Chapter D: SOUTH CAPPADOCIA.--Karaburna; long, incised rock-inscription (2)

His son, EBENEZER ROCKWOOD HOAR (1816-1895), was born at Concord, Massachusetts, on the 21st of February 1816. He graduated at Harvard in 1835 and at the Harvard Law School in 1839, and was admitted to the Massachusetts bar in 1840. From 1849 to 1855 he was a judge of the Massachusetts court of common pleas, from 1859 to 1869 a judge of the state supreme court, and in 1869-1870 attorney-general of the United States in the cabinet of President Grant, and in that position fought unmerited "machine" appointments to offices in the civil service until at the pressure of the "machine" Grant asked for his resignation from the cabinet. The Senate had already shown its disapproval of Hoar's policy of civil service reform by its failure in 1870 to confirm the President's nomination of Hoar as associate-justice of the supreme court. In 1871 he was a member of the Joint High Commission which drew up the Treaty of Washington. In 1872 he was a presidential elector on the Republican ticket, and in 1873-1875 was a representative in Congress. He was a member of the Board of Overseers of Harvard University from 1868 to 1880 and from 1881 to 1887, and was president of the Board in 1878-1880 and in 1881-1887. He was also prominent in the affairs of the Unitarian church. He was a man of high character and brilliant wit. He died at Concord on the 31st of January 1895.

Another son, GEORGE FRISBIE HOAR (1826-1904), was born in Concord, Massachusetts, on the 29th of August 1826. He graduated at Harvard in 1846 and at the Harvard Law School in 1849. He settled in the practice of law in Worcester, Massachusetts, where in 1852 he became a partner of Emory Washburn (1800-1877). In 1852 he was elected as a Free-Soiler to the Massachusetts House of Representatives, and during his single term of service became the leader of his party in that body. He was active in the organization of the Republican party in Massachusetts, and in 1857 was elected to the State senate, but declined a re-election. During 1856-1857 he was active in behalf of the Free-State cause in Kansas. He was a member of the National House of Representatives from 1869 until 1877, and in this body took high rank as a ready debater and a conscientious committee worker. He was prominent as a defender and supporter of the Freedman's Bureau, took a leading part in the later reconstruction legislation and in the investigation of the Credit Mobilier scandal, and in 1876 was one of the House managers of the impeachment of General W. W. Belknap, Grant's secretary of war. In 1877 he was a member of the Electoral Commission which settled the disputed Hayes-Tilden election. From 1877 until his death he was a member of the United States senate. In the senate almost from the start he took rank as one of the most influential leaders of the Republican party; he was a member from 1882 until his death of the important Judiciary Committee, of which he was chairman in 1891-1893 and in 1895-1904. His most important piece of legislation was the Presidential Succession Act of 1886. He was a delegate to every Republican National Convention from 1876 to 1904, and presided over that at Chicago in 1880. He was a conservative by birth and training, and although he did not leave his party he disagreed with its policy in regard to the Philippines, and spoke and voted against the ratification of the Spanish Treaty. He was regent of the Smithsonian Institution in 1880-1881, and long served as an overseer of Harvard University (1896-1904) and as president of its alumni association. He was also president of the American Historical Association (1894-1895) and of the American Antiquarian Society (1884-1887). Like his brother, he was a leading Unitarian, and was president of its National Conference from 1894 to 1902. He died at Worcester, Massachusetts, on the 30th of September 1904. A memorial statue has been erected there.

See his _Recollections of Seventy Years_ (New York, 1903).

HOARE, SIR RICHARD COLT, BART. (1758-1838), English antiquary, was the eldest son of Richard Hoare, who was created a baronet in 1786, and was born on the 9th of December 1758. He was descended from Sir Richard Hoare (1648-1718), lord mayor of London, the founder of the family banking business. An ample allowance from his grandfather, Henry Hoare, enabled him to pursue the archaeological studies for which he had already shown an inclination. In 1783 he married Hester, daughter of William Henry, Lord Lyttelton, and after her death in 1785 he paid a prolonged visit to France, Italy and Switzerland. He succeeded to the baronetcy in 1787, and in 1788 made a second continental tour, the record of his travels appearing in 1819 under the title _A Classical Tour through Italy and Sicily_. A journey through Wales was followed by a translation of the _Itinerarium Cambriae_ and of the _Descriptio Cambriae of_ Giraldus Cambrensis, Hoare adding notes and a life of Giraldus to the translation. This was first published in 1804, and has been revised by T. Wright (London, 1863). Sir Richard died at Stourhead, Wiltshire, on the 19th of May 1838, being succeeded in the baronetcy by his half-brother, Henry Hugh Hoare. Hoare's most important work was his _Ancient History of North and South Wiltshire_ (1812-1819); he also did some work on the large _History of Modern Wiltshire_ (1822-1844).

For notices of him and a list of his works, many of which were printed
privately, see the _Gentleman's Magazine_ for July 1838, and the
_Dict. Nat. Biog._ vol. xxvii. (1891). See also E. Hoare, _History of
the Hoare Family_ (1883).

HOBART, GARRET AUGUSTUS (1844-1899), Vice-President of the United States 1897-1899, was born at Long Branch, N.J., on the 3rd of June 1844. He graduated at Rutgers College in 1863, was admitted to the bar in 1869, practised law at Paterson, N.J., and rose to prominence in the State. He was long conspicuous in the State Republican organization, was chairman of the New Jersey State Republican Committee from 1880 to 1890, became a member in 1884 of the Republican National Committee, and was the delegate-at-large from New Jersey to five successive Republican national nominating conventions. He served in the New Jersey Assembly in 1873-1874, and in the New Jersey Senate in 1877-1882, and was speaker of the Assembly in 1874 and president of the Senate in 1881 and 1882. He was also prominent and successful in business and accumulated a large fortune. He accepted the nomination as Vice-President in 1896, on the ticket with President McKinley, and was elected; but while still in office he died at Paterson, N.J., on the 21st of November 1899.

See the _Life_ (New York, 1910) by David Magie.

HOBART, JOHN HENRY (1775-1830), American Protestant Episcopal bishop, was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the 14th of September 1775, being fifth in direct descent from Edmund Hobart, a founder of Hingham, Massachusetts. He was educated at the Philadelphia Latin School, the College of Philadelphia (now the University of Pennsylvania), and Princeton, where he graduated in 1793. After studying theology under Bishop William White at Philadelphia, he was ordained deacon in 1798, and priest two years later. He was elected assistant bishop of New York, with the right of succession, in 1811, and was acting diocesan from that date because of the ill-health of Bishop Benjamin Moore, whom he formally succeeded on the latter's death in February 1816. He was one of the founders of the General Theological Seminary, became its professor of pastoral theology in 1821, and as bishop was its governor. In his zeal for the historic episcopacy he published in 1807 _An Apology for Apostolic Order and its Advocates_, a series of letters to Rev. John M. Mason, who, in _The Christian's Magazine_, of which he was editor, had attacked the Episcopacy in general and in particular Hobart's _Collection of Essays on the Subject of Episcopacy_ (1806). Hobart's zeal for the General Seminary and the General Convention led him to oppose the plan of Philander Chase, bishop of Ohio, for an Episcopal seminary in that diocese; but the Ohio seminary was made directly responsible to the House of Bishops, and Hobart approved the plan. His strong opposition to "dissenting churches" was nowhere so clearly shown as in a pamphlet published in 1816 to dissuade all Episcopalians from joining the American Bible Society, which he thought the Protestant Episcopal Church had not the numerical or the financial strength to control. In 1818, to counterbalance the influence of the Bible Society and especially of Scott's _Commentaries_, he began to edit with selected notes the _Family Bible_ of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. He delivered episcopal charges to the clergy of Connecticut and New York entitled _The Churchman_ (1819) and _The High Churchman Vindicated_ (1826), in which he accepted the name "high churchman," and stated and explained his principles "in distinction from the corruptions of the Church of Rome and from the Errors of Certain Protestant Sects." He exerted himself greatly in building up his diocese, attempting to make an annual visit to every parish. His failing health led him to visit Europe in 1823-1825. Upon his return he preached a characteristic sermon entitled _The United States of America compared with some European Countries, particularly England_ (published 1826), in which, although there was some praise for the English church, he so boldly criticized the establishment, state patronage, cabinet appointment of bishops, lax discipline, and the low requirements of theological education, as to rouse much hostility in England, where he had been highly praised for two volumes of _Sermons on the Principal Events and Truths of Redemption_ (1824). He died at Auburn, New York, on the 12th of September 1830. He was able, impetuous, frank, perfectly fearless in controversy, a speaker and preacher of much eloquence, a supporter of missions to the Oneida Indians in his diocese, and the compiler of the following devotional works: _A Companion for the Altar_ (1804), _Festivals and Fasts_ (1804), _A Companion to the Book of Common Prayer_ (1805), and _A Clergyman's Companion_ (1805).

See _Memorial of Bishop Hobart_, containing a _Memoir_ (New York,
1831); John McVickar, _The Early Life and Professional Years of Bishop
Hobart_ (New York, 1834), and _The Closing Years of Bishop Hobart_
(New York, 1836).

HOBART PASHA, AUGUSTUS CHARLES HOBART-HAMPDEN (1822-1886), English naval captain and Turkish admiral, was born in Leicestershire on the 1st of April 1822, being the third son of the 6th Earl of Buckinghamshire. In 1835 he entered the Royal Navy and served as a midshipman on the coast of Brazil in the suppression of the slave trade, displaying much gallantry in the operations. In 1855 he took part, as captain of the "Driver," in the Baltic Expedition, and was actively engaged at Bomarsund and Abo. In 1862 he retired from the navy with the rank of post-captain; but his love of adventure led him, during the American Civil War, to take the command of a blockade-runner. He had the good fortune to run the blockade eighteen times, conveying war material to Charleston and returning with a cargo of cotton. In 1867 Hobart entered the Turkish service, and was immediately nominated to the command of that fleet, with the rank of "Bahrie Limassi" (rear-admiral). In this capacity he performed splendid service in helping to suppress the insurrection in Crete, and was rewarded by the Sultan with the title of Pasha (1869). In 1874 Hobart, whose name had, on representations made by Greece, been removed from the British Navy List, was reinstated; his restoration did not, however, last long, for on the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish war he again entered Turkish service. In command of the Turkish squadron he completely dominated the Black Sea, blockading the ports of South Russia and the mouths of the Danube, and paralysing the action of the Russian fleet. On the conclusion of peace Hobart still remained in the Turkish service, and in 1881 was appointed Mushir, or marshal, being the first Christian to hold that high office. His achievements as a blockade-runner, his blockade of Crete, and his handling of the Turkish fleet against the torpedo-lined coasts of Russia, showed him to be a daring, resourceful, and skilful commander, worthy to be ranked among the illustrious names of British naval heroes. He died at Milan on the 19th of June 1886.

See his _Sketches of My Life_ (1886), which must, however, be used
with caution, since it contains many proved inaccuracies.

HOBART, the capital of Tasmania, in the county of Buckingham, on the southern coast of the island. It occupies a site of great beauty, standing on a series of low hills at the foot of Mount Wellington, a lofty peak (4166 ft.) which is snow-clad for many months in the year. The town fronts Sullivan's Cove, a picturesque bay opening into the estuary of the river Derwent, and is nearly square in form, laid out with wide streets intersecting at right angles, the chief of which are served by electric tramways. It is the seat of the Anglican bishop of Tasmania, and of the Roman Catholic archbishop of Hobart. The Anglican cathedral of St David dates from 1873, though its foundations were laid as early as 1817. St Mary's Roman Catholic cathedral is a beautiful building; but perhaps the most notable ecclesiastical building in Hobart is the great Baptist tabernacle in Upper Elizabeth Street. The most prominent public buildings are the Houses of Parliament, to which an excellent library is attached; the town hall, a beautiful building of brown and white Tasmanian freestone in Italian style; the museum and national art gallery, and the general post office (1904) with its lofty clock-tower. Government House, the residence of the governor of Tasmania, a handsome castellated building, stands in its domain on the banks of the Derwent, to the north of the town. The botanical gardens adjoin. Of the parks and public gardens, the most extensive is the Queen's Domain, covering an area of about 700 acres, while the most central is Franklin Square, adorned with a statue of Sir John Franklin, the famous Arctic explorer, who was governor of Tasmania from 1837 to 1843. The university of Tasmania, established in 1890, and opened in 1893, has its headquarters at Hobart. The town is celebrated for its invigorating climate, and its annual regatta on the Derwent attracts numerous visitors. The harbour is easy of access, well sheltered and deep, with wharf accommodation for vessels of the largest tonnage. It is a regular port of call for several intercolonial lines from Sydney and Melbourne, and for lines from London to New Zealand. The exports, of an average value of L850,000 annually, consist mainly of fruit, hops, grain, timber and wool. The industries comprise brewing, saw-milling, iron-founding, flour-milling, tanning, and the manufacture of pottery and woollen goods. Hobart is the centre of a large fruit-growing district, the produce of which, for the most part, is exported to London and Sydney. The city was founded in 1804 and takes its name from Lord Hobart (see BUCKINGHAMSHIRE, EARLS OF), then secretary of state for the colonies. It was created a municipality in 1853, and a city in 1857; and in 1881 its name was changed from Hobart Town to the present form. The chief suburbs are Newton, Sandy Bay, Wellington, Risdon, Glenorchy, Bellerive and Beltana. The population of the city proper in 1901 was 24,652, or including suburbs, 34,182.

HOBBEMA, MEYNDERT (c. 1638-1709), the greatest landscape painter of the Dutch school after Ruysdael, lived at Amsterdam in the second half of the 17th century. The facts of his life are somewhat obscure. Nothing is more disappointing than to find that in Hobbema's case chronology and signed pictures substantially contradict each other. According to the latter his practice lasted from 1650 to 1689; according to the former his birth occurred in 1638, his death as late as 1709. If the masterpiece formerly in the Bredel collection, called "A Wooded Stream," honestly bears the date of 1650, or "The Cottages under Trees" of the Ford collection the date of 1652, the painter of these canvases cannot be Hobbema, whose birth took place in 1638, unless indeed we admit that Hobbema painted some of his finest works at the age of twelve or fourteen. For a considerable period it was profitable to pass Hobbemas as Ruysdaels, and the name of the lesser master was probably erased from several of his productions. When Hobbema's talent was recognized, the contrary process was followed, and in this way the name, and perhaps fictitious dates, reappeared by fraud. An experienced eye will note the differences which occur in Hobbema's signatures in such well-known examples as adorn the galleries of London and Rotterdam, or the Grosvenor and van der Hoop collections. Meanwhile, we must be content to know that, if the question of dates could be brought into accordance with records and chronology, the facts of Hobbema's life would be as follows.

Meyndert Hobbema was married at the age of thirty to Eeltije Vinck of Gorcum, in the Oudekerk or old church at Amsterdam, on the 2nd of November 1668. Witnesses to the marriage were the bride's brother Cornelius Vinck and Jacob Ruysdael. We might suppose from this that Hobbema and Ruysdael, the two great masters of landscape, were united at this time by ties of friendship, and accept the belief that the former was the pupil of the latter. Yet even this is denied to us, since records tell us that there were two Jacob Ruysdaels, cousins and contemporaries, at Amsterdam in the middle of the 17th century--one a framemaker, the son of Solomon, the other a painter, the son of Isaac Ruysdael. Of Hobbema's marriage there came between 1668 and 1673 four children. In 1704 Eeltije died, and was buried in the pauper section of the Leiden cemetery at Amsterdam. Hobbema himself survived till December 1709, receiving burial on the 14th of that month in the pauper section of the Westerkerk cemetery at Amsterdam. Husband and wife had lived during their lifetime in the Rozengracht, at no great distance from Rembrandt, who also dwelt there in his later and impoverished days. Rembrandt, Hals, Jacob Ruysdael, and Hobbema were in one respect alike. They all died in misery, insufficiently rewarded perhaps for their toil, imprudent perhaps in the use of the means derived from their labours. Posterity has recognized that Hobbema and Ruysdael together represent the final development of landscape art in Holland. Their style is so related that we cannot suppose the first to have been unconnected with the second. Still their works differ in certain ways, and their character is generally so marked that we shall find little difficulty in distinguishing them, nor indeed shall we hesitate in separating those of Hobbema from the feebler productions of his imitators and predecessors--Isaac Ruysdael, Rontbouts, de Vries, Dekker, Looten, Verboom, du Bois, van Kessel, van der Hagen, even Philip de Koningk. In the exercise of his craft Hobbema was patient beyond all conception. It is doubtful whether any one ever so completely mastered as he did the still life of woods and hedges, or mills and pools. Nor can we believe that he obtained this mastery otherwise than by constantly dwelling in the same neighbourhood, say in Guelders or on the Dutch Westphalian border, where day after day he might study the branching and foliage of trees and underwood embowering cottages and mills, under every variety of light, in every shade of transparency, in all changes produced by the seasons. Though his landscapes are severely and moderately toned, generally in an olive key, and often attuned to a puritanical grey or russet, they surprise us, not only by the variety of their leafage, but by the finish of their detail as well as the boldness of their touch. With astonishing subtlety light is shown penetrating cloud, and illuminating, sometimes transiently, sometimes steadily, different portions of the ground, shining through leaves upon other leaves, and multiplying in an endless way the transparency of the picture. If the chance be given him he mirrors all these things in the still pool near a cottage, the reaches of a sluggish river, or the swirl of the stream that feeds a busy mill. The same spot will furnish him with several pictures. One mill gives him repeated opportunities of charming our eye; and this wonderful artist, who is only second to Ruysdael because he had not Ruysdael's versatility and did not extend his study equally to downs and rocky eminences, or torrents and estuaries--this is the man who lived penuriously, died poor, and left no trace in the artistic annals of his country! It has been said that Hobbema did not paint his own figures, but transferred that duty to Adrian van de Velde, Lingelbach, Barendt Gael, and Abraham Storck. As to this much is conjecture.

The best of Hobbema's dated pictures are those of the years 1663 to
1667. Of the former, several in the galleries of Brussels and St
Petersburg, and one in the Holford collection, are celebrated. Of 1665
fine specimens are at Grosvenor House and the Wallace collection. Of
seven pieces in the National Gallery, including the "Avenue at
Middelharnis," which some assign to 1689, and the "Ruins of Breberode
Castle," two are dated 1667. A sample of the last of these years is
also in the Fitzwilliam Museum at Cambridge. Amongst the masterpieces
in private hands in England may be noticed two landscapes in
Buckingham Palace, two at Bridgewater House, and one belonging to Mr
Walter of Bearwood. On the continent are a "Wooded Landscape" in the
Berlin gallery, a "Forest" belonging to the duchess of Sagan in Paris,
and a "Glade" in the Louvre. There are other fine Hobbemas in the
Antwerp Museum, the Arenberg gallery at Brussels, and the Belvedere at
Vienna. (J. A. C.)

HOBBES, THOMAS (1588-1679), English philosopher, second son of Thomas Hobbes, was born at Westport (now part of Malmesbury, Wiltshire) on the 5th of April 1588. His father, vicar of Charlton and Westport, an illiterate and choleric man, quarrelled, it is said, with a brother clergyman at the church door, and was forced to decamp, leaving his three children to the care of an elder brother Francis, a flourishing glover at Malmesbury. Thomas Hobbes was put to school at Westport church at the age of four, passed to the Malmesbury school at eight, and was taught again in Westport later at a private school kept by a young man named Robert Latimer, fresh from Oxford and "a good Grecian." He had begun Latin and Greek early, and under Latimer made such progress as to be able to translate the _Medea_ of Euripides into Latin iambic verse before he was fourteen. About the age of fifteen he was sent to Oxford and entered at Magdalen Hall. During his residence, the first principal of Magdalen Hall, John Hussee, was succeeded by John Wilkinson, who ruled in the interest of the Calvinistic party in the university. Thus early was he brought into contact with the aggressive Puritan spirit. Apart from this, Hobbes owed little to his university training, which was based on the scholastic logic then prevalent. We have from himself a lively record of his student life (_Vit. carm. exp._ p. lxxxv.), which, though penned in extreme old age, may be taken as trustworthy. He tells how, when he had slowly taken in the doctrine of logical figures and moods, he put it aside and would prove things only in his own way; how he then heard about bodies as consisting of matter and form, as throwing off species of themselves for perception, and as moved by sympathies and antipathies, with much else of a like sort, all beyond his comprehension; and how he therefore turned to his old books again, fed his mind on maps and charts of earth and sky, traced the sun in his path, followed Drake and Cavendish girdling the main, and gazed with delight upon pictured haunts of men and wonders of unknown lands. Very characteristic is the interest in men and things, and the disposition to cut through questions in the schools after a trenchant fashion of his own. He was little attracted by the scholastic learning, though it would be wrong to take his words as evidence of a precocious insight into its weakness. The truth probably is that he took no interest in studies which there was no risk in neglecting, and thought as little of rejecting as of accepting the traditional doctrines. He adds that he took his degree at the proper time; but in fact, upon any computation and from whatever cause, he remained at Magdalen Hall five, instead of the required four, years, not being admitted as bachelor till the 5th of February 1608.

Translation of Thucydides.

In the same year Hobbes was recommended by Wilkinson as tutor to the son of William Cavendish, baron of Hardwick (afterwards 2nd earl of Devonshire), and thus began a lifelong connexion with a great and powerful family. Twice it was loosened--once, for a short time, after twenty years, and again, for a longer period, during the Civil War--but it never was broken. Hobbes spoke of the first years of his tutorship as the happiest of his life. Young Cavendish was hardly younger than Hobbes, and had been married, a few months before, at the instance of the king, to Christiana, the only daughter of Edward, Lord Bruce of Kinloss, though by reason of the bride's age, which was only twelve years, the pair had no establishment for some time. Hobbes was his companion rather than tutor (before becoming secretary); and, growing greatly attached to each other, they were sent abroad together on the grand tour in 1610. During this journey, the duration of which cannot be precisely stated, Hobbes acquired some knowledge of French and Italian, and also made the important discovery that the scholastic philosophy which he had learned in Oxford was almost universally neglected in favour of the scientific and critical methods of Galileo, Kepler and Montaigne. Unable at first to cope with their unfamiliar ideas, he determined to become a scholar, and until 1628 was engaged in a careful study of Greek and Latin authors, the outcome of which was his great translation of Thucydides. But when he had finished his work he kept it lying by him for years, being no longer so sure of finding appreciative readers; and when he did send it forth, in 1628, he was fain to be content with "the few and better sort."[1] That he was finally determined to publication by the political troubles of the year 1628 may be regarded as certain, not only from his own express declaration at a later time (_Vit. carm. exp._), but also from unmistakable hints in the account of the life and work of his author prefixed to the translation on its appearance. This was the year of the Petition of Right, extorted from the king in the third parliament he had tried within three years of his accession; and, in view of Hobbes's later activity, it is significant that he came forward just then, at the mature age of forty, with his version of the story of the Athenian democracy as the first production of his pen. Nothing else is known of his doings before 1628, except that through his connexion with young Cavendish he had relations with literary men of note like Ben Jonson, and also with Bacon and Lord Herbert of Cherbury. If he never had any sympathy with Herbert's intuitionalist principles in philosophy, he was no less eager, as he afterwards showed, than Herbert to rationalize in matters of religious doctrine, so that he may be called the second of the English deists, as Herbert has been called the first. With Bacon he was so intimate (Aubrey's _Lives_, pp. 222, 602) that some writers have described him as a disciple. The facts that he used to walk with Bacon at Gorhambury, and would jot down with exceptional intelligence the eager thinker's sudden "notions," and that he was employed to make the Latin version of some of the _Essays_, prove nothing when weighed against his own disregard of all Bacon's principles, and the other evidence that the impulse to independent thinking came to him not from Bacon, and not till some time after Bacon's death in 1626.[2]

Philosophic Inquiry.

So far as we have any positive evidence, it was not before the year 1629 that Hobbes entered on philosophical inquiry. Meanwhile a great change had been wrought in his circumstances. His friend and master, after about two years' tenure of the earldom of Devonshire, died of the plague in June 1628, and the affairs of the family were so disordered financially that the widowed countess was left with the task of righting them in the boyhood of the third earl. Hobbes went on for a time living in the household; but his services were no longer in demand, and, remaining inconsolable under his personal bereavement, he sought distraction, in 1629, in another engagement which took him abroad as tutor to the son of Sir Gervase Clifton, of an old Nottinghamshire family. This, his second, sojourn abroad appears to have been spent chiefly in Paris, and the one important fact recorded of it is that he then first began to look into Euclid. The engagement came to an end in 1631, when he was recalled to train the young earl of Devonshire, now thirteen years old, son of his previous pupil. In the course of the next seven years in Derbyshire and abroad, Hobbes took his pupil over rhetoric,[3] logic, astronomy, and the principles of law, with other subjects. His mind was now full of the thought of motion in nature, and on the continent he sought out the philosophical speculators or scientific workers. In Florence in 1636 he saw Galileo, for whom he ever retained the warmest admiration, and spent eight months in daily converse with the members of a scientific circle in Paris, held together by Marin Mersenne (q.v.). From that time (the winter of 1636-1637) he too, as he tells us, was numbered among philosophers.

His introduction to Euclid took place accidentally in 1629 (Aubrey's
_Lives_, p. 604). Euclid's manner of proof became the model for his
own way of thinking upon all subjects. It is less easy to determine
when he awoke to an interest in the physical doctrine of motion. The
story told by himself (_Vit._ p. xx.) is that, hearing the question
asked "What is sense?" he fell to thinking often on the subject, till
it suddenly occurred to him that if bodies and their internal parts
were at rest, or were always in the same state of motion, there could
be no distinction of anything, and consequently no sense; the cause of
all things must therefore be sought in diversity of movements.
Starting from this principle he was driven to geometry for insight
into the ground and modes of motion. The biographies we possess do not
tell us where or when this great change of interest occurred. Nothing
is said, however, which contradicts a statement that on his third
journey in Europe he began to study the doctrine of motion more
seriously, being interested in it before; and as he claims more than
once (_L.W._ v. 303; _E.W._ vii. 468) to have explained light and
sound by a mechanical hypothesis as far back as 1630, the inspiration
may be assigned to the time of the second journey. But it was not till
the third journey that the new interest became an overpowering
passion, and the "philosopher" was on his way home before he had
advanced so far as to conceive the scheme of a system of thought to
the elaboration of which his life should henceforth be devoted.

Hobbes was able to carry out his plan in some twenty years or more
from the time of its conception, but the execution was so broken in
upon by political events, and so complicated with other labours, that
its stages can hardly be followed without some previous understanding
of the relations of the parts of the scheme, as there is reason to
believe they were sketched out from the beginning. His scheme was
first to work out, in a separate treatise _De corpore_, a systematic
doctrine of Body, showing how physical phenomena were universally
explicable in terms of motion, as motion or mechanical action was then
(through Galileo and others) understood--the theory of motion being
applied in the light of mathematical science, after quantity, the
subject-matter of mathematics, had been duly considered in its place
among the fundamental conceptions of philosophy, and a clear
indication had been given, at first starting, of the logical ground
and method of all philosophical inquiry. He would then single out Man
from the realm of nature, and, in a treatise _De homine_, show what
specific bodily motions were involved in the production of the
peculiar phenomena of sensation and knowledge, as also of the
affections and passions thence resulting, whereby man came into
relation with man. Finally he would consider, in a crowning treatise
_De cive_, how men, being naturally rivals or foes, were moved to
enter into the better relation of Society, and demonstrate how this
grand product of human wit must be regulated if men were not to fall
back into brutishness and misery. Thus he proposed to unite in one
coherent whole the separate phenomena of Body, Man and the State.

Hobbes came home, in 1637, to a country seething with discontent. The reign of "Thorough" was collapsing, and the forces pent up since 1629 were soon to rend the fabric of the state. By these events Hobbes was distracted from the orderly execution of his philosophic plan. The Short Parliament, as he tells us at a later time (_E.W._ iv. 414), was not dissolved before he had ready "a little treatise in English," in which he sought to prove that the points of the royal prerogative which the members were determined to dispute before granting supplies "were inseparably annexed to the sovereignty which they did not then deny to be in the king." Now it can be proved that at this time he had written not only his _Human Nature_ but also his _De corpore politico_, the two treatises (though published separately ten years later) having been composed as parts of one work;[4] and there cannot be the least question that together they make "the little treatise" just mentioned. We are therefore to understand, first, that he wrote the earliest draft of his political theory some years before the outbreak of the Civil War, and, secondly, that this earliest draft was not written till, in accordance with his philosophical conception, he had established the grounds of polity in human nature. The first point is to be noted, because it has often been supposed that Hobbes's political doctrine took its peculiar complexion from his revulsion against the state of anarchy before his eyes, as he wrote during the progress of the Civil War. The second point must be maintained against his own implied, if not express, statement some years later, when publishing his _De cive_ (_L.W._ ii. 151), that he wrote this third part of his system before he had been able to set down any finished representation of the fundamental doctrines which it presupposed. In the beginning of 1640, therefore, he had written out his doctrine of Man at least, with almost as much elaboration as it ever received from him.

In Paris.

In November 1640 the Long Parliament succeeded to the Short, and sent Laud and Strafford to the Tower, and Hobbes, who had become, or thought he had become, a marked man by the circulation of his treatise (of which, "though not printed, many gentlemen had copies"), hastened to Paris, "the first of all that fled." He was now for the fourth and last time abroad, and did not return for eleven years. Apparently he remained the greater part of the time in or about Paris. He was welcomed back into the scientific coterie about Mersenne, and forthwith had the task assigned him of criticizing the _Meditations_ of Descartes, which had been sent from Holland, before publication, to Mersenne with the author's request for criticism from the most different points of view. Hobbes was soon ready with the remarks that were printed as "Third" among the six (later seven) sets of "Objections" appended, with "Replies" from Descartes, to the _Meditations_, when published shortly afterwards in 1641 (reprinted in _L.W._ v. 249-274). About the same time also Mersenne sent to Descartes, as if they came from a friend in England, another set of objections which Hobbes had to offer on various points in the scientific treatises, especially the _Dioptrics_, appended by Descartes to his _Discourse on Method_ in 1637; to which Descartes replied without suspecting the common authorship of the two sets. The result was to keep the two thinkers apart rather than bring them together. Hobbes was more eager to bring forward his own philosophical and physical ideas than careful to enter into the full meaning of another's thought; and Descartes was too jealous, and too confident in his conclusions to bear with this kind of criticism. He was very curt in his replies to Hobbes's philosophical objections, and broke off all correspondence on the physical questions, writing privately to Mersenne that he had grave doubts of the Englishman's good faith in drawing him into controversy (_L.W._ v. 277-307).

Meanwhile Hobbes had his thoughts too full of the political theory which the events of the last years had ripened within him to settle, even in Paris, to the orderly composition of his works. Though connected in his own mind with his view of human nature and of nature generally, the political theory, as he always declared, could stand by itself. Also, while he may have hoped at this time to be able to add much (though he never did) to the sketch of his doctrine of Man contained in the unpublished "little treatise," he might extend, but could hardly otherwise modify, the sketch he had there given of his carefully articulated theory of Body Politic. Possibly, indeed, before that sketch was written early in 1640, he may, under pressure of the political excitement, have advanced no small way in the actual composition of the treatise _De Cive_, the third section of his projected system. In any case, it was upon this section, before the others, that he set to work in Paris; and before the end of 1641 the book, as we know from the date of the dedication (November 1), was finished. Though it was forthwith printed in the course of the year 1642, he was content to circulate a limited number of copies privately[5]; and when he found his work received with applause (it was praised even by Descartes), he seems to have taken this recognition of his philosophical achievement as an additional reason for deferring publication till the earlier works of the system were completed. Accordingly, for the next three or four years, he remained steadily at work, and nothing appeared from him in public except a short treatise on optics (_Tractatus opticus, L.W._ v. 217-248) included in the collection of scientific tracts published by Mersenne under the title _Cogitata physico-mathematica_ in 1644, and a highly compressed statement of his psychological application of the doctrine of motion (_L.W._ v. 309-318), incorporated with Mersenne's _Ballistica_, published in the same year. Thus or otherwise he had become sufficiently known by 1645 to be chosen as a referee, with Descartes, Roberval and others, in the famous controversy between John Pell (q.v.) and the Dane Longomontanus (q.v.) over that problem of the squaring of the circle which was seen later on to have such a fatal charm for himself. But though about this time he had got ready all or most of the materials for his fundamental work on Body, not even now was he able to make way with its composition, and when he returned to it after a number of years, he returned a different man.

Leviathan.

The Civil War had broken out in 1642, and the royalist cause began to decline from the time of the defeat at Marston Moor, in the middle of 1644. Then commenced an exodus of the king's friends. Newcastle himself, who was a cousin of Hobbes's late patron and to whom he dedicated the "little treatise" of 1640, found his way to Paris, and was followed by a stream of fugitives, many of whom were known to Hobbes. The sight of these exiles made the political interest once more predominant in Hobbes, and before long the revived feeling issued in the formation of a new and important design. It first showed itself in the publication of the _De cive_, of which the fame, but only the fame, had extended beyond the inner circle of friends and critics who had copies of the original impression. Hobbes now entrusted it, early in 1646, to his admirer, the Frenchman Samuel de Sorbiere, by whom it was seen through the Elzevir press at Amsterdam in 1647--having previously inserted a number of notes in reply to objections, and also a striking preface, in the course of which he explained its relation to the other parts of the system not yet forthcoming, and the (political) occasion of its having been composed and being now published before them.[6] So hopeless, meanwhile, was he growing of being able to return home that, later on in the year, he was on the point of leaving Paris to take up his abode in the south with a French friend,[7] when he was engaged "by the month" as mathematical instructor to the young prince of Wales, who had come over from Jersey about the month of July. This engagement lasted nominally from 1646 to 1648 when Charles went to Holland. Thus thrown more than ever into the company of the exiled royalists, it was then, if not earlier, that he conceived his new design of bringing all his powers of thought and expression to bear upon the production of an English book that should set forth his whole theory of civil government in relation to the political crisis resulting from the war. The _De cive_, presently to be published, was written in Latin for the learned, and gave the political theory without its foundation in human nature. The unpublished treatise of 1640 contained all or nearly all that he had to tell concerning human nature, but was written before the terrible events of the last years had disclosed how men might still be urged by their anti-social passions back into the abyss of anarchy. There was need of an exposition at once comprehensive, incisive and popular. The State, it now seemed to Hobbes, might be regarded as a great artificial man or monster (_Leviathan_), composed of men, with a life that might be traced from its generation through human reason under pressure of human needs to its dissolution through civil strife proceeding from human passions. This, we may suppose, was the presiding conception from the first, but the design may have been variously modified in the three or four years of its execution. Before the end, in 1650-1651, it is plain that he wrote in direct reference to the greatly changed aspect of affairs in England. The king being dead, and the royalist cause appearing to be hopelessly lost, he did not scruple, in closing the work with a general "Review and Conclusion," to raise the question of the subject's right to change allegiance when a former sovereign's power to protect was irrecoverably gone. Also he took advantage of the rule of the Commonwealth to indulge much more freely than he might have otherwise dared in rationalistic criticism of religious doctrines; while, amid the turmoil of sects, he could the more forcibly urge that the preservation of social order, when again firmly restored, must depend on the assumption by the civil power of the right to wield all sanctions, supernatural as well as natural, against the pretensions of any clergy, Catholic, Anglican or Presbyterian, to the exercise of an _imperium in imperio_.

We know the _Leviathan_ only as it finally emerged from Hobbes's pen. During the years of its composition he remained in or near Paris, at first in attendance on his royal pupil, with whom he became a great favourite. In 1647 Hobbes was overtaken by a serious illness which disabled him for six months. Mersenne begged him not to die outside the Roman Catholic Church, but Hobbes said that he had already considered the matter sufficiently and afterwards took the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England. On recovering from this illness, which nearly proved fatal, he resumed his literary task, and carried it steadily forward to completion by the year 1650, having also within the same time translated into English, with characteristic force of expression, his Latin treatise. Otherwise the only thing known (from one or two letters) of his life in those years is that from the year 1648 he had begun to think of returning home; he was then sixty and might well be weary of exile. When 1650 came, as if to prepare the way for the reception of his _magnum opus_, he allowed the publication of his earliest treatise, divided into two separate small volumes (_Human Nature, or the Fundamental Elements of Policy, E.W._ iv. 1-76, and _De Corpore Politico, or the Elements of Law, Moral and Politic_, pp. 77-228).[8] In 1651[9] he published his translation of the De Cive under the title of _Philosophical Rudiments concerning Government and Society_ (_E.W._ ii.). Meanwhile the printing of the greater work was proceeding, and finally it appeared about the middle of the same year, 1651, under the title of _Leviathan, or the Matter, Form and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil_ (_E.W._ iii.), with a quaint frontispiece in which, from behind hills overlooking a fair landscape of town and country, there towered the body (above the waist) of a crowned giant, made up of tiny figures of human beings and bearing sword and crozier in the two hands. It appeared, and soon its author was more lauded and decried than any other thinker of his time; but the first effect of its publication was to sever his connexion with the exiled royalist party, and to throw him for protection on the revolutionary Government. No sooner did copies of the book reach Paris than he found himself shunned by his former associates, and though he was himself so little conscious of disloyalty that he was forward to present a manuscript copy "engrossed in vellum in a marvellous fair hand"[10] to the young king of the Scots (who, after the defeat at Worcester, escaped to Paris about the end of October), he was denied the royal presence when he sought it shortly afterwards. Straightway, then, he saw himself exposed to a double peril. The exiles had among them desperadoes who could slay; and, besides exciting the enmity of the Anglican clergy about the king, who bitterly resented the secularist spirit of his book, he had compromised himself with the French authorities by his elaborate attack on the papal system. In the circumstances, no resource was left him but secret flight. Travelling with what speed he could in the depths of a severe winter and under the effects of a recent (second) illness, he managed to reach London, where, sending in his submission to the council of state, he was allowed to subside into private life.

Return to London.

Controversy with Bramhall.

Though Hobbes came back, after his eleven years' absence, without having as yet publicly proved his title to rank with the natural philosophers of the age, he was sufficiently conscious of what he had been able to achieve in _Leviathan_; and it was in no humble mood that he now, at the age of sixty-four, turned to complete the fundamental treatise of his philosophical system. Neither those whom his masterpiece soon roused to enthusiasm, nor those whom it moved to indignation, were likely to be indifferent to anything he should now write, whether it lay near to or far from the region of practice. Taking up his abode in Fetter Lane, London, on his return, and continuing to reside there for the sake of intellectual society, even after renewing his old ties with the earl of Devonshire, who lived in the country till the Restoration,[11] he worked so steadily as to be printing the _De corpore_ in the year 1654. Circumstances (of which more presently), however, kept the book back till the following year, and meanwhile the readers of _Leviathan_ had a different excitement. In 1654 a small treatise, "Of Liberty and Necessity" (_E.W._ iv. 229-278), issued from the press, claiming to be an answer to a discourse on the same subject by Bishop Bramhall of Londonderry (afterwards archbishop of Armagh, d. 1663), addressed by Hobbes to the marquis of Newcastle.[12] It had grown out of an oral discussion between Hobbes and Bramhall in the marquis's presence at Paris in 1646. Bramhall, a strong Arminian, had afterwards written down his views and sent them to Newcastle to be answered in this form by Hobbes. Hobbes duly replied, but not for publication, because he thought the subject a delicate one. But it happened that Hobbes had allowed a French acquaintance to have a private translation of his reply made by a young Englishman, who secretly took a copy of the original for himself; and now it was this unnamed purloiner who, in 1654, when Hobbes had become famous and feared, gave it to the world of his own motion, with an extravagantly laudatory epistle to the reader in its front. Upon Hobbes himself the publication came as a surprise, but, after his plain speaking in _Leviathan_, there was nothing in the piece that he need scruple to have made known, and he seems to have condoned the act. On the other hand, Bramhall, supposing Hobbes privy to the publication, resented the manner of it, especially as no mention was made of his rejoinder. Accordingly, in 1655, he printed everything that had passed between them (under the title of _A Defence of the True Liberty of Human Actions from Antecedent or Extrinsic Necessity_), with loud complaint against the treatment he had received, and the promise added that, in default of others, he himself would stand forward to expose the deadly principles of _Leviathan_. About this time Hobbes had begun to be hard pressed by other foes, and, being never more sure of himself than upon the question of the will, he appears to have welcomed the opportunity thus given him of showing his strength. By 1656 he was ready with his _Questions concerning Liberty, Necessity and Chance_ (_E.W._ v.), in which he replied with astonishing force to the bishop's rejoinder point by point, besides explaining the occasion and circumstances of the whole debate, and reproducing (as Bramhall had done) all the pieces from the beginning. As perhaps the first clear exposition and defence of the _psychological_ doctrine of determinism, Hobbes's own two pieces must ever retain a classical importance in the history of the free-will controversy; while Bramhall's are still worth study as specimens of scholastic fence. The bishop, it should be added, returned to the charge in 1658 with ponderous _Castigations of Mr Hobbes's Animadversions_, and also made good his previous threat in a bulky appendix entitled _The Catching of Leviathan the Great Whale_. Hobbes never took any notice of the _Castigations_, but ten years later replied to the charges of atheism, &c., made in the non-political part of the appendix, of which he says he then heard for the first time (_E.W._ iv. 279-384). This _Answer_ was first published after Hobbes's death.[13]

Controversy with Wallis and Ward.