
defeat. After that he forced a quarrel on a trivial bit of hearsay (that
Hamilton had said he had a "despicable" opinion of Burr); and Hamilton,
believing as he explained in a letter he left before going to his
death--that a compliance with the duelling prejudices of the time was
inseparable from the ability to be in future useful in public affairs,
accepted a challenge from him. The duel was fought at Weehawken on the
Jersey shore of the Hudson opposite the City of New York. At the first
fire Hamilton fell, mortally wounded, and he died on the following day,
the 12th of July 1804. Hamilton himself did not intend to fire, but his
pistol went off as he fell. The tragic close of his career appeased for
the moment the fierce hatred of politics, and his death was very
generally deplored as a national calamity.[15]
No emphasis, however strong, upon the mere consecutive personal
successes of Hamilton's life is sufficient to show the measure of his
importance in American history. That importance lies, to a large extent,
in the political ideas for which he stood. His mind was eminently
"legal." He was the unrivalled controversialist of the time. His
writings, which are distinguished by clarity, vigour and rigid
reasoning, rather than by any show of scholarship--in the extent of
which, however solid in character Hamilton's might have been, he was
surpassed by several of his contemporaries--are in general strikingly
empirical in basis. He drew his theories from his experiences of the
Revolutionary period, and he modified them hardly at all through life.
In his earliest pamphlets (1774-1775) he started out with the ordinary
pre-Revolutionary Whig doctrines of natural rights and liberty; but the
first experience of semi-anarchic states'-rights and individualism ended
his fervour for ideas so essentially alien to his practical, logical
mind, and they have no place in his later writings. The feeble
inadequacy of conception, infirmity of power, factional jealousy,
disintegrating particularism, and vicious finance of the Confederation
were realized by many others; but none other saw so clearly the concrete
nationalistic remedies for these concrete ills, or pursued remedial ends
so constantly, so ably, and so consistently. An immigrant, Hamilton had
no particularistic ties; he was by instinct a "continentalist" or
federalist. He wanted a strong union and energetic government that
should "rest as much as possible on the shoulders of the people and as
little as possible on those of the state legislatures"; that should have
the support of wealth and class; and that should curb the states to such
an "entire subordination" as nowise to be hindered by those bodies. At
these ends he aimed with extraordinary skill in all his financial
measures. As early as 1776 he urged the direct collection of federal
taxes by federal agents. From 1779 onward we trace the idea of
supporting government by the interest of the propertied classes; from
1781 onward the idea that a not-excessive public debt would be a
blessing[16] in giving cohesiveness to the union: hence his device by
which the federal government, assuming the war debts of the states,
secured greater resources, based itself on a high ideal of nationalism,
strengthened its hold on the individual citizen, and gained the support
of property. In his report on manufactures his chief avowed motive was
to strengthen the union. To the same end he conceived the constitutional
doctrines of liberal construction, "implied powers," and the "general
welfare," which were later embodied in the decisions of John Marshall.
The idea of nationalism pervaded and quickened all his life and works.
With one great exception, the dictum of Guizot is hardly an
exaggeration, that "there is not in the Constitution of the United
States an element of order, of force, of duration, which he did not
powerfully contribute to introduce into it and to cause to
predominate."
The exception, as American history showed, was American democracy. The
loose and barren rule of the Confederation seemed to conservative minds
such as Hamilton's to presage, in its strengthening of individualism, a
fatal looseness of social restraints, and led him on to a dread of
democracy that he never overcame. Liberty, he reminded his fellows, in the
New York Convention of 1788, seemed to be alone considered in government,
but there was another thing equally important: "a principle of strength
and stability in the organization ... and of vigour in its operation." But
Hamilton's governmental system was in fact repressive.[17] He wanted a
system strong enough, he would have said, to overcome the anarchic
tendencies loosed by war, and represented by those notions of natural
rights which he had himself once championed; strong enough to overbear all
local, state and sectional prejudices, powers or influence, and to
control--not, as Jefferson would have it, to be controlled by--the people.
Confidence in the integrity, the self-control, and the good judgment of
the people, which was the content of Jefferson's political faith, had
almost no place in Hamilton's theories. "Men," said he, "are reasoning
rather than reasonable animals." The charge that he laboured to introduce
monarchy by intrigue is an under-estimate of his good sense.[18]
Hamilton's thinking, however, did carry him foul of current democratic
philosophy; as he said, he presented his plan in 1787 "not as attainable,
but as a model to which we ought to approach as far as possible";
moreover, he held through life his belief in its principles, and in its
superiority over the government actually created; and though its
inconsistency with American tendencies was yearly more apparent, he never
ceased to avow on all occasions his aristocratic-monarchical partialities.
Moreover, his preferences for at least an aristocratic republic were
shared by many other men of talent. When it is added that Jefferson's
assertions, alike as regards Hamilton's talk[19] and the intent and
tendency of his political measures, were, to the extent of the underlying
basic fact--but discounting Jefferson's somewhat intemperate
interpretations--unquestionably true,[20] it cannot be accounted strange
that Hamilton's Democratic opponents mistook his theoretic predilections
for positive designs. Nor would it be a strained inference from much that
be said, to believe that he hoped and expected that in the "crisis" he
foresaw, when democracy should have caused the ruin of the country, a new
government might be formed that should approximate to his own ideals.[21]
From the beginning of the excesses of the French Revolution he was
possessed by the persuasion that American democracy, likewise, might at
any moment crush the restraints of the Constitution to enter on a career
of licence and anarchy. To this obsession he sacrificed his life.[22]
After the Democratic victory of 1800, his letters, full of retrospective
judgments and interesting outlooks, are but rarely relieved in their
sombre pessimism by flashes of hope and courage. His last letter on
politics, written two days before his death, illustrates the two sides of
his thinking already emphasized: in this letter he warns his New England
friends against dismemberment of the union as "a clear sacrifice of great
positive advantages, without any counterbalancing good; administering no
relief to our real disease, which is democracy, the poison of which, by a
subdivision, will only be more concentrated in each part, and consequently
the more virulent." To the end he never lost his fear of the states, nor
gained faith in the future of the country. He laboured still, in mingled
hope and apprehension, "to prop the frail and worthless fabric,"[23] but
for its spiritual content of democracy he had no understanding, and even
in its nationalism he had little hope. Yet probably to no one man, except
perhaps to Washington, does American nationalism owe so much as to
Hamilton.
In the development of the United States the influence of Hamiltonian
nationalism and Jeffersonian democracy has been a reactive union; but
changed conditions since Hamilton's time, and particularly since the
Civil War, are likely to create misconceptions as to Hamilton's position
in his own day. Great constructive statesman as he was, he was also,
from the American point of view, essentially a reactionary. He was the
leader of reactionary forces--constructive forces, as it happened--in
the critical period after the War of American Independence, and in the
period of Federalist supremacy. He was in sympathy with the dominant
forces of public life only while they took, during the war, the
predominant impress of an imperfect nationalism.[24] Jeffersonian
democracy came into power in 1800 in direct line with colonial
development; Hamiltonian Federalism was a break in that development; and
this alone can explain how Jefferson could organize the Democratic Party
in face of the brilliant success of the Federalists in constructing the
government. Hamilton stigmatized his great opponent as a political
fanatic; but actualist as he claimed to be,[25] Hamilton could not see,
or would not concede, the predominating forces in American life, and
would uncompromisingly have minimized the two great political conquests
of the colonial period--local self-government and democracy.
Few Americans have received higher tributes from foreign authorities.
Talleyrand, personally impressed when in America with Hamilton's
brilliant qualities, declared that he had the power of divining without
reasoning, and compared him to Fox and Napoleon because he had "devine
l'Europe." Of the judgments rendered by his countrymen, Washington's
confidence in his ability and integrity is perhaps the most significant.
Chancellor James Kent, and others only less competent, paid remarkable
testimony to his legal abilities. Chief-justice Marshall ranked him
second to Washington alone. No judgment is more justly measured than
Madison's (in 1831): "That he possessed intellectual powers of the first
order, and the moral qualities of integrity and honour in a captivating
degree, has been awarded him by a suffrage now universal. If his theory
of government deviated from the republican standard he had the candour
to avow it, and the greater merit of co-operating faithfully in maturing
and supporting a system which was not his choice."
In person Hamilton was rather short and slender; in carriage, erect,
dignified and graceful. Deep-set, changeable, dark eyes vivified his
mobile features, and set off his light hair and fair, ruddy complexion.
His head in the famous Trumbull portrait is boldly poised and very
striking. The captivating charm of his manners and conversation is
attested by all who knew him, and in familiar life he was artlessly
simple. Friends he won readily, and he held them in devoted attachment
by the solid worth of a frank, ardent, generous, warm-hearted and
high-minded character. Versatile as were his intellectual powers, his
nature seems comparatively simple. A firm will, tireless energy,
aggressive courage and bold self-confidence were its leading qualities;
the word "intensity" perhaps best sums up his character. His Scotch and
Gallic strains of ancestry are evident; his countenance was decidedly
Scotch; his nervous speech and bearing and vehement temperament rather
French; in his mind, agility, clarity and penetration were matched with
logical solidity. The remarkable quality of his mind lay in the rare
combination of acute analysis and grasp of detail with great
comprehensiveness of thought. So far as his writings show, he was almost
wholly lacking in humour, and in imagination little less so. He
certainly had wit, but it is hard to believe he could have had any touch
of fancy. In public speaking he often combined a rhetorical
effectiveness and emotional intensity that might take the place of
imagination, and enabled him, on the coldest theme, to move deeply the
feelings of his auditors.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Hamilton's _Works_ have been edited by H. C. Lodge (New
York, 9 vols., 1885-1886, and 12 vols., 1904); all references above
are first to the latter edition, secondly (in brackets) to the former.
There are various additional editions of _The Federalist_, notably
those of H. B. Dawson (1863), H. C. Lodge (1888), and--the most
scholarly--P. L. Ford (1898); cf. _American Historical Review_, ii.
413, 675. See also James Bryce, "Predictions of Hamilton and de
Tocqueville," in _Johns Hopkins University Studies_, vol. 5
(Baltimore, 1887); and the capital essay of Anson D. Morse in the
_Political Science Quarterly_, v. (1890), pp. 1-23. For a bibliography
of the period see the _Cambridge Modern History_, vol. vii. pp.
780-810. The unfinished _Life of Alexander Hamilton, by his Son_, J.
C. Hamilton, going only to 1787 (New York, 2 vols., 1834-1840), was
superseded by the same author's valuable, but partisan and uncritical
_History of the Republic ... as traced in the Writings of Alexander
Hamilton_ (New York, 7 vols., 1857-1864; 4th ed., Boston, 1879).
Professor W. G. Sumner's _Alexander Hamilton_ (Makers of America
series, New York, 1890) is appreciative, and important for its
criticism from the point of view of an American free-trader; see also,
on Hamilton's finance and economic views, Prof. C. F. Dunbar,
_Quarterly Journal of Economics_, iii. (1889), p. 32; E. G. Bourne in
ibid. x. (1894), p. 328; E. C. Lunt in _Journal of Political Economy_,
iii. (1895), p. 289. Among modern studies must also be mentioned J. T.
Morse's able _Life_ (1876); H. C. Lodge's (in the American Statesmen
series, 1882); and G. Shea's two books, his _Historical Study_ (1877)
and _Life and Epoch_ (1879). C. J. Riethmuller's _Hamilton and his
Contemporaries_ (1864), written during the Civil War, is sympathetic,
but rather speculative. The most vivid account of Hamilton is in Mrs
Gertrude Atherton's historical romance, _The Conqueror_ (New York,
1902), for the writing of which the author made new investigations
into the biographical details, and elucidated some points previously
obscure; see also her _A Few of Hamilton's Letters_ (1903). F. S.
Oliver's brilliant _Alexander Hamilton: An Essay on American Union_
(London, 1906), which uses its subject to illustrate the necessity of
British imperial federation, is strongly anti-Jeffersonian, but no
other work by a non-American author brings out so well the wider
issues involved in Hamilton's economic policy. (F. S. P.; H. Ch.)