{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_39353/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_39353","id":"gutenberg_39353","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39353","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Encyclopedias/Dictionaries/Reference","Category: History - Other","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Encyclopedias and dictionaries"],"text":"Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's notes:\n\n(1) Numbers following letters (without space) like C2 were originally\n printed in subscript. Letter subscripts are preceded by an\n underscore, like C_n.\n\n(2) Characters following a carat (^) were printed in superscript.\n\n(3) Side-notes were relocated to function as titles of their respective\n paragraphs.\n\n(4) Macrons and breves above letters and dots below letters were not\n inserted.\n\n(5) [root] stands for the root symbol; [alpha], [beta], etc. for greek\n letters.\n\n(6) The following typographical errors have been corrected:\n\n ARTICLE HERO: \"... Arthur's foster-brother and seneschal, the type\n of the bluff and boastful warrior, and Bedivere (Bedwyr), ...\"\n 'seneschal' amended from 'sensechal'.\n\n ARTICLE HERWEGH, GEORG: \"He next studied law, but having gained the\n interest of August Lewald (1793-1871) by his literary ability, he\n returned to Stuttgart, where Lewald obtained for him a journalistic\n post.\" 'journalistic' amended from 'journalisitic'.\n\n ARTICLE HESSE-CASSEL: \"The regent, without his father's coarseness,\n had a full share of his arbitrary and avaricious temper.\"\n 'arbitrary' amended from 'arbitary'.\n\n ARTICLE HIEL, EMMANUEL: \"... Jakoba van Beieren ('Jacqueline of\n Bavaria,' a poetic drama, 1880); ...\" 'Jacqueline' amended from\n 'Jacquelein'.\n\n ARTICLE HILL, JOHN: \"Hill's botanical labours were undertaken at\n the request of his patron, Lord Bute, and he was rewarded by the\n order of Vasa from the king of Sweden in 1774.\" 'undertaken'\n amended from 'underaken'.\n\n ARTICLE HILLEL: \"The duty of considering oneself part of common\n humanity, of not differing from others by any peculiarity of\n behaviour, he sums up in the words:\" 'common' amended from\n 'comman'.\n\n ARTICLE HILLEL: \"The almost mystical profundity of Hillel's\n consciousness of God is shown in the words spoken by him on the\n occasion of a feast in the Temple ...\" 'consciousness' amended from\n 'conciousness'.\n\n ARTICLE HINDOSTANI: \"In the article Prakrit it is shown that the\n same construction is obtained in that language.\" added 'is'.\n\n\n\n\n ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA\n\n A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE\n AND GENERAL INFORMATION\n\n ELEVENTH EDITION\n\n\n VOLUME XIII, SLICE IV\n\n HERO to HINDU CHRONOLOGY\n\n\n\n\nARTICLES IN THIS SLICE:\n\n\n HERO HIAWATHA\n HERO AND LEANDER HIBBING\n HERO OF ALEXANDRIA HIBERNACULUM\n HERO (the Younger) HIBERNATION\n HEROD HIBERNIA\n HERODAS HICKERINGILL, EDMUND\n HERODIANS HICKES, GEORGE\n HERODIANUS HICKOK, LAURENS PERSEUS\n HERODIANUS, AELIUS HICKORY\n HERODOTUS HICKS, ELIAS\n HEROET, ANTOINE HICKS, HENRY\n HEROIC ROMANCES HICKS, WILLIAM\n HEROIC VERSE HIDALGO (state of Mexico)\n HEROLD, LOUIS JOSEPH FERDINAND HIDALGO (Spanish title)\n HERON HIDALGO Y COSTILLA, MIGUEL\n HERPES HIDDENITE\n HERRERA, FERNANDO DE HIDE\n HERRERA, FRANCISCO HIEL, EMMANUEL\n HERRERA Y TORDESILLAS, ANTONIO DE HIEMPSAL\n HERRICK, ROBERT HIERAPOLIS\n HERRIES, JOHN CHARLES HIERARCHY\n HERRIES, JOHN MAXWELL HIERATIC\n HERRING HIERAX\n HERRING-BONE HIERO\n HERRINGS, BATTLE OF THE HIERO II.\n HERRNHUT HIEROCLES\n HERSCHEL, CAROLINE LUCRETIA HIEROCLES OF ALEXANDRIA\n HERSCHEL, SIR FREDERICK WILLIAM HIEROGLYPHICS\n HERSCHEL, SIR JOHN WILLIAM HIERONYMITES\n HERSCHELL, FARRER HERSCHELL HIERONYMUS OF CARDIA\n HERSENT, LOUIS HIERRO\n HERSFELD HIGDON, RANULF\n HERSTAL HIGGINS, MATTHEW JAMES\n HERTFORD, EARLS AND MARQUESSES OF HIGGINSON, THOMAS WENTWORTH\n HERTFORD (Hertfordshire, England) HIGHAM FERRERS\n HERTFORDSHIRE HIGHGATE\n HERTHA HIGHLANDS, THE\n HERTZ, HEINRICH RUDOLF HIGHNESS\n HERTZ, HENRIK HIGH PLACE\n HERTZBERG, EWALD FRIEDRICH HIGH SEAS\n HERTZEN, ALEXANDER HIGHWAY\n HERULI HIGINBOTHAM, GEORGE\n HERVAS Y PANDURO, LORENZO HILARION, ST\n HERVEY, JAMES HILARIUS, ST (bishop of Pictavium)\n HERVEY DE SAINT DENYS, JEAN LEON HILARIUS (bishop of Rome)\n HERVEY OF ICKWORTH, JOHN HERVEY HILARIUS (Latin poet)\n HERVIEU, PAUL HILARIUS, ST (bishop of Arles)\n HERWARTH VON BITTENFELD, EBERHARD HILDA, ST\n HERWEGH, GEORG HILDBURGHAUSEN\n HERZBERG (town in Hanover) HILDEBERT\n HERZBERG (town in Saxony) HILDEBRAND, LAY OF\n HERZL, THEODOR HILDEBRANDT, EDUARD\n HERZOG, HANS HILDEBRANDT, THEODOR\n HERZOG, JOHANN JAKOB HILDEGARD, ST\n HESEKIEL, JOHANN GEORG LUDWIG HILDEN\n HESILRIGE, SIR ARTHUR HILDESHEIM\n HESIOD HILDRETH, RICHARD\n HESPERIDES HILGENFELD, ADOLF BERNHARD CHRISTOPH\n HESPERUS HILL, AARON\n HESS (family of German artists) HILL, AMBROSE POWELL\n HESS, HEINRICH HERMANN JOSEF HILL, DANIEL HARVEY\n HESSE HILL, DAVID BENNETT\n HESSE-CASSEL HILL, GEORGE BIRKBECK NORMAN\n HESSE-DARMSTADT HILL, JAMES J.\n HESSE-HOMBURG HILL, JOHN\n HESSE-NASSAU HILL, MATTHEW DAVENPORT\n HESSE-ROTENBURG HILL, OCTAVIA and MIRANDA\n HESSIAN HILL, ROWLAND\n HESSUS, HELIUS EOBANUS HILL, SIR ROWLAND\n HESTIA HILL, ROWLAND HILL\n HESYCHASTS HILL (elevation)\n HESYCHIUS (Alexandrian grammarian) HILLAH\n HESYCHIUS OF MILETUS HILLARD, GEORGE STILLMAN\n HETAERISM HILLEBRAND, KARL\n HETEROKARYOTA HILLEL (Jewish rabbi)\n HETERONOMY HILLER, FERDINAND\n HETMAN HILLER, JOHANN ADAM\n HETTNER, HERMANN THEODOR HILLIARD, LAWRENCE\n HETTSTEDT HILLIARD, NICHOLAS\n HEUGLIN, THEODOR VON HILLSDALE\n HEULANDITE HILL TIPPERA\n HEUSCH, WILLEM HILTON, JOHN\n HEVELIUS, JOHANN HILTON, WILLIAM\n HEWETT, SIR PRESCOTT GARDNER HILVERSUM\n HEWITT, ABRAM STEVENS HIMALAYA\n HEWLETT, MAURICE HENRY HIMERA\n HEXAMETER HIMERIUS\n HEXAPLA HIMLY (LOUIS), AUGUSTE\n HEXAPODA HIMMEL, FREDERICK HENRY\n HEXASTYLE HINCKLEY\n HEXATEUCH HINCKS, EDWARD\n HEXHAM HINCKS, SIR FRANCIS\n HEYDEN, JAN VAN DER HINCMAR\n HEYLYN, PETER HIND\n HEYN, PIETER PIETERZOON HINDERSIN, GUSTAV EDUARD VON\n HEYNE, CHRISTIAN GOTTLOB HINDI, EASTERN\n HEYSE, PAUL JOHANN LUDWIG HINDI, WESTERN\n HEYSHAM HINDKI\n HEYWOOD, JOHN HINDLEY\n HEYWOOD, THOMAS HINDOSTANI\n HEYWOOD (Lancashire, England) HINDOSTANI LITERATURE\n HEZEKIAH HINDU CHRONOLOGY\n HIATUS\n\n\n\n\nHERO (Gr. [Greek: heros]), a term specially applied to warriors of\nextraordinary strength and courage, and generally to all who were\ndistinguished from their fellows by superior moral, physical or\nintellectual qualities. No satisfactory derivation of the word has been\nsuggested.\n\n\n_Ancient Greek Heroes._\n\nIn ancient Greece, the heroes were the object of a special cult, and as\nsuch were intimately connected with its religious life. Various theories\nhave been put forward as to the nature of these heroes. According to\nsome authorities, they were idealized historical personages; according\nto others, symbolical representations of the forces of nature. The view\nmost commonly held is that they were degraded or \"depotentiated\" gods,\noccupying a position intermediate between gods and men. According to E.\nRohde (in _Psyche_) they are souls of the dead, which after separation\nfrom the body enter upon a higher, eternal existence. But it is only a\nselect minority who attain to the rank of heroes after death, only the\ndistinguished men of the past. The worship of these heroes is in reality\nan ancestor worship, which existed in pre-Homeric times, and was\npreserved in local cults. Instances no doubt occur of gods being\ndegraded to the ranks of heroes, but these are not the real heroes, the\nheroes who are the object of a cult. The cult-heroes were all persons\nwho had lived the life of man on earth, and it was necessary for the\ndegraded gods to pass through this stage. They did not at once become\ncult-heroes, but only after they had undergone death like other mortals.\nOnly one who has been a man can become a hero. The heroes are spirits of\nthe dead, not demi-gods; their position is not intermediate between gods\nand men, but by the side of these they exist as a separate class.\n\nIn Homer the term is applied especially to warrior princes, to kings and\nkings' sons, even to distinguished persons of lower rank, and free men\ngenerally. In Hesiod it is chiefly confined to those who fought before\nTroy and Thebes; in view of their supposed divine origin, he calls them\ndemi-gods ([Greek: hemitheoi]). This name is also given them in an\ninterpolated passage in the _Iliad_ (xii. 23), which is quite at\nvariance with the general Homeric idea of the heroes, who are no more\nthan men, even if of divine origin and of superior strength and prowess.\nBut neither in Homer nor in Hesiod is there any trace of the idea that\nthe heroes after death had any power for good or evil over the lives of\nthose who survived them; and consequently, no cult. Nevertheless, traces\nof an earlier ancestor worship appear, e.g. in funeral games in honour\nof Patroclus and other heroes, while the Hesiodic account of the five\nages of man is a reminiscence of the belief in the continued existence\nof souls in a higher life. This pre-historic worship and belief, for a\ntime obscured, were subsequently revived. According to Porphyry (_De\nabstinentia_, iv. 22), Draco ordered the inhabitants of Attica to honour\nthe gods and heroes of their country \"in accordance with the usage of\ntheir fathers\" with offerings of first fruits and sacrificial cakes\nevery year, thereby clearly pointing to a custom of high antiquity.\nSolon also ordered that the tombs of the heroes should be treated with\nthe greatest respect, and Cleisthenes (q.v.) sought to create a\npan-Athenian enthusiasm by calling his new tribes after Attic heroes and\nsetting up their statues in the Agora. Heroic honours were at first\nbestowed upon the founders of a colony or city, and the ancestors of\nfamilies; if their name was not known, one was adopted from legend. In\nmany cases these heroes were purely fictitious; such were the supposed\nancestors of the noble and priestly families of Attica and elsewhere\n(Butadae at Athens, Branchidae at Miletus Ceryces at Eleusis), of the\neponymi of the tribes and demes. Again, side by side with gods of\nsuperior rank, certain heroes were worshipped as protecting spirits of\nthe country or state; such were the Aeacidae amongst the Aeginetans,\nAjax son of Oileus amongst the Epizephyrian Locrians and Hector at\nThebes. Neglect of the worship of these heroes was held to be\nresponsible for pestilence, bad crops and other misfortunes, while, on\nthe other hand, if duly honoured, their influence was equally\nbeneficent. This belief was supported by the Delphic oracle, which was\nlargely instrumental in promoting hero-worship and keeping alive its due\nobservance. Special importance was attached to the grave of the hero and\nto his bodily remains, with which the spirit of the departed was\ninseparably connected. The grave was regarded as his place of abode,\nfrom which he could only be absent for a brief period; hence his bones\nwere fetched from abroad (e.g. Cimon brought those of Theseus from\nScyros), or if they could not be procured, at least a cenotaph was\nerected in his honour. Their relics also were carefully preserved: the\nhouse of Cadmus at Thebes, the hut of Orestes at Tegea, the stone on\nwhich Telamon had sat at Salamis (in Cyprus). Special shrines ([Greek:\nheroa]) were also erected in their honour, usually over their graves. In\nthese shrines a complete set of armour was kept, in accordance with the\nidea that the hero was essentially a warrior, who on occasion came forth\nfrom his grave and fought at the head of his countrymen, putting the\nenemy to flight as during his lifetime. Like the gods, the cult heroes\nwere supposed to exercise an influence on human affairs, though not to\nthe same extent, their sphere of action being confined to their own\nlocalities. Amongst the earliest known historical examples of the\nelevation of the dead to the rank of heroes are Timesius the founder of\nAbdera, Miltiades, son of Cypselus, Harmodius and Aristogiton and\nBrasidas, the victor of Amphipolis, who ousted the local Athenian hero\nHagnon. In course of time admission to the rank of a hero became far\nmore common, and was even accorded to the living, such as Lysimachus in\nSamothrace and the tyrant Nicias of Cos. Antiochus of Commagene\ninstituted an order of priests to celebrate the anniversary of his birth\nand coronation in a special sanctuary, and the kings of Pergamum claimed\ndivine honours for themselves and their wives during their lifetime. The\nbirthday of Eumenes was regularly kept, and every month sacrifice was\noffered to him and games held in his honour. In addition to persons of\nhigh rank, poets, legendary and others (Linus, Orpheus, Homer, Aeschylus\nand Sophocles), legislators and physicians (Lycurgus, Hippocrates), the\npatrons of various trades or handicrafts (artists, cooks, bakers,\npotters), the heads of philosophical schools (Plato, Democritus,\nEpicurus) received the honours of a cult. At Teos incense was offered\nbefore the statue of a flute-player during his lifetime. In some\ncountries the honour became so general that every man after death was\ndescribed as a hero in his epitaph--in Thessaly even slaves.\n\nThe cult of the heroes exhibits points of resemblance with that of the\nchthonian divinities and of the dead, but differs from that of the\nordinary gods, a further indication that they were not \"depotentiated\"\ngods. Thus, sacrifice was offered to them at night or in the evening;\nnot on a high, but on a low altar ([Greek: eschara]), surrounded by a\ntrench to receive the blood of the victim, which was supposed to make\nits way through the ground to the occupant of the grave; the victims\nwere black male animals, whose heads were turned downwards, not upwards;\ntheir blood was allowed to trickle on the ground to appease the departed\n([Greek: haimakouria]); the body was entirely consumed by fire and no\nmortal was allowed to eat of it; the technical expression for the\nsacrifice was not [Greek: thuein] but [Greek: enagizein] (less commonly\n[Greek: entemnein]). The chthonian aspect of the hero is further shown\nby his attribute the snake, and in many cases he appears under that form\nhimself. On special occasions a sacrificial meal of cooked food was set\nout for the heroes, of which they were solemnly invited to partake. The\nfullest description of such a festival is the account given by Plutarch\n(_Aristides_, 21) of the festival celebrated by the Plataeans in honour\nof their countrymen who had fallen at the battle of Plataea. On the 16th\nof the month Maimacterion, a long procession, headed by a trumpeter\nplaying a warlike air, set out for the graves; wagons decked with myrtle\nand garlands of flowers followed, young men (who must be of free birth)\ncarried jars of wine, milk, oil and perfumes; next came the black bull\ndestined for the sacrifice, the rear being brought up by the archon, who\nwore the purple robe of the general, a naked sword in one hand, in the\nother an urn. When he came near the tombs, he drew some water with\nwhich he washed the gravestones, afterwards anointing them with perfume;\nhe then sacrificed the bull on the altar calling upon Zeus Chthonios and\nHermes Psychopompos, and inviting them in company with the heroes to the\nfestival of blood. Finally, he poured a libation of wine with the words:\n\"I drink to those who died for the freedom of the Hellenes.\"\n\n See especially E. Rohde, _Psyche_ (1905) and in _Rheinisches Museum_,\n li. (1895), 28; P. Stengel, _Die griechischen Kultusaltertumer_\n (Munich, 1898), p. 124; G. F. Schomann, _Griechische Altertumer_, ii.\n (1897), 159; J. Wassner, _De heroum apud Graecos cultu_ (Kiel, 1883);\n article by F. Deneken in Roscher's _Lexikon der Mythologie_, in which\n a large amount of material is accumulated; J. A. Hild, _Etude sur les\n demons_ (1881) and article in Daremberg and Saglio's _Dictionnaire des\n antiquites_.\n\n\n_Teutonic Legend._\n\nMany of the chief characteristics of the ancient Greek heroes are\nreproduced in those of the Teutonic North, the parallel being in some\ncases very striking; Siegfried, for instance, like Achilles, is\nvulnerable only in one spot, and Wayland Smith, like Hephaestus, is\nlame. Superhuman qualities and powers, too, are commonly ascribed to\nboth, an important difference, however, being that whatever worship may\nhave been paid to the Teutonic heroes never crystallized into a cult.\nThis applies equally to those who have a recognized historical origin\nand to those who are regarded as purely mythical. Of the latter the\nnumber has tended to diminish in the light of modern scholarship. The\nfashion during the 19th century set strongly in the other direction, and\nthe \"degraded gods\" theory was applied not only to such conspicuous\nheroes as Siegfried, Dietrich and Beowulf, but to a host of minor\ncharacters, such as the good marquis Rudeger of the Nibelungenlied and\nour own Robin Hood (both identified with Woden Hruodperaht). The\nreaction from one extreme has, indeed, tended to lead to another, until\nnot only the heroes, but the very gods themselves, are being traced to\nvery human, not to say commonplace, origins. Thus M. Henri de Tourville,\nin his_ Histoire de la formation particulariste_ (1903), basing his\nargument on the _Ynglinga Saga_, interpreted in the light of \"Social\nScience,\" reveals Odin, \"the traveller,\" as a great \"caravan-leader\" and\nwarrior, who, driven from Asgard--a trading city on the borders of the\nsteppes east of the Don--by \"the blows that Pompey aimed at\nMithridates,\" brought to the north the arts and industries of the East.\nThe argument is developed with convincing ingenuity, but it may be\ndoubted whether it has permanently \"rescued Odin from the misty\ndreamland of mythology and restored him to history.\" It is now, however,\nadmitted that, whatever influence the one may have from time to time\nexercised on the other, Teutonic myth and Teutonic heroic legend were\ndeveloped on independent lines. The Teutonic heroes are, in the main,\nhistorical personages, never gods; though, like the Greek heroes, they\nare sometimes endowed with semi-divine attributes or interpreted as\nsymbolical representations of natural forces.\n\nThe origin of Teutonic heroic saga, which may be regarded as including\nthat of the Germans, Goths, Anglo-Saxons and Scandinavians, is to be\nlooked for in the period of the so-called migration of nations (A.D.\n350-650). It consequently rests upon a distinct basis of fact, the saga\n(in the older and wider sense of any story said or sung) being indeed\nthe oldest form of historical tradition; though this of course does not\nexclude the probability of the accretion of mythical elements round\npersons and episodes from the very first. As to the origin of the heroic\nsagas as we now have them, Tacitus tells us that the deeds of Arminius\nwere still celebrated in song a hundred years after his death (_Annals_,\nii. 88) and in the _Germania_ he speaks of \"old songs\" as the only kind\nof \"annals\" which the ancient Germans possessed; but, whatever relics of\nthe old songs may be embedded in the Teutonic sagas, they have left no\nrecognizable mark on the heroic poetry of the German peoples. The\nattempt to identify Arminius with Siegfried is now generally abandoned.\nTeutonic heroic saga, properly so-called, consists of the traditions\nconnected with the migration period, the earliest traces of which are\nfound in the works of historical writers such as Ammianus Marcellinus\nand Cassiodorus. According to Jordanes (the epitomator of Cassiodorus's\n_History of the Goths_) at the funeral of Attila his vassals, as they\nrode round the corpse, sang of his glorious deeds. The next step in the\ndevelopment of epic narrative was the single lay of an episodic\ncharacter, sung by a single individual, who was frequently a member of a\ndistinguished family, not merely a professional minstrel. Then, as\ndifferent stories grew up round the person of a particular hero, they\nformed a connected cycle of legend, the centre of which was the person\nof the hero (e.g. Dietrich of Bern). The most important figures of these\ncycles are the following.\n\n(1) Beowulf, king of the Geatas (Jutland), whose story in its present\nform was probably brought from the continent by the Angles. It is an\namalgamation of the myth of Beowa, the slayer of the water-demon and the\ndragon, with the historical legend of Beowulf, nephew and successor of\nHygelac (Chochilaicus), king of the Geatas, who was defeated and slain\n(c. 520) while ravaging the Frisian coast. The water-demon Grendel and\nthe dragon (probably), by whom Beowulf is mortally wounded, have been\nsupposed to represent the powers of autumn and darkness, the floods\nwhich at certain seasons overflow the low-lying countries on the coast\nof the North Sea and sweep away all human habitations; Beowulf is the\nhero of spring and light who, after overcoming the spirit of the raging\nwaters, finally succumbs to the dragon of approaching winter. Others\nregard him as a wind-hero, who disperses the pestilential vapours of the\nfens. Beowulf is also a culture-hero. His father Sceaf-Scyld (i.e. Scyld\nScefing, \"the protector with the sheaf\") lands on the Anglian or\nScandinavian coast when a child, in a rudderless ship, asleep on a sheaf\nof grain, symbolical of the means whereby his kingdom shall become\ngreat; the son indicates the blessings of a fixed habitation, secured\nagainst the attacks of the sea. (2) Hildebrand, the hero of the oldest\nGerman epic. A loyal supporter of Theodoric, he follows his master, when\nthreatened by Odoacer, to the court of Attila. After thirty years'\nabsence, he returns to his home In Italy; his son Hadubrand, believing\nhis father to be dead, suspects treachery and refuses to accept presents\noffered by the father in token of good-will. A fight takes place, in\nwhich the son is slain by the father. In a later version, recognition\nand reconciliation take place. Well-known parallels are Odysseus and\nTelegonis, Rustem and Sohrab. (3) Ermanaric, the king of the East Goths,\nwho according to Ammianus Marcellinus slew himself (c. 375) in terror at\nthe invasion of the Huns. With him is connected the old German Dioscuri\nmyth of the Harlungen. (4) Dietrich of Bern (Verona), the legendary name\nof Theodoric the Great. Contrary to historical tradition, Italy is\nsupposed to have been his ancestral inheritance, of which he has been\ndeprived by Odoacer, or by Ermanaric, who in his altered character of a\ntypical tyrant appears as his uncle and contemporary. He takes refuge in\nHungary with Etzel (Attila), by whose aid he finally recovers his\nkingdom. In the later middle ages he is represented as fighting with\ngiants, dragons and dwarfs, and finally disappears on a black horse.\nSome attempts have been made to identify him as a kind of Donar or god\nof thunder. (5) Siegfried (M.H. Ger. Sivrit), the hero of the\n_Niebelungenlied_, the Sigurd of the related northern sagas, is usually\nregarded as a purely mythical figure, a hero of light who is ultimately\novercome by the powers of darkness, the mist-people (Niebelungen). He\nis, however, closely associated with historical characters and events,\ne.g. with the Burgundian king Gundahari (Gunther, Gunnar) and the\noverthrow of his house and nation by the Huns; the scholars have\nexercised considerable ingenuity in attempting to identify him with\nvarious historical figures. Theodor Abeling (_Das Nibelungenlied_,\nLeipzig, 1907) traces the Nibelung sagas to three groups of Burgundian\nlegends, each based on fact: the Frankish-Burgundian tradition of the\nmurder of Segeric, son of the Burgundian king Sigimund, who was slain by\nhis father at the instigation of his stepmother; the Frankish-Burgundian\nstory, as told by Gregory of Tours (iii. 11), of the defeat of the\nBurgundian kings Sigimund and Godomar, and the captivity and murder of\nSigimund, by the sons of Clovis, at the instigation of their mother\nChrothildis, in revenge for the murder of her father Chilperich and of\nher mother, by Godomar; the Rhenish-Burgundian story of the ruin of\nGundahari's kingdom by Attila's Huns. Herr Abeling identifies Siegfried\n(Sigurd) with Segeric, while--according to him--the heroine of the\nNibelung sagas, Kriemhild (Gudrun), represents a confusion of two\nhistorical persons: Chrothildis, the wife of Clovis, and Ildico (Hilde),\nthe wife of Attila. (See also the articles KRIEMHILD, NIBELUNGENLIED).\n\n(6) Hugdietrich, Wolfdietrich and Ortnit, whose legend, like that of\nSiegfried, is of Frankish origin. It is preserved in four versions, the\nbest of which is the oldest, and has an historical foundation.\nHugdietrich is the \"Frankish Dietrich\" (= Hugo Theodoric), king of\nAustrasia (d. 534), who like his son and successor Theodebert, was\nillegitimate; both had to fight for their inheritance with relatives.\nThe transference of the scene to Constantinople is a reminiscence of the\nevents of the Crusades and Theodebert's projected campaign against that\ncity. The version in which Hugdietrich gains access to his future wife\nby disguising himself as a woman has also a foundation in fact. As the\nmyth of the Harlungen is connected with Ermanaric, so another Dioscuri\nmyth (of the Hartungen) is combined with the Ortnit-Wolfdietrich legend.\nThe Hartungen are probably identical with the divine youths (mentioned\nin Tacitus as worshipped by the Vandal Naharvali or Nahanarvali), from\nwhom the Vandal royal family, the Asdingi, claimed descent. Asdingi\n([Greek: Astiggoi]) would be represented in Gothic by Hazdiggos, \"men\nwith women's hair\" (cf. _muliebri ornatu_ in Tacitus), and in middle\nhigh German by Hartungen. (7) Rother, king of Lombardy. Desiring to wed\nthe daughter of Constantine, king of Constantinople, he sends twelve\nenvoys to ask her in marriage. They are arrested and thrown into prison\nby the king. Rother, who appears under the name of Dietrich, sets out\nwith an army, liberates the envoys and carries off the princess. One\nversion places the scene in the land of the Huns. The character of\nConstantine in many respects resembles that of Alexius Comnenus; the\nslaying of a tame lion by one of the gigantic followers of Rother is\nfounded on an incident which actually took place at the court of Alexius\nduring the crusade of 1101 under duke Welf of Bavaria, when _King\nRother_ was composed about 1160 by a Rhenish minstrel. Rother may be the\nLombard king Rothari (636-650), transferred to the period of the\nCrusades. (8) Walther of Aquitaine, chiefly known from the Latin poem\n_Waltharius_, written by Ekkehard of St Gall at the beginning of the\n10th century, and fragments of an 8th-century Anglo-Saxon Epic\n_Waldere_. Walther is not an historical figure, although the legend\nundoubtedly represents typical occurrences of the migration period, such\nas the detention and flight of hostages of noble family from the court\nof the Huns, and the rescue of captive maidens by abduction. (9) Wieland\n(Volundr), Wayland the Smith, the only Teutonic hero (his original home\nwas lower Saxony) who firmly established himself in England. There is\nabsolutely no historical background for his legend. He is a fire-spirit,\nwho is pressed into man's service, and typifies the advance from the\nstone age to a higher stage of civilization (working in metals). As the\nlame smith he reminds us of Hephaestus, and in his flight with wings of\nDaedalus escaping from Minos. (10) Hogni (Hagen) and Hedin (Hetel),\nwhose personalities are overshadowed by the heroines Hilde and Gudrun\n(Kudrun, Kutrun). In one version occurs the incident of the never-ending\nbattle between the forces of Hagen and Hedin. Every night Hilde revives\nthe fallen, and \"so will it continue till the twilight of the gods.\" The\nbattle represents the eternal conflict between light and darkness, the\nalternation of day and night. Hilde here figures as a typical Valkyr\ndelighting in battle and bloodshed, who frustrates a reconciliation.\nHedin had sent a necklace as a peace-offering to Hagen, but Hilde\npersuades her father that it is only a ruse. This necklace occurs in the\nstory of the goddess Freya (Frigg), who is said to have caused the\nbattle to conciliate the wrath of Odin at her infidelity, the price paid\nby her for the possession of the necklace Brisnigamen; again, the light\ngod Heimdal is said to have fought with Loki for the necklace (the sun)\nstolen by the latter. Hence the battle has been explained as the\nnecklace myth in epic form. The historical background is the raids of\nthe Teutonic maritime tribes on the coasts of England and Ireland.\n\nFamous heroes who are specially connected with England are Alfred the\nGreat, Richard Coeur-de-Lion, King Horn, Havelok the Dane, Guy of\nWarwick, Sir Bevis of Hampton (or Southampton), Robin Hood and his\ncompanions.\n\n\n_Celtic Heroes._\n\nThe Celtic heroic saga in the British islands may be divided into the\ntwo principal groups of Gaelic (Irish) and Brython (Welsh), the first,\nexcluding the purely mythological, into the Ultonian (connected with\nUlster) and the Ossianic. The Ultonianis grouped round the names of King\nConchobar and the hero Cuchulainn, \"the Irish Achilles,\" the defender of\nUlster against all Ireland, regarded by some as a solar hero. The second\ncycle contains the epics of Finn (Fionn, Fingal) mac Cumhail, and his\nson Oisin (Ossian), the bard and warrior, chiefly known from the\nsupposed Ossianic poems of Macpherson. (See CELT, sec. _Celtic\nLiterature_.)\n\nOf Brython origin is the cycle of King Arthur (Artus), the adopted\nnational hero of the mixed nationalities of whom the \"English\" people\nwas composed. Here he appears as a chiefly mythical personality, who\nslays monsters, such as the giant of St Michel, the boar Troit, the\ndemon cat, and goes down to the underworld. The original Welsh legend\nwas spread by British refugees in Brittany, and was thus celebrated by\nboth English and French Celts. From a literary point of view, however,\nit is chiefly French and forms \"the matter of Brittany.\" Arthur, the\nleader (_comes Britanniae, dux bellorum_) of the Siluri or Dumnonii\nagainst the Saxons, flourished at the beginning of the 6th century. He\nis first spoken of in Nennius's _History of the Britons_ (9th century),\nand at greater length in Geoffrey of Monmouth's _History of the Kings of\nBritain_ (12th century), at the end of which the French Breton cycle\nattained its fullest development in the poems of Chretien de Troyes and\nothers.\n\nSpeaking generally, the Celtic heroes are differentiated from the\nTeutonic by the extreme exaggeration of their superhuman, or rather\nextra-human, qualities. Teutonic legend does not lightly exaggerate, and\nwhat to us seems incredible in it may be easily conceived as credible to\nthose by whom and for whom the tales were told; that Sigmund and his son\nSinfiotli turned themselves into wolves would be but a sign of\nexceptional powers to those who believed in werewolves; Fafnir assuming\nthe form of a serpent would be no more incredible to the barbarous\nTeuton than the similar transformation of Proteus to the Greek. But in\nthe characterization of their heroes the Celtic imagination runs riot,\nand the quality of their persons and their acts becomes exaggerated\nbeyond the bounds of any conceivable probability. Take, for instance,\nthe description of some of Arthur's knights in the Welsh tale of\n_Kilhwch and Olwen_ (in the _Mabinogion_). Along with Kai and Bedwyr\n(Bedivere), Peredur (Perceval), Gwalchmai (Gawain), and many others, we\nhave such figures as Sgilti Yscandroed, whose way through the wood lay\nalong the tops of the trees, and whose tread was so light that no blade\nof grass bent beneath his weight; Sol, who could stand all day upon one\nleg; Sugyn the son of Sugnedydd, who was \"broad-chested\" to such a\ndegree that he could suck up the sea on which were three hundred ships\nand leave nothing but dry land; Gweyyl, the son of Gwestad, who when he\nwas sad would let one of his lips drop beneath his waist and turn up the\nother like a cap over his head; and Uchtry Varyf Draws, who spread his\nred untrimmed beard over the eight-and-forty rafters of Arthur's hall.\nSuch figures as these make no human impression, and criticism has busied\nitself in tracing them to one or other of the shadowy divinities of the\nCeltic pantheon. However this may be, remnants of their primitive\nsuperhuman qualities cling to the Celtic heroes long after they have\nbeen transfigured, under the influence of Christianity and chivalry,\ninto the heroes of the medieval Arthurian romance, types--for the most\npart--of the knightly virtues as these were conceived by the middle\nages; while shadowy memories of early myths live on, strangely\ndisguised, in certain of the episodes repeated uncritically by the\nmedieval poets. So Merlin preserves his diabolic origin; Arthur his\nmystic coming and his mystic passing; while Gawain, and after him\nLancelot, journey across the river, as the Irish hero Bran had done\nbefore them to the island of fair women--the Celtic vision of the realm\nof death.\n\nThe chief heroes of the medieval Arthurian romances are the following.\nArthur himself, who tends however to become completely overshadowed by\nhis knights, who make his court the starting-point of their adventures.\nMerlin (Myrddin), the famous wizard, bard and warrior, perhaps an\nhistorical figure, first introduced by Geoffrey of Monmouth, originally\ncalled Ambrose from the British leader Ambrosius Aurelianus, under whom\nhe is said to have first served. Perceval (Parzival, Parsifal), the\nWelsh Peredur, \"the seeker of the basin,\" the most intimately connected\nwith the quest of the Grail (q.v.). Tristan (Tristram), the ideal lover\nof the middle ages, whose name is inseparably associated with that of\nIseult. Lancelot, son of Ban king of Brittany, a creation of chivalrous\nromance, who only appears in Arthurian literature under French\ninfluence, known chiefly from his amour with Guinevere, perhaps in\nimitation of the story of Tristan and Iseult. Gawain (Welwain, Welsh\nGwalchmai), Arthur's nephew, who in medieval romance remains the type of\nknightly courage and chivalry, until his character is degraded in order\nto exalt that of Lancelot. Among less important, but still conspicuous,\nfigures may be mentioned Kay (the Kai of the _Mabinogion_), Arthur's\nfoster-brother and seneschal, the type of the bluff and boastful\nwarrior, and Bedivere (Bedwyr), the type of brave knight and faithful\nretainer, who alone is with Arthur at his passing, and afterwards\nbecomes \"a hermit and a holy man.\" (See ARTHUR, MERLIN, PERCEVAL,\nTRISTAN, LANCELOT, GAWAIN.)\n\n\n_Heroes of Romance._\n\nAnother series of heroes, forming the central figures of stories\nvariously derived but developed in Europe by the Latin-speaking peoples,\nmay be conveniently grouped under the heading of \"romance.\" Of these the\nmost important are Alexander of Macedon and Charlemagne, while alongside\nof them Priam and other heroes of the Trojan war appear during the\nmiddle ages in strangely altered guise. Of all heroes of romance\nAlexander has been the most widely celebrated. His name, in the form of\nIskander, is familiar in legend and story all over the East to this day;\nto the West he was introduced through a Latin translation of the\noriginal Greek romance (by the pseudo-Callisthenes) to which the\ninnumerable Oriental versions are likewise traceable (see ALEXANDER\nIII., KING OF MACEDON; sec. _The Romance of Alexander_). More important\nin the West, however, was the cycle of legends gathering round the\nfigure of Charlemagne, forming what was known as \"the matter of France.\"\nThe romances of this cycle, of Germanic (Frankish) origin and developed\nprobably in the north of France by the French (probably in the north of\nFrance) contain reminiscences of the heroes of the Merovingian period,\nand in their later development were influenced by the Arthurian cycle.\nJust as Arthur was eclipsed by his companions, so Charlemagne's vassal\nnobles, except in the _Chanson de Roland_, are exalted at the expense of\nthe emperor, probably the result of the changed relations between the\nlater emperors and their barons. The character of Charlemagne himself\nundergoes a change; in the _Chanson de Roland_ he is a venerable figure,\nmild and dignified, while later he appears as a cruel and typical tyrant\n(as is also the case with Ermanaric). The basis of his legend is mainly\nhistorical, although the story of his journey to Constantinople and the\nEast is mythical, and incidents have been transferred from the reign of\nCharles Martel to his. Charlemagne is chiefly venerated as the champion\nof Christianity against the heathen and the Saracens. (See CHARLEMAGNE,\n_ad fin._ \"The Charlemagne Legends.\")\n\nThe most famous heroes who are associated with him are Roland, praefect\nof the marches of Brittany, the Orlando of Ariosto, slain at Roncevaux\n(Roncevalles) in the Pyrenees, and his friend and rival Oliver\n(Olivier); Ogier the Dane, the Holger Danske of Hans Andersen, and Huon\nof Bordeaux, probably both introduced from the Arthurian cycle; Renaud\n(Rinaldo) of Montauban, one of the four sons of Aymon, to whom the\nwonderful horse Bayard was presented by Charlemagne; the traitor Doon of\nMayence; Ganelon, responsible for the treachery that led to the death of\nRoland; Archbishop Turpin, a typical specimen of muscular Christianity;\nWilliam Fierabras, William au court nez, William of Toulouse, and\nWilliam of Orange (all probably identical), and Vivien, the nephew of\nthe latter and the hero of Aliscans. The late Charlemagne romances\noriginated the legends, in English form, of _Sowdone of Babylone_, _Sir\nOtnel_, _Sir Firumbras_ and _Huon of Bordeaux_ (in which Oberon, the\nking of the fairies, the son of Julius Caesar and Morgan the Fay, was\nfirst made known to England).\n\nThe chief remains of the Spanish heroic epic are some poems on the Cid,\non the seven Infantes of Lara, and on Fernan Gonzalez, count of Castile.\nThe legend of Charlemagne as told in the _Cronica general_ of Alfonso X.\ncreated the desire for a national hero distinguished for his exploits\nagainst the Moors, and Roland was thus supplanted by Bernardo del\nCarpio. Another famous hero and centre of a 14th-century cycle of\nromance was Amadis of Gaul; its earliest form is Spanish, although the\nPortuguese have claimed it as a translation from their own language.\nThere is no trace of a French original.\n\n_Slavonic Heroes._--The Slavonic heroic saga of Russia centres round\nVladimir of Kiev (980-1015), the first Christian ruler of that country,\nwhose personality is eclipsed by that of Ilya (Elias) of Mourom, the son\nof a peasant, who was said to have saved the empire from the Tatars at\nthe urgent request of his emperor. It is not known whether he was an\nhistorical personage; many of the achievements attributed to him border\non the miraculous. A much-discussed work is the _Tale of Igor_, the\noldest of the Russian medieval epics. Igor was the leader of a raid\nagainst the heathen Polovtsi in 1185; at first successful, he was\nafterwards defeated and taken prisoner, but finally managed to escape.\nAlthough the Finns are not Slavs, on topographical grounds mention may\nhere be made of Wainamoinen, the great magician and hero of the Finnish\nepic _Kalevala_ (\"land of heroes\"). The popular hero of the Servians and\nBulgarians is Marko Kralyevich (q.v.), son of Vukashin, characterized by\nGoethe as a counterpart of the Greek Heracles and the Persian Rustem.\nFor the Persian, Indian, &c., heroes see the articles on the literature\nand religions of the various countries.\n\n AUTHORITIES.--On the subject generally, see J. G. T. Grasse, _Die\n grossen Sagenkreise des Mittelalters_ (Dresden, 1842), forming part of\n his _Lehrbuch einer Literargeschichte der beruhmtesten Volker des\n Mittelalters_; W. P. Ker, _Epic and Romance_ (2nd ed., 1908).\n TEUTONIC.--B. Symons, \"Germanische Heldensage\" in H. Paul's _Grundris\n der germanischen Philologie_, iii. (Strassburg, 1900), 2nd revised\n edition, separately printed (_ib._, 1905); W. Grimm, _Die deutsche\n Heldensage_ (1829, 3rd ed., 1889), still one of the most important\n works; W. Muller, _Mythologie der deutschen Heldensage_ (Heilbronn,\n 1886) and supplement, _Zur Mythologie der griechischen und deutschen\n Heldensage_ (_ib._, 1889); O. L. Jiriczek, _Deutsche Heldensagen_, i.\n (Strassburg, 1898) and _Die deutsche Heldensage_ (3rd revised edition,\n Leipzig, 1906); Chantepie de la Saussaye, _The Religion of the\n Teutons_ (Eng. tr., Boston, U.S.A., 1902); J. G. Robertson, _History\n of German Literature_ (1902). See also HELDENBUCH.\n\n CELTIC.--M. H. d'Arbois de Jubainville, _Cours de litterature\n celtique_ (12 vols., 1883-1902), one vol. trans. into English by R. I.\n Best, _The Irish Mythological Cycle and Celtic Mythology_ (1903); L.\n Petit de Julleville, _Hist. de la langue et de la litt. francaise_, i.\n _Moyen age_ (1896); C. Squire, _The Mythology of the British Isles: an\n Introduction to Celtic Myth and Romance_ (1905); J. Rhys, _Celtic\n Britain_ (3rd ed., 1904). SLAVONIC.--A. N. Rambaud, _La Russie epique_\n (1876); W. Wollner, _Untersuchungen uber die Volksepik der\n Grossrussen_ (1879); W. R. Morfill, _Slavonic Literature_ (1883).\n\n\n\n\nHERO AND LEANDER, two lovers celebrated in antiquity. Hero, the\nbeautiful priestess of Aphrodite at Sestos, was seen by Leander, a youth\nof Abydos, at the celebration of the festival of Aphrodite and Adonis.\nHe became deeply enamoured of her; but, as her position as priestess and\nthe opposition of her parents rendered their marriage impossible they\nagreed to carry on a clandestine intercourse. Every night Hero placed a\nlamp in the top of the tower where she dwelt by the sea, and Leander,\nguided by it, swam across the dangerous Hellespont. One stormy night the\nlamp was blown out and Leander perished. On finding his body next\nmorning on the shore, Hero flung herself into the waves. The story is\nreferred to by Virgil (_Georg._ iii. 258), Statius (_Theb._ vi. 535) and\nOvid (_Her._ xviii. and xix.). The beautiful little epic of Musaeus has\nbeen frequently translated, and is expanded in the _Hero and Leander_ of\nC. Marlowe and G. Chapman. It is also the subject of a ballad by\nSchiller and a drama by F. Grillparzer.\n\n See M. H. Jellinek, _Die Sage von Hero und Leander in der Dichtung_\n (1890), and G. Knaack \"Hero und Leander\" in _Festgabe fur Franz\n Susemihl_ (1898). A careful collection of materials will be found in\n F. Koppner, _Die Sage von Hero und Leander in der Literatur und Kunst\n des Altertums_ (1894).\n\n\n\n\nHERO OF ALEXANDRIA, Greek geometer and writer on mechanical and physical\nsubjects, probably flourished in the second half of the 1st century.\nThis is the more modern view, in contrast to the earlier theory most\ngenerally accepted, according to which he flourished about 100 B.C. The\nearlier theory started from the superscription of one of his works,\n[Greek: Heronos Ktesibiou belopoiika], from which it was inferred that\nHero was a pupil of Ctesibius. Martin, Hultsch and Cantor took this\nCtesibius to be a barber of that name who lived in the reign of Ptolemy\nEuergetes II. (d. 117 B.C.) and is credited with having invented an\nimproved water-organ. But this identification is far from certain, as a\nCtesibius _mechanicus_ is mentioned by Athenaeus as having lived under\nPtolemy II. Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.). Nor can the relation of master\nand pupil be certainly inferred from the superscription quoted (observe\nthe omission of any article), which really asserts no more than that\nHero re-edited an earlier treatise by Ctesibius, and implies nothing\nabout his being an _immediate_ predecessor. Further, it is certain that\nHero used physical and mathematical writings by Posidonius, the Stoic,\nof Apamea, Cicero's teacher, who lived until about the middle of the 1st\ncentury B.C. The positive arguments for the more modern view of Hero's\ndate are (1) the use by him of Latinisms from which Diels concluded that\nthe 1st century A.D. was the earliest possible date, (2) the description\nin Hero's _Mechanics_ iii. of a small olive-press with one screw which\nis alluded to by Pliny (_Nat. Hist._ viii.) as having been introduced\nsince A.D. 55, (3) an allusion by Plutarch (who died A.D. 120) to the\nproposition that light is reflected from a surface at an angle equal to\nthe angle of incidence, which Hero proved in his _Catoptrica_, the words\nused by Plutarch fitting well with the corresponding passage of that\nwork (as to which see below). Thus we arrive at the latter half of the\n1st century A.D. as the approximate date of Hero's activity.\n\nThe geometrical treatises which have survived (though not interpolated)\nin Greek are entitled respectively _Definitiones_, _Geometria_,\n_Geodaesia_, _Stereometrica_ (i. and ii.), _Mensurae_, _Liber\nGeoponicus_, to which must now be added the _Metrica_ recently\ndiscovered by R. Schone in a MS. at Constantinople. These books, except\nthe _Definitiones_, mostly consist of directions for obtaining, from\ngiven parts, the areas or volumes, and other parts, of plane or solid\nfigures. A remarkable feature is the bare statement of a number of very\nclose approximations to the square roots of numbers which are not\ncomplete squares. Others occur in the _Metrica_ where also a method of\nfinding such approximate square, and even approximate cube, roots is\nshown. Hero's expressions for the areas of regular polygons of from 5 to\n12 sides in terms of the squares of the sides show interesting\napproximations to the values of trigonometrical ratios. Akin to the\ngeometrical works is that _On the Dioptra_, a remarkable book on\nland-surveying, so called from the instrument described in it, which was\nused for the same purposes as the modern theodolite. It is in this book\nthat Hero proves the expression for the area of a triangle in terms of\nits sides. The _Pneumatica_ in two books is also extant in Greek as is\nalso the _Automatopoietica_. In the former will be found such things as\nsiphons, \"Hero's fountain,\" \"penny-in-the-slot\" machines, a fire-engine,\na water-organ, and arrangements employing the force of steam. Pappus\nquotes from three books of _Mechanics_ and from a work called\n_Barulcus_, both by Hero. The three books on _Mechanics_ survive in an\nArabic translation which, however, bears a title \"On the lifting of\nheavy objects.\" This corresponds exactly to _Barulcus_, and it is\nprobable that _Barulcus_ and _Mechanics_ were only alternative titles\nfor one and the same work. It is indeed not credible that Hero wrote\ntwo separate treatises on the subject of the mechanical powers, which\nare fully discussed in the _Mechanics_, ii., iii. The _Belopoiica_ (on\nengines of war) is extant in Greek, and both this and the _Mechanics_\ncontain Hero's solution of the problem of the two mean proportionals.\nHero also wrote _Catoptrica_ (on reflecting surfaces), and it seems\ncertain that we possess this in a Latin work, probably translated from\nthe Greek by Wilhelm van Moerbeek, which was long thought to be a\nfragment of Ptolemy's _Optics_, because it bore the title _Ptolemaei de\nspeculis_ in the MS. But the attribution to Ptolemy was shown to be\nwrong as soon as it was made clear (especially by Martin) that another\ntranslation by an Admiral Eugenius Siculus (12th century) of an optical\nwork from the Arabic was Ptolemy's _Optics_. Of other treatises by Hero\nonly fragments remain. One was four books on _Water Clocks_ ([Greek:\nPeri hydrion horoskopeion]), of which Proclus (_Hypotyp. astron._, ed.\nHalma) has preserved a fragment, and to which Pappus also refers.\nAnother work was a commentary on Euclid (referred to by the Arabs as\n\"the book of the resolution of doubts in Euclid\") from which quotations\nhave survived in an-Nairizi's commentary.\n\n The _Pneumatica_, _Automatopoietica_, _Belopoiica_ and\n _Cheiroballistra_ of Hero were published in Greek and Latin in\n Thevenot's _Veterum mathematicorum opera graece et latine pleraque\n nunc primum edita_ (Paris, 1693); the first important critical\n researches on Hero were G. B. Venturi's _Commentari sopra la storia e\n la teoria dell'ottica_ (Bologna, 1814) and H. Martin's \"Recherches sur\n la vie et les ouvrages d'Heron d'Alexandrie disciple de Ctesibius et\n sur tous les ouvrages mathematiques grecs conserves ou perdus, publies\n ou inedits, qui ont ete attribues a un auteur nomme Heron\" (_Mem.\n presentes a l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres_, i. serie,\n iv., 1854). The geometrical works (except of course the _Metrica_)\n were edited (Greek only) by F. Hultsch (_Heronis Alexandrini\n geometricorum et stereometricorum reliquiae_, 1864), the _Dioptra_ by\n Vincent (_Extraits des manuscrits relatifs a la geometrie pratique des\n Grecs, Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliotheque\n Imperiale_, xix. 2, 1858), the treatises on _Engines of War_ by C.\n Wescher (_Poliorcetique des Grecs_, Paris, 1867). The _Mechanics_ was\n first published by Carra de Vaux in the _Journal asiatique_ (ix.\n serie, ii., 1893). In 1899 began the publication in Teubner's series\n of _Heronis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt omnia_. Vol. i. and\n Supplement (by W. Schmidt) contains the _Pneumatica_ and _Automata_,\n the fragment on _Water Clocks_, the _De ingeniis spiritualibus_ of\n Philon of Byzantium and extracts on Pneumatics by Vitruvius. Vol. ii.\n pt. i., by L. Nix and W. Schmidt, contains the _Mechanics_ in Arabic,\n Greek fragments of the same, the _Catoptrica_ in Latin with appendices\n of extracts from Olympiodorus, Vitruvius, Pliny, &c. Vol. iii. (by\n Hermann Schone) contains the _Metrica_ (in three books) and the\n _Dioptra_. A German translation is added throughout. The approximation\n to square roots in Hero has been the subject of papers too numerous to\n mention. But reference should be made to the exhaustive studies on\n Hero's arithmetic by Paul Tannery, \"L'Arithmetique des Grecs dans\n Heron d'Alexandrie\" (_Mem. de la Soc. des sciences phys. et math. de\n Bordeaux_, ii. serie, iv., 1882), \"La Stereometrie d'Heron\n d'Alexandrie\" and \"Etudes Heroniennes\" (_ibid._ v., 1883), \"Questions\n Heroniennes\" (_Bulletin des sciences math._, ii. serie, viii., 1884),\n \"Un Fragment des Metriques d'Heron\" (_Zeitschrift fur Math. und\n Physik_, xxxix., 1894; _Bulletin des sciences math._, ii. serie,\n xviii., 1894). A good account of Hero's works will be found in M.\n Cantor's _Geschichte der Mathematik_, i.^2 (1894), chapters 18 and 19,\n and in G. Loria's studies, _Le Scienze esatte nell' antica Grecia_,\n especially libro iii. (Modena, 1900), pp. 103-128. (T. L. H.)\n\n\n\n\nHERO, THE YOUNGER, the name given without any sufficient reason to a\nByzantine land-surveyor who wrote (about A.D. 938) a treatise on\nland-surveying modelled on the works of Hero of Alexandria, especially\nthe _Dioptra_.\n\n See \"Geodesie de Heron de Byzance,\" published by Vincent in _Notices\n et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliotheque Imperiale_, xix. 2\n (Paris, 1858), and T. H. Martin in _Memoires presentes a l' Academie\n des Inscriptions_, 1st series, iv. (Paris, 1854).\n\n\n\n\nHEROD, the name borne by the princes of a dynasty which reigned in\nJudaea from 40 B.C.\n\nHEROD (surnamed THE GREAT), the son of Antipater, who supported Hyrcanus\nII. against Aristobulus II. with the aid first of the Nabataean Arabs\nand then of Rome. The family seems to have been of Idumaean origin, so\nthat its members were liable to the reproach of being half-Jews or even\nforeigners. Justin Martyr has a tradition that they were originally\nPhilistines of Ascalon (_Dial._ c. 52), and on the other hand Nicolaus\nof Damascus (_apud_ Jos. _Ant._ xiv. 1. 3) asserted that Herod, his\nroyal patron, was descended from the Jews who first returned from the\nBabylonian Captivity. The tradition and the assertion are in all\nprobability equally fictitious and proceed respectively from the foes\nand the friends of the Herodian dynasty.\n\nAntipas (or Antipater), the father of Antipater, had been governor of\nIdumaea under Alexander Jannaeus. His son allied himself by marriage\nwith the Arabian nobility and became the real ruler of Palestine under\nHyrcanus II. When Rome intervened in Asia in the person of Pompey, the\nyounger Antipater realized her inevitable predominance and secured the\nfriendship of her representative. After the capture of Jerusalem in 63\nB.C. Pompey installed Hyrcanus, who was little better than a figurehead,\nin the high-priesthood; and when in 55 B.C. the son of Aristobulus\nrenewed the civil war in Palestine, the Roman governor of Syria in the\nexercise of his jurisdiction arranged a settlement \"in accordance with\nthe wishes of Antipater\" (Jos. _Ant._ xiv. 6. 4). To this policy of\ndependence upon Rome Antipater adhered, and he succeeded in commending\nhimself to Mark Antony and Caesar in turn. After the battle of Pharsalia\nCaesar made him procurator and a Roman citizen.\n\nAt this point Herod appears on the scene as ruler of Galilee (Jos.\n_Ant._ xiv. 9. 2) appointed by his father at the age of fifteen or,\nsince he died at seventy, twenty-five. In spite of his youth he soon\nfound an opportunity of displaying his mettle; for he arrested Hezekiah\nthe arch-brigand, who had overrun the Syrian border, and put him to\ndeath. The Jewish nobility at Jerusalem seized upon this high-handed\naction as a pretext for satisfying their jealousy of their Idumaean\nrulers. Herod was cited in the name of Hyrcanus to appear before the\nSanhedrin, whose prerogative he had usurped in executing Hezekiah. He\nappeared with a bodyguard, and the Sanhedrin was overawed. Only Sameas,\na Pharisee, dared to insist upon the legal verdict of condemnation. But\nthe governor of Syria had sent a demand for Herod's acquittal, and so\nHyrcanus adjourned the trial and persuaded the accused to abscond. Herod\nreturned with an army, but his father prevailed upon him to depart to\nGalilee without wreaking his vengeance upon his enemies. About this time\n(47-46 B.C.) he was created _strategus_ of Coelesyria by the provincial\ngovernor. The episode is important for the light which it throws upon\nHerod's relations with Rome and with the Jews.\n\nIn 44 B.C. Cassius arrived in Syria for the purpose of filling his\nwar-chest: Antipater and Herod collected the sum of money at which the\nJews of Palestine had been assessed. In 43 B.C. Antipater was poisoned\nat the instigation of one Malichus, who was perhaps a Jewish patriot\nanimated by hatred of the Herods and their Roman patrons.\n\nWith the connivance of Cassius Herod had Malichus assassinated; but the\ncountry was in a state of anarchy, thanks to the extortions of Cassius\nand the encroachments of neighbouring powers. Antony, who became master\nof the East after Philippi, was ready to support the sons of his friend\nAntipater; but he was absent in Egypt when the Parthians invaded\nPalestine to restore Antigonus to the throne of his father Aristobulus\n(40 B.C.). Herod escaped to Rome: the Arabians, his mother's people, had\nrepudiated him. Antony had made him tetrarch, and now with the assent of\nOctavian persuaded the Senate to declare him king of Judaea.\n\nIn 39 B.C. Herod returned to Palestine and, when the presence of Antony\nput the reluctant Roman troops entirely at his disposal, he was able to\nlay siege to Jerusalem two years later. Secure of the support of Rome he\nwas concerned also to legitimize his position in the eyes of the Jews by\ntaking, for love as well as policy, the Hasmonaean princess Mariamne to\nbe his second wife. Jerusalem was taken by storm; the Roman troops\nwithdrew to behead Antigonus the usurper at Antioch. In 37 B.C. Herod\nwas king of Judaea, being the client of Antony and the husband of\nMariamne.\n\nThe Pharisees, who dominated the bulk of the Jews, were content to\naccept Herod's rule as a judgment of God. Hyrcanus returned from his\nprison: mutilated, he could no longer hold office as high-priest; but\nhis mutilation probably gave him the prestige of a martyr, and his\ninfluence--whatever it was worth--seems to have been favourable to the\nnew dynasty. On the other hand Herod's marriage with Mariamne brought\nsome of his enemies into his own household. He had scotched the faction\nof Hasmonaean sympathizers by killing forty-five members of the\nSanhedrin and confiscating their possessions. But so long as there were\nrepresentatives of the family alive, there was always a possible\npretender to the throne which he occupied; and the people had not lost\ntheir affection for their former deliverers. Mariamne's mother used her\nposition to further her plots for the overthrow of her son-in-law; and\nshe found an ally in Cleopatra of Egypt, who was unwilling to be spurned\nby him, even if she was not weary of his patron, Antony.\n\nThe events of Herod's reign indicate the temporary triumphs of his\ndifferent adversaries. His high-priest, a Babylonian, was deposed in\norder that Aristobulus III., Mariamne's brother, might hold the place to\nwhich he had some ancestral right. But the enthusiasm with which the\npeople received him at the Feast of Tabernacles convinced Herod of the\ndanger; and the youth was drowned by order of the king at Jericho.\nCleopatra had obtained from Antony a grant of territory adjacent to\nHerod's domain and even part of it. She required Herod to collect\narrears of tribute. So it fell out that, when Octavian and the Senate\ndeclared war against Antony and Cleopatra, Herod was preoccupied in\nobedience to her commands and was thus prevented from fighting against\nthe future emperor of Rome.\n\nAfter the battle of Actium (31 B.C.) Herod executed Hyrcanus and\nproceeded to wait upon the victorious Octavian at Rhodes. His position\nwas confirmed and his territories were restored. On his return he took\nin hand to heal with the Hasmonaeans, and in 25 B.C. the old intriguers,\ntheir victims like Mariamne, and all pretenders were dead. From this\ntime onwards Herod was free to govern Palestine, as a client-prince of\nthe Roman Empire should govern his kingdom. In order to put down the\nbrigands who still infested the country and to check the raids of the\nArabs on the frontier, he built or rebuilt fortresses, which were of\nmaterial assistance to the Jews in the great revolt against Rome. Within\nand without Judaea he erected magnificent buildings and founded cities.\nHe established games in honour of the emperor after the ancient Greek\nmodel in Caesarea and Jerusalem and revived the splendour of the Olympic\ngames. At Athens and elsewhere he was commemorated as a benefactor; and\nas Jew and king of the Jews he restored the temple at Jerusalem. The\nemperor recognized his successful government by putting the districts of\nUlatha and Panias under him in 20 B.C.\n\nBut Herod found new enemies among the members of his household. His\nbrother Pheroras and sister Salome plotted for their own advantage and\nagainst the two sons of Mariamne. The people still cherished a loyalty\nto the Hasmonaean lineage, although the young princes were also the sons\nof Herod. The enthusiasm with which they were received fed the\nsuspicion, which their uncle instilled into their father's mind, and\nthey were strangled at Sebaste. On his deathbed Herod discovered that\nhis eldest son, Antipater, whom Josephus calls a \"monster of iniquity,\"\nhad been plotting against him. He proceeded to accuse him before the\ngovernor of Syria and obtained leave from Augustus to put him to death.\nThe father died five days after his son in 4 B.C. He had done much for\nthe Jews, thanks to the favour he had won and kept in spite of all from\nthe successive heads of the Roman state; he had observed the Law\npublicly--in fact, as the traditional epigram of Augustus says, \"it was\nbetter to be Herod's _swine_ than a _son_ of Herod.\"\n\n Josephus, _Ant._ xv., xvi., xvii. 1-8, _B.J._ i. 18-33; Schurer,\n _Gesch. d. jud. Volk._, 4th ed., i. pp. 360-418.\n\nHEROD ANTIPAS, son of Herod the Great by the Samaritan Malthace, and\nfull brother of Archelaus, received as his share of his father's\ndominions the provinces of Galilee and Peraea, with the title of\ntetrarch. Like his father, Antipas had a turn for architecture: he\nrebuilt and fortified the town of Sepphoris in Galilee; he also\nfortified Betharamptha in Peraea, and called it Julias after the wife of\nthe emperor. Above all he founded the important town of Tiberias on the\nwest shore of the Sea of Galilee, with institutions of a distinctly\nGreek character. He reigned 4 B.C.-A.D. 39. In the gospels he is\nmentioned as Herod. He it was who was called a \"fox\" by Christ (Luke\nxiii. 32). He is erroneously spoken of as a king in Mark vi. 14. It was\nto him that Jesus was sent by Pilate to be tried. But it is in connexion\nwith his wife Herodias that he is best known, and it was through her\nthat his misfortunes arose. He was married first of all to a daughter of\nAretas, the Arabian king; but, making the acquaintance of Herodias, the\nwife of his brother Philip (not the tetrarch), during a visit to Rome,\nhe was fascinated by her and arranged to marry her. Meantime his Arabian\nwife discovered the plan and escaped to her father, who made war on\nHerod, and completely defeated his army. John the Baptist condemned his\nmarriage with Herodias, and in consequence was put to death in the way\ndescribed in the gospels and in Josephus. When Herodias's brother\nAgrippa was appointed king by Caligula, she was determined to see her\nhusband attain to an equal eminence, and persuaded him, though naturally\nof a quiet and unambitious temperament, to make the journey to Rome to\ncrave a crown from the emperor. Agrippa, however, managed to influence\nCaligula against him. Antipas was deprived of his dominions and banished\nto Lyons, Herodias voluntarily sharing his exile.\n\nHEROD PHILIP, son of Herod the Great by Cleopatra of Jerusalem, received\nthe tetrarchate of Ituraea and other districts to E. and N.E. of the\nLake of Galilee, the poorest part of his father's kingdom. His subjects\nwere mainly Greeks or Syrians, and his coins bear the image of Augustus\nor Tiberius. He is described as an excellent ruler, who loved peace and\nwas careful to maintain justice, and spent his time in his own\nterritories. He was also a builder of cities, one of which was Caesarea\nPhilippi, and another was Bethsaida, which he called Julias. He died\nafter a reign of thirty-seven years (4 B.C.-A.D. 34); and his dominions\nwere incorporated in the province of Syria. (J. H. A. H.)\n\n\n\n\nHERODAS (Gr. [Greek: Herodas]), or HERONDAS (the name is spelt\ndifferently in the few places where he is mentioned), Greek poet, the\nauthor of short humorous dramatic scenes in verse, written under the\nAlexandrian empire in the 3rd century B.C. Apart from the intrinsic\nmerit of these pieces, they are interesting in the history of Greek\nliterature as being a new species, illustrating Alexandrian methods.\nThey are called [Greek: Mimiamboi], \"Mimeiambics.\" Mimes were the Dorian\nproduct of South Italy and Sicily, and the most famous of them--from\nwhich Plato is said to have studied the drawing of character--were the\nwork of Sophron. These were scenes in popular life, written in the\nlanguage of the people, vigorous with racy proverbs such as we get in\nother reflections of that region--in Petronius and the _Pentamerone_.\nTwo of the best known and the most vital among the _Idylls_ of\nTheocritus, the 2nd and the 15th, we know to have been derived from\nmimes of Sophron. What Theocritus is doing there, Herodas, his younger\ncontemporary, is doing in another manner--casting old material into\nnovel form, upon a small scale, under strict conditions of technique.\nThe method is entirely Alexandrian: Sophron had written in a peculiar\nkind of rhythmical prose; Theocritus uses the hexameter and Doric,\nHerodas the _scazon_ or \"lame\" iambic (with a dragging spondee at the\nend) and the old Ionic dialect with which that curious metre was\nassociated. That, however, hardly goes beyond the choice and form of\nwords; the structure of the sentences is close-knit Attic. But the\ngrumbling metre and quaint language suit the tone of common life which\nHerodas aims at realizing; for, as Theocritus may be called idealist,\nHerodas is a realist unflinching. His persons talk in vehement\nexclamations and emphatic turns of speech, with proverbs and fixed\nphrases; and occasionally, where it is designed as proper to the part,\nwith the most naked coarseness of expression.\n\nThe scene of the second and the fourth is laid at Cos, and the speaking\ncharacters in each are never more than three. In Mime I. the old nurse,\nnow the professional go-between or bawd, calls on Metriche, whose\nhusband has been long away in Egypt, and endeavours to excite her\ninterest in a most desirable young man, fallen deeply in love with her\nat first sight. After hearing all the arguments Metriche declines with\ndignity, but consoles the old woman with an ample glass of wine, this\nkind being always represented with the taste of Mrs Gamp. II. is a\nmonologue by the [Greek: Pornoboskos] (\"Whoremonger\") prosecuting a\nmerchant-trader for breaking into his establishment at night and\nattempting to carry off one of the inmates, who is produced in court.\nThe vulgar blackguard, who is a stranger to any sort of shame, remarking\nthat he has no evidence to call, proceeds to a peroration in the regular\noratorical style, appealing to the Coan judges not to be unworthy of\ntheir traditional glories. In fact, the whole oration is also a\nburlesque in every detail of an Attic speech at law; and in this case we\nhave the material from which to estimate the excellence of the parody.\nIn III. a desperate mother brings to the schoolmaster a truant urchin,\nwith whom neither she nor his incapable old father can do anything. In a\nvoluble stream of interminable sentences she narrates his misdeeds and\nimplores the schoolmaster to flog him. The boy accordingly is hoisted on\nanother's back and flogged; but his spirit does not appear to be\nsubdued, and the mother resorts to the old man after all. IV. is a visit\nof two poor women with an offering to the temple of Asclepius at Cos.\nWhile the humble cock is being sacrificed, they turn, like the women in\nthe _Ion_ of Euripides, to admire the works of art; among them a small\nboy strangling a vulpanser--doubtless the work of Boethus that we\nknow--and a sacrificial procession by Apelles, \"the Ephesian,\" of whom\nwe have an interesting piece of contemporary eulogy. The oily sacristan\nis admirably painted in a few slight strokes. V. brings us very close to\nsome unpleasant facts of ancient life. The jealous woman accuses one of\nher slaves, whom she has made her favourite, of infidelity; has him\nbound and sent degraded through the town to receive 2000 lashes; no\nsooner is he out of sight than she recalls him to be branded \"at one\njob.\" The only pleasing person in the piece is the little\nmaidservant--permitted liberties as a _verna_ brought up in the\nhouse--whose ready tact suggests to her mistress an excuse for\npostponing execution of a threat made in ungovernable fury. VI. is a\nfriendly chat or a private conversation. The subject is an ugly one, but\nthe dialogue is as clever and amusing as the rest, with some delicious\ntouches. Our interest is engaged here in a certain Kerdon, the artistic\nshoemaker, to whom we are introduced in VII. (the name had already\nbecome generic for the shoemaker as the typical representative of retail\ntrade), a little bald man with a fluent tongue, complaining of hard\ntimes, who bluffs and wheedles by turns. VII. opens with a mistress\nwaking up her maids to listen to her dream; but we have only the\nbeginning, and the other fragments are very short.\n\nWithin the limits of 100 lines or less Herodas presents us with a highly\nentertaining scene and with characters definitely drawn. Some of these\nhad been perfected no doubt upon the Attic stage, where the tendency in\nthe 4th century had been gradually to evolve accepted types--not\nindividuals, but generalizations from a class, an art in which\nMenander's was esteemed the master-hand. The [Greek: Pornoboskos] and\nthe [Greek: Mastropos] we can piece together from succeeding literature,\nand see how skilfully the established traits are indicated here. This is\nachieved by true dramatic means, with touches never wasted and the more\ndelightful often because they do not clamour for attention. The\nexecution has the qualities of first-rate Alexandrian work in miniature,\nsuch as the epigrams of Asclepiades possess, the finish and firm\noutlines; and these little pictures bear the test of all artistic\nwork--they do not lose their freshness with familiarity, and gain in\ninterest as one learns to appreciate their subtle points.\n\n The papyrus MS., obtained from the Fayum, is in the possession of the\n British Museum, and was first printed by F. G. Kenyon in 1891.\n Editions by O. Crusius (1905, text only, in Teubner series) and J. A.\n Nairn (1904), with introduction, notes and bibliography. There is an\n English verse translation of the mimes by H. Sharpley (1906) under the\n title _A Realist of the Aegean_. (W. G. H.)\n\n\n\n\nHERODIANS ([Greek: Herodianoi]), a sect or party mentioned in Scripture\nas having on two occasions--once in Galilee, and again in\nJerusalem--manifested an unfriendly disposition towards Jesus (Mark iii.\n6, xii. 13; Matt. xxii. 6; cf. also Mark viii. 15). In each of these\ncases their name is coupled with that of the Pharisees. According to\nmany interpreters the courtiers or soldiers of Herod Antipas (\"Milites\nHerodis,\" Jerome) are intended; but more probably the Herodians were a\npublic political party, who distinguished themselves from the two great\nhistorical parties of post-exilian Judaism by the fact that they were\nand had been sincerely friendly to Herod the Great and to his dynasty\n(cf. such formations as \"Caesariani,\" \"Pompeiani\"). It is possible that,\nto gain adherents, the Herodian party may have been in the habit of\nrepresenting that the establishment of a Herodian dynasty would be\nfavourable to the realization of the theocracy; and this in turn may\naccount for Tertullian's (_De praescr._) allegation that the Herodians\nregarded Herod himself as the Messiah. The sect was called by the Rabbis\nBoethusians as being friendly to the family of Boethus, whose daughter\nMariamne was one of Herod the Great's wives. (J. H. A. H.)\n\n\n\n\nHERODIANUS, Greek historian, flourished during the third century A.D. He\nis supposed to have been a Syrian Greek. In 203 he was in Rome, where he\nheld some minor posts. He does not appear to have attained high official\nrank; the statement that he was imperial procurator and legate of the\nSicilian provinces rests upon conjecture only. His historical work\n([Greek: Herodianou tes meta Markon basileias historion biblia okto])\nnarrates the events of the fifty-eight years between the death of Marcus\nAurelius and the proclamation of Gordianus III. (180-238). The narrative\nis of special value as supplementing Dion Cassius, whose history ends\nwith Alexander Severus. His work has the value that attaches to a record\nwritten by one chronicling the events of his own times, gifted with\nordinary powers of observation, indubitable candour and independence of\nview. But while he gives a lively account of external events--such as\nthe death of Commodus and the assassination of Pertinax--the barbarian\ninvasions, the spread of Christianity, the extension of the franchise by\nCaracalla are unnoticed. The dates are often wrong, and little attention\nis paid to geographical details, which makes the narrative of military\nexpeditions beyond the borders of the empire difficult to understand.\nHerodian has been accused of prejudice against Alexander Severus. His\nstyle, modelled on that of Thucydides and unreservedly praised by\nPhotius, is on the whole pure, though somewhat rhetorical and showing a\nfondness for Latinisms.\n\n Extensive use has been made of Herodianus by later chroniclers,\n especially the \"Scriptores historiae Augustae\" and John of Antioch.\n His history was first translated into Latin at the end of the 15th\n century by Politian. The most complete edition is by G. W. Irmisch\n (1789-1805), with elaborate indices, but the notes are very diffuse;\n critical editions by I. Bekker (1855), L. Mendelssohn (1883); see also\n C. Dandliker.\n\n\n\n\nHERODIANUS, AELIUS, called [Greek: ho technikos], Alexandrian\ngrammarian, flourished in the 2nd century A.D. He early took up his\nresidence at Rome, where he enjoyed the patronage of Marcus Aurelius\n(161-180), to whom he dedicated his great treatise on prosody. This work\nin twenty-one books ([Greek: Katholike prosodia]) included also an\naccount of the etymological part of grammar. The work itself is lost,\nbut several epitomes of it have been preserved. His [Greek:\nHepimerismoi] dealt with difficult words and peculiar forms in Homer.\nHerodianus also wrote numerous grammatical treatises, of which only one\nhas come down to us in a complete form ([Greek: Peri monerous lexeos],\non peculiar style), articles on exceptional or anomalous words. Numerous\nquotations and fragments still exist, chiefly in the Homeric scholiasts\nand Stephanus of Byzantium. Herodianus enjoyed a great reputation as a\ngrammarian, and Priscian styles him \"maximus auctor artis grammaticae.\"\n\n The best edition is by A. Lentz, _Herodiani. Technici reliquiae_\n (1867-1870); a supplementary volume is included in Uhling's _Corpus\n grammaticorum Graecorum_; for further bibliographical information see\n W. Christ, _Geschichte der griechischen Literatur_ (1898).\n\n\n\n\nHERODOTUS (c. 484-425 B.C.), Greek historian, called the Father of\nHistory, was born at Halicarnassus in Asia Minor, then dependent upon\nthe Persians, in or about the year 484 B.C. Herodotus was thus born a\nPersian subject, and such he continued until he was thirty or\nfive-and-thirty years of age. At the time of his birth Halicarnassus was\nunder the rule of a queen Artemisia (q.v.). The year of her death is\nunknown; but she left her crown to her son Pisindelis (born about 498\nB.C.), who was succeeded upon the throne by his son Lygdamis about the\ntime that Herodotus grew to manhood. The family of Herodotus belonged to\nthe upper rank of the citizens. His father was named Lyxes, and his\nmother Rhaeo, or Dryo. He had a brother Theodore, and an uncle or cousin\nPanyasis (q.v.), the epic poet, a personage of so much importance that\nthe tyrant Lygdamis, suspecting him of treasonable projects, put him to\ndeath. It is probable that Herodotus shared his relative's political\nopinions, and either was exiled from Halicarnassus or quitted it\nvoluntarily at the time of his execution.\n\nOf the education of Herodotus no more can be said than that it was\nthoroughly Greek, and embraced no doubt the three subjects essential to\na Greek liberal education--grammar, gymnastic training and music. His\nstudies would be regarded as completed when he attained the age of\neighteen, and took rank among the _ephebi_ or _eirenes_ of his native\ncity. In a free Greek state he would at once have begun his duties as a\ncitizen, and found therein sufficient employment for his growing\nenergies. But in a city ruled by a tyrant this outlet was wanting; no\npolitical life worthy of the name existed. Herodotus may thus have had\nhis thoughts turned to literature as furnishing a not unsatisfactory\ncareer, and may well have been encouraged in his choice by the example\nof Panyasis, who had already gained a reputation by his writings when\nHerodotus was still an infant. At any rate it is clear from the extant\nwork of Herodotus that he must have devoted himself early to the\nliterary life, and commenced that extensive course of reading which\nrenders him one of the most instructive as well as one of the most\ncharming of ancient writers. The poetical literature of Greece was\nalready large; the prose literature was more extensive than is generally\nsupposed; yet Herodotus shows an intimate acquaintance with the whole of\nit. The _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_ are as familiar to him as Shakespeare\nto the educated Englishman. He is acquainted with the poems of the epic\ncycle, the _Cypria_, the _Epigoni_, &c. He quotes or otherwise shows\nfamiliarity with the writings of Hesiod, Olen, Musaeus, Bacis,\nLysistratus, Archilochus of Paros, Alcaeus, Sappho, Solon, Aesop,\nAristeas of Proconnesus, Simonides of Ceos, Phrynichus, Aeschylus and\nPindar. He quotes and criticizes Hecataeus, the best of the prose\nwriters who had preceded him, and makes numerous allusions to other\nauthors of the same class.\n\nIt must not, however, be supposed that he was at any time a mere\nstudent. It is probable that from an early age his inquiring disposition\nled him to engage in travels, both in Greece and in foreign countries.\nHe traversed Asia Minor and European Greece probably more than once; he\nvisited all the most important islands of the Archipelago--Rhodes,\nCyprus, Delos, Paros, Thasos, Samothrace, Crete, Samos, Cythera and\nAegina. He undertook the long and perilous journey from Sardis to the\nPersian capital Susa, visited Babylon, Colchis, and the western shores\nof the Black Sea as far as the estuary of the Dnieper; he travelled in\nScythia and in Thrace, visited Zante and Magna Graecia, explored the\nantiquities of Tyre, coasted along the shores of Palestine, saw Gaza,\nand made a long stay in Egypt. At the most moderate estimate, his\ntravels covered a space of thirty-one degrees of longitude, or 1700\nmiles, and twenty-four of latitude, or nearly the same distance. At all\nthe more interesting sites he took up his abode for a time; he examined,\nhe inquired, he made measurements, he accumulated materials. Having in\nhis mind the scheme of his great work, he gave ample time to the\nelaboration of all its parts, and took care to obtain by personal\nobservation a full knowledge of the various countries.\n\nThe travels of Herodotus seem to have been chiefly accomplished between\nhis twentieth and his thirty-seventh year (464-447 B.C.).[1] It was\nprobably in his early manhood that as a Persian subject he visited Susa\nand Babylon, taking advantage of the Persian system of posts which he\ndescribes in his fifth book. His residence in Egypt must, on the other\nhand, have been subsequent to 460 B.C., since he saw the skulls of the\nPersians slain by Inarus in that year. Skulls are rarely visible on a\nbattlefield for more than two or three seasons after the fight, and we\nmay therefore presume that it was during the reign of Inarus (460-454\nB.C.),[2] when the Athenians had great authority in Egypt, that he\nvisited the country, making himself known as a learned Greek, and\ntherefore receiving favour and attention on the part of the Egyptians,\nwho were so much beholden to his countrymen (see ATHENS, CIMON,\nPERICLES). On his return from Egypt, as he proceeded along the Syrian\nshore, he seems to have landed at Tyre, and from thence to have gone to\nThasos. His Scythian travels are thought to have taken place prior to\n450 B.C.\n\nIt is a question of some interest from what centre or centres these\nvarious expeditions were made. Up to the time of the execution of\nPanyasis, which is placed by chronologists in or about the year 457\nB.C., there is every reason to believe that Herodotus lived at\nHalicarnassus. His travels in Asia Minor, in European Greece, and among\nthe islands of the Aegean, probably belong to this period, as also his\njourney to Susa and Babylon. We are told that when he quitted\nHalicarnassus on account of the tyranny of Lygdamis, in or about the\nyear 457 B.C., he took up his abode in Samos. That island was an\nimportant member of the Athenian confederacy, and in making it his home\nHerodotus would have put himself under the protection of Athens. The\nfact that Egypt was then largely under Athenian influence (see CIMON,\nPERICLES) may have induced him to proceed, in 457 or 456 B.C., to that\ncountry. The stories that he had heard in Egypt of Sesostris may then\nhave stimulated him to make voyages from Samos to Colchis, Scythia and\nThrace. He was thus acquainted with almost all the regions which were to\nbe the scene of his projected history.\n\nAfter Herodotus had resided for some seven or eight years in Samos,\nevents occurred in his native city which induced him to return thither.\nThe tyranny of Lygdamis had gone from bad to worse, and at last he was\nexpelled. According to Suidas, Herodotus was himself an actor, and\nindeed the chief actor, in the rebellion against him; but no other\nauthor confirms this statement, which is intrinsically improbable. It is\ncertain, however, that Halicarnassus became henceforward a voluntary\nmember of the Athenian confederacy. Herodotus would now naturally return\nto his native city, and enter upon the enjoyment of those rights of free\ncitizenship on which every Greek set a high value. He would also, if he\nhad by this time composed his history, or any considerable portion of\nit, begin to make it known by recitation among his friends. There is\nreason to believe that these first attempts were not received with much\nfavour, and that it was in chagrin at his failure that he precipitately\nwithdrew from his native town, and sought a refuge in Greece proper\n(about 447 B.C.).[3] We learn that Athens was the place to which he\nwent, and that he appealed from the verdict of his countrymen to\nAthenian taste and judgment. His work won such approval that in the year\n445 B.C., on the proposition of a certain Anytus, he was voted a sum of\nten talents (L2400) by decree of the people. At one of the recitations,\nit was said, the future historian Thucydides was present with his\nfather, Olorus, and was so moved that he burst into tears, whereupon\nHerodotus remarked to the father--\"Olorus, your son has a natural\nenthusiasm for letters.\"[4]\n\nAthens was at this time the centre of intellectual life, and could boast\nan almost unique galaxy of talent--Pericles, Thucydides the son of\nMelesias, Aspasia, Antiphon, the musician Damon, Pheidias, Protagoras,\nZeno, Cratinus, Crates, Euripides and Sophocles. Accepted into this\nbrilliant society, on familiar terms with all probably, as he certainly\nwas with Olorus, Thucydides and Sophocles, he must have been tempted,\nlike many another foreigner, to make Athens his permanent home. It is to\nhis credit that he did not yield to this temptation. At Athens he must\nhave been a dilettante, an idler, without political rights or duties. As\nsuch he would have soon ceased to be respected in a society where\nliterature was not recognized as a separate profession, where a Socrates\nserved in the infantry, a Sophocles commanded fleets, a Thucydides was\ngeneral of an army, and an Antiphon was for a time at the head of the\nstate. Men were not men according to Greek notions unless they were\ncitizens; and Herodotus, aware of this, probably sharing in the feeling,\nwas anxious, having lost his political status at Halicarnassus, to\nobtain such status elsewhere. At Athens the franchise, jealously guarded\nat this period, was not to be attained without great expense and\ndifficulty. Accordingly, in the spring of the following year he sailed\nfrom Athens with the colonists who went out to found the colony of\nThurii (see PERICLES), and became a citizen of the new town.\n\nFrom this point of his career, when he had reached the age of forty, we\nlose sight of him almost wholly. He seems to have made but few journeys,\none to Crotona, one to Metapontum, and one to Athens (about 430 B.C.)\nbeing all that his work indicates.[5] No doubt he was employed mainly,\nas Pliny testifies, in retouching and elaborating his general history.\nHe may also have composed at Thurii that special work on the history of\nAssyria to which he twice refers in his first book, and which is quoted\nby Aristotle. It has been supposed by many that he lived to a great age,\nand argued that \"the never-to-be-mistaken fundamental tone of his\nperformance is the quiet talkativeness of a highly cultivated, tolerant,\nintelligent, _old_ man\" (Dahlmann). But the indications derived from the\nlater touches added to his work, which form the sole evidence on the\nsubject, would rather lead to the conclusion that his life was not very\nprolonged. There is nothing in the nine books which may not have been\nwritten as early as 430 B.C.; there is no touch which, even probably,\npoints to a later date than 424 B.C. As the author was evidently engaged\nin polishing his work to the last, and even promises touches which he\ndoes not give, we may assume that he did not much outlive the date last\nmentioned, or in other words, that he died at about the age of sixty.\nThe predominant voice of antiquity tells us that he died at Thurii,\nwhere his tomb was shown in later ages.\n\n_The History._--In estimating the great work of Herodotus, and his\ngenius as its author, it is above all things necessary to conceive\naright what that work was intended to be. It has been called \"a\nuniversal history,\" \"a history of the wars between the Greeks and the\nbarbarians,\" and \"a history of the struggle between Greece and Persia.\"\nBut these titles are all of them too comprehensive. Herodotus, who omits\nwholly the histories of Phoenicia, Carthage and Etruria, three of the\nmost important among the states existing in his day, cannot have\nintended to compose a \"universal history,\" the very idea of which\nbelongs to a later age. He speaks in places as if his object was to\nrecord the wars between the Greeks and the barbarians; but as he omits\nthe Trojan war, in which he fully believes, the expedition of the\nTeucrians and Mysians against Thrace and Thessaly, the wars connected\nwith the Ionian colonization of Asia Minor and others, it is evident\nthat he does not really aim at embracing in his narrative all the wars\nbetween Greeks and barbarians with which he was acquainted. Nor does it\neven seem to have been his object to give an account of the entire\nstruggle between Greece and Persia. That struggle was not terminated by\nthe battle of Mycale and the capture of Sestos in 479 B.C. It continued\nfor thirty years longer, to the peace of Callias (but see CALLIAS and\nCIMON). The fact that Herodotus ends his history where he does shows\ndistinctly that his intention was, not to give an account of the entire\nlong contest between the two countries, but to write the history of a\nparticular war--the great Persian war of invasion. His aim was as\ndefinite as that of Thucydides, or Schiller, or Napier or any other\nwriter who has made his subject a particular war; only he determined to\ntreat it in a certain way. Every partial history requires an\n\"introduction\"; Herodotus, untrammelled by examples, resolved to give\nhis history a magnificent introduction. Thucydides is content with a\nsingle introductory book, forming little more than one-eighth of his\nwork; Herodotus has six such books, forming two-thirds of the entire\ncomposition.\n\nBy this arrangement he is enabled to treat his subject in the _grand_\nway, which is so characteristic of him. Making it his main object in his\n\"introduction\" to set before his readers the previous history of the two\nnations who were the actors in the great war, he is able in tracing\ntheir history to bring into his narrative some account of almost all the\nnations of the known world, and has room to expatiate freely upon their\ngeography, antiquities, manners and customs and the like, thus giving\nhis work a \"universal\" character, and securing for it, without trenching\nupon unity, that variety, richness and fulness which are a principal\ncharm of the best histories, and of none more than his. In tracing the\ngrowth of Persia from a petty subject kingdom to a vast dominant empire,\nhe has occasion to set out the histories of Lydia, Media, Assyria,\nBabylon, Egypt, Scythia, Thrace, and to describe the countries and the\npeoples inhabiting them, their natural productions, climate,\ngeographical position, monuments, &c.; while, in noting the\ncontemporaneous changes in Greece, he is led to tell of the various\nmigrations of the Greek race, their colonies, commerce, progress in the\narts, revolutions, internal struggles, wars with one another,\nlegislation, religious tenets and the like. The greatest variety of\nepisodical matter is thus introduced; but the propriety of the occasion\nand the mode of introduction are such that no complaint can be made; the\nepisodes never entangle, encumber or even unpleasantly interrupt the\nmain narrative.\n\nIt has been questioned, both in ancient and in modern times, whether the\nhistory of Herodotus possesses the essential requisite of\ntrustworthiness. Several ancient writers accuse him of intentional\nuntruthfulness. Moderns generally acquit him of this charge; but his\nseverer critics still urge that, from the inherent defects of his\ncharacter, his credulity, his love of effect and his loose and\ninaccurate habits of thought, he was unfitted for the historian's\noffice, and has produced a work of but small historical value. Perhaps\nit may be sufficient to remark that the defects in question certainly\nexist, and detract to some extent from the authority of the work, more\nespecially of those parts of it which deal with remoter periods, and\nwere taken by Herodotus on trust from his informants, but that they only\nslightly affect the portions which treat of later times and form the\nspecial subject of his history. In confirmation of this view, it may be\nnoted that the authority of Herodotus for the circumstances of the great\nPersian war, and for all local and other details which come under his\nimmediate notice, is accepted by even the most sceptical of modern\nhistorians, and forms the basis of their narratives.\n\nAmong the merits of Herodotus as an historian, the most prominent are\nthe diligence with which he collected his materials, the candour and\nimpartiality with which he has placed his facts before the reader, the\nabsence of party bias and undue national vanity, and the breadth of his\nconception of the historian's office. On the other hand, he has no claim\nto rank as a critical historian; he has no conception of the philosophy\nof history, no insight into the real causes that underlie political\nchanges, no power of penetrating below the surface, or even of grasping\nthe real interconnexion of the events which he describes. He belongs\ndistinctly to the romantic school; his forte is vivid and picturesque\ndescription, the lively presentation of scenes and actions, characters\nand states of society, not the subtle analysis of motives, the power of\ndetecting the undercurrents or the generalizing faculty.\n\nBut it is as a writer that the merits of Herodotus are most\nconspicuous. \"O that I were in a condition,\" says Lucian, \"to resemble\nHerodotus, if only in some measure! I by no means say in all his gifts,\nbut only in some single point; as, for instance, the beauty of his\nlanguage, or its harmony, or the natural and peculiar grace of the Ionic\ndialect, or his fulness of thought, or by whatever name those thousand\nbeauties are called which to the despair of his imitator are united in\nhim.\" Cicero calls his style \"copious and polished,\" Quintilian, \"sweet,\npure and flowing\"; Longinus says he was \"the most Homeric of\nhistorians\"; Dionysius, his countryman, prefers him to Thucydides, and\nregards him as combining in an extraordinary degree the excellences of\nsublimity, beauty and the true historical method of composition. Modern\nwriters are almost equally complimentary. \"The style of Herodotus,\" says\none, \"is universally allowed to be remarkable for its harmony and\nsweetness.\" \"The charm of his style,\" argues another, \"has so dazzled\nmen as to make them blind to his defects.\" Various attempts have been\nmade to analyse the charm which is so universally felt; but it may be\ndoubted whether any of them are very successful. All, however, seem to\nagree that among the qualities for which the style of Herodotus is to be\nadmired are simplicity, freshness, naturalness and harmony of rhythm.\nMaster of a form of language peculiarly sweet and euphonical, and\npossessed of a delicate ear which instinctively suggested the most\nmusical arrangement possible, he gives his sentences, without art or\neffort, the most agreeable flow, is never abrupt, never too diffuse,\nmuch less prolix or wearisome, and being himself simple, fresh, _naif_\n(if we may use the word), honest and somewhat quaint, he delights us by\ncombining with this melody of sound simple, clear and fresh thoughts,\nperspicuously expressed, often accompanied by happy turns of phrase, and\nalways manifestly the spontaneous growth of his own fresh and\nunsophisticated mind. Reminding us in some respects of the quaint\nmedieval writers, Froissart and Philippe de Comines, he greatly excels\nthem, at once in the beauty of his language and the art with which he\nhas combined his heterogeneous materials into a single perfect\nharmonious whole. See also GREECE, section _History_, \"Authorities.\"\n\n BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The history of Herodotus has been translated by many\n persons and into many languages. About 1450, at the time of the\n revival of learning, a Latin version was made and published by\n Laurentius Valla. This was revised in 1537 by Heusbach, and\n accompanies the Greek text of Herodotus in many editions. The first\n complete translation into a modern language was the English one of\n Littlebury, published in 1737. This was followed In 1786 by the French\n translation of Larcher, a valuable work, accompanied by copious notes\n and essays. Beloe, the second English translator, based his work on\n that of Larcher. His first edition, in 1791, was confessedly very\n defective; the second, in 1806, still left much to be desired. A good\n German translation, but without note or comment, was brought out by\n Friedrich Lange at Berlin in 1811. Andrea Mustoxidi, a native of\n Corfu, published an Italian version in 1820. In 1822 Auguste Miot\n endeavoured to improve on Larcher; and in 1828-1832 Dr Adolf Scholl\n brought out a German translation with copious notes (new ed., 1855),\n which has to some extent superseded the work of Lange. About the same\n time a new English version was made by Isaac Taylor (London, 1829). In\n 1858-1860, the history of Herodotus was translated by Canon G.\n Rawlinson, assisted in the copious notes and appendices accompanying\n the work by Sir Gardner Wilkinson and Sir Henry Rawlinson. More\n recently we have translations in English by G. C. Macaulay (2 vols.,\n 1890); in German by Bahr (Stuttgart, 1867) and Stein (Oldenburg,\n 1875); in French by Giguet (1857) and Talbot (1864); in Italian by\n Ricci (Turin, 1871-1876), Grandi (Asti, 1872) and Bertini (Naples,\n 1871-1872). A Swedish translation by F. Carlstadt was published at\n Stockholm in 1871.\n\n The best of the older editions of the Greek text are the\n following:--_Herodoti historiae_, ed. Schweighauser (5 vols.,\n Strassburg, 1816); _Herodoti Halicarnassei historiarum libri IX._ (ed.\n Gaisford, Oxford, 1840); _Herodotus, with a Commentary_, by J. W.\n Blakesley (2 vols. London, 1854); _Herodoti musae_ (ed. Bahr, 4 vols.,\n Leipzig, 1856-1861, 2nd ed.); and _Herodoti historiae_ (ed. Abicht,\n Leipzig, 1869).\n\n The most recent editions of the text, or of portions of it, with and\n without commentaries are the following:--H. Stein, _Herodoti\n Historiae_ (ed. Major, 2 vols., Berlin, 1869-1871, with _apparatus\n criticus_; still the best edition of the text); H. Kellenberg,\n _Historiarum libri IX._ (2 vols., Leipzig, 1887); van Herwerden,\n [Greek: Historiai] (Leiden, 1885); H. Stein, _Herodotus, erklart_\n (Berlin, 1856-1861, and several editions since; the best short\n commentary and introduction); A. H. Sayce, _The Ancient Empires of the\n East, Herodotus I.-III., with introductions and appendices_ (1883; an\n attempt to prove the unveracity of Herodotus, especially in regard to\n the extent of his travels, which has found little support amongst more\n recent English or German writers); R. W. Macan, _Herodotus IV.-VI._ (2\n vols., 1895) and _Herodotus VII.-IX._ (2 vols., 1908), with exhaustive\n introduction, appendices and notes; the only scientific edition of\n these books in English; E. Abbott, _Herodotus V. and VI._ (Oxford,\n 1893); A. Wiedemann, _Herodots zweites Buch mit sachlichen\n Bemerkungen_ (Leipzig, 1890; the best and fullest commentary on book\n ii.).\n\n Among works of value illustrative of Herodotus may be mentioned\n Bouhier, _Recherches sur Herodote_ (Dijon, 1746); Rennell, _Geography\n of Herodotus_ (London, 1800); Niebuhr, _Geography of Herodotus and\n Scythia_ (Eng. trans., Oxford, 1830); Dahlmann, _Herodot, aus seinem\n Buche sein Leben_ (Altona, 1823); Eltz, _Quaestiones Herodoteae_\n (Leipzig, 1841); Kenrick, _Egypt of Herodotus_ (London, 1841); Mure,\n _Literature of Greece_, vol. iv. (London, 1852); Abicht, _Ubersicht\n uber den Herodoteischen Dialekt_ (Leipzig, 1869, 3rd ed., 1874), and\n _De codicum Herodoti fide ac auctoritate_ (Naumburg, 1869); Melander,\n _De anacoluthis Herodoteis_ (Lund, 1869); Matzat, \"Uber die\n Glaubenswurdigkeit der geograph. Angaben Herodots uber Asien,\" in\n _Hermes_, vi.; Budinger, _Zur agyptischen Forschung Herodots_ (Vienna,\n 1873, reprinted from the _Sitzungsber._ of the Vienna Acad.);\n Merzdorf, _Quaestiones grammaticae de dialecto Herodotea_ (Leipzig,\n 1875); A. Kirchhoff, _Uber die Entstehungszeit des Herodotischen\n Geschichtswerkes_ (Berlin, 1878); Adolf Bauer, _Herodots Biographie_\n (Vienna, 1878); H. Delbruck, _Perser und Burgunderkriege_ (Berlin,\n 1887; of great importance for the criticism of the Persian Wars); N.\n Wecklein, _Uber die Tradition der Perserkriege_ (Munich, 1876); A.\n Hauvette-Besnault, _Herodote historien des guerres mediques_ (Paris,\n 1894); J. A. R. Munro, _Some Observations on the Persian Wars_ (in\n various vols. of the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_; acute and\n suggestive); G. B. Grundy, _The Great Persian War_ (London, 1901); J.\n P. Mahaffy, _History of Greek Classical Literature_, ii. 16 ff.\n (London, 1880); E. Meyer, _Forschungen zur alten Geschichte_, i. 151\n ff., and ii. 196 ff. (Halle, 1892-1899); Busolt, _Griechische\n Geschichte_, ii. 602 ff. (2nd ed., Gotha, 1895); J. B. Bury, _Ancient\n Greek Historians_ (1908), lecture 2. For notices of current literature\n see Bursian's _Jahresbericht_. Students of the original may also\n consult with advantage the lexicons of Aemilius Portus (Oxford, 1817)\n and of Schweighauser (London, 1824). On Herodotus' debt to Hecataeus\n see Wells, in _Journ. Hell. Stud._, 1909, pt. i. (G. R.; E. M. W.)\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [1] The date of his travels is difficult to determine. E. Meyer\n inclines to put all the longer journeys, except the Scythian, between\n 440 and 430 B.C. The journey to Susa and Babylon is put by C. F.\n Lehmann c. 450 B.C., and by H. Stein before 450.\n\n [2] Most recent critics (e.g. Stein, Meyer, Busolt) put the visit to\n Egypt after the suppression of the revolt under Inarus and Amyrtaeus\n (i.e. after 449 B.C.), on the strength of Herod. 2. 30, which implies\n the restoration of Persian authority.\n\n [3] Stein, Meyer, Busolt, and other recent writers attribute his\n departure from Halicarnassus to political causes, e.g. the ascendancy\n of the anti-Athenian party in the state.\n\n [4] This story is on chronological grounds rejected by all recent\n critics.\n\n [5] Opinion is divided as to this visit to Athens after his\n settlement at Thurii. Stein, Meyer and Busolt hold that much of his\n work (especially the later books) was composed at Athens soon after\n 430 B.C. See further Wachsmuth, _Rheinisches Museum_, lvi. (1901)\n 215-218. Macan, _Herodotus_ VII.-IX. (_Introduction_, pp.\n xlv.-lxvi.), seeks to prove that the last three books were the first\n part of the _Histories_ to be composed. He is followed in this view\n by Bury.\n\n\n\n\nHEROET, ANTOINE, surnamed LA MAISON-NEUVE (d. 1568), French poet, was\nborn in Paris of a family connected with the famous chancellor, Francois\nOlivier. His poetry belongs to his early years, for after he had taken\norders he ceased to write profane poetry, no doubt because he considered\nit out of keeping with his calling, in which he attained the dignity of\nbishop of Digue. His chief work is _La Parfaicte Amye_ (Lyons, 1542) in\nwhich he developed the idea of a purely spiritual love, based chiefly on\nthe reading of the Italian Neo-Platonists. The book aroused great\ncontroversy. La Borderie replied in _L'Amye de cour_ with a description\nof a very much more human woman, and Charles Fontaine contributed a\n_Contr' amye de cour_ to the dispute. Heroet, in addition to some\ntranslations from the classics, wrote the _Complainte d'une dame\nnouvellement surprise d'amour_, an _Epistre a Francois I^er_, and some\npieces included in the now very rare _Opuscules d'amour par Heroet, La\nBorderie et autres divins poetes_ (Lyons, 1547). Heroet belongs to the\nLyonnese school of which Maurice Sceve may be regarded as the leader.\nClement Marot praises him, and Ronsard was careful to exempt him with\none or two others from the scorn he poured on his immediate\npredecessors.\n\n See H. F. Cary, _The Early French Poets_ (1846).\n\n\n\n\nHEROIC ROMANCES, the name by which is distinguished a class of\nimaginative literature which flourished in the 17th century, principally\nin France. The beginnings of modern fiction in that country took a\npseudo-bucolic form, and the celebrated _Astree_ (1610) of Honore d'Urfe\n(1568-1625), which is the earliest French novel, is properly styled a\npastoral. But this ingenious and diffuse production, in which all is\nartificial, was the source of a vast literature, which took many and\ndiverse forms. Although its action was, in the main, languid and\nsentimental, there was a side of the _Astree_ which encouraged that\nextravagant love of glory, that spirit of \"panache,\" which was now\nrising to its height in France. That spirit it was which animated Marin\nle Roy, sieur de Gomberville (1600-1674), who was the inventor of what\nhave since been known as the Heroical Romances. In these there was\nexperienced a violent recrudescence of the old medieval elements of\nromance, the impossible valour devoted to a pursuit of the impossible\nbeauty, but the whole clothed in the language and feeling and atmosphere\nof the age in which the books were written. In order to give point to\nthe chivalrous actions of the heroes, it was always hinted that they\nwere well-known public characters of the day in a romantic disguise.\n\nIn the _Astree_ of Honore d'Urfe, which was a pure pastoral, in the\nreligious romances of Pierre Camus (1582-1653), in the comic _Francion_\nof Charles Sorel, piquancy had been given to the recital by this belief\nthat real personages could be recognized under the disguises. But in the\n_Carithee_ of Gomberville (1621) we have a pastoral which is already\nbeginning to be a heroic romance, and a book in which, under a travesty\nof Roman history, an appeal is made to an extravagantly chivalrous\nenthusiasm. A further development was seen in the _Polyxene_ (1623) of\nFrancois de Moliere, and the _Endymion_ (1624) of Gombauld; in the\nlatter the elderly queen, Marie de' Medici, was celebrated under the\ndisguise of Diana, for whom a beautiful shepherd of Caria (the author\nhimself) nourishes a hopeless passion. The earliest of the Heroic\nRomances, pure and simple, is, however, the celebrated _Polexandre_\n(1629) of Gomberville. The author began by intending his hero to\nrepresent Louis XIII., but he changed his mind, and drew a portrait of\nCardinal Richelieu. In this novel, for the first time, the romantic\ncharacter proper to this class of books is seen undiluted; there is no\nintrusion of a personage who is not celebrated for his birth, his beauty\nor his exploits. The story deals with the adventures of a hero who\nvisits all the sea-coasts of the world, the most remote as well as the\nmost fabulous, in search of an ineffable princess, Alcidiane. This\nabsurd and pretentious, yet very original piece of invention enjoyed an\nimmense success, and historical romances of a similar class competed for\nthe favour of the public. There was an equal amount of geography and\nmore of ancient history in the _Ariane_ (1632) of Desmarets de\nSaint-Sorlin (1595-1676), a book which, long neglected, has in late\nyears been rediscovered, and which has been greeted by M. Paul Morillot\nas the most readable and the least tiresome of all the Heroic Romances.\nThe type of that class of literature, however, has always been found in\nthe highly elaborate writings of Gauthier de Coste de la Calprenede\n(1609-1663), which enjoyed for a time a prodigious celebrity, and were\nread and imitated all over Europe. La Calprenede was a Gascon soldier,\nimbued with all the extravagance of his race, and in full sympathy with\nthe audacity and violence of the aristocratic society of France in his\nday. His _Cassandre_, which appeared in ten volumes between 1642 and\n1645, is perhaps the most characteristic of all the Heroic Romances. It\ndeals with a highly romantic epoch of ancient history, the decline of\nthe empire of Alexander the Great. The wars of the Persians and of the\nScythians are introduced, and among the characters are discovered such\npersonages as Artaxerxes, Roxana and Ephestion. It must not be supposed,\nhowever, that la Calprenede makes the smallest effort to deal with the\nsubject accurately or realistically. The figures are those of his own\nday; they are seigneurs and great ladies of the court of Louis XIII.,\nmasquerading in Macedonian raiment. The passion of love is dominant\nthroughout, and it is treated in the most exalted and hyperbolical\nspirit. The central heroes of the story, Oroondate and Lysimachus, are\ndignified, eloquent and amorous; they undergo unexampled privations in\nthe quest of incomparable ladies whose beauty and whose nobility is only\nequalled by their magnificent loyalty. These books were written with an\naim that was partly didactic. Their object was to entertain the ladies\nand to gratify a taste for endlessly wire-drawn sentimentality, but it\nwas also to teach fortitude and grandeur of soul and to inculcate\nlessons of practical chivalry. La Calprenede followed up the success of\nhis _Cassandre_ with a _Cleopatre_ (1647) in twelve volumes, and a\n_Faramond_ (1661) which he did not live to finish. He became more\nextravagant, more rhapsodical as he proceeded, and he lost all the\nlittle hold on history which he had ever held. _Cleopatre_,\nnevertheless, enjoyed a prodigious popularity, and it became the fashion\nto emulate as far as possible the prowess of its magnificent hero, the\nproud Artaban. It should be said that la Calprenede objected to his\nbooks being styled romances, and insisted that they were specimens of\n\"history embellished with certain inventions.\" He may, in opposition to\nhis wishes, claim the doubtful praise of being, in reality, the creator\nof the modern historical novel. He was immediately imitated or\naccompanied by a large number of authors, of whom two have achieved a\ncertain immortality, which, unhappily, must be confessed to be partly of\nridicule. The vogue of the historical romance was carried to its height\nby a brother and a sister, Georges de Scudery (1601-1667) and Madeleine\nde Scudery (1608-1701), who represented in their own persons all the\nextravagant, tempestuous and absurd elements of the age, and whose\nelephantine romances remain as portents in the history of literature.\nThese novels--there are five of them--were signed by Georges de Scudery,\nbut it is believed that all were in the main written by Madeleine. The\nearliest was _Ibrahim, ou l'Illustre Bassa_ (1641); it was followed by\n_Le Grand Cyrus_ (1648-1653) and the final, and most preposterous member\nof the series was _Clelie_ (1649-1654). The romances of Mlle de Scudery\n(for to her we may safely attribute them) are much inferior in style to\nthose of la Calprenede. They are pretentious, affected and sickly. The\nauthor abuses the element of analysis, and pushes a psychology, which\nwas beyond the age in penetration, to a wearisome and excessive extent.\nNothing, it is probable, in the whole evolution of the Historical\nRomances has attracted so much attention as the \"Carte de Tendre\" which\noccurs in the opening book of _Clelie_. This celebrated map, drawn by\nthe heroine in order to show the route from New Friendship to Tender,\nand a geographical symbol, therefore, of the progress of love, with its\ncity of Tender-upon-Esteem, its sea of Enmity, its river of Inclination,\nits rock-built citadel of Pride, its cold lake of Indifference, is a\nmiracle of elaborate and incongruous ingenuity. But, amusing as it is,\nit shows into what depths of puerility the amorous casuistry of these\nromances had fallen. These novels formed the chief topic of conversation\nand of correspondence in the literary society which gathered at and\naround the Hotel de Rambouillet, and in the personages of Mlle de\nScudery's romances could be recognized all the famous leaders of that\nsociety. The mawkish love-making and the false heroism of these\nmonstrous novels went rapidly out of fashion in France soon after 1660,\nwhen the epoch of the Heroic Romance came to an end. In England the\nHeroic Romance had a period of flourishing popularity. All the principal\nFrench examples were very promptly translated, and \"he was not to be\nadmitted into the academy of wit who had not read _Astrea_ and _The\nGrand Cyrus_.\" The great vogue of these books in England lasted from\nabout 1645 to 1660. It led, of course, to the composition of original\nworks in imitation of the French. The most remarkable and successful of\nthese was _Parthenissa_, published in 1654 by Roger Boyle, Lord Broghill\nand afterwards Earl of Orrery (1621-1679), which was greatly admired by\nDorothy Osborne and her correspondents. Addison speaks in the\n\"Spectator\" of the popularity of all these huge books, \"the _Grand\nCyrus_, with a pin stuck in one of the middle leaves, _Clelie_, which\nopened of itself in the place that describes two lovers in a bower.\"\nWhen the drama, and in particular tragedy, was reinstituted in England,\nsentimental readers found a field for their emotions on the stage, and\nthe heroic romances immediately began to go out of fashion. They\nlingered, however, for a quarter of a century more, and M. Jusserand has\nanalysed what may be considered the very latest of the race, _Pandion\nand Amphigenia_, published in 1665 by the dramatist, John Crowne.\n\n See Gordon de Percel, _De l'usage des romans_ (1734); Andre Le Breton,\n _Le Roman au XVII^e siecle_ (1890); Paul Morillot, _Le Roman en France\n depuis 1610_ (1894); J. J. Jusserand, _Le Roman anglais au XVII^e\n siecle_ (1888). (E. G.)\n\n\n\n\nHEROIC VERSE, a term exclusively used in English to Indicate the rhymed\niambic line or HEROIC COUPLET. In ancient literature, the heroic verse,\n[Greek: heroikon metron], was synonymous with the dactylic hexameter. It\nwas in this measure that those typically heroic poems, the _Iliad_ and\n_Odyssey_ and the _Aeneid_ were written. In English, however, it was\nnot enough to designate a single iambic line of five beats as heroic\nverse, because it was necessary to distinguish blank verse from the\ndistich, which was formed by the heroic couplet. This had escaped the\nnotice of Dryden, when he wrote \"The English Verse, which we call\nHeroic, consists of no more than ten syllables.\" If that were the case,\nthen _Paradise Lost_ would be written in heroic verse, which is not\ntrue. What Dryden should have said is \"consists of two rhymed lines,\neach of ten syllables.\" In French the alexandrine has always been\nregarded as the heroic measure of that language. The dactylic movement\nof the heroic line in ancient Greek, the famous [Greek: rhythmos heroos]\nof Homer, is expressed in modern Europe by the iambic movement. The\nconsequence is that much of the rush and energy of the antique verse,\nwhich at vigorous moments was like the charge of a battalion, is lost.\nIt is owing to this, in part, that the heroic couplet is so often\nrequired to give, in translation, the full value of a single Homeric\nhexameter. It is important to insist that it is the couplet, not the\nsingle line, which constitutes heroic verse. It is interesting to note\nthat the Latin poet Ennius, as reported by Cicero, called the heroic\nmetre of one line _versum longum_, to distinguish it from the brevity of\nlyrical measures. The current form of English heroic verse appears to be\nthe invention of Chaucer, who used it in his _Legend of Good Women_ and\nafterwards, with still greater freedom, in the _Canterbury Tales_. Here\nis an example of it in its earliest development:--\n\n \"And thus the longe day in fight they spend,\n Till, at the last, as everything hath end,\n Anton is shent, and put him to the flight,\n And all his folk to go, as best go might.\"\n\nThis way of writing was misunderstood and neglected by Chaucer's English\ndisciples, but was followed nearly a century later by the Scottish poet,\ncalled Blind Harry (_c._ 1475), whose _Wallace_ holds an important place\nin the history of versification as having passed on the tradition of the\nheroic couplet. Another Scottish poet, Gavin Douglas, selected heroic\nverse for his translation of the _Aeneid_ (1513), and displayed, in such\nexamples as the following, a skill which left little room for\nimprovement at the hands of later poets:--\n\n \"One sang, 'The ship sails over the salt foam,\n Will bring the merchants and my leman home';\n Some other sings, 'I will be blithe and light,\n Mine heart is leant upon so goodly wight.'\"\n\nThe verse so successfully mastered was, however, not very generally used\nfor heroic purposes in Tudor literature. The early poets of the revival,\nand Spenser and Shakespeare after them, greatly preferred stanzaic\nforms. For dramatic purposes blank verse was almost exclusively used,\nalthough the French had adopted the rhymed alexandrine for their plays.\nIn the earlier half of the 17th century, heroic verse was often put to\nsomewhat unheroic purposes, mainly in prologues and epilogues, or other\nshort poems of occasion; but it was nobly redeemed by Marlowe in his\n_Hero and Leander_ and respectably by Browne in his _Britannia's\nPastorals_. It is to be noted, however, that those Elizabethans who,\nlike Chapman, Warner and Drayton, aimed at producing a warlike and\nHomeric effect, did so in shambling fourteen-syllable couplets. The one\nheroic poem of that age written at considerable length in the\nappropriate national metre is the _Bosworth Field_ of Sir John Beaumont\n(1582-1628). Since the middle of the 17th century, when heroic verse\nbecame the typical and for a while almost the solitary form in which\nserious English poetry was written, its history has known many\nvicissitudes. After having been the principal instrument of Dryden and\nPope, it was almost entirely rejected by Wordsworth and Coleridge, but\nrevised, with various modifications, by Byron, Shelley (in _Julian and\nMaddalo_) and Keats (in _Lamia_). In the second half of the 19th century\nits prestige was restored by the brilliant work of Swinburne in\n_Tristram_ and elsewhere. (E. G.)\n\n\n\n\nHEROLD, LOUIS JOSEPH FERDINAND (1791-1833), French musician, the son of\nFrancois Joseph Herold, an accomplished pianist, was born in Paris, on\nthe 28th of January 1791. It was not till after his father's death that\nHerold in 1806 entered the Paris conservatoire, where he studied under\nCatal and Mehul. In 1812 he gained the grand prix de Rome with the\ncantata _La Duchesse de la Valliere_, and started for Italy, where he\nremained till 1815 and composed a symphony, a cantata and several pieces\nof chamber music. During his stay in Italy also Herold for the first\ntime ventured on the stage with the opera _La Gioventu di Enrico V._,\nfirst performed at Naples in 1815 with moderate success. During a short\nstay in Vienna he was much in the society of Salieri. Returning to Paris\nhe was invited by Boieldieu to collaborate with him on an opera called\n_Charles de France_, performed in 1816, and soon followed by Herold's\nfirst French opera, _Les Rosieres_ (1817), which was received very\nfavourably. Herold produced numerous dramatic works for the next fifteen\nyears in rapid succession. Only the names of some of the more important\nneed here be mentioned:--_La Clochette_ (1817), _L'Auteur mort et\nvivant_ (1820), _Marie_ (1826), and the ballets _La Fille mal gardee_\n(1828) and _La Belle au bois dormant_ (1829). Herold also wrote a vast\nquantity of pianoforte music, in spite of his time being much occupied\nby his duties as accompanist at the Italian opera in Paris. In 1831 he\nproduced the romantic opera _Zampa_, and in the following year _Le Pre\naux clercs_ (first performance December 15, 1832), in which French\n_esprit_ and French chivalry find their most perfect embodiment. These\ntwo operas secured immortality for the name of the composer, who died on\nthe 18th of January 1833, of the lung disease from which he had suffered\nfor many years, and the effects of which he had accelerated by incessant\nwork. Herold's incomplete opera _Ludovic_ was afterwards printed by J.\nF. F. Halevy.\n\n\n\n\nHERON (Fr. _heron_; Ital. _aghirone_, _airone_; Lat. _ardea_; Gr.\n[Greek: erodios]: A.-S. _hragra_; Icelandic, _hegre_; Swed. _hager_;\nDan. _heire_; Ger. _Heiger_, _Reiher_, _Heergans_; Dutch, _reiger_), a\nlong-necked, long-winged and long-legged bird, the typical\nrepresentative of the group _Ardeidae_. It is difficult or even\nimpossible to estimate with any accuracy the number of species of\n_Ardeidae_ which exist. Professor Hermann Schlegel in 1863 enumerated\n61, besides 5 of what he terms \"conspecies,\" as contained in the\ncollection at Leyden (_Mus. des Pays-Bas_, Ardeae, 64 pp.),--on the\nother hand, G. R. Gray in 1871 (_Handlist_, &c. iii. 26-34) admitted\nabove 90, while Dr Anton Reichenow (_Journ. fur Ornithologie_, 1877, pp.\n232-275) recognizes 67 as known, besides 15 \"subspecies\" and 3\nvarieties, arranging them in 3 genera, _Nycticorax_, _Botaurus_ and\n_Ardea_, with 17 sub-genera. But it is difficult to separate the family,\nwith any satisfactory result, into genera, if structural characters have\nto be found for these groups, for in many cases they run almost\ninsensibly into each other--though in common language it is easy to\nspeak of herons, egrets, bitterns, night-herons and boatbills. With the\nexception of the last, Professor Schlegel retains all in the genus\n_Ardea_, dividing it into _eight_ sections, the names of which may\nperhaps be Englished--great herons, small herons, egrets, semi-egrets,\nrail-like herons, little bitterns, bitterns and night-herons.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 1.--Heron.]\n\nThe common heron of Europe, _Ardea cinerea_ of Linnaeus, is universally\nallowed to be the type of the family, and it may also be regarded as\nthat of Professor Schlegel's first section. The species inhabits\nsuitable localities throughout the whole of Europe, Africa and Asia,\nreaching Japan, many of the islands of the Indian Archipelago and even\nAustralia. Though by no means so numerous as formerly in Britain, it is\nstill sufficiently common,[1] and there must be few persons who have not\nseen it rising slowly from some river-side or marshy flat, or passing\noverhead in its lofty and leisurely flight on its way to or from its\ndaily haunts; while they are many who have been entertained by watching\nit as it sought its food, consisting chiefly of fishes (especially eels\nand flounders) and amphibians--though young birds and small mammals come\nnot amiss--wading midleg in the shallows, swimming occasionally when out\nof its depth, or standing motionless to strike its prey with its\nformidable and sure beak. When sufficiently numerous the heron breeds in\nsocieties, known as heronries, which of old time were protected both by\nlaw and custom in nearly all European countries, on account of the sport\ntheir tenants afforded to the falconer. Of late years, partly owing to\nthe withdrawal of the protection they had enjoyed, and still more, it\nwould seem, from agricultural improvement, which, by draining meres,\nfens and marshes, has abolished the feeding-places of a great population\nof herons, many of the larger heronries have broken up--the birds\ncomposing them dispersing to neighbouring localities and forming smaller\nsettlements, most of which are hardly to be dignified by the name of\nheronry, though commonly accounted such. Thus the number of so-called\nheronries in the United Kingdom, and especially in England and Wales,\nhas become far greater than formerly, but no one can doubt that the\nnumber of herons has dwindled. The sites chosen by the heron for its\nnest vary greatly. It is generally built in the top of a lofty tree, but\nnot unfrequently (and this seems to have been much more usual in former\ndays) near or on the ground among rough vegetation, on an island in a\nlake, or again on a rocky cliff of the coast. It commonly consists of a\nhuge mass of sticks, often the accumulation of years, lined with twigs,\nand in it are laid from four to six sea-green eggs. The young are\nclothed in soft flax-coloured down, and remain in the nest for a\nconsiderable time, therein differing remarkably from the \"pipers\" of the\ncrane, which are able to run almost as soon as they are hatched. The\nfirst feathers assumed by young herons in a general way resemble those\nof the adult, but the pure white breast, the black throat-streaks and\nespecially the long pendent plumes, which characterize only the very old\nbirds, and are most beautiful in the cocks, are subsequently acquired.\nThe heron measures about 3 ft. from the bill to the tail, and the\nexpanse of its wings is sometimes not less than 6 ft., yet it weighs\nonly between 3 and 4 lb.\n\nLarge as is the common heron of Europe, it is exceeded in size by the\ngreat blue heron of America (_Ardea herodias_), which generally\nresembles it in appearance and habits, and both are smaller than the _A.\nsumatrana_ or _A. typhon_ of India and the Malay Archipelago, while the\n_A. goliath_, of wide distribution in Africa and Asia, is the largest of\nall. The purple heron, _A. purpurea_, as a well-known European species\nhaving a great range over the Old World, also deserves mention here. The\nspecies included in Professor Schlegel's second section inhabit the\ntropical parts of Africa, Australasia and America. The egrets, forming\nhis third group, require more notice, distinguished as they are by their\npure white plumage, and, when in breeding-dress, by the beautiful\ndorsal tufts of decomposed feathers that ordinarily droop over the tail,\nand are so highly esteemed as ornaments by Oriental magnates. The\nlargest species is _A. occidentalis_, only known apparently from Florida\nand Cuba; but one not much less, the great egret (_A. alba_), belongs to\nthe Old World, breeding regularly in south-eastern Europe, and\noccasionally straying to Britain. A third, _A. egretta_, represents it\nin America, while much the same may be said of two smaller species, _A.\ngarzetta_, the little egret of English authors, and _A. candidissima_;\nand a sixth, _A. intermedia_, is common in India, China and Japan,\nbesides occurring in Australia. The group of semi-egrets, containing\nsome nine or ten forms, among which the buff-backed heron (_A.\nbubulcus_), is the only species that is known to have occurred in\nEurope, is hardly to be distinguished from the last section except by\ntheir plumage being at certain seasons varied in some species with\nslaty-blue and in others with rufous. The rail-like herons form\nProfessor Schlegel's next section, but it can scarcely be satisfactorily\ndifferentiated, and the epithet is misleading, for its members have no\nrail-like affinities, though the typical species, which inhabits the\nsouth of Europe, and occasionally finds its way to England, has long\nbeen known as _A. ralloides_.[2] Nearly all these birds are tropical or\nsubtropical. Then there is the somewhat better defined group of little\nbitterns, containing about a dozen species--the smallest of the whole\nfamily. One of them, _A. minuta_, though very local in its distribution,\nis a native of the greater part of Europe, and has bred in England. It\nhas a close counterpart in the _A. exilis_ of North America, and is\nrepresented by three or four forms in other parts of the world, the _A.\npusilla_ of Australia especially differing very slightly from it. Ranged\nby Professor Schlegel with these birds, which are all remarkable for\ntheir skulking habits, but more resembling the true herons in their\nnature, are the common green bittern of America (_A. virescens_) and its\nvery near ally the African _A. atricapilla_, from which last it is\nalmost impossible to distinguish the _A. javanica_, of wide range\nthroughout Asia and its islands, while other species, less closely\nrelated, occur elsewhere as _A. flavicollis_--one form of which, _A.\ngouldi_, inhabits Australia.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 2.--Bittern.]\n\nThe true bitterns, forming the genus _Botaurus_ of most authors, seem to\nbe fairly separable, but more perhaps on account of their wholly\nnocturnal habits and correspondingly adapted plumage than on strictly\nstructural grounds, though some differences of proportion are\nobservable. The common bittern (q.v.) of Europe (_B. stellaris_), is\nwidely distributed over the eastern hemisphere.[3] Australia and New\nZealand have a kindred species, _B. poeciloptilus_, and North America a\nthird, _B. mugitans_[4] or _B. lentiginosus_. Nine other species from\nvarious parts of the world are admitted by Professor Schlegel, but some\nof them should perhaps be excluded from the genus _Botaurus_.\n\nOf the night-herons the same author recognizes six species, all of which\nmay be reasonably placed in the genus _Nycticorax_, characterized by a\nshorter beak and a few other peculiarities, among which the large eyes\ndeserve mention. The first is _N. griseus_, a bird widely spread over\nthe Old World, and not unfrequently visiting England, where it would\nundoubtedly breed if permitted. Professor Schlegel unites with it the\ncommon night-heron of America; but this, though very closely allied, is\ngenerally deemed distinct, and is the _N. naevius_ or _N. gardeni_ of\nmost writers. A clearly different American species, with a more southern\nhabitat, is the _N. violaceus_ or _N. cayennensis_, while others are\nfound in South America, Australia, some of the Asiatic Islands and in\nWest Africa. The Galapagos have a peculiar species, _N. pauper_, and\nanother, so far as is known, peculiar to Rodriguez, _N. megacephalus_,\nexisted in that island at the time of its being first colonized, but is\nnow extinct.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 3.--Boatbill.]\n\nThe boatbill, of which only one species is known, seems to be merely a\nnight-heron with an exaggerated bill,--so much widened as to suggest its\nEnglish name,--but has always been allowed generic rank. This curious\nbird, the _Cancroma cochlearia_ of most authors, is a native of tropical\nAmerica, and what is known of its habits shows that they are essentially\nthose of a _Nycticorax_.[5]\n\nBones of the common heron and bittern are not uncommon in the peat of\nthe East-Anglian fens. Remains from Sansan and Langy in France have been\nreferred by Alphonse Milne-Edwards to herons under the names of _Ardea\nperplexa_ and _A. formosa_; a tibia from the Miocene of Steinheim am\nAlbuch by Dr Fraas to an _A. similis_, while Sir R. Owen recognized a\nportion of a sternum from the London Clay as most nearly approaching\nthis family.\n\nIt remains to say that the herons form part of Huxley's section\n_Pelargomorphae_, belonging to his larger group _Desmognathae_, and to\ndraw attention to the singular development of the patches of\n\"powder-down\" which in the family _Ardeidae_ attain a magnitude hardly\nto be found elsewhere. Their use is utterly unknown. (A. N.)\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [1] In many parts of England it is generally called a\n \"hernser\"--being a corruption of \"heronsewe,\" which, as Professor\n Skeat states (_Etymol. Dictionary_, p. 264), is a perfectly distinct\n word from \"heronshaw,\" commonly confounded with it. The further\n corruption of \"hernser\" into \"handsaw,\" as in the well-known proverb,\n was easy in the mouth of men to whom hawking the heronsewe was\n unfamiliar.\n\n [2] It is the \"Squacco-Heron\" of modern British authors--the\n distinctive name, given \"Sguacco\" by Willughby and Ray from\n Aldrovandus, having been misspelt by Latham.\n\n [3] The last-recorded instance of the bittern breeding in England was\n in 1868, as mentioned by Stevenson (_Birds of Norfolk_, ii. 164).\n\n [4] Richardson, a most accurate observer, asserts (_Fauna\n Boreali-Americana_, ii. 374) that its booming (whence the epithet)\n exactly resembles that of its Old-World congener, but American\n ornithologists seem only to have heard the croaking note it makes\n when disturbed.\n\n [5] The very wonderful shoe-bird (_Balaeniceps_) has been regarded by\n many authorities as allied to _Cancroma_; but there can be little\n doubt that it is more nearly related to the genus _Scopus_ belonging\n to the storks. The sun-bittern (_Eurypyga_) forms a family of itself,\n allied to the rails and cranes.\n\n\n\n\nHERPES (from the Gr. [Greek: herpein], to creep) an inflammation of the\ntrue skin resulting from a lesion of the underlying nerve or its\nganglion, attended with the formation of isolated or grouped vesicles of\nvarious sizes upon a reddened base. They contain a clear fluid, and\neither rupture or dry up. Two well-marked varieties of herpes are\nfrequently met with. (a) In _herpes labialis et nasalis_ the eruption\noccurs about the lips and nose. It is seen in cases of certain acute\nfebrile ailments, such as fevers, inflammation of the lungs or even in a\nsevere cold. It soon passes off. (b) In the _herpes zoster, zona_ or\n\"shingles\" the eruption occurs in the course of one or more cutaneous\nnerves, often on one side of the trunk, but it may be on the face, limbs\nor other parts. It may occur at any age, but is probably more frequently\nmet with in elderly people. The appearance of the eruption is usually\npreceded by severe stinging neuralgic pains for several days, and, not\nonly during the continuance of the herpetic spots, but long after they\nhave dried up and disappeared, these pains sometimes continue and give\nrise to great suffering. The disease seldom recurs. The most that can be\ndone for its relief is to protect the parts with cotton wool or some\ndusting powder, while the pain may be allayed by opiates or bromide of\npotassium. Quinine internally is often of service.\n\n\n\n\nHERRERA, FERNANDO DE (c. 1534-1597), Spanish lyrical poet, was born at\nSeville. Although in minor orders, he addressed many impassioned poems\nto the countess of Gelves, wife of Alvaro Colon de Portugal; but it is\nsuggested that these should be regarded as Platonic literary exercises\nin the manner of Petrarch. As is shown by his _Anotaciones a las obras\nde Garcilaso de la Vega_ (1580), Herrera had a boundless admiration for\nthe Italian poets, and continued the work of Boscan in naturalizing the\nItalian metrical system in Spain. His commentary on Garcilaso involved\nhim in a series of literary polemics, and his verbal innovations laid\nhim open to attack. But, even if his amatory sonnets are condemned as\ninsincere in sentiment, their workmanship is admirable, while his odes\non the battle of Lepanto, on Don John of Austria, and the elegy on King\nSebastian of Portugal entitle him to rank as the greatest of Andalusian\npoets and as the most important of the followers of Garcilaso de la Vega\n(see VEGA). His poems were published in 1582, and reprinted with\nadditions in 1619; they are reissued in the _Biblioteca de autores\nespanoles_, vol. xxxii. Of Herrera's prose works only the _Vida y muerta\nde Tomas Moro_ (1592) survives; it is a translation of the life in\nThomas Stapleton's _Tres Thomae_ (1588).\n\n BIBLIOGRAPHY.--E. Bourciez, \"Les Sonnets de Fernando de Herrera,\"\n _Annales de la Faculte des Lettres de Bordeaux_ (1891); _Fernando de\n Herrera, controversia sobre sus anotaciones a les obras de Garcilaso\n de la Vega_ (Seville, 1870); A. Morel-Fatio, _L'Hymne sur Lepante_\n (Paris, 1893).\n\n\n\n\nHERRERA, FRANCISCO (1576-1656), surnamed el Viejo (the old), Spanish\nhistorical and fresco painter, studied under Luis Fernandez in Seville,\nhis native city, where he spent most of his life. Although so rough and\ncoarse in manners that neither scholar nor child could remain with him,\nthe great talents of Herrera, and the promptitude with which he used\nthem, brought him abundant commissions. He was also a skilful worker in\nbronze, an accomplishment that led to his being charged with coining\nbase money. From this accusation, whether true or false, he sought\nsanctuary in the Jesuit college of San Hermenegildo, which he adorned\nwith a fine picture of its patron saint. Philip IV., on his visit to\nSeville in 1624, having seen this picture, and learned the position of\nthe artist, pardoned him at once, warning him, however, that such powers\nas his should not be degraded. In 1650 Herrera removed to Madrid, where\nhe lived in great honour till his death in 1656. Herrera was the first\nto relinquish the timid Italian manner of the old Spanish school of\npainting, and to initiate the free, vigorous touch and style which\nreached such perfection in Velazquez, who had been for a short time his\npupil. His pictures are marked by an energy of design and freedom of\nexecution quite in keeping with his bold, rough character. He is said to\nhave used very long brushes in his painting; and it is also said that,\nwhen pupils failed, his servant used to dash the colours on the canvas\nwith a broom under his directions, and that he worked them up into his\ndesigns before they dried. The drawing in his pictures is correct, and\nthe colouring original and skilfully managed, so that the figures stand\nout in striking relief. What has been considered his best easel-work,\nthe \"Last Judgment,\" in the church of San Bernardo at Seville, is an\noriginal and striking composition, showing in its treatment of the nude\nhow ill-founded the common belief was that Spanish painters, through\nignorance of anatomy, understood only the draped figure. Perhaps his\nbest fresco is that on the dome of the church of San Buenaventura; but\nmany of his frescoes have perished, some by the effects of the weather\nand others by the artist's own carelessness in preparing his surfaces.\nHe has, however, preserved several of his own designs in etchings. For\nhis easel-works Herrera often chose such humble subjects as fairs,\ncarnivals, ale-houses and the like.\n\nHis son FRANCISCO HERRARA (1622-1685), surnamed el Mozo (the young), was\nalso an historical and fresco painter. Unable to endure his father's\ncruelty, the younger Herrera, seizing what money he could find, fled\nfrom Seville to Rome. There, instead of devoting himself to the\nantiquities and the works of the old Italian masters, he gave himself up\nto the study of architecture and perspective, with the view of becoming\na fresco-painter. He did not altogether neglect easel-work, but became\nrenowned for his pictures of still-life, flowers and fruit, and from his\nskill in painting fish was called by the Italians _Lo Spagnuolo degli\npesci_. In later life he painted portraits with great success. He\nreturned to Seville on hearing of his father's death, and in 1660 was\nappointed subdirector of the new academy there under Murillo. His\nvanity, however, brooked the superiority of no one; and throwing up his\nappointment he went to Madrid. There he was employed to paint a San\nHermenegildo for the barefooted Carmelites, and to decorate in fresco\nthe roof of the choir of San Felipe el Real. The success of this last\nwork procured for him a commission from Philip IV. to paint in fresco\nthe roof of the Atocha church. He chose as his subject for this the\nAssumption of the Virgin. Soon afterwards he was rewarded with the title\nof painter to the king, and was appointed superintendent of the royal\nbuildings. He died at Madrid in 1685. Herrera el Mozo was of a somewhat\nsimilar temperament to his father, and offended many people by his\ninordinate vanity and suspicious jealousy. His pictures are inferior to\nthe older Herrera's both in design and in execution; but in some of them\ntraces of the vigour of his father, who was his first teacher, are\nvisible. He was by no means an unskilful colourist, and was especially\nmaster of the effects of chiaroscuro. As his best picture Sir Edmund\nHead in his _Handbook_ names his \"San Francisco,\" in Seville Cathedral.\nAn elder brother, known as Herrera el Rubio (the ruddy), who died very\nyoung, gave great promise as a painter.\n\n\n\n\nHERRERA Y TORDESILLAS, ANTONIO DE (1549-1625), Spanish historian, was\nborn at Cuellar, in the province of Segovia in Spain. His father,\nRoderigo de Tordesillas, and his mother, Agnes de Herrera, were both of\ngood family. After studying for some time in his native country, Herrera\nproceeded to Italy, and there became secretary to Vespasian Gonzago,\nwith whom, on his appointment as viceroy of Navarre, he returned to\nSpain. Gonzago, sensible of his secretary's abilities, commended him to\nPhilip II. of Spain; and that monarch appointed Herrera first\nhistoriographer of the Indies, and one of the historiographers of\nCastile. Placed thus in the enjoyment of an ample salary, Herrera\ndevoted the rest of his life to the pursuit of literature, retaining his\noffices until the reign of Philip IV., by whom he was appointed\nsecretary of state very shortly before his death, which took place at\nMadrid on the 29th of March 1625. Of Herrera's writings, the most\nvaluable is his _Historia general de los hechos de los Castellanos en\nlas islas y tierra firme del Mar Oceano_ (Madrid, 1601-1615, 4 vols.), a\nwork which relates the history of the Spanish-American colonies from\n1492 to 1554. The author's official position gave him access to the\nstate papers and to other authentic sources not attainable by other\nwriters, while he did not scruple to borrow largely from other MSS.,\nespecially from that of Bartolome de Las Casas. He used his facilities\ncarefully and judiciously; and the result is a work on the whole\naccurate and unprejudiced, and quite indispensable to the student either\nof the history of the early colonies, or of the institutions and\ncustoms of the aboriginal American peoples. Although it is written in\nthe form of annals, mistakes are not wanting, and several glaring\nanachronisms have been pointed out by M. J. Quintana. \"If,\" to quote Dr\nRobertson, \"by attempting to relate the various occurrences in the New\nWorld in a strict chronological order, the arrangement of events in his\nwork had not been rendered so perplexed, disconnected and obscure that\nit is an unpleasant task to collect from different parts of his book and\npiece together the detached shreds of a story, he might justly have been\nranked among the most eminent historians of his country.\" This work was\nrepublished in 1730, and has been translated into English by J. Stevens\n(London, 1740), and into other European languages.\n\n Herrera's other works are the following: _Historia de lo sucedido en\n Escocia e Inglaterra en quarenta y quatro anos que vivio la reyna\n Maria Estuarda_ (Madrid, 1589); _Cinco libros de la historia de\n Portugal, y conquista de las islas de los Acores, 1582-1583_ (Madrid,\n 1591); _Historia de lo sucedido en Francia, 1585-1594_ (Madrid, 1598);\n _Historia general del mundo del tiempo del rey Felipe II, desde 1559\n hasta su muerte_ (Madrid, 1601-1612, 3 vols.); _Tratado, relacion, y\n discurso historico de los movimientos de Aragon_ (Madrid, 1612);\n _Comentarios de los hechos de los Espanoles, Franceses, y Venecianos\n en Italia, &c., 1281-1559_ (Madrid, 1624, seq.). See W. H. Prescott,\n _History of the Conquest of Mexico_, vol. ii.\n\n\n\n\nHERRICK, ROBERT (1591-1674), English poet, was born at Cheapside,\nLondon, and baptized on the 24th of August 1591. He belonged to an old\nLeicestershire family which had settled in London. He was the seventh\nchild of Nicholas Herrick, goldsmith, of the city of London, who died in\n1592, under suspicion of suicide. The children were brought up by their\nuncle, Sir William Herrick, one of the richest goldsmiths of the day, to\nwhom in 1607 Robert was bound apprentice. He had probably been educated\nat Westminster school, and in 1614 he proceeded to Cambridge; and it was\nno doubt during his apprenticeship that the young poet was introduced to\nthat circle of wits which he was afterwards to adorn. He seems to have\nbeen present at the first performance of _The Alchemist_ in 1610, and it\nwas probably about this time that Ben Jonson adopted him as his poetical\n\"son.\" He entered the university as fellow-commoner of St John's\nCollege, and he remained there until, in 1616, upon taking his degree,\nhe removed to Trinity Hall. A lively series of fourteen letters to his\nuncle, mainly begging for money, exists at Beaumanoir, and shows that\nHerrick suffered much from poverty at the university. He took his B.A.\nin 1617, and in 1620 he became master of arts. From this date until 1627\nwe entirely lose sight of him; it has been variously conjectured that he\nspent these years preparing for the ministry at Cambridge, or in much\nlooser pursuits in London. In 1629 (September 30) he was presented by\nthe king to the vicarage of Dean Prior, not far from Totnes in\nDevonshire. At Dean Prior he resided quietly until 1648, when he was\nejected by the Puritans. The solitude there oppressed him at first; the\nvillage was dull and remote, and he felt very bitterly that he was cut\noff from all literary and social associations; but soon the quiet\nexistence in Devonshire soothed and delighted him. He was pleased with\nthe rural and semi-pagan customs that survived in the village, and in\nsome of his most charming verses he has immortalized the morris-dances,\nwakes and quintains, the Christmas mummers and the Twelfth Night\nrevellings, that diversified the quiet of Dean Prior. Herrick never\nmarried, but lived at the vicarage surrounded by a happy family of pets,\nand tended by an excellent old servant named Prudence Baldwin. His first\nappearance in print was in some verses he contributed to _A Description\nof the King and Queen of Fairies_, in 1635. In 1650 a volume of _Wit's\nRecreations_ contained sixty-two small poems afterwards acknowledged by\nHerrick in the _Hesperides_, and one not reprinted until our own day.\nThese partial appearances make it probable that he visited London from\ntime to time. We have few hints of his life as a clergyman. Anthony Wood\nsays that Herricks's sermons were florid and witty, and that he was\n\"beloved by the neighbouring gentry.\" A very aged woman, one Dorothy\nKing, stated that the poet once threw his sermon at his congregation,\ncursing them for their inattention. The same old woman recollected his\nfavourite pig, which he taught to drink out of a tankard. He was a\ndevotedly loyal supporter of the king during the Civil War, and\nimmediately upon his ejection in 1648 he published his celebrated\ncollection of lyrical poems, entitled _Hesperides; or the Works both\nHuman and Divine of Robert Herrick_. The \"divine works\" bore the title\nof _Noble Numbers_ and the date 1647. That he was reduced to great\npoverty in London has been stated, but there is no evidence of the fact.\nIn August 1662 Herrick returned to Dean Prior, supplanting his own\nsupplanter, Dr John Syms. He died in his eighty-fourth year, and was\nburied at Dean Prior, October 15, 1674. A monument was erected to his\nmemory in the parish church in 1857, by Mr Perry Herrick, a descendant\nof a collateral branch of the family. The _Hesperides_ (and _Noble\nNumbers_) is the only volume which Herrick published, but he contributed\npoems to _Lachrymae Musarum_ (1649) and to _Wit's Recreations_.\n\nAs a pastoral lyrist Herrick stands first among English poets. His\ngenius is limited in scope, and comparatively unambitious, but in its\nown field it is unrivalled. His tiny poems--and of the thirteen hundred\nthat he has left behind him not one is long--are like jewels of various\nvalue, heaped together in a casket. Some are of the purest water,\nradiant with light and colour, some were originally set in false metal\nthat has tarnished, some were rude and repulsive from the first. Out of\nthe unarranged, heterogeneous mass the student has to select what is not\nworth reading, but, after he has cast aside all the rubbish, he is\nastonished at the amount of excellent and exquisite work that remains.\nHerrick has himself summed up, very correctly, the themes of his sylvan\nmuse when he says:--\n\n \"I sing of brooks, of blossoms, birds and bowers,\n Of April, May, of June and July flowers,\n I sing of May-poles, hock-carts, wassails, wakes,\n Of bridegrooms, brides and of their bridal-cakes.\"\n\nHe saw the picturesqueness of English homely life as no one before him\nhad seen it, and he described it in his verse with a certain purple glow\nof Arcadian romance over it, in tones of immortal vigour and freshness.\nHis love poems are still more beautiful; the best of them have an ardour\nand tender sweetness which give them a place in the forefront of modern\nlyrical poetry, and remind us of what was best in Horace and in the\npoets of the Greek anthology.\n\n After suffering complete extinction for more than a century, the fame\n of Herrick was revived by John Nichols, who introduced his poems to\n the readers of the _Gentleman's Magazine_ of 1796 and 1797. Dr Drake\n followed in 1798 with considerable enthusiasm. By 1810 interest had so\n far revived in the forgotten poet that Dr Nott ventured to print a\n selection from his poems, which attracted the favourable notice of the\n _Quarterly Review_. In 1823 the _Hesperides_ and the _Noble Numbers_\n were for the first time edited by Mr T. Maitland, afterwards Lord\n Dundrennan. Since then the reprints of Herrick's have been too\n numerous to be mentioned here; there are few English poets of the 17th\n century whose writings are now more accessible. See F. W. Moorman,\n _Robert Herrick_ (1910). (E. G.)\n\n\n\n\nHERRIES, JOHN CHARLES (1778-1855), English politician, son of a London\nmerchant, began his career as a junior clerk in the treasury, and became\nknown for his financial abilities as private secretary to successive\nministers. He was appointed commissary-in-chief (1811), and, on the\nabolition of that office (1816), auditor of the civil list. In 1823 he\nentered parliament as secretary to the treasury, and in 1827 became\nchancellor of the exchequer under Lord Goderich; but in consequence of\ninternal differences, arising partly out of a slight put upon Herries,\nthe ministry was broken up, and in 1828 he was appointed master of the\nmint. In 1830 he became president of the board of trade, and for the\nearlier months of 1835 he was secretary at war. From 1841 to 1847 he was\nout of parliament, but during 1852 he was president of the board of\ncontrol under Lord Derby. He was a consistent and upright Tory of the\nold school, who carried weight as an authority on financial subjects.\nHis eldest son, SIR CHARLES JOHN HERRIES (1815-1882), was chairman of\nthe board of inland revenue.\n\n See the _Life_ by his younger son, Edward Herries (1880).\n\n\n\n\nHERRIES, JOHN MAXWELL, 4TH LORD (c. 1512-1583), Scottish politician, was\nthe second son of Robert Maxwell, 4th Lord Maxwell (d. 1546). In 1547 he\nmarried Agnes (d. 1594), daughter of William Herries, 3rd Lord Herries\n(d. 1543), a grandson of Herbert Herries (d. c. 1500) of Terregles,\nKirkcudbrightshire, who was created a lord of the Scottish parliament\nabout 1490, and in 1567 he obtained the title of Lord Herries. But\nbefore this event Maxwell had become prominent among the men who rallied\nround Mary queen of Scots, although during the earlier part of his\npublic life he had been associated with the religious reformers and had\nbeen imprisoned by the regent, Mary of Lorraine. He was, moreover--at\nleast until 1563--very friendly with John Knox, who calls him \"a man\nzealous and stout in God's cause.\" But the transition from one party to\nthe other was gradually accomplished, and from March 1566, when Maxwell\njoined Mary at Dunbar after the murder of David Rizzio and her escape\nfrom Holyrood, he remained one of her staunchest friends, although he\ndisliked her marriage with Bothwell. He led her cavalry at Langside, and\nafter this battle she committed herself to his care. Herries rode with\nthe queen into England in May 1568, and he and John Lesley, bishop of\nRoss, were her chief commissioners at the conferences at York. He\ncontinued to labour in Mary's cause after returning to Scotland, and was\nimprisoned by the regent Murray; he also incurred Elizabeth's\ndispleasure by harbouring the rebel Leonard Dacres, but he soon made his\npeace with the English queen. He showed himself in general hostile to\nthe regent Morton, but he was among the supporters of the regent Lennox\nuntil his death on the 20th of January 1583. His son William, 5th Lord\nHerries (d. 1604), was, like his father, warden of the west marches.\n\nWilliam's grandson John, 7th Lord Herries (d. 1677), became 3rd earl of\nNithsdale in succession to his cousin Robert Maxwell, the 2nd earl, in\n1667. John's grandson was William, 5th earl of Nithsdale, the Jacobite\n(see NITHSDALE). William was deprived of his honours in 1716, but in\n1858 the House of Lords decided that his descendant William\nConstable-Maxwell (1804-1876) was rightly Lord Herries of Terregles. In\n1876 William's son Marmaduke Constable-Maxwell (b. 1837) became 12th\nLord Herries, and in 1884 he was created a baron of the United Kingdom.\n\n\n\n\nHERRING (_Clupea harengus_, _Haring_ in German, _le hareng_ in French,\n_sill_ in Swedish), a fish belonging to the genus _Clupea_, of which\nmore than sixty different species are known in various parts of the\nglobe. The sprat, pilchard or sardine and shad are species of the same\ngenus. Of all sea-fishes _Clupeae_ are the most abundant; for although\nother genera may comprise a greater variety of species, they are far\nsurpassed by _Clupea_ with regard to the number of individuals. The\nmajority of the species of _Clupea_ are of greater or less utility to\nman; it is only a few tropical species that acquire, probably from their\nfood, highly poisonous properties, so as to be dangerous to persons\neating them. But no other species equals the common herring in\nimportance as an article of food or commerce. It inhabits in incredible\nnumbers the North Sea, the northern parts of the Atlantic and the seas\nnorth of Asia. The herring inhabiting the corresponding latitudes of the\nNorth Pacific is another species, but most closely allied to that of the\neastern hemisphere. Formerly it was the general belief that the herring\ninhabits the open ocean close to the Arctic Circle, and that it migrates\nat certain seasons towards the northern coasts of Europe and America.\nThis view has been proved to be erroneous, and we know now that this\nfish lives throughout the year in the vicinity of our shores, but at a\ngreater depth, and at a greater distance from the coast, than at the\ntime when it approaches land for the purpose of spawning.\n\nHerrings are readily recognized and distinguished from the other species\nof _Clupea_ by having an ovate patch of very small teeth on the vomer\n(that is, the centre of the palate). In the dorsal fin they have from 17\nto 20 rays, and in the anal fin from 16 to 18; there are from 53 to 59\nscales in the lateral line and 54 to 56 vertebrae in the vertebral\ncolumn. They have a smooth gill-cover, without those radiating ridges of\nbone which are so conspicuous in the pilchard and other _Clupeae_. The\nsprat cannot be confounded with the herring, as it has no teeth on the\nvomer and only 47 or 48 scales in the lateral line.\n\nThe spawn of the herring is adhesive, and is deposited on rough\ngravelly ground at varying distances from the coast and always in\ncomparatively shallow water. The season of spawning is different in\ndifferent places, and even in the same district, e.g. the east coast of\nScotland, there are herrings spawning in spring and others in autumn.\nThese are not the same fish but different races. Those which breed in\nwinter or spring deposit their spawn near the coast at the mouths of\nestuaries, and ascend the estuaries to a considerable distance at\ncertain times, as in the Firths of Forth and Clyde, while those which\nspawn in summer or autumn belong more to the open sea, e.g. the great\nshoals that visit the North Sea annually.\n\nHerrings grow very rapidly; according to H. A. Meyer's observations,\nthey attain a length of from 17 to 18 mm. during the first month after\nhatching, 34 to 36 mm. during the second, 45 to 50 mm. during the third,\n55 to 61 mm. during the fourth, and 65 to 72 mm. during the fifth. The\nsize which they finally attain and their general condition depend\nchiefly on the abundance of food (which consists of crustaceans and\nother small marine animals), on the temperature of the water, on the\nseason at which they have been hatched, &c. Their usual size is about 12\nin., but in some particularly suitable localities they grow to a length\nof 15 in., and instances of specimens measuring 17 in. are on record. In\nthe Baltic, where the water is gradually losing its saline constituents,\nthus becoming less adapted for the development of marine species, the\nherring continues to exist in large numbers, but as a dwarfed form, not\ngrowing either to the size or to the condition of the North-Sea herring.\nThe herring of the American side of the Atlantic is specifically\nidentical with that of Europe. A second species (_Clupea leachii_) has\nbeen supposed to exist on the British coast; but it comprises only\nindividuals of a smaller size, the produce of an early or late spawn.\nAlso the so-called \"white-bait\" is not a distinct species, but consists\nchiefly of the fry or the young of herrings and sprats, and is obtained\n\"in perfection\" at localities where these small fishes find an abundance\nof food, as in the estuary of the Thames.\n\n Several excellent accounts of the herring have been published, as by\n Valenciennes in the 20th vol. of the _Histoire naturelle des\n poissons_, and more especially by Mr J. M. Mitchell, _The Herring, its\n Natural History and National Importance_ (Edinburgh, 1864). Recent\n investigations are described in the Reports of the Fishery _Board for\n Scotland_, and in the reports of the German _Kommission zur\n Untersuchung der Deutschen Meere_ (published at Kiel). (J. T. C.)\n\n\n\n\nHERRING-BONE, a term in architecture applied to alternate courses of\nbricks or stone, which are laid diagonally with binding courses above\nand below: this is said to give a better bond to the wall, especially\nwhen the stone employed is stratified, such as Stonefield stone, and too\nthin to be laid in horizontal courses. Although it is only occasionally\nfound in modern buildings, it was a type of construction constantly\nemployed in Roman, Byzantine and Romanesque work, and in the latter is\nregarded as a test of very early date. It is frequently found in the\nByzantine walls in Asia Minor, and in Byzantine churches was employed\ndecoratively to give variety to the wall surface. Sometimes the diagonal\ncourses are reversed one above the other. Examples in France exist in\nthe churches at Querqueville in Normandy and St Christophe at Suevres\n(Loir et Cher), both dating from the 10th century, and in England\nherring-bone masonry is found in the walls of castles, such as at\nGuildford, Colchester and Tamworth. The term is also applied to the\npaving of stable yards with bricks laid flat diagonally and alternating\nso that the head of one brick butts against the side of another; and the\neffect is more pleasing than when laid in parallel courses.\n\n\n\n\nHERRINGS, BATTLE OF THE, the name applied to the action of Rouvray,\nfought in 1429 between the French (and Scots) and the English, who,\nunder Sir John Falstolfe (or Falstaff), were convoying Lenten\nprovisions, chiefly herrings, to the besiegers of Orleans. (See ORLEANS\nand HUNDRED YEARS' WAR.)\n\n\n\n\nHERRNHUT, a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Saxony, 18 m. S.E. of\nBautzen, and situated on the Lobau-Zittau railway. Pop. 1200. It is\nchiefly known as the principal seat of the Moravian or Bohemian\nbrotherhood, the members of which are called _Herrnhuter_. A colony of\nthese people, fleeing from persecution in Moravia, settled at Herrnhut\nin 1722 on a site presented by Count Zinzendorf. The buildings of the\nsociety include a church, a school and houses for the brethren, the\nsisters and the widowed of both sexes, while it possesses an\nethnographical museum and other collections of interest. The town is\nremarkable for its ordered, regular life and its scrupulous cleanliness.\nLinen, paper (to varieties of which Herrnhut gives its name), tobacco\nand various minor articles are manufactured. The Hutberg, at the foot of\nwhich the town lies, commands a pleasant view. Berthelsdorf, a village\nabout a mile distant, has been the seat of the directorate of the\ncommunity since about 1789.\n\n\n\n\nHERSCHEL, CAROLINE LUCRETIA (1750-1848), English astronomer, sister of\nSir William Herschel, the eighth child and fourth daughter of her\nparents, was born at Hanover on the 16th of March 1750. On account of\nthe prejudices of her mother, who did not desire her to know more than\nwas necessary for being useful in the family, she received, in youth\nonly the first elements of education. After the death of her father in\n1767 she obtained permission to learn millinery and dressmaking with a\nview to earning her bread, but continued to assist her mother in the\nmanagement of the household until the autumn of 1772, when she joined\nher brother William, who had established himself as a teacher of music\nat Bath. At once she became a valuable co-operator with him both in his\nprofessional duties and in the astronomical researches to which he had\nalready begun to devote all his spare time. She was the principal singer\nat his oratorio concerts, and acquired such a reputation as a vocalist\nthat she was offered an engagement for the Birmingham festival, which,\nhowever, she declined. When her brother accepted the office of\nastronomer to George III., she became his constant assistant in his\nobservations, and also executed the laborious calculations which were\nconnected with them. For these services she received from the king in\n1787 a salary of L50 a year. Her chief amusement during her leisure\nhours was sweeping the heavens with a small Newtonian telescope. By this\nmeans she detected in 1783 three remarkable nebulae, and during the\neleven years 1786-1797 eight comets, five of them with unquestioned\npriority. In 1797 she presented to the Royal Society an Index to\nFlamsteed's observations, together with a catalogue of 561 stars\naccidentally omitted from the \"British Catalogue,\" and a list of the\nerrata in that publication. Though she returned to Hanover in 1822 she\ndid not abandon her astronomical studies, and in 1828 she completed the\nreduction, to January 1800, of 2500 nebulae discovered by her brother.\nIn 1828 the Astronomical Society, to mark their sense of the benefits\nconferred on science by such a series of laborious exertions,\nunanimously resolved to present her with their gold medal, and in 1835\nelected her an honorary member of the society. In 1846 she received a\ngold medal from the king of Prussia. She died on the 9th of January\n1848.\n\n See _The Memoir and Correspondence of Caroline Herschel_, by Mrs John\n Herschel (1876).\n\n\n\n\nHERSCHEL, SIR FREDERICK WILLIAM (1738-1822), generally known as Sir\nWilliam Herschel, English astronomer, was born at Hanover on the 15th of\nNovember 1738. His father was a musician employed as hautboy player in\nthe Hanoverian guard. The family had quitted Moravia for Saxony in the\nearly part of the 17th century on account of religious troubles, they\nthemselves being Protestants. Herschel's earlier education was\nnecessarily of a very limited character, chiefly owing to the warlike\ncommotions of his country; but being at all times an indomitable\nstudent, he, by his own exertions, more than repaired this deficiency.\nHe became a very skilful musician, both theoretical and practical; while\nhis attainments as a self-taught mathematician were fully adequate to\nthe prosecution of those branches of astronomy which he so eminently\nadvanced and adorned. Whatever he did he did methodically and\nthoroughly; and in this methodical thoroughness lay the secret of what\nArago very properly termed his astonishing scientific success.\n\n\nIn 1752, at the age of fourteen, he joined the band of the Hanoverian\nguard, and with his detachment visited England in 1755, accompanied by\nhis father and eldest brother; in the following year he returned to his\nnative country; but the hardships of campaigning during the Seven Years'\nWar imperilling his health, his parents privately removed him from the\nregiment, and on the 26th of July 1757 despatched him to England. There,\nas might have been expected, the earlier part of his career was attended\nwith formidable difficulties and much privation. We find him engaged in\nseveral towns in the north of England as organist and teacher of music,\nwhich were not lucrative occupations. But the tide of his fortunes began\nto flow when he obtained in 1766 the appointment of organist to the\nOctagon chapel in Bath, at that time the resort of the wealth and\nfashion of the city.\n\nDuring the next five or six years he became the leading musical\nauthority, and the director of all the chief public musical\nentertainments at Bath. His circumstances having thus become easier, he\nrevisited Hanover for the purpose of bringing back with him his sister\nCaroline, whose services he much needed in his multifarious\nundertakings. She arrived in Bath in August 1772, being at that time in\nher twenty-third year. She thus describes her brother's life soon after\nher arrival: \"He used to retire to bed with a bason of milk or a glass\nof water, with Smith's _Harmonics_ and Ferguson's _Astronomy_, &c., and\nso went to sleep buried under his favourite authors; and his first\nthoughts on waking were how to obtain instruments for viewing those\nobjects himself of which he had been reading.\" It is not without\nsignificance that we find him thus reading Smith's _Harmonics_; to that\nstudy loyalty to his profession would impel him; as a reward for his\nthoroughness this led him to Smith's _Optics_; and this, by a natural\nsequence, again led him to astronomy, for the purposes of which the\nchief optical instruments were devised. It was in this way that he was\nintroduced to the writings of Ferguson and Keill, and subsequently to\nthose of Lalande, whereby he educated himself to become an astronomer of\nundying fame. In those days telescopes were very rare, very expensive\nand not very efficient, for the Dollonds had not as yet perfected even\ntheir beautiful little achromatics of 2(3/4) in. aperture. So Herschel\nwas obliged to content himself with hiring a small Gregorian reflector\nof about 2 in. aperture, which he had seen exposed for loan in a\ntradesman's shop. Not satisfied with this implement, he procured a small\nlens of about 18 ft. focal length, and set his sister to work on a\npasteboard tube to match it, so as to make him a telescope. This\nunsatisfactory material was soon replaced by tin, and thus a sorry sort\nof vision was obtained of Jupiter, Saturn and the moon. He then sought\nin London for a reflector of much larger dimensions; but no such\ninstrument was on sale; and the terms demanded for the construction of a\nreflecting telescope of 5 or 6 ft. focal length he regarded as too\nexorbitant even for the gratification of such desires as his own. So he\nwas driven to the only alternative that remained; he must himself build\na large telescope. His first step in this direction was to purchase the\ndebris of an amateur's implements for grinding and polishing small\nmirrors; and thus, by slow degrees, and by indomitable perseverance, he\nin 1774 had, as he says, the satisfaction of viewing the heavens with a\nNewtonian telescope of 6 ft. focal length made by his own hands. But he\nwas not contented to be a mere star-gazer; on the contrary, he had from\nthe very first conceived the gigantic project of surveying the entire\nheavens, and, if possible, of ascertaining the plan of their general\nstructure by a settled mode of procedure, if only he could provide\nhimself with adequate instrumental means. For this purpose he, his\nbrother and his sister toiled for many years at the grinding and\npolishing of hundreds of specula, always retaining the best and\nrecasting the others, until the most perfect of the earlier products had\nbeen surpassed. This was the work of the daylight in those seasons of\nthe year when the fashionable visitors of Bath had quitted the place,\nand had thus freed the family from professional duties. After 1774 every\navailable hour of the night was devoted to the long-hoped-for scrutiny\nof the skies. In those days no machinery had been invented for the\nconstruction of telescopic mirrors; the man who had the hardihood to\nundertake polishing them doomed himself to walk leisurely and uniformly\nround an upright post for many hours, without removing his hands from\nthe mirror, until his work was done. On these occasions Herschel\nreceived his food from the hands of his faithful sister. But his reward\nwas nigh.\n\nIn May 1780 his first two papers containing some results of his\nobservations on the variable star \"Mira\" and the mountains of the moon\nwere communicated to the Royal Society through the influential\nintroduction of Dr William Watson. Herschel had made his acquaintance in\na characteristic manner. In order to obtain a sight of the moon the\nastronomer had taken his telescope into the street opposite his house;\nthe celebrated physician happening to pass at the time, and seeing his\neye removed for a moment from the instrument, requested permission to\ntake his place. The mutual courtesies and intelligent conversation which\nensued soon ripened this casual acquaintance into a solid and enduring\nregard.\n\nThe phenomena of variable stars were examined by Herschel as a guide to\nwhat might be occurring in our own sun. The sun, he knew, rotated on its\naxis, and he knew that dark spots often exist on its photosphere; the\nquestions that he put to himself were--Are there dark spots also on\nvariable stars? Do the stars also rotate on their axes? or are they\nsometimes partially eclipsed by the intervention of opaque bodies? And\nhe went on to enquire, What are these singular spots upon the sun? and\nhave they any practical relation to the inhabitants of this planet? To\nthese questions he applied his telescopes and his thoughts; and he\ncommunicated the results to the Royal Society in no less than six\nmemoirs, occupying very many pages in the _Philosophical Transactions_,\nand extending in date from 1780 to 1801. It was in the latter year that\nthese remarkable papers culminated in the inquiry whether any relation\ncould be traced in the recurrence of sun-spots, regarded as evidences of\nsolar activity, and the varying seasons of our planet, as exhibited by\nthe varying price of corn. Herschel's reply was inconclusive; nor has a\nfinal solution of the related problems yet been obtained.\n\nIn 1781 he communicated to the Royal Society the first of a series of\npapers on the rotation of the planets and of their several satellites.\nThe object which he had in view was not so much to ascertain the times\nof their rotation as to discover whether those rotations are strictly\nuniform. From the result he expected to gather, by analogy, the\nprobability of an alteration in the length of our own day. These\ninquiries occupy the greater part of seven memoirs extending from 1781\nto 1797. While engaged on them he noticed the curious appearance of a\nwhite spot near to each of the poles of the planet Mars. On\ninvestigating the inclination of its axis to the plane of its orbit, and\nfinding that it differed little from that of the earth, he concluded\nthat its changes of climate also would resemble our own, and that these\nwhite patches were probably polar snow. Modern researches have confirmed\nhis conclusion. He also discovered that, as far as his observations\nextended, the times of the rotations of the various satellites round\ntheir axes conform to the analogy of our moon by equalling the times of\ntheir revolution round their primaries. Here again we perceive that his\ndiscoveries arose out of the systematic and comprehensive nature of his\ninvestigation. Nothing with such a man is accidental.\n\nIn the same year (1781) Herschel made a discovery which completely\naltered the character of his professional life. In the course of a\nmethodical review of the heavens he lighted on an object which at first\nhe supposed to be a comet, but which, by its subsequent motions and\nappearance, averred itself to be a new planet, moving outside the orbit\nof Saturn. The name of Georgium Sidus was by him assigned to it, but has\nby general consent been laid aside in favour of Uranus. The object was\ndetected with a 7-ft. reflector having an aperture of 6(1/2) in.;\nsubsequently, when he had provided himself with a much more powerful\ntelescope, of 20 ft. focal length, he discovered, as he believed, no\nless than six Uranian satellites. Modern observations, while abolishing\nfour of these supposed attendants, have added two others apparently not\nobserved by Herschel. Seven memoirs on the subject were communicated by\nhim to the Royal Society, extending from the date of the discovery in\n1781 to 1815. A noteworthy peculiarity in Herschel's mode of observation\nled to the discovery of this planet. He had observed that the spurious\ndiameters of stars are not much affected by increasing the magnifying\npowers, but that the case is different with other celestial objects;\nhence if anything in his telescopic field struck him as unusual in\naspect, he immediately varied the magnifying power in order to decide\nits nature. Thus Uranus was discovered; and had a similar method been\napplied to Neptune, that planet would have been found at Cambridge some\nmonths before it was recognized at Berlin.\n\nWe now come to the beginning of Herschel's most important series of\nobservations, culminating in what ought probably to be regarded as his\ncapital discovery. A material part of the task which he had set himself\nembraced the determination of the relative distances of the stars from\nour sun and from each other. Now, in the course of his scrutiny of the\nheavens, he had observed many stars in apparently very close contiguity,\nbut often differing greatly in relative brightness. He concluded that,\non the average, the brighter star would be the nearer to us, the smaller\nenormously more distant; and considering that an astronomer on the\nearth, in consequence of its immense orbital displacement of some 180\nmillions of miles every six months, would see such a pair of stars under\ndifferent perspective aspects, he perceived that the measurement of\nthese changes should lead to an approximate determination of the stars'\nrelative distances. He therefore mapped down the places and aspects of\nall the double stars that he met with, and communicated in 1782 and 1785\nvery extensive catalogues of the results. Indeed, his very last\nscientific memoir, sent to the Royal Astronomical Society in the year\n1822, when he was its first president and already in the eighty-fourth\nyear of his age, related to these investigations. In the memoir of 1782\nhe threw out the hint that these apparently contiguous stars might be\ngenuine pairs in mutual revolution; but he significantly added that the\ntime had not yet arrived for settling the question. Eleven years\nafterwards (1793), he remeasured the relative positions of many such\ncouples, and we may conceive what his feelings must have been at finding\nhis prediction verified. For he ascertained that some of these stars\ncirculated round each other, after the manner required by the laws of\ngravitation, and thus demonstrated the action among the distant members\nof the starry firmament of the same mechanical laws which bind together\nthe harmonious motions of our solar system. This sublime discovery,\nannounced in 1802, would of itself suffice to immortalize his memory. If\nonly he had lived long enough to learn the approximate distances of some\nof these binary combinations, he would at once have been able to\ncalculate their masses relative to that of our own sun; and the\nquantities being, as we now know, strictly comparable, he would have\nfound another of his analogical conjectures realized.\n\nIn the year 1782 Herschel was invited to Windsor by George III., and\naccepted the king's offer to become his private astronomer, and\nhenceforth devote himself wholly to a scientific career. His salary was\nfixed at L200 per annum, to which an addition of L50 per annum was\nsubsequently made for the astronomical assistance of his sister. Dr\nWatson, to whom alone the amount was mentioned, made the natural remark,\n\"Never before was honour purchased by a monarch at so cheap a rate.\" In\nthis way the great astronomer removed from Bath, first to Datchet and\nsoon afterwards permanently to Slough, within easy access of his royal\npatron at Windsor.\n\nThe old pursuits at Bath were soon resumed at Slough, but with renewed\nvigour and without the former professional interruptions. The greater\npart, in fact, of the papers already referred to are dated from Datchet\nand Slough; for the magnificent astronomical speculations in which he\nwas engaged, though for the most part conceived in the earlier portion\nof his philosophical career, required years of patient observation\nbefore they could be fully examined and realized.\n\nIt was at Slough in 1783 that he wrote his first memorable paper on the\n\"Motion of the Solar System in Space,\"--a sublime speculation, yet\nthrough his genius realized by considerations of the utmost simplicity.\nHe returned to the same subject with fuller details in 1805. It was also\nafter his removal to Slough that he published his first memoir on the\nconstruction of the heavens, which from the first had been the inspiring\nidea of his varied toils. In a long series of remarkable papers,\naddressed as usual to the Royal Society, and extending from the year\n1784 to 1818, when he was eighty years of age, he demonstrated the fact\nthat our sun is a star situated not far from the bifurcation of the\nMilky Way, and that all the stars visible to us lie more or less in\nclusters scattered throughout a comparatively thin, but immensely\nextended stratum. At one time he imagined that his powerful instruments\nhad pierced through this stellar stratum, and that he had approximately\ndetermined the form of some of its boundaries. In the last of his\nmemoirs, having convinced himself of his error, he admitted that to his\ntelescopes the Milky Way was \"fathomless.\" On either side of this\nassemblage of stars, presumably in ceaseless motion round their common\ncentre of gravity, Herschel discovered a canopy of discrete nebulous\nmasses, such as those from the condensation of which he supposed the\nwhole stellar universe to have been formed,--a magnificent conception,\npursued with a force of genius and put to the practical test of\nobservation with an industry almost incredible.\n\nHitherto we have said nothing about the great reflecting telescope, of\n40 ft. focal length and 4 ft. aperture, the construction of which is\noften, though mistakenly, regarded as his chief performance. The full\ndescription of this celebrated instrument will be found in the 85th\nvolume of the _Transactions_ of the Royal Society. On the day that it\nwas finished (August 28, 1789) Herschel saw at the first view, in a\ngrandeur not witnessed before, the Saturnian system with six satellites,\nfive of which had been discovered long before by C. Huygens and G. D.\nCassini, while the sixth, subsequently named Enceladus, he had, two\nyears before, sighted by glimpses in his exquisite little telescope of\n6(1/2) in. aperture, but now saw in unmistakable brightness with the\ntowering giant he had just completed. On the 17th of September he\ndiscovered a seventh, which proved to be the nearest to the globe of\nSaturn. It has since received the name of Mimas. It is somewhat\nremarkable that, notwithstanding his long and repeated scrutinies of\nthis planet, the eighth satellite, Hyperion, and the crape ring should\nhave escaped him.\n\nHerschel married, on the 8th of May 1788, the widow of Mr John Pitt, a\nwealthy London merchant, by whom he had an only son, John Frederick\nWilliam. The prince regent conferred a Hanoverian knighthood upon him in\n1816. But a far more valued and less tardy distinction was the Copley\nmedal assigned to him by his associates in the Royal Society in 1781.\n\nHe died at Slough on the 25th of August 1822, in the eighty-fourth year\nof his age, and was buried under the tower of St Laurence's Church,\nUpton, within a few hundred yards of the old site of the 40-ft.\ntelescope. A mural tablet on the wall of the church bears a Latin\ninscription from the pen of the late Dr Goodall, provost of Eton\nCollege.\n\n See Mrs John Herschel, _Memoir of Caroline Herschel_ (1876); E. S.\n Holden, _Herschel, his Life and Works_ (1881); A. M. Clerke, _The\n Herschels and Modern Astronomy_ (1895); E. S. Holden and C. S.\n Hastings, _Synopsis of the Scientific Writings of Sir William\n Herschel_ (Washington, 1881); Baron Laurier, _Eloge historique_, Paris\n Memoirs (1823), p. lxi.; F. Arago, _Analyse historique, Annuaire du\n Bureau des Longitudes_ (1842), p. 249; Arago, _Biographies of\n Scientific Men_, p. 167; Madame d'Arblay's _Diary, passim; Public\n Characters_ (1798-1799), p. 384 (with portrait); J. Sime, _William\n Herschel and his Work_ (1900). Herschel's photometric Star Catalogues\n were discussed and reduced by E. C. Pickering in _Harvard Annals_,\n vols. xiv. p. 345, xxiii. p. 185, and xxiv. (C. P.; A. M. C.)\n\n\n\n\nHERSCHEL, SIR JOHN FREDERICK WILLIAM, BART. (1792-1871), English\nastronomer, the only son of Sir William Herschel, was born at Slough,\nBucks, on the 7th of March 1792. His scholastic education commenced at\nEton, but maternal fears or prejudices soon removed him to the house of\na private tutor. Thence, at the early age of seventeen, he was sent to\nSt John's College, Cambridge, and the form and method of the\nmathematical instruction he there received exercised a material\ninfluence on the whole complexion of his scientific career. In due time\nthe young student won the highest academical distinction of his year,\ngraduating as senior wrangler in 1813. It was during his\nundergraduateship that he and two of his fellow-students who\nsubsequently attained to very high eminence, Dean Peacock and Charles\nBabbage, entered into a compact that they would \"do their best to leave\nthe world wiser than they found it,\"--a compact loyally and successfully\ncarried out by all three to the end. As a commencement of this laudable\nattempt we find Herschel associated with these two friends in the\nproduction of a work on the differential calculus, and on cognate\nbranches of mathematical science, which changed the style and aspect of\nmathematical learning in England, and brought it up to the level of the\nContinental methods. Two or three memoirs communicated to the Royal\nSociety on new applications of mathematical analysis at once placed him\nin the front rank of the cultivators of this branch of knowledge. Of\nthese his father had the gratification of introducing the first, but the\nothers were presented in his own right as a fellow.\n\nWith the intention of being called to the bar, he entered his name at\nLincoln's Inn on the 24th of January 1814, and placed himself under the\nguidance of an eminent special pleader. Probably this temporary choice\nof a profession was inspired by the extraordinary success in legal\npursuits which had attended the efforts of some noted Cambridge\nmathematicians. Be that as it may, an early acquaintance with Dr\nWollaston in London soon changed the direction of his studies. He\nexperimented in physical optics; took up astronomy in 1816; and in 1820,\nassisted by his father, he completed for a reflecting telescope a mirror\nof 18 in. diameter and 20 ft. focal length. This, subsequently improved\nby his own hands, became the instrument which enabled him to effect the\nastronomical observations forming the chief basis of his fame. In\n1821-1823 we find him associated with Sir James South in the\nre-examination of his father's double stars, by the aid of two excellent\nrefractors, of 7 and 5 ft. focal length respectively. For this work he\nwas presented in 1826 with the Astronomical Society's gold medal; and\nwith the Lalande medal of the French Institute in 1825; while the Royal\nSociety had in 1821 bestowed upon him the Copley medal for his\nmathematical contributions to their _Transactions_. From 1824 to 1827 he\nheld the responsible post of secretary to that society; and was in 1827\nelected to the chair of the Astronomical Society, which office he also\nfilled on two subsequent occasions. In the discharge of his duties to\nthe last-named society he delivered presidential addresses and wrote\nobituary notices of deceased fellows, memorable for their combination of\neloquence and wisdom. In 1831 the honour of knighthood was conferred on\nhim by William IV., and two years later he again received the\nrecognition of the Royal Society by the award of one of their medals for\nhis memoir \"On the Investigation of the Orbits of Revolving Double\nStars.\" The award significantly commemorated his completion of his\nfather's discovery of gravitational stellar systems by the invention of\na graphical method whereby the eye could as it were see the two\ncomponent stars of the binary system revolving under the prescription of\nthe Newtonian law.\n\nBefore the end of the year 1833, being then about forty years of age,\nSir John Herschel had re-examined all his father's double stars and\nnebulae, and had added many similar bodies to his own lists; thus\naccomplishing, under the conditions then prevailing, the full work of a\nlifetime. For it should be remembered that astronomers were not as yet\nprovided with those valuable automatic contrivances which at present\nmaterially abridge the labour and increase the accuracy of their\ndeterminations. Equatorially mounted instruments actuated by clockwork,\nelectrical chronographs for recording the times of the phenomena\nobserved, were not available to Sir John Herschel; and he had no\nassistant.\n\nHis scientific life now entered upon another and very characteristic\nphase. The bias of his mind, as he subsequently was wont to declare, was\ntowards chemistry and the phenomena of light, rather than towards\nastronomy. Indeed, very shortly after taking his degree at Cambridge, he\nproposed himself as a candidate for the vacant chair of chemistry in\nthat university; but, as he said with some humour, the result of the\nelection was to leave him in a glorious minority of one. In fact\nHerschel had become an astronomer from a sense of duty, and it was by\nfilial loyalty to his father's memory that he was now impelled to\nundertake the completion of the work nobly begun at Slough. William\nHerschel had searched the northern heavens; John Herschel determined to\nexplore the southern, besides re-exploring northern skies. \"I resolved,\"\nhe said, \"to attempt the completion of a survey of the whole surface of\nthe heavens; and for this purpose to transport into the other hemisphere\nthe same instrument which had been employed in this, so as to give a\nunity to the results of both portions of the survey, and to render them\ncomparable with each other.\" In accordance with this resolution, he and\nhis family embarked for the Cape on the 13th November 1833; they arrived\nin Table Bay on the 15th January 1834; and proceedings, he says, \"were\npushed forward with such effect that on the 22nd of February I was\nenabled to gratify my curiosity by a view of [kappa] Crucis, the nebula\nabout [eta] Argus, and some other remarkable objects in the 20-ft.\nreflector, and on the night of the 4th of March to commence a regular\ncourse of sweeping.\"\n\n To give an adequate description of the vast mass of labour completed\n during the next four busy years of his life at Feldhausen would\n require the transcription of a considerable portion of the _Cape\n Observations_, a volume of unsurpassed interest and importance;\n although it might perhaps be equalled by a judicious selection from\n Sir William's \"Memoirs,\" now scattered through some thirty volumes of\n the _Philosophical Transactions_. It was published, at the sole\n expense of the late duke of Northumberland, but not till 1847, nine\n years after the author's return to England, for the cogent reason,\n that as he said, \"The whole of the observations, as well as the entire\n work of reducing, arranging and preparing them for the press, have\n been executed by myself.\" There are 164 pages of catalogues of\n southern nebulae and clusters of stars. There are then careful and\n elaborate drawings of the great nebula in Orion, and of the region\n surrounding the remarkable star in Argo. The labour and the thought\n bestowed upon some of these objects are almost incredible; several\n months were spent upon a minute spot in the heavens containing 1216\n stars, but which an ordinary spangle, held at a distance of an arm's\n length, would eclipse. These catalogues and charts being completed, he\n proceeded to discuss their significance. He confirmed his father's\n hypothesis that these wonderful masses of glowing vapours are not\n irregularly scattered over the visible heavens, but are collected in a\n sort of canopy, whose vertex is at the pole of that vast stratum of\n stars in which our solar system finds itself buried, as Herschel\n supposed, at a depth not greater than that of the average distance\n from us of an eleventh magnitude star. Then follows his catalogue of\n the relative positions and magnitudes of the southern double stars, to\n one of which, [gamma] Virginis, he applied the beautiful method of\n orbital determination invented by himself, and he had the satisfaction\n of witnessing the fulfilment of his prediction that the components\n would, in the course of their revolution, appear to close up into a\n single star, inseparable by any telescopic power. In the next chapter\n he proceeded to describe his observations on the varying and relative\n brightness of the stars. It has been already detailed how his father\n began his scientific career by similar observations on stellar\n light-fluctuations, and how his remarks culminated years afterwards in\n the question whether the radiative changes of our sun, due to the\n presence or absence of sun-spots, affected our harvests and the price\n of corn. Sir John carried speculation still farther, pointing out that\n variations to the extent of half a magnitude in the sun's brightness\n would account for those strange alternations of semi-arctic and\n semi-tropical climates which geological researches show to have\n occurred in various regions of our globe.\n\nHerschel returned to his English home in the spring of 1838. As was\nnatural and right, he was welcomed with an enthusiastic greeting. By the\nqueen at her coronation he was created a baronet; and, what to him was\nbetter than all such rewards, other men caught the contagion of his\nexample, and laboured in fields similar to his own, with an adequate\nportion of his success.\n\nHerschel was a highly accomplished chemist. His discovery in 1819 of the\nsolvent power of hyposulphite of soda on the otherwise insoluble salts\nof silver was the prelude to its use as a fixing agent in photography;\nand he invented in 1839, independently of Fox Talbot, the process of\nphotography on sensitized paper. He was the first person to apply the\nnow well-known terms _positive_ and _negative_ to photographic images,\nand to imprint them upon glass prepared by the deposit of a sensitive\nfilm. He also paved the way for Sir George Stokes's discovery of\nfluorescence, by his addition of the lavender rays to the spectrum, and\nby his announcement in 1845 of \"epipolic dispersion,\" as exhibited by\nsulphate of quinine. Several other important researches connected with\nthe undulatory theory of light are embodied in his treatise on \"Light\"\npublished in the _Encyclopaedia metropolitana_.\n\nPerhaps no man can become a truly great mathematician or philosopher if\ndevoid of imaginative power. John Herschel possessed this endowment to a\nlarge extent; and he solaced his declining years with the translation of\nthe _Iliad_ into verse, having earlier executed a similar version of\nSchiller's _Walk_. But the main work of his later life was the\ncollection of all his father's catalogues of nebulae and double stars\ncombined with his own observations and those of other astronomers each\ninto a single volume. He lived to complete the former, to present it to\nthe Royal Society, and to see it published in a separate form in the\n_Philosophical Transactions_, vol. cliv. The latter work he left\nunfinished, bequeathing it, in its imperfect form, to the Astronomical\nSociety. That society printed a portion of it, which serves as an index\nto the observations of various astronomers on double stars up to the\nyear 1866.\n\nA complete list of his contributions to learned societies will be found\nin the Royal Society's great catalogue, and from them may be gathered\nmost of the records of his busy scientific life. Sir John Herschel met\nwith an amount of public recognition which was unusual in the time of\nhis illustrious father. Naturally he was a member of almost every\nimportant learned society in both hemispheres. For five years he held\nthe same office of master of the mint, which more than a century before\nhad belonged to Sir Isaac Newton; his friends also offered to propose\nhim as president of the Royal Society and again as member of parliament\nfor the university of Cambridge, but neither position was desired by\nhim.\n\nIn private life Sir John Herschel was a firm and most active friend; he\nhad no jealousies; he avoided all scientific feuds; he gladly lent a\nhelping hand to those who consulted him in scientific difficulties; he\nnever discouraged, and still less disparaged, men younger than or\ninferior to himself; he was pleased by appreciation of his work without\nbeing solicitous for applause; it was said of him by a discriminating\ncritic, and without extravagance, that \"his was a life full of serenity\nof the sage and the docile innocence of a child.\"\n\nHe died at Collingwood, his residence near Hawkhurst in Kent, on the\n11th of May 1871, in the seventy-ninth year of his age, and his remains\nare interred in Westminster Abbey close to the grave of Sir Isaac\nNewton.\n\n Besides the laborious _Cape Observations_, Sir John Herschel was the\n author of several books, one of which at least, _On the Study of\n Natural Philosophy_ (1830), possesses an interest which no future\n advances of the subjects on which he wrote can obliterate. In 1849\n came the _Outlines of Astronomy_, a volume still replete with charm\n and instruction. His articles, \"Meteorology,\" \"Physical Geography,\"\n and \"Telescope,\" contributed to the 8th edition of the _Encyclopaedia\n Britannica_, were afterwards published separately. When he was at the\n Cape he was more than once assisted in the attempts there made to\n diffuse a love of knowledge among men not engaged in literary\n pursuits; and with the same purpose he, on his return to England,\n published, in _Good Words_ and elsewhere, a series of papers on\n interesting points of natural philosophy, subsequently collected in a\n volume called _Familiar Lectures on Scientific Subjects_. Another less\n widely known volume is his _Collected Addresses_, in which he is seen\n in his happiest and most instructive mood.\n\n See also Mrs John Herschel, \"Memoir of Caroline Herschel,\" _Month.\n Notices Roy. Astr. Society_, xxxii. 122 (C. Pritchard); _Proceedings\n Roy. Society_, xx. p. xvii. (T. Romney Robinson); _Proceedings Roy.\n Society of Edinburgh_ vii. 543 (P. G. Tait); _Nature_ iv. 69; E.\n Dunkin, _Obituary Notices_, p. 47; _Report Brit. Association_ (1871),\n p. lxxxv. (Lord Kelvin); _The Times_. (May 13, 1871); R. Grant,\n _History of Phys. Astronomy_; A. M. Clerke, _Popular Hist. of\n Astronomy_; A. M. Clerke, _The Herschels and Modern Astronomy_; J. H.\n Madler, _Geschichte der Himmelskunde_, Bd. ii.; _Memoires de la\n Societe Physique de Geneve_, xxi. 586 (E. Gautier). Reductions, based\n on standard magnitudes of 919 southern stars, observed by Herschel in\n sequences of relative brightness, were published by W. Doberck in the\n _Astrophysical Journal_, xi. 192, 270, and in _Harvard Annals_, vol.\n xli., No. viii. (C. P.; A. M. C.)\n\n\n\n\n\nHERSCHELL, FARRER HERSCHELL, 1ST BARON (1837-1899), lord chancellor of\nEngland, was born on the 2nd of November 1837. His father was the Rev.\nRidley Haim Herschell, a native of Strzelno, in Prussian Poland, who,\nwhen a young man, exchanged the Jewish faith for Christianity, took a\nleading part in founding the British Society for the Propagation of the\nGospel among the Jews, and, after many journeyings, settled down to the\ncharge of a Nonconformist chapel near the Edgware Road, in London, where\nhe ministered to a large congregation. His mother was a daughter of\nWilliam Mowbray, a merchant of Leith. He was educated at a private\nschool and at University College, London. In 1857 he took his B.A.\ndegree at the University of London. He was reckoned the best speaker in\nthe school debating society, and he displayed there the same command of\nlanguage and lucidity of thought which were his characteristics during\nhis official life. The reputation which Herschell enjoyed during his\nschool days was maintained after he became a law-student at Lincoln's\nInn. In 1858 he entered the chambers of Thomas Chitty, the famous common\nlaw pleader, father of the late Lord Justice Chitty. His fellow pupils,\namongst whom were A. L. Smith, afterwards master of the rolls, and\nArthur Charles, afterwards judge of the queen's bench division, gave him\nthe sobriquet of \"the chief baron\" in recognition of his superiority. He\nsubsequently read with James Hannen, afterwards Lord Hannen. In 1860 he\nwas called to the bar and joined the northern circuit, then in its palmy\ndays of undividedness. For four or five years he did not obtain much\nwork. Fortunately, he was never a poor man, and so was not forced into\njournalism, or other paths of literature, in order to earn a living. Two\nof his contemporaries, each of whom achieved great eminence, found\nthemselves in like case. One of these, Charles Russell, became lord\nchief justice of England; the other, William Court Gully, speaker of the\nHouse of Commons. It is said that these three friends, dining together\nduring a Liverpool assize some years after they had been called, agreed\nthat their prospects were anything but cheerful. Certain it is that\nabout this time Herschell meditated quitting England for Shanghai and\npractising in the consular courts there. Herschell, however, soon made\nhimself useful to Edward James, the then leader of the northern circuit,\nand to John Richard Quain, the leading stuff-gownsman. For the latter he\nwas content to note briefs and draft opinions, and when, in 1866, Quain\ndonned \"silk,\" it was on Herschell that a large portion of his mantle\ndescended.\n\nIn 1872 Herschell was made a queen's counsel. He had all the necessary\nqualifications for a leader--a clear, though not resonant voice; a calm,\nlogical mind; a sound knowledge of legal principles; and (greatest gift\nof all) an abundance of common sense. He never wearied the judges by\narguing at undue length, and he knew how to retire with dignity from a\nhopeless cause. His only weak point was cross-examination. In handling a\nhostile witness he had neither the insidious persuasiveness of a Hawkins\nnor the compelling, dominating power of a Russell. But he made up for\nall by his speech to the jury, marshalling such facts as told in his\nclient's favour with the most consummate skill. He very seldom made use\nof notes, but trusted to his memory, which he had carefully trained. By\nthis means he was able to conceal his art, and to appear less as a paid\nadvocate than as an outsider interested in the case anxious to assist\nthe jury in arriving at the truth. By 1874 Herschell's business had\nbecome so good that he turned his thoughts to parliament. In February of\nthat year there was a general election, with the result that the\nConservative party came into power with a majority of fifty. The usual\ncrop of petitions followed. The two Radicals (Thompson and Henderson)\nwho had been returned for Durham city were unseated, and an attack was\nthen made on the seats of two other Radicals (Bell and Palmer) who had\nbeen returned for Durham county. For one of these last Herschell was\nbriefed. He made so excellent an impression on the local Radical leaders\nthat they asked him to stand for Durham city; and after a fortnight's\nelectioneering, he was elected as junior member. Between 1874 and 1880\nHerschell was most assiduous in his attendance in the House of Commons.\nHe was not a frequent speaker, but a few great efforts sufficed in his\ncase to gain for him a reputation as a debater. The best examples of his\nstyle as a private member will be found in _Hansard_ under the dates\n18th February 1876, 23rd May 1878, 6th May 1879. On the last occasion he\ncarried a resolution in favour of abolishing actions for breach of\npromise of marriage except when actual pecuniary loss had ensued, the\ndamages in such cases to be measured by the amount of such loss. The\ngrace of manner and solid reasoning with which he acquitted himself\nduring these displays obtained for him the notice of Gladstone, who in\n1880 appointed Herschell solicitor-general.\n\nHerschell's public services from 1880 to 1885 were of great value,\nparticularly in dealing with the \"cases for opinion\" submitted by the\nForeign Office and other departments. He was also very helpful in\nspeeding government measures through the House, notably the Irish Land\nAct 1881, the Corrupt Practices and Bankruptcy Acts 1883, the County\nFranchise Act 1884 and the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885. This last\nwas a bitter pill for Herschell, since it halved the representation of\nDurham city, and so gave him statutory notice to quit. Reckoning on the\nlocal support of the Cavendish family, he contested the North Lonsdale\ndivision of Lancashire; but in spite of the powerful influence of Lord\nHartington, he was badly beaten at the poll, though Mr Gladstone again\nobtained a majority in the country. Herschell now thought he saw the\nsolicitor-generalship slipping away from him, and along with it all\nprospect of high promotion. Lord Selborne and Sir Henry James, however,\nsuccessively declined Gladstone's offer of the Woolsack, and in 1886\nHerschell, by a sudden turn of fortune's wheel, found himself in his\nforty-ninth year lord chancellor.\n\nHerschell's chancellorship lasted barely six months, for in August 1886\nGladstone's Home Rule Bill was rejected in the Commons and his\nadministration fell. In August 1892, when Gladstone returned to power,\nHerschell again became lord chancellor. In September 1893, when the\nsecond Home Rule Bill came on for second reading in the House of Lords,\nHerschell took advantage of the opportunity to justify the \"sudden\nconversion\" to Home Rule of himself and his colleagues in 1885 by\ncomparing it to the duke of Wellington's conversion to Catholic\nEmancipation in 1829 and to that of Sir Robert Peel to Free Trade in\n1846. In 1895, however, his second chancellorship came to an end with\nthe defeat of the Rosebery ministry.\n\nWhether sitting at the royal courts in the Strand, on the judicial\ncommittee of the privy council, or in the House of Lords, Lord\nHerschell's judgments were distinguished for their acute and subtle\nreasoning, for their grasp of legal principles, and, whenever the\noccasion arose, for their broad treatment of constitutional and social\nquestions. He was not a profound lawyer, but his quickness of\napprehension was such that it was an excellent substitute for great\nlearning. In construing a real property will or any other document, his\nfirst impulse was to read it by the light of nature, and to decline to\nbe influenced by the construction put by the judges on similar phrases\noccurring elsewhere. But when he discovered that certain expressions had\nacquired a technical meaning which could not be disturbed without\nfluttering the dovecotes of the conveyancers, he would yield to the\nestablished rule, even though he did not agree with it. He was perhaps\nseen at his judicial best in _Vagliano_ v. _Bank of England_ (1891) and\n_Allen_ v. _Flood_ (1898). Latterly he showed a tendency, which seems to\ngrow on some judges, to interrupt counsel overmuch. The case last\nmentioned furnishes an example of this. The question involved was what\nconstituted a molestation of a man in the pursuit of his lawful calling.\nAt the close of the argument of counsel, whom he had frequently\ninterrupted, one of their lordships, noted for his pretty wit, observed\nthat although there might be a doubt as to what amounted to such\nmolestation in point of law, the House could well understand, after that\nday's proceedings, what it was in actual practice. In addition to his\npolitical and judicial work, Herschell rendered many public services. In\n1888 he presided over an inquiry directed by the House of Commons with\nregard to the Metropolitan Board of Works. He acted as chairman of two\nroyal commissions, one on Indian currency, the other on vaccination. He\ntook a great interest in the National Society for the Prevention of\nCruelty to Children, not only promoting the acts of 1889 and 1894, but\nalso bestowing a good deal of time in sifting the truth of certain\nallegations which had been brought against the management of that\nsociety. In June 1893 he was appointed chancellor of the university of\nLondon in succession to the earl of Derby, and he entered on his new\nduties with the usual thoroughness. \"His views of reform,\" according to\nVictor Dickins, the accomplished registrar of the university, \"were\nalways most liberal and most frankly stated, though at first they were\nnot altogether popular with an important section of university opinion.\nHe disarmed opposition by his intellectual power, rather than\nconciliated it by compromise, and sometimes was perhaps a little\nmasterful, after a fashion of his own, in his treatment of the various\nburning questions that agitated the university during his tenure of\noffice. His characteristic power of detachment was well illustrated by\nhis treatment of the proposal to remove the university to the site of\nthe Imperial Institute at South Kensington. Although he was at that time\nchairman of the Institute, the most irreconcilable opponent of the\nremoval never questioned his absolute impartiality.\" With the Imperial\nInstitute Herschell had been officially connected from its inception. He\nwas chairman of the provisional committee appointed by the prince of\nWales to formulate a scheme for its organization, and he took an active\npart in the preparation of its charter and constitution in conjunction\nwith Lord Thring, Lord James, Sir Frederick Abel and Mr John Hollams. He\nwas the first chairman of its council, and, except during his tour in\nIndia in 1888, when he brought the Institute under the notice of the\nIndian authorities, he was hardly absent from a single meeting. For his\nspecial services in this connexion he was made G.C.B. in 1893, this\nbeing the only instance of a lord chancellor being decorated with an\norder.\n\nIn 1897 he was appointed, jointly with Lord Justice Collins, to\nrepresent Great Britain on the Venezuela Boundary Commission, which\nassembled in Paris in the spring of 1899. So complicated a business\ninvolved a great deal of preparation and a careful study of maps and\nhistoric documents. Not content with this, he accepted in 1898 a seat on\nthe joint high commission appointed to adjust certain boundary and other\nimportant questions pending between Great Britain and Canada on the one\nhand and the United States on the other hand. He started for America in\nJuly of that year, and was received most cordially at Washington. His\nfellow commissioners elected him their president. In February 1899,\nwhile the commission was in full swing, he had the misfortune to slip in\nthe street and in falling to fracture a hip bone. His constitution,\nwhich at one time was a robust one, had been undermined by constant hard\nwork, and proved unequal to sustaining the shock. On the 1st of March,\nonly a fortnight after the accident, he died at the Shoreham Hotel,\nWashington, a _post-mortem_ examination revealing disease of the heart.\nMr Hay, secretary of state, at once telegraphed to Mr Choate, the United\nStates ambassador in London, the \"deep sorrow\" felt by President\nMcKinley; and Sir Wilfred Laurier said the next day, in the parliament\nchamber at Ottawa, that he regarded Herschell's death \"as a misfortune\nto Canada and to the British Empire.\" A funeral service held in St\nJohn's Episcopal Church, Washington, was attended by the president and\nvice-president of the United States, by the cabinet ministers, the\njudges of the Supreme Court, the members of the joint high commission,\nand a large number of senators and other representative men. The body\nwas brought to London in a British man-of-war, and a second funeral\nservice was held in Westminster Abbey before it was conveyed to its\nfinal resting-place at Tincleton, Dorset, in the parish church of which\nhe had been married. Herschell left a widow, granddaughter of\nVice-Chancellor Kindersley; a son, Richard Farrer (b. 1878), who\nsucceeded him as second baron; and two daughters.\n\n A \"reminiscence\" of Herschell by Mr Speaker Gully (Lord Selby) will be\n found in _The Law Quarterly Review_ for April 1899. _The Journal of\n the Society of Comparative Legislation_ (of which he had been\n president from its formation in 1893) contains, in its part for July\n of the same year, notices of him by Lord James of Hereford, Lord\n Davey, Mr Victor Williamson (his executor and intimate friend), and\n also by Mr Justice D. J. Brewer and Senator C. W. Fairbanks (both of\n the United States). (M. H. C.)\n\n\n\n\nHERSENT, LOUIS (1777-1860), French painter, was born at Paris on the\n10th of March 1777, and becoming a pupil of David, obtained the Prix de\nRome in 1797; in the Salon of 1802 appeared his \"Metamorphosis of\nNarcissus,\" and he continued to exhibit with rare interruptions up to\n1831. His most considerable works under the empire were \"Achilles\nparting from Briseis,\" and \"Atala dying in the arms of Chactas\" (both\nengraved in Landon's _Annales du Musee_); an \"Incident of the life of\nFenelon,\" painted in 1810, found a place at Malmaison, and \"Passage of\nthe Bridge at Landshut,\" which belongs to the same date, is now at\nVersailles. Hersent's typical works, however, belong to the period of\nthe Restoration; \"Louis XVI. relieving the Afflicted\" (Versailles) and\n\"Daphnis and Chloe\" (engraved by Langier and by Gelee) were both in the\nSalon of 1817; at that of 1819 the \"Abdication of Gustavus Vasa\" brought\nto Hersent a medal of honour, but the picture, purchased by the duke of\nOrleans, was destroyed at the Palais Royal in 1848, and the engraving by\nHenriquel-Dupont is now its sole record. \"Ruth,\" produced in 1822,\nbecame the property of Louis XVIII., who from the moment that Hersent\nrallied to the Restoration jealously patronized him, made him officer of\nthe legion of honour, and pressed his claims at the Institute, where he\nreplaced van Spaendonck. He continued in favour under Charles X., for\nwhom was executed \"Monks of Mount St Gotthard,\" exhibited in 1824. In\n1831 Hersent made his last appearance at the Salon with portraits of\nLouis Philippe, Marie-Amelie and the duke of Montpensier; that of the\nking though good, is not equal to the portrait of Spontini (Berlin),\nwhich is probably Hersent's _chef-d'oeuvre_. After this date Hersent\nceased to exhibit at the yearly salons. Although in 1846 he sent an\nexcellent likeness of Delphine Gay and one or two other works to the\nrooms of the Societe d'Artistes, he could not be tempted from his usual\nreserve even by the international contest of 1855. He died on the 2nd of\nOctober 1860.\n\n\n\n\nHERSFELD, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau,\nis pleasantly situated at the confluence of the Geis and Haun with the\nFulda, on the railway from Frankfort-on-Main to Bebra, 24 m. N.N.E. of\nFulda. Pop. (1905) 8688. Some of the old fortifications of the town\nremain, but the ramparts and ditches have been laid out as promenades.\nThe principal buildings are the Stadt Kirche, a beautiful Gothic\nbuilding, erected about 1320 and restored in 1899, with a fine tower and\na large bell; the old and interesting town hall (Rathaus) and the ruins\nof the abbey church. This church was erected on the site of the\ncathedral in the beginning of the 12th century; it was built in the\nByzantine style and was burnt down by the French in 1761. Outside the\ntown are the Frauenberg and the Johannesberg, on both of which are\nmonastic ruins. Among the public institutions are a gymnasium and a\nmilitary school. The town has important manufactures of cloth, leather\nand machinery; it has also dye-works, worsted mills and soap-boiling\nworks.\n\nHersfeld owes its existence to the Benedictine abbey (see below). It\nbecame a town in the 12th century and in 1370 the burghers, having\nmeanwhile shaken off the authority of the abbots, placed themselves\nunder the protection of the landgraves of Hesse. It was taken and\nretaken during the Thirty Years' War and later it suffered from the\nattacks of the French.\n\nThe Benedictine abbey of Hersfeld was founded by Lullus, afterwards\narchbishop of Mainz, about 769. It was richly endowed by Charlemagne and\nbecame an ecclesiastical principality in the 12th century, passing under\nthe protection of the landgraves of Hesse in 1423. It was secularized in\n1648, having been previously administered for some years by a member of\nthe ruling family of Hesse. As a secular principality Hersfeld passed to\nHesse, and with electoral Hesse was united with Prussia in 1866. In the\nmiddle ages the abbey was famous for its library.\n\n See Vigelius, _Denkwurdigkeiten von Hersfeld_ (Hersfeld, 1888); Demme,\n _Nachrichten und Urkunden zur Chronik von Hersfeld_ (Hersfeld,\n 1891-1901), and P. Hafner, _Die Reichsabtei Hersfeld bis zur Mitte des\n 13ten Jahrhunderts_ (Hersfeld, 1889).\n\n\n\n\n\nHERSTAL, or HERISTAL, a town of Belgium, less than 2 m. N. of Liege and\npractically one of its suburbs. The name is supposed to be derived from\n_Heerstelle_, i.e. \"Permanent Camp.\" The second Pippin was born here,\nand this mayor of the palace acquired the control of the kingdom of the\nFranks. His grandson, Pippin the Short, died at Herstal in A.D. 768, and\nit disputes with Aix la Chapelle the honour of being the birthplace of\nCharlemagne. It is now a very active centre of iron and steel\nmanufactures. The Belgian national small arms factory and cannon foundry\nare fixed here. Pop. (1904) 20,114.\n\n\n\n\nHERTFORD, EARLS AND MARQUESSES OF. The English earldom of Hertford was\nheld by members of the powerful family of Clare from about 1138, when\nGilbert de Clare was created earl of Hertford, to 1314 when another earl\nGilbert was killed at Bannockburn. In 1537 EDWARD SEYMOUR, viscount\nBeauchamp, a brother of Henry VIII.'s queen, Jane Seymour, was created\nearl of Hertford, being advanced ten years later to the dignity of duke\nof Somerset and becoming protector of England. His son EDWARD (c.\n1540-1621) was styled earl of Hertford from 1547 until the protector's\nattainder and death in January 1552, when the title was forfeited; in\n1559, however, he was created earl of Hertford. In 1560 he was secretly\nmarried to Lady Catherine Grey (c. 1538-1568), daughter of Henry Grey,\nduke of Suffolk, and a descendant of Henry VII. Queen Elizabeth greatly\ndisliked this union, and both husband and wife were imprisoned, while\nthe validity of their marriage was questioned. Catherine died on the\n27th of January 1568 and Hertford on the 6th of April 1621. Their son\nEdward, Lord Beauchamp (1561-1612), who inherited his mother's title to\nthe English throne, predeceased his father; and the latter was succeeded\nin the earldom by his grandson WILLIAM SEYMOUR (1588-1660), who was\ncreated marquess of Hertford in 1640 and was restored to his ancestor's\ndukedom of Somerset in 1660. The title of marquess of Hertford became\nextinct when JOHN, 4th duke of Somerset, died in 1675, and the earldom\nwhen ALGERNON, the 7th duke, died in February 1750.\n\nIn August 1750 FRANCIS SEYMOUR CONWAY, 2nd Baron Conway (1718-1794), who\nwas a direct descendant of the protector Somerset, was created earl of\nHertford; this nobleman was the son of Francis Seymour Conway\n(1679-1732), who had taken the name of Conway in addition to that of\nSeymour, and was the brother of Field-marshal Henry Seymour Conway.\nHertford was ambassador to France from 1763 to 1765; was lord-lieutenant\nof Ireland in 1765 and 1766; and lord chamberlain of the household from\n1766 to 1782. Horace Walpole speaks of his \"decorum and piety\" and\nrefers to him as a \"perfect courtier,\" but says that he had \"too great\npropensity to heap emoluments on his children.\" In 1793 he became earl\nof Yarmouth and marquess of Hertford, and he died on the 14th of June\n1794. His son, FRANCIS INGRAM SEYMOUR CONWAY (1743-1822), who was known\nduring his father's lifetime as Lord Beauchamp, took a prominent part in\nthe debates of the House of Commons from 1766 until he succeeded to the\nmarquessate in 1794. He was sent as ambassador to Berlin and Vienna in\n1793 and from 1812 to 1821 he was lord chamberlain. His son FRANCIS\nCHARLES, the 3rd marquess (1777-1842), was an intimate friend of the\nprince regent, afterwards George IV., and is the original of the\n\"Marquis of Steyne\" in Thackeray's _Vanity Fair_ and of \"Lord Monmouth\"\nin Disraeli's _Coningsby_. The 4th marquess was his son, RICHARD\n(1800-1870), whose mother was the great heiress, Maria Emily Fagniani,\nand whose brother was Lord Henry Seymour (1805-1859), the founder of the\nJockey Club at Paris. When Richard died unmarried in Paris in August\n1870 his title passed to his kinsman, FRANCIS HUGH GEORGE SEYMOUR\n(1812-1884), a descendant of the 1st marquess, whose son, HUGH DE GREY\n(b. 1843) became 6th marquess in 1884. The 4th marquess left his great\nwealth and his priceless collection of art treasures to Sir Richard\nWallace (1818-1890), his reputed half-brother, and Wallace's widow, who\ndied in 1897, bequeathed the collection to the British nation. It is now\nin Hertford House, formerly the London residence of the marquesses of\nHertford.\n\n\n\n\n\nHERTFORD, a market-town and municipal borough, and the county town of\nHertfordshire, England, in the Hertford parliamentary division of the\ncounty, 24 m. N. from London, the terminus of branch lines of the Great\nEastern and Great Northern railways. Pop. (1901) 9322. It is pleasantly\nsituated in the valley of the river Lea. The chief buildings are the\nmodern churches of St Andrew and of All Saints, on the sites of old\nones, a town hall, corn exchange, public library, school of art and the\nold castle, which retains the wall and part of a tower dating from the\nNorman period, and is represented by a picturesque Jacobean building of\nbrick, largely modernized. There are several educational establishments,\nincluding the preparatory school for Christ's Hospital, a picturesque\nbuilding (in great part, however, rebuilt) at the east end of the town,\nHale's grammar school, the Cowper Testimonial school, and a Green-coat\nschool for boys and girls. Two miles S.E. is Haileybury College, one of\nthe principal public schools of England, founded in 1805 by the East\nIndia Company for their civil service students, who were then\ntemporarily housed in Hertford Castle. The school lies high above the\nLea valley, towards Hoddesdon, in the midst of a stretch of\nfinely-wooded country. Hertford has a considerable agricultural trade,\nand there are maltings, breweries, iron foundries, and oriental printing\nworks. The town is governed by a mayor, 5 aldermen and 15 councillors.\nArea, 1134 acres.\n\nHertford (_Herutford_, _Heorotford_, _Hurtford_) was the scene of a\nsynod in 673. Its communication with London by way of the Lea and the\nThames gave it strategic importance during the Danish occupation of East\nAnglia. In 1066 and later it was a royal garrison and burgh. It made\nseparate payments for aids to the Norman and Angevin kings; and in 1331\nwas governed by a bailiff annually elected by the commonalty. A charter\nincorporated the bailiffs and burgesses in 1555, and was confirmed under\nElizabeth and in 1606. A charter of 1680 to the mayor, aldermen and\ncommonalty was effective until the Municipal Corporation Act. Hertford\nreturned two burgesses to the parliament of 1298, and to others until,\nafter 1375/6, such right became abeyant, to be restored by order of\nparliament in 1623/4. One representative was lost by the Representation\nAct in 1868, and separate representation by the Redistribution Act in\n1885. A grant of fairs in 1226 probably originated or confirmed those\nheld in 1331 on the feasts of the Assumption and of St Simon and St\nJude, their vigils and morrows, which fairs were confirmed by Elizabeth\nand Charles II. Another on the vigil, morrow and feast of the Nativity\nof the Virgin was granted by Elizabeth: its date was changed to May-day\nunder James I. Modern fairs are on the third Saturday before Easter, the\n12th of May, the 5th of July and the 8th of November. Markets were held\nin 1331 on Wednesday and Saturday; after 1368 on Thursday and Saturday;\nand they returned to Wednesdays and Saturdays in 1680.\n\n\n\n\nHERTFORDSHIRE [HERTS], a county of England, bounded N. by\nCambridgeshire, N.W. by Bedfordshire, E. by Essex, S. by Middlesex, and\nS.W. by Buckinghamshire. The area is 634.6 sq. m., the county being the\nsixth smallest in England. Its aspect is always pleasant, the surface\ngenerally undulating, while in some parts, where these undulations form\na quick succession of hills and valleys, the woodland scenery becomes\nvery beautiful, as in the upper Lea valley, in the neighbourhood of\nTewin near Hertford, and elsewhere. To the north-west and north\nconsiderable elevations are reached, a line of hills, facing\nnorth-westward with a sharp descent, crossing this portion of the\ncounty, and overlooking the flat lands of Bedfordshire and\nCambridgeshire. They continue the line of the Chiltern Hills under the\nname of the East Anglian Ridge. They exceed 800 ft. near Dunstable,\nsinking gradually north-eastward. These uplands are generally bare, and\nin parts remarkably sparsely populated as compared with the home\ncounties at large. In the greater part of the county, however, rich\narable lands are intermingled with the parks and woodlands of numerous\nfine country seats, which impart to the county a peculiar luxuriance. Of\nthe principal rivers, the Lea, rising beyond Luton in Bedfordshire,\nenters Hertfordshire near East Hyde, flows S.E. to near Hatfield, then\nE. by N. to Hertford and Ware, whence it bends S. and passing along the\neastern boundary of the county falls into the Thames below London. It\nreceives in its course the Maran, or Mimram, the Beane, the Rib and the\nStort, all joining on the north side; the Stort for some distance\nforming the county boundary with Essex. The Colne flows through the\nsouth-western part of the county, to fall into the Thames at Staines. It\nreceives the Ver, the Bulborne and the Chess. The Ivel, rising in the\nN.W. soon passes into Bedfordshire to join the Great Ouse. To the south\nof Hatfield, near North Mimms, two streams of moderate size are lost in\npot-holes, except in the highest floods. The New River, one of the water\nsupplies of London, has its source near Ware, and runs roughly parallel\nwith the Lea. Most of the rivers are full of fish, including trout in\nthe upper parts (of the Lea and Colne especially), which are carefully\npreserved.\n\n _Geology._--The rocks of Hertfordshire belong to the shallow syncline\n known as the London basin, the beds dipping in a south-easterly\n direction. The two most important formations are the Chalk, which\n forms the high ground in the north and west; and the Eocene Reading\n beds and London Clay which occupy the remaining southern part of the\n county. On the northern boundary, at the foot of the chalk hills, a\n small strip of Gault Clay and the Upper Greensand above it falls just\n within the county. The lowest subdivision of the chalk is the Chalk\n Marl, which with the Totternhoe Stone above it, lies at the base of\n the Chalk escarpment, by Ashwell, Pirton and Miswell to Tring. Above\n these beds, the Lower Chalk, without flints, rises up sharply to form\n the downs which are the easterly continuation of the Chiltern Hills.\n Next comes the Chalk Rock, which being a hard bed, lies near the\n hilltops by Boxmoor, Apsley End and near Baldock. The Upper Chalk\n slopes southward towards the Eocene boundary previously mentioned. The\n Reading beds consist of mottled and yellow clays and sands, the latter\n are frequently hardened into masses made up of pebbles in a siliceous\n cement, known locally as Hertfordshire puddingstone. The London Clay,\n a stiff blue clay which weathers brown, rests nearly everywhere upon\n the Reading beds. Outliers of Eocene rocks rest on the chalk at\n Micklefield Green, Sarrat, Bedmont, &c. The Chalk is often covered by\n the Clay-with-flints, a detrital deposit, formed of the remnants of\n Tertiary rocks and Chalk. Glacial gravels, clays and loams cover a\n great deal of the whole area, and the Upper Chalk itself has been\n disturbed at Reed and Barley by the same agency. Chalk was formerly\n used for building purposes; it is now burned for lime. Reading beds\n and London clay are dug for brick-making at Watford, Hertford and\n Hatfield. Phosphatic nodules have been excavated from the base of the\n Chalk Marl at several places along the outcrop; the Marl is worked for\n cement.\n\n_Climate and Agriculture._--The climate is mild, dry and generally\nhealthy. On this account London physicians were formerly accustomed to\nrecommend the county to persons in weak health, and it was so much\ncoveted by the noble and wealthy as a place of residence that it was a\ncommon saying that \"he who buys a home in Hertfordshire pays two years'\npurchase for the air.\" Of the total area about four-fifths is under\ncultivation, and of this more than one-third is in permanent pasture.\nThe principal grain crop is wheat, occupying about two-fifths of the\narea under corn, but gradually decreasing. The varieties mostly grown\nare white, and they are unsurpassed by those of any English county.\nWheathampstead on the upper Lea receives its name from the fine quality\nof the wheat grown in that district. Barley is largely used in the\ncounty for malting purposes. Vetches are grown for the London stables,\nand the greater part of the permanent grass is used for hay. There are\nsome very rich pastures on the banks of the Stort, and also near\nRickmansworth on the Colne. Some two-thirds of the area occupied by\ngreen crops is under turnips, swedes and mangolds, many cows being kept\nfor the supply of milk and butter to London. The quantity of stock is\ngenerally small, but increasing except in the case of sheep, of which\nthe numbers have greatly decreased. Of cows the most common breed is the\nSuffolk variety; of sheep, Southdowns, Wiltshires and a cross between\nCotteswolds and Leicesters. In the south-west large quantities of\ncherries, apples and strawberries are grown for the London market; and\non the best soils near London vegetables are forced by the aid of\nmanure, and more than one crop is sometimes obtained in a year. A\nconsiderable industry lies in the growth of watercresses in the pure\nwater of the upper parts of the rivers and the smaller streams. There\nare a number of rose-gardens and nurseries.\n\n_Other Industries._--The manufacturing industries are slight; though the\ngreat brewing establishments at Watford may be mentioned, and\nstraw-plaiting, paper-making, coach-building, tanning and brick-making\nare carried on in various towns.\n\n_Communications._--Owing to its proximity to the metropolis,\nHertfordshire is particularly well served by railways. On the eastern\nborder there is the Great Eastern (Cambridge line) with branches to\nHertford and to Buntingford. The main line of the Great Northern passes\nthrough the centre by Hatfield, Stevenage and Hitchin, with branches\nfrom Hatfield to Hertford, to St Albans and to Luton and Dunstable, and\nfrom Hitchin to Baldock, Royston and so to Cambridge. The Midland passes\nthrough St Albans and Harpenden, with a branch to Hemel Hempstead. The\nLondon & North-Western traverses the south-west by Watford,\nBerkhampstead and Tring, with branches to Rickmansworth and to St\nAlbans. The Metropolitan & Great Central joint line serves\nRickmansworth, and suburban lines of the Great Northern the Barnet\ndistrict. The existence of these communications has combined with the\nnatural attractions of the county to cause many villages to become large\nresidential centres. Water communications are supplied from Hertford,\nWare and Bishop Stortford, southward to the Thames by the Lea and Stort\nNavigation; and the Grand Junction canal from London to the north-west\ntraverses the south-western corner of the county by Rickmansworth and\nBerkhampstead. Three great highways from London to the north traverse\nthe county. The Holyhead Road passes Chipping Barnet, South Mimms and St\nAlbans, quitting the county near Dunstable. The Great North Road\nbranches from the Holyhead Road at Barnet, and passes Potter's Bar,\nHatfield, Stevenage and Baldock, with a branch from Welwyn to Hitchin\nand beyond. Another road follows the Lea valley to Ware, whence it runs\nto Royston, being here coincident with the Roman Ermine Street and known\nas the Old North Road.\n\n_Population and Administration._--The area of the ancient county is\n406,157 acres with a population in 1891 of 220,162, and in 1901 of\n250,152. The area of the administrative county is 404,518 acres. The\ncounty comprises eight hundreds. The municipal boroughs are: Hemel\nHempstead (11,264), Hertford (9322), St Albans, a city (16,019). The\nother urban districts are: Baldock (2057), Barnet (7876), Berkhampstead\n(Great Berkhampstead, 5140), Bishop Stortford (7143), Bushey (4564),\nCheshunt (12,292), East Barnet Valley (10,094), Harpenden (4725),\nHitchin (10,072), Hoddesdon (4711), Rickmansworth (5627), Royston\n(3517), Sawbridgeworth (2085), Stevenage (3957), Tring (4349), Ware\n(5573) and Watford (29,327). The county is in the home circuit, and\nassizes are held at Hertford. It has two courts of quarter-sessions, and\nis divided into 15 petty-sessional divisions. The boroughs of Hertford\nand St Albans have separate commissions of the peace. The total number\nof civil parishes is 158. All the civil parishes within 12 m. of, or in\nwhich no portion is more than 15 m. from, Charing Cross, London, are\nincluded in the metropolitan police district. The county contains 170\necclesiastical parishes or districts, wholly or in part; it is nearly\nall in the diocese of St Albans, but small parts are in the dioceses of\nEly, Oxford and London. It is divided into four parliamentary\ndivisions--Northern or Hitchin, Eastern or Hertford, Mid or St Albans,\nWestern or Watford, each returning one member. There is no parliamentary\nborough within the county.\n\n_History._--Relics of Saxon occupation have been found in Hertfordshire\nfor the most part near St Albans and Hitchin. The diocesan limits show\nthat part of the shire was included in the West Saxon kingdom. The East\nSaxons, as early as the 6th century, were settled about Hertford, which\nin 673 was sufficiently important to be the meeting-place of a synod\nconvened by Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, while in 675 the\nWitenagemot assembled at a place which has been identified with\nHatfield. In the 9th century the district was frequently visited by the\nDanes; and after the peace of Wedmore the country east of the Lea was\nincluded in the Danelaw; in 911 Edward the Elder erected forts on both\nsides of the river at Hertford.\n\nAfter the battle of Hastings William advanced on Hertfordshire and\nravaged as far as Berkhampstead, where the Conquest received its formal\nratification. In the sweeping confiscation of estates which followed,\nthe church was generously endowed, the abbey of St Albans alone holding\n172 hides, while Count Eustace of Boulogne, the chief lay tenant, held a\nvast fief in the north-east of the county. Large estates were held by\nGeoffrey de Mandeville, and the barony of Peter de Valognes, sheriff of\nthe county in 1086, though extending over six counties in the east of\nEngland, was returned in 1166 as a Hertfordshire barony. Berkhampstead\nwas the head of an honour carved from the fief of Robert of Mortain. The\nHertfordshire estates, however, for the most part changed hands very\nfrequently and the county is noticeably lacking in historic families.\nEdmund Langley, fifth son of Edward III., was born at King's Langley in\nthis county.\n\nDuring the war between John and his barons, William, earl of Salisbury\nand Falkes de Breaute had the king's orders to ravage Hertfordshire, and\nin 1216 Hertford Castle was captured and Berkhampstead Castle besieged\nby Louis of France, who had come over by invitation of the barons. At\nthe time of the rising of 1381 the abbot's tenants broke into the abbey\nof St Albans and forced the abbot to grant them a charter. During the\nWars of the Roses, Henry VI. was defeated at St Albans in 1455; at the\nsecond battle of St Albans the earl of Warwick was defeated by Queen\nMargaret; and in 1471 Edward IV. again defeated the earl at Barnet. On\nthe outbreak of the Civil War of the 17th century, Hertfordshire joined\nwith Bedfordshire and Essex in petitioning for peace, and St Albans\nagain played an important part in the struggle, being at different times\nthe headquarters of Essex and Fairfax.\n\nAs a shire Hertfordshire is of purely military origin, being the\ndistrict assigned to the fortress which Edward the Elder erected at\nHertford. It is first mentioned in the Saxon Chronicle in 1011. At the\ntime of the Domesday Survey the boundaries were approximately those of\nthe present day, but part of Meppershall in Bedfordshire formed a\ndetached portion of the shire and is still assessed for land and income\ntax in Hertfordshire. Of the nine Domesday hundreds, those of Danais and\nTring were consolidated about 1200 under the name of Dacorum; the modern\nhundred of Cashio, from being held by the abbots of St Albans, was known\nas Albaneston, while the remaining six hundreds correspond approximately\nboth in name and extent with those of the present day.\n\nHertfordshire was originally divided between the dioceses of London and\nLincoln. In 1291 that part included in the Lincoln diocese formed part\nof the archdeaconry of Huntingdom and comprised the deaneries of\nBerkhampstead, Hitchin, Hertford and Baldock, and the archdeaconry and\ndeanery of St Albans; while that part within the London diocese formed\nthe deanery of Braughing within the archdeaconry of Middlesex. In 1535\nthe jurisdiction of St Albans had been transferred to the London\ndiocese, the division being otherwise unchanged. In 1846 the whole\ncounty was placed within the diocese of Rochester and archdeaconry of St\nAlbans, and in the next year the deaneries of Welwyn, Bennington,\nBuntingford, Bishop Stortford and Ware were created, and that of\nBraughing abolished. In 1864 the archdeaconries of Rochester and St\nAlbans were united under the name of the archdeaconry of Rochester and\nSt Albans. In 1878 the county was placed in the newly created diocese of\nSt Albans, and formed the archdeaconry of St Albans, the deaneries being\nunchanged.\n\nHertfordshire was closely associated with Essex from the time of its\nfirst settlement, and the counties paid a joint fee-farm and were united\nunder one sheriff until 1565, the shire-court being held at Hertford.\nThe hundred of St Albans was at an early date constituted a separate\nliberty, with independent courts and coroners under the control of the\nabbot; it preserved a separate commission of the peace until 1874, when\nby act of parliament the county was arranged in two divisions, the\neastern division being named Hertford, and the western the liberty of\nSt Albans. These divisions have since been abolished.\n\nHertfordshire has always been an agricultural county, with few\nmanufactures, and at the time of the Domesday Survey its wealth was\nderived almost entirely from its rural manors, with their water meadows,\nwoodlands, fisheries paying rent in eels, and water-mills, the shire on\nits eastern side being noticeably free from waste land. In Norman times\nthe woollen trade was considerable, and the great corn market at Royston\nhas been famous since the reign of Elizabeth. At the time of the Civil\nWar the malting industry was largely carried on, and saltpetre was\nproduced in the county. In the 17th century Hertfordshire was famous for\nits horses, and the 18th century saw the introduction of several minor\nindustries, such as straw-plaiting, paper-making and silk weaving.\n\nIn 1290 Hertfordshire returned two members to parliament, and in 1298\nthe borough of Hertford was represented. St Albans, Bishop Stortford and\nBerkhampstead acquired representation in the 14th century, but from 1375\nto 1553 no returns were made for the boroughs. St Albans regained\nrepresentation in 1553 and Hertford in 1623. Under the Reform Act of\n1832 the county returned three members. St Albans was disfranchised on\naccount of bribery in 1852. Hertford lost one member in 1868, and was\ndisfranchised by the act of 1885.\n\n_Antiquities._--Among the objects of antiquarian interest may be\nmentioned the cave of Royston, doubtless once used as a hermitage;\nWaltham Cross, erected to mark the spot where rested the body of\nEleanor, queen of Edward I., on its way to Westminster for interment;\nand the Great Bed of Ware referred to in Shakespeare's _Twelfth Night_\nand preserved at Rye House. The principal monastic buildings are the\nnoble pile of St Albans abbey; the remains of Sopwell Benedictine\nnunnery near St Albans, founded in 1140; the remains of the priory of\nWare, dedicated to St Francis, and originally a cell to the monastery of\nSt Ebrulf at Utica in Normandy; and the remains of the priory at Hitchin\nbuilt by Edward II. for the Carmelites. Among the more interesting\nchurches may be mentioned those of Abbots Langley and Hemel Hempstead,\nboth of Late Norman architecture; Baldock, a handsome mixed Gothic\nbuilding supposed to have been erected by the Knights Templars in the\nreign of Stephen; Royston, formerly connected with the priory of canons\nregular; Hitchin of the 15th century; Hatfield, dating from the 13th\ncentury but in the main later; Berkhampstead, chiefly in the\nPerpendicular style, with a tower of the 16th century. Sandridge church\nshows good Norman work with the use of Roman bricks; Wheathampstead\nchurch, mainly very fine Decorated, has pre-Norman remains. The remains\nof secular buildings of importance are those of Berkhampstead castle,\nHertford castle, Hatfield palace of the bishops of Ely, the slight\ntraces at Bishop Stortford, and the earthworks at Anstey. Among the\nnumerous mansions of interest, Rye House, erected in the reign of Henry\nVI., was tenanted by Rumbold, one of the principal agents in the plot to\nassassinate Charles II. Moor Park, Rickmansworth, once the property of\nSt Albans abbey, was granted by Henry VII. to John de Vere, earl of\nOxford, and was afterwards the property of the duke of Monmouth, who\nbuilt the present mansion, which, however, was subsequently cased with\nPortland stone and received various other additions. Knebworth, the seat\nof the Lyttons, was originally a Norman fortress, rebuilt in the time of\nElizabeth in the Tudor style and restored in the 19th century. Hatfield\nHouse is the seat of the marquis of Salisbury; but its earlier history\nis of great interest, as is that of Theobalds near Cheshunt. Panshanger\nHouse, until recently the principal seat of the Cowpers, is a splendid\nmansion in Gothic style erected at the beginning of the 19th century.\nThe manor of Cashiobury House, the seat of the earls of Essex, was\nformerly held by the abbot of St Albans, but the mansion was rebuilt in\nthe beginning of the 19th century from designs by Wyatt. Gorhambury\nHouse, near St Albans, the seat of the earl of Verulam, formerly the\nseat of the Bacons, and the residence of the great chancellor, was\nrebuilt at the close of the 18th century. At Kings Langley and Hunsdon\nwere also former royal residences.\n\n See Sir H. Chauncy, _Historical Antiquities of Hertfordshire_ (London,\n 1700, 2nd ed., Bishop Stortford, 1826); N. Salmon, _History of\n Hertfordshire_ (London, 1728); R. Clutterbuck, _History and\n Antiquities of the County of Hertford_ (London, 1815-1827); W. Berry,\n _Pedigrees of the Hertfordshire Families_ (London, 1844); J. E.\n Cussans, _History of Hertfordshire_ (London, 1870-1881); _Victoria\n County History, Hertfordshire_ (London, 1902, &c.); see also\n \"Visitation of Hertfordshire, 1572-1634,\" in _Harleian Society's\n Publ._ vol. xvii., and various papers in _Middlesex and Hertfordshire\n Notes and Queries_ (1895-1898), which in January 1899 was incorporated\n in the _Home Counties_ Magazine.\n\n\n\n\nHERTHA, or NERTHUS, in Teutonic mythology, the goddess of fertility,\n\"Mother Earth.\" Tacitus states that many Teutonic tribes worshipped her\nwith orgies and mysterious rites celebrated at night. The chief seat of\nher cult was an island which has not been identified. A single priest\nperformed the service. Her veiled statue was moved from place to place\nby sacred cows on which none but the priest might lay hands. At the\nconclusion of the rites the image, its vestments and its vehicle were\nbathed in a lake.\n\n\n\n\nHERTZ, HEINRICH RUDOLF (1857-1894), German physicist, was born at\nHamburg on the 22nd of February 1857. On leaving school he determined to\nadopt the profession of engineering, and in the pursuance of this\ndecision went to study in Munich in 1877. But soon coming to the\nconclusion that engineering was not his vocation he abandoned it in\nfavour of physical science, and in October 1878 began to attend the\nlectures of G. R. Kirchhoff and H. von Helmholtz at Berlin. In\npreparation for these he spent the winter of 1877-1878 in reading up\noriginal treatises like those of Laplace and Lagrange on mathematics and\nmechanics, and in attending courses on practical physics under P. G. von\nJolly and J. F. W. von Bezold; the consequence was that within a few\ndays of his arrival in Berlin in October 1878 he was able to plunge into\noriginal research on a problem of electric inertia. For the best\nsolution a prize was offered by the philosophical faculty of the\nUniversity, and this he succeeded in winning with the paper which was\npublished in 1880 on the \"Kinetic Energy of Electricity in Motion.\" His\nnext investigation, on \"Induction in Rotating Spheres,\" he offered in\n1880 as his dissertation for his doctor's degree, which he obtained with\nthe rare distinction of _summa cum laude_. Later in the same year he\nbecame assistant to Helmholtz in the physical laboratory of the Berlin\nInstitute. During the three years he held this position he carried out\nresearches on the contact of elastic solids, hardness, evaporation and\nthe electric discharge in gases, the last earning him the special\ncommendation of Helmholtz. In 1883 he went to Kiel, becoming\n_Privatdozent_, and there he began the studies in Maxwell's\nelectromagnetic theory which a few years later resulted in the\ndiscoveries that rendered his name famous. These were actually made\nbetween 1885 and 1889, when he was professor of physics in the Carlsruhe\nPolytechnic. He himself recorded that their origin is to be sought in a\nprize problem proposed by the Berlin Academy of Sciences in 1879, having\nreference to the experimental establishment of some relation between\nelectromagnetic forces and the dielectric polarization of insulators.\nImagining that this would interest Hertz and be successfully attacked by\nhim, Helmholtz specially drew his attention to it, and promised him the\nassistance of the Institute if he decided to work on the subject; but\nHertz did not take it up seriously at that time, because he could not\nthink of any procedure likely to prove effective. It was of course well\nknown, as a necessity of Maxwell's mathematical theory, that the\npolarization and depolarization of an insulator must give rise to the\nsame electromagnetic effects in the neighbourhood as a voltaic current\nin a conductor. The experimental proof, however, was still lacking, and\nthough several experimenters had come very near its discovery, Hertz was\nthe first who actually succeeded in supplying it, in 1887. Continuing\nhis inquiries for the next year or two, he was able to discover the\nprogressive propagation of electromagnetic action through space, to\nmeasure the length and velocity of electromagnetic waves, and to show\nthat in the transverse nature of their vibration and their\nsusceptibility to reflection, refraction and polarization they are in\ncomplete correspondence with the waves of light and heat. The result,\nwas in Helmholtz's words, to establish beyond doubt that ordinary light\nconsists of electrical vibrations in an all-pervading ether which\npossesses the properties of an insulator and of a magnetic medium. Hertz\nhimself gave an admirable account of the significance of his discoveries\nin a lecture on the relations between light and electricity, delivered\nbefore the German Society for the Advancement of Natural Science and\nMedicine at Heidelberg in September 1889. Since the time of these early\nexperiments, various other modes of detecting the existence of electric\nwaves have been found out in addition to the spark-gap which he first\nemployed, and the results of his observations, the earliest interest of\nwhich was simply that they afforded a confirmation of an abstruse\nmathematical theory, have been applied to the practical purposes of\nsignalling over considerable distances (see TELEGRAPHY, WIRELESS). In\n1889 Hertz was appointed to succeed R. J. E. Clausius as ordinary\nprofessor of physics in the university of Bonn. There he continued his\nresearches on the discharge of electricity in rarefied gases, only just\nmissing the discovery of the X-rays described by W. C. Rontgen a few\nyears later, and produced his treatise on the _Principles of Mechanics_.\nThis was his last work, for after a long illness he died at Bonn on the\n1st of January 1894. By his premature death science lost one of her most\npromising disciples. Helmholtz thought him the one of all his pupils who\nhad penetrated farthest into his own circle of scientific thought, and\nlooked to him with the greatest confidence for the further extension and\ndevelopment of his work.\n\n Hertz's scientific papers were translated into English by Professor D.\n E. Jones, and published in three volumes: _Electric Waves_ (1893),\n _Miscellaneous Papers_ (1896), and _Principles of Mechanics_ (1899).\n The preface contributed to the first of these by Lord Kelvin, and the\n introductions to the second and third by Professors P. E. A. Lenard\n and Helmholtz, contain many biographical details, together with\n statements of the scope and significance of his investigations.\n\n\n\n\nHERTZ, HENRIK (1797-1870), Danish poet, was born of Jewish parents in\nCopenhagen on the 25th of August 1798. In 1817 he was sent to the\nuniversity. His father died in his infancy, and the family property was\ndestroyed in the bombardment of 1807. The boy was brought up by his\nrelative, M. L. Nathanson, a well-known newspaper editor. Young Hertz\npassed his examination in law in 1825. But his taste was all for polite\nliterature, and in 1826-1827 two plays of his were produced, _Mr\nBurchardt and his Family_ and _Love and Policy_; in 1828 followed the\ncomedy of _Flyttedagen_. In 1830 he brought out what was a complete\nnovelty in Danish literature, a comedy in rhymed verse, _Amor's Strokes\nof Genius_. In the same year Hertz published anonymously\n_Gengangerbrevene_, or Letters from a Ghost, which he pretended were\nwritten by Baggesen, who had died in 1826. The book was written in\ndefence of J. L. Heiberg, and was full of satirical humour and fine\ncritical insight. Its success was overwhelming; but Hertz preserved his\nanonymity, and the secret was not known until many years later. In 1832\nhe published a didactic poem, _Nature and Art_, and _Four Poetical\nEpistles_. _A Day on the Island of Als_ was his next comedy, followed in\n1835 by _The Only Fault_. Hertz passed through Germany and Switzerland\ninto Italy in 1833; he spent the winter there, and returned the\nfollowing autumn through France to Denmark. In 1836 his comedy of _The\nSavings Bank_ enjoyed a great success. But it was not till 1837 that he\ngave the full measure of his genius in the romantic national drama of\n_Svend Dyrings Hus_, a beautiful and original piece. His historical\ntragedy _Valdemar Atterdag_ was not so well received in 1839; but in\n1845 he achieved an immense success with his lyrical drama _Kong Rene's\nDatter_ (King Rene's Daughter), which has been translated into almost\nevery European language. To this succeeded the tragedy of _Ninon_ in\n1848, the romantic comedy of _Tonietta_ in 1849, _A Sacrifice_ in 1853,\n_The Youngest_ in 1854. His lyrical poems appeared in successive\ncollections, dated 1832, 1840 and 1844. From 1858 to 1859 he edited a\nliterary journal entitled _Weekly Leaves_. His last drama, _Three Days\nin Padua_, was produced in 1869, and he died on the 25th of February of\nthe next year.\n\nHertz is one of the first of Danish lyrical poets. His poems are full of\ncolour and passion, his versification has more witchcraft in it than any\nother poet's of his age, and his style is grace itself. He has all the\nsensuous fire of Keats without his proclivity to the antique. As a\nromantic dramatist he is scarcely less original. He has bequeathed to\nthe Danish theatre, in _Svend Dyrings Hus_ and _King Rene's Daughter_,\ntwo pieces which have become classic. He is a troubadour by instinct; he\nhas little or nothing of Scandinavian local colouring, and succeeds best\nwhen he is describing the scenery or the emotions of the glowing south.\n\n His _Dramatic Works_ (18 vols.) were published at Copenhagen in\n 1854-1873; and his _Poems_ (4 vols.) in 1851-1862.\n\n\n\n\nHERTZBERG, EWALD FRIEDRICH, COUNT VON (1725-1795), Prussian statesman,\nwho came of a noble family which had been settled in Pomerania since the\n13th century, was born at Lottin, in that province, on the 2nd of\nSeptember 1725. After 1739 he studied, chiefly classics and history at\nthe gymnasium at Stettin, and in 1742 entered the university of Halle as\na student of jurisprudence, becoming in due course a doctor of laws in\n1745. In addition to this principal study, he was also interested while\nat the university in historical and philosophical (Christian Wolff)\nstudies. A first thesis for his doctorate, entitled _Jus publicum\nBrandenburgicum_, was not printed, because it contained a criticism of\nthe existing condition of the state. Shortly afterwards Hertzberg\nentered the government service, in which he was first employed in the\ndepartment of the state archives (of which he became director in 1750),\nsoon after in the foreign office, and finally in 1763 as chief minister\n(_Cabinetsminister_). In 1752 he married Baroness Marie von Knyphausen,\na marriage which was happy, but childless.\n\nFor more than forty years Hertzberg played an active part in the\nPrussian foreign office. In this capacity he had a decisive influence on\nPrussian policy, both under Frederick the Great and Frederick William\nII. At the beginning of the Seven Years' War (1756) he took part as a\npolitical writer in the Hohenzollern-Habsburg quarrel, both in his\n_Ursachen, die S.K.M. in Preussen bewogen haben, sich wider die\nAbsichten des Wienerischen Hofes zu setzen und deren Ausfuhrung\nzuvorzukommen_ (\"Motives which have induced the king of Prussia to\noppose the intentions of the court of Vienna, and to prevent them from\nbeing carried into effect\"), and in his _Memoire raisonne sur la\nconduite des cours de Vienne et de Saxe_, based on the secret papers\ntaken by Frederick the Great from the archives of Dresden. After the\ndefeat at Kolin (1757) he hastened to Pomerania in order to organize the\nnational defence there and collect the necessary troops for the\nprotection of the fortresses of Stettin and Colberg. In the same year he\nconducted the peace negotiations with Sweden, and was of great service\nin bringing about the peace of Hubertsburg (1763), on the conclusion of\nwhich the king received him with the words, \"I congratulate you. You\nhave made peace as I made war, one against many.\"\n\nIn the later years, too, of Frederick the Great's reign, Hertzberg\nplayed a considerable part in foreign policy. In 1772, in a memoir based\nupon comprehensive historical studies, he defended the Prussian claims\nto certain provinces of Poland. He also took part successfully as a\npublicist in the negotiations concerning the question of the Bavarian\nsuccession (1778) and those of the peace of Teschen (1779). But in 1780\nhe failed to uphold Prussian interests at the election of the bishop of\nMunster. In 1784 appeared Hertzberg's memoir containing a thorough study\nof the _Furstenbund_. He championed this latest creation of Frederick\nthe Great's mainly with a view to an energetic reform of the empire,\nthough the idea of German unity was naturally still far from his mind.\nIn 1785 followed \"An explanation of the motives which have led the king\nof Prussia to propose to the other high estates of the empire an\nassociation for the maintenance of the system of the empire\" (_Erklarung\nder Ursachen, welche S.M. in Preussen bewogen haben, ihren hohen\nMitstanden des Reichs eine Association zur Erhaltung des Reichssystems\nanzutragen_). By upholding the Furstenbund Hertzberg made many enemies,\nprominent among whom was the king's brother, Prince Henry. Though the\n_Furstenbund_ failed to effect a reform of the empire, it at any rate\nprevented the fulfilment of Joseph II.'s old desire for the\nincorporation of Bavaria with Austria. The last act of state in which\nHertzberg took part under Frederick the Great was the commercial treaty\nconcluded in 1785 between Prussia and the United States.\n\nWith Frederick, especially in his later years, Hertzberg stood in very\nintimate personal relations and was often the king's guest at\nSans-Souci. Under Frederick William II. his influential position at the\ncourt of Berlin was at first unshaken. The king at once received him\nwith favour, as is clearly proved by Hertzberg's elevation to the rank\nof count in 1786; and Mirabeau would never have attacked him with such\nviolence in his _Secret History of the Court of Berlin_, which appeared\nin 1788, if he had not seen in him the most powerful man after the king.\nIn this attack Mirabeau seems to have been influenced by Hertzberg's\npersonal enemies at the court. Hertzberg's political system remained on\nthe whole the same under Frederick William II. as it had been under his\npredecessor. It was mainly characterized by a sharp opposition to the\nhouse of Habsburg and by a desire to win for Prussia the support of\nEngland, a policy supported by him in important memoirs of the years\n1786 and 1787. His diplomacy was directed also against Austria's old\nally, France. Hence it was chiefly owing to Hertzberg that in 1787, in\nspite of the king's unwillingness at first, Prussia intervened in\nHolland in support of the stadtholder William V. against the democratic\nFrench party (see HOLLAND: _History_). The success of this intervention,\nwhich was the practical realization of a plan very characteristic of\nHertzberg, marks the culminating point in his career.\n\nBut the opposition between him and the new king, which had already\nappeared at the time of the conclusion of the triple alliance between\nHolland, England and Prussia, became more marked in the following years,\nwhen Hertzberg, relying upon this alliance, and in conscious imitation\nof Frederick II.'s policy at the time of the first partition of Poland,\nsought to take advantage of the entanglement of Austria with Russia in\nthe war with Turkey to secure for Prussia an extension of territory by\ndiplomatic intervention. According to his plan, Prussia was to offer her\nmediation at the proper moment, and in the territorial readjustments\nthat the peace would bring, was to receive Danzig and Thorn as her\nportion. Beyond this he aimed at preventing the restoration of the\nhegemony of Austria in the Empire, and secretly cherished the hope of\nrestoring Frederick the Great's Russian alliance.\n\nWith a curious obstinacy he continued to pursue these aims even when,\nowing to military and diplomatic events, they were already partly out of\ndate. His personal position became increasingly difficult, as\ndeep-rooted differences between him and the king were revealed during\nthese diplomatic campaigns. Hertzberg wished to effect everything by\npeaceful means, while Frederick William II. was for a time determined on\nwar with Austria. As regards Polish policy, too, their ideas came into\nconflict, Hertzberg having always been openly opposed to the total\nannihilation of the Polish kingdom. The same is true of the attitude of\nking and minister towards Great Britain. At the conferences at\nReichenbach in the summer of 1790, this opposition became more and more\nacute, and Hertzberg was only with difficulty persuaded to come to an\nagreement merely on the basis of the _status_ quo, as demanded by Pitt.\nThe king's renunciation of any extension of territory was in Hertzberg's\neyes impolitic, and this view of his was later endorsed by Bismarck. A\nletter which came to the eyes of the king, in which Hertzberg severely\ncriticized the king's foreign policy, and especially his plans for\nattacking Russia, led to his dismissal on the 5th of July 1791. He\nafterwards made several attempts to exert an influence over foreign\naffairs, but in vain. The king showed himself more and more personally\nhostile to the ex-minister, and in later years pursued Hertzberg, now\nquite embittered, with every kind of petty persecution, even ordering\nhis letters to be opened.\n\nEven in his literary interests Hertzberg found an adversary in the\nungrateful king, for Frederick William, to give one instance, made it so\ndifficult for him to use the archives that in the end Hertzberg entirely\ngave up the attempt. He found, however, some recompense for all his\ndisillusionment and discouragement in learning, and, Wilhelm von\nHumboldt excepted, he was the most learned of all the Prussian\nministers. As a member of the Berlin Academy especially, and, from 1786\nonwards, as its curator, Hertzberg carried on a great and valuable\nactivity in the world of learning. His yearly reports dealt with\nhistory, statistics and political science. The most interesting is that\nof 1784: _Sur la forme des gouvernements, et quelle est la meilleure_.\nThis is directed exclusively against the absolute system (following\nMontesquieu), upholds a limited monarchy, and is in favour of extending\nto the peasants the right to be represented in the diet. He spoke for\nthe last time in 1793 on Frederick the Great and the advantages of\nmonarchy. After 1783 these discourses caused a great sensation, since\nHertzberg introduced into them a review of the financial situation,\nwhich in the days of absolutism seemed an unprecedented innovation.\nBesides this, Hertzberg exerted himself as an academician to change the\nstrongly French character of the Academy and make it into a truly German\ninstitution. He showed a keen interest in the old German language and\nliterature. A special \"German deputation\" was set aside at the Academy\nand entrusted with the drawing up of a German grammar and dictionary. He\nalso stood in very close relations with many of the German poets of the\ntime, and especially with Daniel Schubart. Among the German historians\nin whom he took a great interest, he had the greatest esteem for\nPufendorf. He was equally concerned in the improvement of the state of\neducation. In 1780 he boldly took up the defence of German literature,\nwhich had been disparaged by Frederick the Great in his famous writing\n_De la litterature allemande_.\n\nHertzberg's frank and honourable nature little fitted him to be a\nsuccessful diplomatist; but the course of history has justified many of\nhis aims and ideals, and in Prussia his memory is honoured. He died at\nBerlin on the 22nd of May 1795.\n\n AUTHORITIES.--(1) By Hertzberg himself: The _Memoires de l'Academie_\n from 1780 on contain Hertzberg's discourses. The most noteworthy of\n them were printed in 1787. Here too is to be found: _Histoire de la\n dissertation [du roi] sur la litterature allemande_; see also _Recueil\n des deductions, &c., qui ont ete rediges ... pour la cour de Prusse\n par le ministre_ (3 vols., 1789-1795); and an \"Autobiographical\n Sketch\" published by Hopke in Schmidt's _Zeitschrift fur\n Geschichtswissenschaft_, i. (1843). (2) Works dealing specially with\n Hertzberg: Mirabeau, _Histoire secrete de la cour de Berlin_ (1788);\n P. F. Weddigen, _Hertzbergs Leben_ (Bremen, 1797); E. L. Posselt,\n _Hertzbergs Leben_ (Tubingen, 1798); H. Lehmann, in _Neustettiner\n Programm_ (1862); E. Fischer, in _Staatsanzeiger_ (1873); M. Duncker,\n in _Historische Zeitschrift_ (1877); Paul Bailleu, in _Historische\n Zeitschrift_ (1879); and _Allgemeine deutsche Biographie_ (1880); H.\n Petrich, _Pommersche Lebensbilder_ i. (1880); G. Dressler, _Friedrich\n II. und Hertzberg in ihrer Stellung zu den hollandischen Wirren_,\n Breslauer Dissertation (1882); K. Krauel, _Hertzberg als Minister\n Friedrich Wilhelms II_. (Berlin, 1899); F. K. Wittichen, in\n _Historische Vierteljahrschrift_, 9 (1906); A. Th. Preuss, _Ewald\n Friedrich, Graf von Hertzberg_ (Berlin, 1909). (3) General works: F.\n K. Wittichen, _Preussen und England, 1785-1788_ (Heidelberg, 1902); F.\n Luckwaldt, _Die englisch-preussische Allianz von 1788 in den\n Forschungen zur brandenburgisch-preussischen Geschichte_, Bd. 15, and\n in the _Delbruckfestschrift_ (Berlin, 1908); L. Sevin, _System der\n preussischen Geheimpolitik_ 1790-1791 (Heidelberger Dissertation,\n 1903); P. Wittichen, _Die polnische Politik Preussens 1788-1790_\n (Berlin, 1899); F. Andreae, _Preussische und russische Politik in\n Polen_ 1787-1789 (Berliner Dissertation, 1905); also W. Wenck,\n _Deutschland vor 100 Jahren_ (2 vols., 1887, 1890); A. Harnack,\n _Geschichte der preussischen Akademie_ (4 vols., 1899); Consentius,\n _Preussische Jahrbucher_ (1904); J. Hashagen, \"Hertzbergs Verhaltnis\n zur deutschen Literatur,\" in _Zeitschrift fur deutsche Philologie_ for\n 1903. (J. Hn.)\n\n\n\n\nHERTZEN, ALEXANDER (1812-1870), Russian author, was born at Moscow, a\nvery short time before the occupation of that city by the French. His\nfather, Ivan Yakovlef, after a personal interview with Napoleon, was\nallowed to leave, when the invaders arrived, as the bearer of a letter\nfrom the French to the Russian emperor. His family attended him to the\nRussian lines. Then the mother of the infant Alexander (a young German\nProtestant of Jewish extraction from Stuttgart, according to A. von\nWurzbach), only seventeen years old, and quite unable to speak Russian,\nwas forced to seek shelter for some time in a peasant's hut. A year\nlater the family returned to Moscow, where Hertzen passed his\nyouth--remaining there, after completing his studies at the university,\ntill 1834, when he was arrested and tried on a charge of having\nassisted, with some other youths, at a festival during which verses by\nSokolovsky, of a nature uncomplimentary to the emperor, were sung. The\nspecial commission appointed to try the youthful culprits found him\nguilty, and in 1835 he was banished to Viatka. There he remained till\nthe visit to that city of the hereditary grand-duke (afterwards\nAlexander II.), accompanied by the poet Joukofsky, led to his being\nallowed to quit Viatka for Vladimir, where he was appointed editor of\nthe official gazette of that city. In 1840 he obtained a post in the\nministry of the interior at St Petersburg; but in consequence of having\nspoken too frankly about a death due to a police officer's violence, he\nwas sent to Novgorod, where he led an official life, with the title of\n\"state councillor,\" till 1842. In 1846 his father died, leaving him by\nhis will a very large property. Early in 1847 he left Russia, never to\nreturn. From Italy, on hearing of the revolution of 1848, he hastened to\nParis, whence he afterwards went to Switzerland. In 1852 he quitted\nGeneva for London, where he settled for some years. In 1864 he returned\nto Geneva, and after some time went to Paris, where he died on the 21st\nof January 1870.\n\nHis literary career began in 1842 with the publication of an essay, in\nRussian, on _Dilettantism in Science_, under the pseudonym of\n\"Iskander,\" the Turkish form of his Christian name--convicts, even when\npardoned, not being allowed in those days to publish under their own\nnames. His second work, also in Russian, was his _Letters on the Study\nof Nature_ (1845-1846). In 1847 appeared, his novel _Kto Vinovat?_\n(Whose Fault?), and about the same time were published in Russian\nperiodicals the stories which were afterwards collected and printed in\nLondon in 1854, under the title of _Prervannuie Razskazui_ (Interrupted\nTales). In 1850 two works appeared, translated from the Russian\nmanuscript, _Vom anderen Ufer_ (From another Shore) and _Lettres de\nFrance et d'Italie_. In French appeared also his essay _Du Developpement\ndes idees revolutionnaires en Russie_, and his _Memoirs_, which, after\nbeing printed in Russian, were translated under the title of _Le Monde\nrusse et la Revolution_ (3 vols., 1860-1862), and were in part\ntranslated into English as _My Exile to Siberia_ (2 vols., 1855). From a\nliterary point of view his most important work is _Kto Vinovat?_ a story\ndescribing how the domestic happiness of a young tutor, who marries the\nunacknowledged daughter of a Russian sensualist of the old type, dull,\nignorant and genial, is troubled by a Russian sensualist of the new\nschool, intelligent, accomplished and callous, without there being any\npossibility of saying who is most to be blamed for the tragic\ntermination. But it was as a political writer that Hertzen gained the\nvast reputation which he at one time enjoyed. Having founded in London\nhis \"Free Russian Press,\" of the fortunes of which, during ten years, he\ngave an interesting account in a book published (in Russian) in 1863, he\nissued from it a great number of Russian works, all levelled against the\nsystem of government prevailing in Russia. Some of these were essays,\nsuch as his _Baptized Property_, an attack on serfdom; others were\nperiodical publications, the _Polyarnaya Zvyezda_ (or Polar Star), the\n_Kolokol_ (or Bell), and the _Golosa iz Rossii_ (or Voices from Russia).\nThe _Kolokol_ soon obtained an immense circulation, and exercised an\nextraordinary influence. For three years, it is true, the founders of\nthe \"Free Press\" went on printing, \"not only without selling a single\ncopy, but scarcely being able to get a single copy introduced into\nRussia\"; so that when at last a bookseller bought ten shillings' worth\nof _Baptized Property_, the half-sovereign was set aside by the\nsurprised editors in a special place of honour. But the death of the\nemperor Nicholas in 1855 produced an entire change. Hertzen's writings,\nand the journals he edited, were smuggled wholesale into Russia, and\ntheir words resounded throughout that country, as well as all over\nEurope. Their influence became overwhelming. Evil deeds long hidden,\nevil-doers who had long prospered, were suddenly dragged into light and\ndisgrace. His bold and vigorous language aptly expressed the thoughts\nwhich had long been secretly stirring Russian minds, and were now\nbeginning to find a timid utterance at home. For some years his\ninfluence in Russia was a living force, the circulation of his writings\nwas a vocation zealously pursued. Stories tell how on one occasion a\nmerchant, who had bought several cases of sardines at Nijni-Novgorod,\nfound that they contained forbidden print instead of fish, and at\nanother time a supposititious copy of the _Kolokol_ was printed for the\nemperor's special use, in which a telling attack upon a leading\nstatesman, which had appeared in the genuine number, was omitted. At\nlength the sweeping changes introduced by Alexander II. greatly\ndiminished the need for and appreciation of Hertzen's assistance in the\nwork of reform. The freedom he had demanded for the serfs was granted,\nthe law-courts he had so long denounced were remodelled, trial by jury\nwas established, liberty was to a great extent conceded to the press. It\nbecame clear that Hertzen's occupation was gone. When the Polish\ninsurrection of 1863 broke out, and he pleaded the insurgents' cause,\nhis reputation in Russia received its death-blow. From that time it was\nonly with the revolutionary party that he was in full accord.\n\n In 1873 a collection of his works in French was commenced in Paris. A\n volume of posthumous works, in Russian, was published at Geneva in\n 1870. His _Memoirs_ supply the principal information about his life, a\n sketch of which appears also in A. von Wurzbach's _Zeitgenossen_, pt.\n 7 (Vienna, 1871). See also the _Revue des deux mondes_ for July 15 and\n Sept. 1, 1854. _Kto Vinovat?_ has been translated into German under\n the title of _Wer ist schuld?_ in Wolffsohn's _Russlands\n Novellendichter_, vol. iii. The title of _My Exile in Siberia_ is\n misleading; he was never in that country. (W. R. S.-R.)\n\n\n\n\nHERULI, a Teutonic tribe which figures prominently in the history of the\nmigration period. The name does not occur in writings of the first two\ncenturies A.D. Where the original home of the Heruli was situated is\nnever clearly stated. Jordanes says that they had been expelled from\ntheir territories by the Danes, from which it may be inferred that they\nbelonged either to what is now the kingdom of Denmark, or the southern\nportion of the Jutish peninsula. They are mentioned first in the reign\nof Gallienus (260-268), when we find them together with the Goths\nravaging the coasts of the Black Sea and the Aegean. Shortly afterwards,\nin A.D. 289, they appear in the region about the mouth of the Rhine.\nDuring the 4th century they frequently served together with the Batavi\nin the Roman armies. In the 5th century we again hear of piratical\nincursions by the Heruli in the western seas. At the same time they had\na kingdom in central Europe, apparently in or round the basin of the\nElbe. Together with the Thuringi and Warni they were called upon by\nTheodoric the Ostrogoth about the beginning of the 6th century to form\nan alliance with him against the Frankish king Clovis, but very shortly\nafterwards they were completely overthrown in war by the Langobardi. A\nportion of them migrated to Sweden, where they settled among the Gotar,\nwhile others crossed the Danube and entered the Roman service, where\nthey are frequently mentioned later in connexion with the Gothic wars.\nAfter the middle of the 6th century, however, their name completely\ndisappears. It is curious that in English, Frankish and Scandinavian\nworks they are never mentioned, and there can be little doubt that they\nwere known, especially among the western Teutonic peoples, by some other\nname. Probably they are identical either with the North Suabi or with\nthe Iuti. The name Heruli itself is identified by many with the A.S.\n_eorlas_ (nobles), O.S. _erlos_ (men), the singular of which (_erilaz_)\nfrequently occurs in the earliest Northern inscriptions, apparently as a\ntitle of honour. The Heruli remained heathen until the overthrow of\ntheir kingdom, and retained many striking primitive customs. When\nthreatened with death by disease or old age, they were required to call\nin an executioner, who stabbed them on the pyre. Suttee was also\ncustomary. They were entirely devoted to warfare and served not only in\nthe Roman armies, but also in those of all the surrounding nations. They\ndisdained the use of helmets and coats of mail, and protected themselves\nonly with shields.\n\n See Georgius Syncellus; Mamertinus _Paneg. Maximi_; Ammianus\n Marcellinus; Zosimus i. 39; Idatius, _Chronica_; Jordanes, _De origine\n Getarum_; Procopius, esp. _Bellum Goticum_, ii. 14 f.; _Bellum\n Persicum_, ii. 25; Paulus Diaconus, _Hist. Langobardorum_, i. 20; K.\n Zeuss, _Die Deutschen und die Nachbarstamme_, pp. 476 ff. (Munich,\n 1837). (F. G. M. B.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\nHERVAS Y PANDURO, LORENZO (1735-1809), Spanish philologist, was born at\nHorcajo (Cuenca) on the 10th of May 1735. He joined the Jesuits on the\n29th of September 1745 and in course of time became successively\nprofessor of philosophy and humanities at the seminaries of Madrid and\nMurcia. When the Jesuit order was banished from Spain in 1767, Hervas\nsettled at Forli, and devoted himself to the first part of his _Idea\ndell' Universo_ (22 vols., 1778-1792). Returning to Spain in 1798, he\npublished his famous _Catalogo de las lenguas de las naciones conocidas_\n(6 vols., 1800-1805), in which he collected the philological\npeculiarities of three hundred languages and drew up grammars of forty\nlanguages. In 1802 he was appointed librarian of the Quirinal Palace in\nRome, where he died on the 24th of August 1809. Max Muller credits him\nwith having anticipated Humboldt, and with making \"one of the most\nbrilliant discoveries in the history of the science of language\" by\nestablishing the relation between the Malay and Polynesian family of\nspeech.\n\n\n\n\nHERVEY, JAMES (1714-1758), English divine, was born at Hardingstone,\nnear Northampton, on the 26th of February 1714, and was educated at the\ngrammar school of Northampton, and at Lincoln College, Oxford. Here he\ncame under the influence of John Wesley and the Oxford methodists;\nultimately, however, while retaining his regard for the men and his\nsympathy with their religious aims, he adopted a thoroughly Calvinistic\ncreed, and resolved to remain in the Anglican Church. Having taken\norders in 1737, he held several curacies, and in 1752 succeeded his\nfather in the family livings of Weston Favell and Collingtree. He was\nnever robust, but was a good parish priest and a zealous writer. His\nstyle is often bombastic, but he displays a rare appreciation of natural\nbeauty, and his simple piety made him many friends. His earliest work,\n_Meditations and Contemplations_, said to have been modelled on Robert\nBoyle's _Occasional Reflexions on various Subjects_, within fourteen\nyears passed through as many editions. _Theron and Aspasio, or a series\nof Letters upon the most important and interesting Subjects_, which\nappeared in 1755, and was equally well received, called forth some\nadverse criticism even from Calvinists, on account of tendencies which\nwere considered to lead to antinomianism, and was strongly objected to\nby Wesley in his _Preservative against unsettled Notions in Religion_.\nBesides carrying into England the theological disputes to which the\n_Marrow of Modern Divinity_ had given rise in Scotland, it also led to\nwhat is known as the Sandemanian controversy as to the nature of saving\nfaith. Hervey died on the 25th of December 1758.\n\n A \"new and complete\" edition of his _Works_, with a memoir, appeared\n in 1797. See also _Collection of the Letters of James Hervey, to which\n is prefixed an account of his Life and Death_, by Dr Birch (1760).\n\n\n\n\nHERVEY DE SAINT DENYS, MARIE JEAN LEON, MARQUIS D' (1823-1892), French\nOrientalist and man of letters, was born in Paris in 1823. He devoted\nhimself to the study of Chinese, and in 1851 published his _Recherches\nsur l'agriculture et l'horticulture des Chinois_, in which he dealt with\nthe plants and animals that might be acclimatized in the West. At the\nParis Exhibition of 1867 he acted as commissioner for the Chinese\nexhibits; in 1874 he succeeded Stanislas Julien in the chair of Chinese\nat the College de France; and in 1878 he was elected a member of the\nAcademie des Inscriptions et de Belles-Lettres. His works include\n_Poesies de l'epoque des T'ang_ (1862), translated from the Chinese;\n_Ethnographie des peuples etrangers a la Chine_, translated from\nMa-Touan-Lin (1876-1883); _Li-Sao_ (1870), from the Chinese; _Memoires\nsur les doctrines religieuse; de Confucius et de l'ecole des lettres_\n(1887); and translations of some Chinese stories not of classical\ninterest but valuable for the light they throw on oriental custom.\nHervey de Saint Denys also translated some works from the Spanish, and\nwrote a history of the Spanish drama. He died in Paris on the 2nd of\nNovember 1892.\n\n\n\n\nHERVEY OF ICKWORTH, JOHN HERVEY, BARON (1696-1743), English statesman\nand writer, eldest son of John, 1st earl of Bristol, by his second\nmarriage, was born on the 13th of October 1696. He was educated at\nWestminster school and at Clare Hall, Cambridge, where he took his M.A.\ndegree in 1715. In 1716 his father sent him to Paris, and thence to\nHanover to pay his court to George I. He was a frequent visitor at the\ncourt of the prince and princess of Wales at Richmond, and in 1720 he\nmarried Mary Lepell, who was one of the princess's ladies-in-waiting,\nand a great court beauty. In 1723 he received the courtesy title of Lord\nHervey on the death of his half-brother Carr, and in 1725 he was elected\nM.P. for Bury St Edmunds. He had been at one time on very friendly terms\nwith Frederick, prince of Wales, but from 1731 he quarrelled with him,\napparently because they were rivals in the favour of Anne Vane. These\ndifferences probably account for the scathing picture he draws of the\nprince's callous conduct. Hervey had been hesitating between William\nPulteney (afterwards earl of Bath) and Walpole, but in 1730 he\ndefinitely took sides with Walpole, of whom he was thenceforward a\nfaithful adherent. He was assumed by Pulteney to be the author of\n_Sedition and Defamation display'd with a Dedication to the patrons of\nThe Craftsman_ (1731). Pulteney, who, up to this time, had been a firm\nfriend of Hervey, replied with _A Proper Reply to a late Scurrilous\nLibel_, and the quarrel resulted in a duel from which Hervey narrowly\nescaped with his life. Hervey is said to have denied the authorship of\nboth the pamphlet and its dedication, but a note on the MS. at Ickworth,\napparently in his own hand, states that he wrote the latter. He was able\nto render valuable service to Walpole from his influence over the queen.\nThrough him the minister governed Queen Caroline and indirectly George\nII. Hervey was vice-chamberlain in the royal household and a member of\nthe privy council. In 1733 he was called to the House of Lords by writ\nin virtue of his father's barony. In spite of repeated requests he\nreceived no further preferment until after 1740, when he became lord\nprivy seal. After the fall of Sir Robert Walpole he was dismissed (July\n1742) from his office. An excellent political pamphlet, _Miscellaneous\nThoughts on the present Posture of Foreign and Domestic Affairs_, shows\nthat he still retained his mental vigour, but he was liable to epilepsy,\nand his weak appearance and rigid diet were a constant source of\nridicule to his enemies. He died on the 5th of August 1743. He\npredeceased his father, but three of his sons became successively earls\nof Bristol.\n\nHervey wrote detailed and brutally frank memoirs of the court of George\nII. from 1727 to 1737. He gave a most unflattering account of the king,\nand of Frederick, prince of Wales, and their family squabbles. For the\nqueen and her daughter, Princess Caroline, he had a genuine respect and\nattachment, and the princess's affection for him was commonly said to be\nthe reason for the close retirement in which she lived after his death.\nThe MS. of Hervey's memoirs was preserved by the family, but his son,\nAugustus John, 3rd earl of Bristol, left strict injunctions that they\nshould not be published until after the death of George III. In 1848\nthey were published under the editorship of J. W. Croker, but the MS.\nhad been subjected to a certain amount of mutilation before it came into\nhis hands. Croker also softened in some cases the plainspokenness of the\noriginal. Hervey's bitter account of court life and intrigues resembles\nin many points the memoirs of Horace Walpole, and the two books\ncorroborate one another in many statements that might otherwise have\nbeen received with suspicion.\n\nUntil the publication of the _Memoirs_ Hervey was chiefly known as the\nobject of savage satire on the part of Pope, in whose works he figured\nas Lord Fanny, Sporus, Adonis and Narcissus. The quarrel is generally\nput down to Pope's jealousy of Hervey's friendship with Lady Mary\nWortley Montagu. In the first of the _Imitations of Horace_, addressed\nto William Fortescue, \"Lord Fanny\" and \"Sappho\" were generally\nidentified with Hervey and Lady Mary, although Pope denied the personal\nintention. Hervey had already been attacked in the _Dunciad_ and the\n_Bathos_, and he now retaliated. There is no doubt that he had a share\nin the _Verses to the Imitator of Horace_ (1732) and it is possible that\nhe was the sole author. In the _Letter from a nobleman at Hampton Court\nto a Doctor of Divinity_ (1733), he scoffed at Pope's deformity and\nhumble birth. Pope's reply was a _Letter to a Noble Lord_, dated\nNovember 1733, and the portrait of Sporus in the _Epistle to Dr\nArbuthnot_ (1735), which forms the prologue to the satires. Many of the\ninsinuations and insults contained in it are borrowed from Pulteney's\nlibel. The malicious caricature of Sporus does Hervey great injustice,\nand he is not much better treated by Horace Walpole, who in reporting\nhis death in a letter (14th of August 1743) to Horace Mann, said he had\noutlived his last inch of character. Nevertheless his writings prove him\nto have been a man of real ability, condemned by Walpole's tactics and\ndistrust of able men to spend his life in court intrigue, the weapons of\nwhich, it must be owned, he used with the utmost adroitness. His wife\nLady Hervey [Molly Lepell] (1700-1768), of whom an account is to be\nfound in Lady Louisa Stuart's _Anecdotes_, was a warm partisan of the\nStuarts. She retained her wit and charm throughout her life, and has the\ndistinction of being the recipient of English verses by Voltaire.\n\n See Hervey's _Memoirs of the Court of George II._, edited by J. W.\n Croker (1848); and an article by G. F. Russell Barker in the _Dict.\n Nat. Biog._ (vol. xxvi., 1891). Besides the _Memoirs_ he wrote\n numerous political pamphlets, and some occasional verses.\n\n\n\n\nHERVIEU, PAUL (1857- ), French dramatist and novelist, was born at\nNeuilly (Seine) on the 2nd of November 1857. He was called to the bar in\n1877, and, after serving some time in the office of the president of the\ncouncil, he qualified for the diplomatic service, but resigned on his\nnomination in 1881 to a secretaryship in the French legation in Mexico.\nHe contributed novels, tales and essays to the chief Parisian papers and\nreviews, and published a series of clever novels, including _L'Inconnu_\n(1887), _Flirt_ (1890), _L'Exorcisee_ (1891), _Peints par eux-memes_\n(1893), an ironical study written in the form of letters, and\n_L'Armature_ (1895), dramatized in 1905 by Eugene Brieux. But his most\nimportant work consists of a series of plays: _Les Paroles restent_\n(Vaudeville, 17th of November 1892); _Les Tenailles_ (Theatre Francais,\n28th of September 1895); _La Loi de l'homme_ (Theatre Francais, 15th of\nFebruary 1897); _La Course du flambeau_ (Vaudeville, 17th of April\n1901); _Point de lendemain_ (Odeon, 18th of October 1901), a dramatic\nversion of a story by Vivaut Denon; _L'Enigme_ (Theatre Francais, 5th of\nNovember 1901); _Theroigne de Mericourt_ (Theatre Sarah Bernhardt, 23rd\nof September 1902); _Le Dedale_ (Theatre Francais, 19th of December\n1903), and _Le Reveil_ (Theatre Francais, 18th of December 1905). These\nplays are built upon a severely logical method, the mechanism of which\nis sometimes so evident as to destroy the necessary sense of illusion.\nThe closing words of _La Course du flambeau_--\"_Pour ma fille, j'ai tue\nma mere_\"--are an example of his selection of a plot representing an\nextreme theory. The riddle in _L'Engime_ (staged at Wyndham's Theatre,\nLondon, March 1st 1902, as _Caesar's Wife_) is, however, worked out with\ngreat art, and _Le Dedale_, dealing with the obstacles to the remarriage\nof a divorced woman, is reckoned among the masterpieces of the modern\nFrench stage. He was elected to the French Academy in 1900.\n\n See A. Binet, in _L'Annee psychologique_, vol. x. Hervieu's _Theatre_\n was published, by Lemerre (3 vols., 1900-1904).\n\n\n\n\nHERWARTH VON BITTENFELD, KARL EBERHARD (1796-1884), Prussian general\nfield-marshal, came of an aristocratic family which had supplied many\ndistinguished officers to the Prussian army. He entered the Guard\ninfantry in 1811, and served through the War of Liberation (1813-15),\ndistinguishing himself at Lutzen and Paris. During the years of peace he\nrose slowly to high command. In the Berlin revolution of 1848 he was on\nduty at the royal palace as colonel of the 1st Guards. Major-general in\n1852, and lieutenant-general in 1856, he received the grade of general\nof infantry and the command of the VIIth (Westphalian) Army Corps in\n1860. In the Danish War of 1864 he succeeded to the command of the\nPrussians when Prince Frederick Charles became commander-in-chief of the\nAllies, and it was under his leadership that the Prussians forced the\npassage into Alsen on the 29th of June. In the war of 1866 Herwarth\ncommanded the \"Army of the Elbe\" which overran Saxony and invaded\nBohemia by the valley of the Elbe and Iser. His troops won the actions\nof Huhnerwasser and Munchengratz, and at Koniggratz formed the right\nwing of the Prussian army. Herwarth himself directed the battle against\nthe Austrian left flank. In 1870 he was not employed in the field, but\nwas in charge of the scarcely less important business of organizing and\nforwarding all the reserves and material required for the armies in\nFrance. In 1871 his great services were recognized by promotion to the\nrank of field-marshal. The rest of his life was spent in retirement at\nBonn, where he died in 1884. Since 1889 the 13th (1st Westphalian)\nInfantry has borne his name.\n\n See _G. F. M. Herwarth von Bittenfeld_ (Munster, 1896).\n\n\n\n\nHERWEGH, GEORG (1817-1875), German political poet, was born at Stuttgart\non the 31st of May 1817, the son of a restaurant keeper. He was educated\nat the gymnasium of his native city, and in 1835 proceeded to the\nuniversity of Tubingen as a theological student, where, with a view to\nentering the ministry, he entered the protestant theological seminary.\nBut the strict discipline was distasteful; he broke the rules and was\nexpelled in 1836. He next studied law, but having gained the interest of\nAugust Lewald (1793-1871) by his literary ability, he returned to\nStuttgart, where Lewald obtained for him a journalistic post. Called out\nfor military service, he had hardly joined his regiment when he\ncommitted an act of flagrant insubordination, and fled to Switzerland to\navoid punishment. Here he published his _Gedichte eines Lebendigen_\n(1841), a volume of political poems, which gave expression to the\nfervent aspirations of the German youth of the day. The work immediately\nrendered him famous, and although confiscated, it soon ran through\nseveral editions. The idea of the book was a refutation of the opinions\nof Prince Puckler-Muskau (q.v.) in his _Briefe eines Verstorbenen_. He\nnext proceeded to Paris and in 1842 returned to Germany, visiting Jena,\nLeipzig, Dresden and Berlin--a journey which was described as being a\n\"veritable triumphal progress.\" His military insubordination appears to\nhave been forgiven and forgotten, for in Berlin King Frederick William\nIV. had him introduced to him and used the memorable words: \"_ich liebe\neine gesinnungsvolle Opposition_\" (\"I admire an opposition, when\ndictated by principle.\") Herwegh next returned to Paris, where he\npublished in 1844 the second volume of his _Gedichte eines Lebendigen_,\nwhich, like the first volume, was confiscated by the German police. At\nthe head of a revolutionary column of German working men, recruited in\nParis, Herwegh took an active part in the South German rising in 1848;\nbut his raw troops were defeated on the 27th of April at Schopfheim in\nBaden and, after a very feeble display of heroism, he just managed to\nescape to Switzerland, where he lived for many years on the proceeds of\nhis literary productions. He was later (1866) permitted to return to\nGermany, and died at Lichtenthal near Baden-Baden on the 7th of April\n1875. A monument was erected to his memory there in 1904. Besides the\nabove-mentioned works, Herwegh published _Einundzwanzig Bogen aus der\nSchweiz_ (1843), and translations into German of A. de Lamartine's works\nand of seven of Shakespeare's plays. Posthumously appeared _Neue\nGedichte_ (1877).\n\n Herwegh's correspondence was published by his son Marcel in 1898. See\n also Johannes Scherr, _Georg Herwegh; literarische und politische\n Blatter_ (1843); and the article by Franz Muncker in the _Allgemeine\n deutsche Biographie_.\n\n\n\n\nHERZBERG, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hanover,\nsituated under the south-western declivity of the Harz, on the Sieber,\n25 m. N.W. from Nordhausen by the railway to Osterode-Hildesheim. Pop.\n(1905) 3896. It contains an Evangelical and a Roman Catholic church, and\na botanical garden, and has manufactures of cloth and cigars, and\nweaving and dyeing works. The breeding of canaries is extensively\ncarried on here and in the district. On a hill to the south-west of the\ntown lies the castle of Herzberg, which in 1157 came into the possession\nof Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony, and afterwards was one of the\nresidences of a branch of the house of Brunswick.\n\n\n\n\nHERZBERG, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Saxony, on the\nSchwarze Elster, 25 m. S. from Juterbog by the railway\nBerlin-Roderau-Dresden. It has a church (Evangelical) dating from the\n13th century and a medieval town hall. Its industries include the\nfounding and turning of metal, agricultural machinery and boot-making.\nPop. (1905) 4043.\n\n\n\n\nHERZL, THEODOR (1860-1904), founder of modern political Zionism (q.v.),\nwas born in Budapest on the 2nd of May 1860, and died at Edlach on the\n3rd of July 1904. The greater part of his career was associated with\nVienna, where he acquired high repute as a literary journalist. He was\nalso a dramatist, and apart from his prominence as a Jewish Nationalist\nwould have found a niche in the temple of fame. All his other claims to\nrenown, however, sink into insignificance when compared with his work as\nthe reviver of Jewish hopes for a restoration to political autonomy.\nHerzl was stirred by sympathy for the misery of Jews under persecution,\nbut he was even more powerfully moved by the difficulties experienced\nunder conditions of assimilation. Modern anti-Semitism, he felt, was\nboth like and unlike the medieval. The old physical attacks on the Jews\ncontinued in Russia, but there was added the reluctance of several\nnational groups in Europe to admit the Jews to social equality. Herzl\nbelieved that the humanitarian hopes which inspired men at the end of\nthe 18th and during the larger part of the 19th centuries had failed.\nThe walls of the ghettos had been cast down, but the Jews could find no\nentry into the comity of nations. The new nationalism of 1848 did not\ndeprive the Jews of political rights, but it denied them both the\namenities of friendly intercourse and the opportunity of distinction in\nthe university, the army and the professions. Many Jews questioned this\ndiagnosis, and refused to see in the new anti-Semitism (q.v.) which\nspread over Europe in 1881 any more than a temporary reaction against\nthe cosmopolitanism of the French Revolution. In 1896 Herzl published\nhis famous pamphlet \"Der Judenstaat.\" Holding that the only alternatives\nfor the Jews were complete merging by intermarriage or self-preservation\nby a national re-union, he boldly advocated the second course. He did\nnot at first insist on Palestine as the new Jewish home, nor did he\nattach himself to religious sentiment. The expectation of a Messianic\nrestoration to the Holy Land has always been strong, if often latent, in\nthe Jewish consciousness. But Herzl approached the subject entirely on\nits secular side, and his solution was economic and political rather\nthan sentimental. He was a strong advocate for the complete separation\nof Church and State. The influence of Herzl's pamphlet, the progress of\nthe movement he initiated, the subsequent modifications of his plans,\nare told at length in the article ZIONISM.\n\nHis proposals undoubtedly roused an extraordinary enthusiasm, and though\nhe almost completely failed to win to his cause the classes, he rallied\nthe masses with sensational success. He unexpectedly gained the\naccession of many Jews by race who were indifferent to the religious\naspect of Judaism, but he quite failed to convince the leaders of Jewish\nthought, who from first to last remained (with such conspicuous\nexceptions as Nordau and Zangwill) deaf to his pleading. The orthodox\nwere at first cool because they had always dreamed of a nationalism\ninspired by messianic ideals, while the liberals had long come to\ndissociate those universalistic ideals from all national limitations.\nHerzl, however, succeeded in assembling several congresses at Basel\n(beginning in 1897), and at these congresses were enacted remarkable\nscenes of enthusiasm for the cause and devotion to its leader. At all\nthese assemblies the same ideal was formulated: \"the establishing for\nthe Jewish people a publicly and legally assured home in Palestine.\"\nHerzl's personal charm was irresistible. Among his political opponents\nhe had some close personal friends. His sincerity, his eloquence, his\ntact, his devotion, his power, were recognized on all hands. He spent\nhis whole strength in the furtherance of his ideas. Diplomatic\ninterviews, exhausting journeys, impressive mass meetings, brilliant\nliterary propaganda--all these methods were employed by him to the\nutmost limit of self-denial. In 1901 he was received by the sultan; the\npope and many European statesmen gave him audiences. The British\ngovernment was ready to grant land for an autonomous settlement in East\nAfrica. This last scheme was fatal to Herzl's peace of mind. Even as a\ntemporary measure, the choice of an extra-Palestinian site for the\nJewish state was bitterly opposed by many Zionists; others (with whom\nHerzl appears to have sympathized) thought that as Palestine was, at all\nevents momentarily, inaccessible, it was expedient to form a settlement\nelsewhere. Herzl's health had been failing and he did not long survive\nthe initiation of the somewhat embittered \"territorial\" controversy. He\ndied in the summer of 1904, amid the consternation of supporters and the\ndeep grief of opponents of his Zionistic aims.\n\nHerzl was beyond question the most influential Jewish personality of the\n19th century. He had no profound insight into the problem of Judaism,\nand there was no lasting validity in his view that the problem--the\nthousands of years' old mystery--could be solved by a retrogression to\nlocal nationality. But he brought home to Jews the perils that\nconfronted them; he compelled many a \"semi-detached\" son of Israel to\nrejoin the camp; he forced the \"assimilationists\" to realize their\nposition and to define it; his scheme gave a new impulse to \"Jewish\nculture,\" including the popularization of Hebrew as a living speech; and\nhe effectively roused Jews all the world over to an earnest and vital\ninterest in their present and their future. Herzl thus left an indelible\nmark on his time, and his renown is assured whatever be the fate in\nstore for the political Zionism which he founded and for which he gave\nhis life. (I. A.)\n\n\n\n\nHERZOG, HANS (1819-1894), Swiss general, was born at Aarau. He became a\nSwiss artillery lieutenant in 1840, and then spent six years in\ntravelling (visiting England among other countries), before he became a\npartner in his father's business in 1846. In 1847 he saw his first\nactive service (as artillery captain) in the short Swiss _Sonderbund_\nwar. In 1860 he abandoned mercantile pursuits for a purely military\ncareer, becoming colonel and inspector-general of the Swiss artillery.\nIn 1870 he was commander-in-chief of the Swiss army, which guarded the\nSwiss frontier, in the Jura, during the Franco-German War, and in\nFebruary 1871, as such, concluded the Convention of Verrieres with\nGeneral Clinchant for the disarming and the interning of the remains of\nBourbaki's army, when it took refuge in Switzerland. In 1875 he became\nthe commander-in-chief of the Swiss artillery, which he did much to\nreorganize, helping also in the re-organization of the other branches of\nthe Swiss army. He died in 1894 at his native town of Aarau.\n (W. A. B. C.)\n\n\n\n\nHERZOG, JOHANN JAKOB (1805-1882), German Protestant theologian, was born\nat Basel on the 12th of September 1805. He studied at Basel and Berlin,\nand eventually (1854) settled at Erlangen as professor of church\nhistory. He died there on the 30th of September 1882, having retired in\n1877. His most noteworthy achievement was the publication of the\n_Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche_ (1853-1868,\n22 vols.), of which he undertook a new edition with G. L. Plitt\n(1836-1880) in 1877, and after Plitt's death with Albert Hauck (b.\n1845). Hauck began the publication of the third edition in 1896\n(completed in 22 vols., 1909).\n\n His other works include _Joh. Calvin_ (1843), _Leben Okolampads_\n (1843), _Die romanischen Waldenser_ (1853), _Abriss der gesamten\n Kirchengeschichte_ (3 vols., 1876-1882, 2nd ed., G. Koffmane, Leipzig,\n 1890-1892).\n\n\n\n\nHESEKIEL, JOHANN GEORG LUDWIG (1819-1874), German author, was born on\nthe 12th of August 1819 in Halle, where his father, distinguished as a\nwriter of sacred poetry, was a Lutheran pastor. Hesekiel studied history\nand philosophy in Halle, Jena and Berlin, and devoted himself in early\nlife to journalism and literature. In 1848 he settled in Berlin, where\nhe lived until his death on the 26th of February 1874, achieving a\nconsiderable reputation as a writer and as editor of the _Neue\nPreussische Zeitung_. He attempted many different kinds of literary\nwork, the most ambitious being perhaps his patriotic songs\n_Preussenlieder_, of which he published a volume during the\nrevolutionary excitement of 1848-1849. Another collection--_Neue\nPreussenlieder_--appeared in 1864 after the Danish War, and a third in\n1870--_Gegen die Franzosen, Preussische Kriegs- und Konigslieder_. Among\nhis novels may be mentioned _Unter dem Eisenzahn_ (1864) and _Der\nSchultheiss vom Zeyst_ (1875). The best known of his works is his\nbiography of Prince Bismarck (_Das Buch vom Fursten Bismarck_) (3rd ed.,\n1873; English trans. by R. H. Mackenzie).\n\n\n\n\nHESILRIGE (or HESELRIG), SIR ARTHUR, 2nd Bart. (d. 1661), English\nparliamentarian, was the eldest son of Sir Thomas Hesilrige, 1st baronet\n(c. 1622), of Noseley, Leicestershire, a member of a very ancient\nfamily settled in Northumberland and Leicestershire, and of Frances,\ndaughter of Sir William Gorges, of Alderton, Northamptonshire. He early\nimbibed strong puritanical principles, and showed a special antagonism\nto Laud. He sat for Leicestershire in the Short and Long Parliaments in\n1640, and took a principal part in Strafford's attainder, the Root and\nBranch Bill and the Militia Bill of the 7th of December 1641, and was\none of the five members impeached on the 3rd of January 1642. He showed\nmuch activity in the Great Rebellion, raised a troop of horse for Essex,\nfought at Edgehill, commanded in the West under Waller, being nicknamed\nhis _fidus Achates_, and distinguished himself at the head of his\ncuirassiers, \"The Lobsters,\" at Lansdown on the 5th of July 1643, at\nRoundway Down on the 13th of July, at both of which battles he was\nwounded, and at Cheriton, March 29th 1644. On the occasion of the breach\nbetween the army and the parliament, Hesilrige supported the former,\ntook Cromwell's part in his dispute with Manchester and Essex, and on\nthe passing of the Self-denying Ordinance gave up his commission and\nbecame one of the leaders of the Independent party in parliament. On the\n30th of December 1647 he was appointed governor of Newcastle, which he\nsuccessfully defended, besides defeating the Royalists on the 2nd of\nJuly 1648 and regaining Tynemouth. In October he accompanied Cromwell to\nScotland, and gave him valuable support in the Scottish expedition in\n1650. Hesilrige, though he approved of the king's execution, had\ndeclined to act as judge on his trial. He was one of the leading men in\nthe Commonwealth, but Cromwell's expulsion of the Long Parliament threw\nhim into antagonism, and he opposed the Protectorate and refused to pay\ntaxes. He was returned for Leicester to the parliaments of 1654, 1656\nand 1659, but was excluded from the two former. He refused a seat in the\nLords, whither Cromwell sought to relegate him, and succeeded in again\nobtaining admission to the Commons in January 1658. On Cromwell's death\nHesilrige refused support to Richard, and was instrumental in effecting\nhis downfall. He was now one of the most influential men in the council\nand in parliament. He attempted to maintain a republican parliamentary\nadministration, \"to keep the sword subservient to the civil magistrate,\"\nand opposed Lambert's schemes. On the latter succeeding in expelling the\nparliament, Hesilrige turned to Monk for support, and assisted his\nmovements by securing Portsmouth on the 3rd of December 1659. He marched\nto London, and was appointed one of the council of state on the 2nd of\nJanuary 1660, and on the 11th of February a commissioner for the army.\nHe was completely deceived by Monk, and trusting to his assurance of\nfidelity to \"the good old cause\" consented to the retirement of his\nregiment from London. At the Restoration his life was saved by Monk's\nintervention, but he was imprisoned in the Tower, where he died on the\n7th of January 1661. Clarendon describes Hesilrige as \"an absurd, bold\nman.\" He was rash, \"hare-brained,\" devoid of tact and had little claim\nto the title of a statesman, but his energy in the field and in\nparliament was often of great value to the parliamentary cause. He\nexposed himself to considerable obloquy by his exactions and\nappropriations of confiscated landed property, though the accusation\nbrought against him by John Lilburne was examined by a parliamentary\ncommittee and adjudged to be false. Hesilrige married (1) Frances,\ndaughter of Thomas Elmes of Lilford, Northamptonshire, by whom he had\ntwo sons and two daughters, and (2) Dorothy, sister of Robert Greville,\n2nd Lord Brooke, by whom he had three sons and five daughters. The\nfamily was represented in 1907 by his descendant Sir Arthur Grey\nHazlerigg of Noseley, 13th Baronet.\n\n AUTHORITIES.--Article on Hesilrige by C. H. Firth in the _Dict. of\n Nat. Biography_, and authorities there quoted; _Early History of the\n Family of Hesilrige_, by W. G. D. Fletcher; _Cal. of State Papers,\n Domestic_, 1631-1664, where there are a large number of important\n references, as also in _Hist. MSS._, _Comm. Series_, _MSS. of Earl\n Cowper_, _Duke of Leeds_ and _Duke of Portland_; _Egerton MSS._ 2618,\n _Harleian_ 7001 f. 198, and in the _Sloane_, _Stowe_ and _Additional_\n collections in the British Museum; also S. R. Gardiner, _Hist. of\n England_, _Hist. of the Great Civil War and Commonwealth_; Clarendon's\n _History, State Papers and Cal. of State Papers_, J. L. Sanford's\n _Studies of the Great Rebellion_. His life is written by Noble in the\n _House of Cromwell_, i. 403. For his public letters and speeches in\n parliament see the catalogue of the British Museum.\n\n\n\n\nHESIOD, the father of Greek didactic poetry, probably flourished during\nthe 8th century B.C. His father had migrated from the Aeolic Cyme in\nAsia Minor to Boeotia; and Hesiod and his brother Perses were born at\nAscra, near mount Helicon (_Works and Days_, 635). Here, as he fed his\nfather's flocks, he received his commission from the Muses to be their\nprophet and poet--a commission which he recognized by dedicating to them\na tripod won by him in a contest of song (see below) at some funeral\ngames at Chalcis in Euboea, still in existence at Helicon in the age of\nPausanias (_Theogony_, 20-34, _W. and D._, 656; Pausanias ix. 38. 3).\nAfter the death of his father Hesiod is said to have left his native\nland in disgust at the result of a law-suit with his brother and to have\nmigrated to Naupactus. There was a tradition that he was murdered by the\nsons of his host in the sacred enclosure of the Nemean Zeus at Oeneon in\nLocris (Thucydides iii. 96; Pausanias ix. 31); his remains were removed\nfor burial by command of the Delphic oracle to Orchomenus in Boeotia,\nwhere the Ascraeans settled after the destruction of their town by the\nThespians, and where, according to Pausanias, his grave was to be seen.\n\nHesiod's earliest poem, the famous _Works and Days_, and according to\nBoeotian testimony the only genuine one, embodies the experiences of his\ndaily life and work, and, interwoven with episodes of fable, allegory,\nand personal history, forms a sort of Boeotian shepherd's calendar. The\nfirst portion is an ethical enforcement of honest labour and dissuasive\nof strife and idleness (1-383); the second consists of hints and rules\nas to husbandry (384-764); and the third is a religious calendar of the\nmonths, with remarks on the days most lucky or the contrary for rural or\nnautical employments. The connecting link of the whole poem is the\nauthor's advice to his brother, who appears to have bribed the corrupt\njudges to deprive Hesiod of his already scantier inheritance, and to\nwhom, as he wasted his substance lounging in the agora, the poet more\nthan once returned good for evil, though he tells him there will be a\nlimit to this unmerited kindness. In the _Works and Days_ the episodes\nwhich rise above an even didactic level are the \"Creation and Equipment\nof Pandora,\" the \"Five Ages of the World\" and the much-admired\n\"Description of Winter\" (by some critics judged post-Hesiodic). The poem\nalso contains the earliest known fable in Greek literature, that of \"The\nHawk and the Nightingale.\" It is in the _Works and Days_ especially that\nwe glean indications of Hesiod's rank and condition in life, that of a\nstay-at-home farmer of the lower class, whose sole experience of the sea\nwas a single voyage of 40 yds. across the Euripus, and an old-fashioned\nbachelor whose misogynic views and prejudice against matrimony have been\nconjecturally traced to his brother Perses having a wife as extravagant\nas himself.\n\nThe other poem attributed to Hesiod or his school which has come down in\ngreat part to modern times is _The Theogony_, a work of grander scope,\ninspired alike by older traditions and abundant local associations. It\nis an attempt to work into system, as none had essayed to do before, the\nfloating legends of the gods and goddesses and their offspring. This\ntask Herodotus (ii. 53) attributes to Hesiod, and he is quoted by Plato\nin the _Symposium_ (178 B) as the author of the _Theogony_. The first to\nquestion his claim to this distinction was Pausanias, the geographer\n(A.D. 200). The Alexandrian grammarians had no doubt on the subject; and\nindications of the hand that wrote the _Works and Days_ may be found in\nthe severe strictures on women, in the high esteem for the wealth-giver\nPlutus and in coincidences of verbal expression. Although, no doubt, of\nHesiodic origin, in its present form it is composed of different\nrecensions and numerous later additions and interpolations. The\n_Theogony_ consists of three divisions--(1) a cosmogony, or creation;\n(2) a theogony proper, recounting the history of the dynasties of Zeus\nand Cronus; and (3) a brief and abruptly terminated heroogony, the\nstarting-point not improbably of the supplementary poem, the [Greek:\nkatalogos], or \"Lists of Women\" who wedded immortals, of which all but\na few fragments are lost.[1] The proem (1-116) addressed to the\nHeliconian and Pierian muses, is considered to have been variously\nenlarged, altered and arranged by successive rhapsodists. The poet has\ninterwoven several episodes of rare merit, such as the contest of Zeus\nand the Olympian gods with the Titans, and the description of the\nprison-house in which the vanquished Titans are confined, with the\nGiants for keepers and Day and Night for janitors (735 seq.).\n\nThe only other poem which has come down to us under Hesiod's name is the\n_Shield of Heracles_, the opening verses of which are attributed by a\nnameless grammarian to the fourth book of _Eoiai_. The theme of the\npiece is the expedition of Heracles and Iolaus against the robber\nCycnus; but its main object apparently is to describe the shield of\nHeracles (141-317). It is clearly an imitation of the Homeric account of\nthe shield of Achilles (_Iliad_, xviii. 479) and is now generally\nconsidered spurious. Titles and fragments of other lost poems of Hesiod\nhave come down to us: didactic, as the _Maxims of Cheiron_;\ngenealogical, as the _Aegimius_, describing the contest of that mythical\nancestor of the Dorians with the Lapithae; and mythical, as the\n_Marriage of Ceyx_ and the _Descent of Theseus to Hades_.\n\nRecent editions of Hesiod include the [Greek: Agon Homerou kai\nHesiodou], the contest of song between Homer and Hesiod at the funeral\ngames held in honour of King Amphidamas at Chalcis. This little tract\nbelongs to the time of Hadrian, who is actually mentioned as having been\npresent during its recitation, but is founded on an earlier account by\nthe sophist Alcidamas (q.v.). Quotations (old and new) are made from the\nworks of both poets, and, in spite of the sympathies of the audience,\nthe judge decides in favour of Hesiod. Certain biographical details of\nHomer and Hesiod are also given.\n\nA strong characteristic of Hesiod's style is his sententious and\nproverbial philosophy (as in _Works and Days_, 24-25, 40, 218, 345,\n371). There is naturally less of this in the _Theogony_, yet there too\nnot a few sentiments take the form of the saw or adage. He has undying\nfame as the first of didactic poets (see DIDACTIC POETRY), the\naccredited systematizer of Greek mythology and the rough but not\nunpoetical sketcher of the lines on which Virgil wrought out his\nexquisitely finished Georgics.\n\n BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Complete works: _Editio princeps_ (Milan, 1493);\n Gottling-Flach (1878), with full bibliography up to date of\n publication; C. Sittl (1889), with introduction and critical and\n explanatory notes in Greek; F. A. Paley (1883); A. Rzach (1902),\n including the fragments. Separate works: _Works and Days_: Van Lennep\n (1847); A. Kirchhoff (1889); A. Steitz, _Die Werke und Tage des\n Hesiodos_ (1869), dealing chiefly with the composition and arrangement\n of the poem; G. Wlastoff, _Promethee, Pandore, et la legende des\n siecles_ (1883). _Theogony_: Van Lennep (1843); F. G. Welcker (1865),\n valuable edition; G. F. Schomann (1868), with text, critical notes and\n exhaustive commentary; H. Flach, _Die Hesiodische Theogonie_ (1873),\n with prolegomena dealing chiefly with the digamma in Hesiod, _System\n der Hesiodischen Kosmogonie_ (1874), and _Glossen und Scholien zur\n Theogonie_ (1876); Meyer, _De compositione Theogoniae_ (1887). _Shield\n of Heracles_: Wolf-Ranke (1840); Van Lennep-Hullemann (1854); F.\n Stegemann, _De scuti Herculis Hesiodei poeta Homeri carminum\n imitatore_ (1904); the fragments were published by W. Marckscheffel in\n 1840; for the [Greek: Agon Homerou] (ed. A. Rzach, 1908) see F.\n Nietzsche in _Rheinisches Museum_ (new series), xxv. p. 528. For\n papyrus fragments of the \"Catalogue,\" some 50 lines on the wooing of\n Helen, and a shorter fragment in praise of Peleus, see\n Wilamowitz-Mollendorff in _Sitzungsber. der konigl. preuss. Akad. der\n Wissenschaften_, for 26th of July 1900; for fragments relating to\n Meleager and the suitors of Helen, _Berliner Klassikertexte_, v.\n (1907); of the _Theogony, Oxyrh. Pap._ vi. (1908).\n\n On the subject generally, consult G. F. Schomann, _Opuscula_, ii.\n (1857); H. Flach, _Die Hesiodischen Gedichte_ (1874); A. Rzach, _Der\n Dialekt des Hesiodos_ (1876); P. O. Gruppe, _Die griechischen Kulte\n und Mythen_, i. (1887); O. Friedel, _Die Sage vom Tode Hesiods_\n (1879), from _Jahrbucher fur classische Philologie_ (10th suppl. Band,\n 1879); J. Adam, _Religious Teachers of Greece_ (1908). There is a full\n bibliography of the publications relating to Hesiod (1884-1898) by A.\n Rzach in Bursian's _Jahresbericht uber die Fortschritte der\n klassischen Altertumswissenschaft_, xxvii. (1900).\n\n There are translations of the Hesiodic poems in English by Cooke\n (1728), C. A. Elton (1815), J. Banks (1856), and specially by A. W.\n Mair, with introduction and appendices (Oxford Library of\n Translations, 1908); in German (metrical version) with valuable\n introductions and notes by R. Peppmuller (1896) and in other modern\n languages. (J. Da.; J. H. F.)\n\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [1] Part of the poem was called Eoiai, because the description of\n each heroine began with [Greek: e oie], \"or like as.\" (See\n Bibliography.)\n\n\n\nHESPERIDES, in Greek mythology, maidens who guarded the golden apples\nwhich Earth gave Hera on her marriage to Zeus. According to Hesiod\n(_Theogony_, 215) they were the daughters of Erebus and Night; in later\naccounts, of Atlas and Hesperis, or of Phorcys and Ceto (schol. on\nApoll. Rhod. iv. 1399; Diod. Sic. iv. 27). They were usually supposed to\nbe three in number--Aegle, Erytheia, Hesperis (or Hesperethusa);\naccording to some, four, or even seven. They lived far away in the west\nat the borders of Ocean, where the sun sets. Hence the sun (according to\nMimnermus _ap._ Athenaeum xi. p. 470) sails in the golden bowl made by\nHephaestus from the abode of the Hesperides to the land where he rises\nagain. According to other accounts their home was among the\nHyperboreans. The golden apples grew on a tree guarded by Ladon, the\never-watchful dragon. The sun is often in German and Lithuanian legends\ndescribed as the apple that hangs on the tree of the nightly heaven,\nwhile the dragon, the envious power, keeps the light back from men till\nsome beneficent power takes it from him. Heracles is the hero who brings\nback the golden apples to mankind again. Like Perseus, he first applies\nto the Nymphs, who help him to learn where the garden is. Arrived there\nhe slays the dragon and carries the apples to Argos; and finally, like\nPerseus, he gives them to Athena. The Hesperides are, like the Sirens,\npossessed of the gift of delightful song. The apples appear to have been\nthe symbol of love and fruitfulness, and are introduced at the marriages\nof Cadmus and Harmonia and Peleus and Thetis. The golden apples, the\ngift of Aphrodite to Hippomenes before his race with Atalanta, were also\nplucked from the garden of the Hesperides.\n\n\n\n\nHESPERUS (Gr. [Greek: Hesperos], Lat. Vesper), the evening star, son or\nbrother of Atlas. According to Diodorus Siculus (iii. 60, iv. 27), he\nascended Mount Atlas to observe the motions of the stars, and was\nsuddenly swept away by a whirlwind. Ever afterwards he was honoured as a\ngod, and the most brilliant star in the heavens was called by his name.\nAlthough as a mythological personality he is regarded as distinct from\nPhosphoros or Heosphoros (Lat. Lucifer), the morning star or bringer of\nlight, the son of Astraeus (or Cephalus) and Eos, the two stars were\nearly identified by the Greeks.\n\n Diog. Laert. viii. 1. 14; Cicero, _De nat. deorum_, ii. 20; Pliny,\n _Nat. Hist._ ii. 6 [8].\n\n\n\n\nHESS, the name of a family of German artists.\n\nHEINRICH MARIA HESS (1798-1863)--von Hess, after he received a patent of\npersonal nobility--was born at Dusseldorf and brought up to the\nprofession of art by his father, the engraver Karl Ernst Christoph Hess\n(1755-1828). Karl Hess had already acquired a name when in 1806 the\nelector of Bavaria, having been raised to a kingship by Napoleon,\ntransferred the Dusseldorf academy and gallery to Munich. Karl Hess\naccompanied the academy to its new home, and there continued the\neducation of his children. In time Heinrich Hess became sufficiently\nmaster of his art to attract the attention of King Maximilian. He was\nsent with a stipend to Rome, where a copy which he made of Raphael's\nParnassus, and the study of great examples of monumental design,\nprobably caused him to become a painter of ecclesiastical subjects on a\nlarge scale. In 1828 he was made professor of painting and director of\nall the art collections at Munich. He decorated the Aukirche, the\nGlyptothek and the Allerheiligencapelle at Munich with frescoes; and his\ncartoons were selected for glass windows in the cathedrals of Cologne\nand Regensburg. Then came the great cycle of frescoes in the basilica of\nSt Boniface at Munich, and the monumental picture of the Virgin and\nChild enthroned between the four doctors, and receiving the homage of\nthe four patrons of the Munich churches (now in the Pinakothek). His\nlast work, the \"Lord's Supper,\" was found unfinished in his atelier\nafter his death in 1863. Before testing his strength as a composer\nHeinrich Hess tried genre, an example of which is the Pilgrims entering\nRome, now in the Munich gallery. He also executed portraits, and twice\nhad sittings from Thorwaldsen (Pinakothek and Schack collections). But\nhis fame rests on the frescoes representing scenes from the Old and New\nTestaments in the Allerheiligencapelle, and the episodes from the life\nof St Boniface and other German apostles in the basilica of Munich. Here\nhe holds rank second to none but Overbeck in monumental painting, being\nalways true to nature though mindful of the traditions of Christian art,\nearnest and simple in feeling, yet lifelike and powerful in expression.\nThrough him and his pupils the sentiment of religious art was preserved\nand extended in the Munich school.\n\nPETER HESS (1792-1871)--afterwards von Hess--was born at Dusseldorf and\naccompanied his younger brother Heinrich Maria to Munich in 1806. Being\nof an age to receive vivid impressions, he felt the stirring impulses of\nthe time and became a painter of skirmishes and battles. In 1813-1815 he\nwas allowed to join the staff of General Wrede, who commanded the\nBavarians in the military operations which led to the abdication of\nNapoleon; and there he gained novel experiences of war and a taste for\nextensive travel. In the course of years he successively visited\nAustria, Switzerland and Italy. On Prince Otho's election to the Greek\nthrone King Louis sent Peter Hess to Athens to gather materials for\npictures of the war of liberation. The sketches which he then made were\nplaced, forty in number, in the Pinakothek, after being copied in wax on\na large scale (and little to the edification of German feeling) by\nNilsen, in the northern arcades of the Hofgarten at Munich. King Otho's\nentrance into Nauplia was the subject of a large and crowded canvas now\nin the Pinakothek, which Hess executed in person. From these, and from\nbattlepieces on a scale of great size in the Royal Palace, as well as\nfrom military episodes executed for the czar Nicholas, and the battle of\nWaterloo now in the Munich Gallery, we gather that Hess was a clever\npainter of horses. His conception of subject was lifelike, and his\ndrawing invariably correct, but his style is not so congenial to modern\ntaste as that of the painters of touch. He finished almost too carefully\nwith thin medium and pointed tools; and on that account he lacked to a\ncertain extent the boldness of Horace Vernet, to whom he was not unaptly\ncompared. He died suddenly, full of honours, at Munich, in April 1871.\nSeveral of his genre pictures, horse hunts, and brigand scenes may be\nfound in the gallery of Munich.\n\nKARL HESS (1801-1874), the third son of Karl Christoph Hess, born at\nDusseldorf, was also taught by his father, who hoped that he would\nobtain distinction as an engraver. Karl, however, after engraving one\nplate after Adrian Ostade, turned to painting under the guidance of\nWagenbauer of Munich, and then studied under his elder brother Peter.\nBut historical composition proved to be as contrary to his taste as\nengraving, and he gave himself exclusively at last to illustrations of\npeasant life in the hill country of Bavaria. He became clever alike in\nrepresenting the people, the animals and the landscape of the Alps, and\nwith constant means of reference to nature in the neighbourhood of\nReichenhall, where he at last resided, he never produced anything that\nwas not impressed with the true stamp of a kindly realism. Some of his\npictures in the museum of Munich will serve as examples of his manner.\nHe died at Reichenhall on the 16th of November 1874.\n\n\n\n\nHESS, HEINRICH HERMANN JOSEF, FREIHERR VON (1788-1870), Austrian\nsoldier, entered the army in 1805 and was soon employed as a staff\nofficer on survey work. He distinguished himself as a subaltern at\nAspern and Wagram, and in 1813, as a captain, again served on the staff.\nIn 1815 he was with Schwarzenberg. He had in the interval between the\ntwo wars been employed as a military commissioner in Piedmont, and at\nthe peace resumed this post, gaining knowledge which later proved\ninvaluable to the Austrian army. In 1831, when Radetzky became\ncommander-in-chief in Austrian Italy, he took Hess as his\nchief-of-staff, and thus began the connexion between two famous soldiers\nwhich, like that of Blucher and Gneisenau, is a classical example of\nharmonious co-operation of commander and chief-of-staff. Hess put into\nshape Radetzky's military ideas, in the form of new drill for each arm,\nand, under their guidance, the Austrian army in North Italy, always on a\nwar footing, became the best in Europe. From 1834 to 1848 Hess was\nemployed in Moravia, at Vienna, &c., but, on the outbreak of revolution\nand war in the latter year, was at once sent out to Radetzky as\nchief-of-staff. In the two campaigns against King Charles Albert which\nfollowed, culminating in the victory of Novara, Hess's assistance to his\nchief was made still more valuable by his knowledge of the enemy, and\nthe old field-marshal acknowledged his services in general orders.\nLieut.-Fieldmarshal Hess was at once promoted _Feldzeugmeister_, made a\nmember of the emperor's council, and _Freiherr_, assuming at the same\ntime the duties of the quartermaster-general. Next year he became chief\nof the staff to the emperor. He was often employed in missions to\nvarious capitals, and he appeared in the field in 1854 at the head of\nthe Austrian army which intervened so effectually in the Crimean war. In\n1859 he was sent to Italy after the early defeats. He became\nfield-marshal in 1860, and a year later, on resigning his position as\nchief-of-staff, he was made captain of the Trabant guard. He died in\nVienna in 1870.\n\n See \"General Hess\" in _Lebensgeschichtlichen Hinrissen_ (Vienna,\n 1855).\n\n\n\n\nHESSE (Lat. _Hessia_, Ger. _Hessen_), a grand duchy forming a state of\nthe German empire. It was known until 1866 as Hesse-Darmstadt, the\nhistory of which is given under a separate heading below. It consists of\ntwo main parts, separated from each other by a narrow strip of Prussian\nterritory. The northern part is the province of Oberhessen; the southern\nconsists of the contiguous provinces of Starkenburg and Rheinhessen.\nThere are also eleven very small exclaves, mostly grouped about Homburg\nto the south-west of Oberhessen; but the largest is Wimpfen on the\nnorth-west frontier of Wurttemberg. Oberhessen is hilly; though of no\ngreat elevation it extends over the water-parting between the basins of\nthe Rhine and the Weser, and in the Vogelsberg it has as its culminating\npoint the Taufstein (2533 ft.). In the north-west it includes spurs of\nthe Taunus. Between these two systems of hills lies the fertile\nundulating tract known as the Wetterau, watered by the Wetter, a\ntributary of the Main. Starkenburg occupies the angle between the Main\nand the Rhine, and in its south-eastern part includes some of the ranges\nof the Odenwald, the highest part being the Seidenbucher Hohe (1965\nft.). Rheinhessen is separated from Starkenburg by the Rhine, and has\nthat river as its northern as well as its eastern frontier, though it\nextends across it at the north-east corner, where the Rhine, on\nreceiving the Main, changes its course abruptly from south to west. The\nterritory consists of a fertile tract of low hills, rising towards the\nsouth-west into the northern extremity of the Hardt range, but at no\npoint reaching a height of more than 1050 ft.\n\nThe area and population of the three provinces of Hesse are as follow:\n\n +-------------+------+---------------------+\n | | Area.| Population. |\n | +------+----------+----------+\n | |sq. m.| 1895. | 1905. |\n | +------+----------+----------+\n | Oberhessen | 1267 | 271,524 | 296,755 |\n | Starkenburg | 1169 | 444,562 | 542,996 |\n | Rheinhessen | 530 | 322,934 | 369,424 |\n +-------------+------+----------+----------+\n | Total | 2966 |1,039,020 |1,209,175 |\n +-------------+------+----------+----------+\n\nThe chief towns of the grand duchy are Darmstadt (the capital) and\nOffenbach in Starkenburg, Mainz and Worms in Rheinhessen and Giessen in\nOberhessen. More than two-thirds of the inhabitants are Protestants; the\nmajority of the remainder are Roman Catholics, and there are about\n25,000 Jews. The grand duke is head of the Protestant church. Education\nis compulsory, the elementary schools being communal, assisted by state\ngrants. There are a university at Giessen and a technical high school at\nDarmstadt. Agriculture is important, more than three-fifths of the total\narea being under cultivation. The largest grain crops are rye and\nbarley, and nearly 40,000 acres are under vines. Minerals, in which\nOberhessen is much richer than the two other provinces, include iron,\nmanganese, salt and some coal.\n\nThe constitution dates from 1820, but was modified in 1856, 1862, 1872\nand 1900. There are two legislative chambers. The upper consists of\nprinces of the grand-ducal family, heads of mediatized houses, the head\nof the Roman Catholic and the superintendent of the Protestant church,\nthe chancellor of the university, two elected representatives of the\nland-owning nobility, and twelve members nominated by the grand duke.\nThe lower chamber consists of ten deputies from large towns and forty\nfrom small towns and rural districts. They are indirectly elected, by\ndeputy electors (_Wahlmanner_) nominated by the electors, who must be\nHessians over twenty-five years old, paying direct taxes. The executive\nministry of state is divided into the departments of the interior,\njustice and finance. The three provinces are divided for local\nadministration into 18 circles and 989 communes. The ordinary revenue\nand expenditure amount each to about L4,000,000 annually, the chief\ntaxes being an income-tax, succession duties and stamp tax. The public\ndebt, practically the whole of which is on railways, amounted to\nL19,097,468 in 1907.\n\n_History_.--The name of Hesse, now used principally for the grand duchy\nformerly known as Hesse-Darmstadt, refers to a country which has had\ndifferent boundaries and areas at different times. The name is derived\nfrom that of a Frankish tribe, the Hessi. The earliest known inhabitants\nof the country were the Chatti, who lived here during the 1st century\nA.D. (Tacitus, _Germania_, c. 30), and whose capital, Mattium on the\nEder, was burned by the Romans about A.D. 15. \"Alike both in race and\nlanguage,\" says Walther Schultze, \"the Chatti and the Hessi are\nidentical.\" During the period of the _Volkerwanderung_ many of these\npeople moved westward, but some remained behind to give their name to\nthe country, although it was not until the 8th century that the word\nHesse came into use. Early Hesse was the district around the Fulda, the\nWerra, the Eder and the Lahn, and was part of the Frankish kingdom both\nduring Merovingian and during Carolingian times. Soon _Hessegau_ is\nmentioned, and this district was the headquarters of Charlemagne during\nhis campaigns against the Saxons. By the treaty of Verdun in 843 it fell\nto Louis the German, and later it seems to have been partly in the duchy\nof Saxony and partly in that of Franconia. The Hessians were converted\nto Christianity mainly through the efforts of St Boniface; their land\nwas included in the archbishopric of Mainz; and religion and culture\nwere kept alive among them largely owing to the foundation of the\nBenedictine abbeys of Fulda and Hersfeld. Like other parts of Germany\nduring the 9th century Hesse felt the absence of a strong central power,\nand, before the time of the emperor Otto the Great, several counts,\namong whom were Giso and Werner, had made themselves practically\nindependent; but after the accession of Otto in 936 the land quietly\naccepted the yoke of the medieval emperors. About 1120 another Giso,\ncount of Gudensberg, secured possession of the lands of the Werners; on\nhis death in 1137 his daughter and heiress, Hedwig, married Louis,\nlandgrave of Thuringia; and from this date until 1247, when the\nThuringian ruling family became extinct, Hesse formed part of Thuringia.\nThe death of Henry Raspe, the last landgrave of Thuringia, in 1247,\ncaused a long war over the disposal of his lands, and this dispute was\nnot settled until 1264 when Hesse, separated again from Thuringia, was\nsecured by his niece Sophia (d. 1284), widow of Henry II., duke of\nBrabant. In the following year Sophia handed over Hesse to her son Henry\n(1244-1308), who, remembering the connexion of Hesse and Thuringia, took\nthe title of landgrave, and is the ancestor of all the subsequent rulers\nof the country. In 1292 Henry was made a prince of the Empire, and with\nhim the history of Hesse properly begins.\n\nFor nearly 300 years the history of Hesse is comparatively uneventful.\nThe land, which fell into two main portions, upper Hesse round Marburg,\nand lower Hesse round Cassel, was twice divided between two members of\nthe ruling family, but no permanent partition took place before the\nReformation. A _Landtag_ was first called together in 1387, and the\nlandgraves were constantly at variance with the electors of Mainz, who\nhad large temporal possessions in the country. They found time, however,\nto increase the area of Hesse. Giessen, part of Schmalkalden,\nZiegenhain, Nidda and, after a long struggle, Katzenelnbogen were\nacquired, while in 1432 the abbey of Hersfeld placed itself under the\nprotection of Hesse. The most noteworthy of the landgraves were perhaps\nLouis I. (d. 1458), a candidate for the German throne in 1440, and\nWilliam II. (d. 1509), a comrade of the German king, Maximilian I. In\n1509 William's young son, Philip (q.v.), became landgrave, and by his\nvigorous personality brought his country into prominence during the\nreligious troubles of the 16th century. Following the example of his\nancestors Philip cared for education and the general welfare of his\nland, and the Protestant university of Marburg, founded in 1527, owes to\nhim its origin. When he died in 1567 Hesse was divided between his four\nsons into Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Darmstadt, Hesse-Marburg and\nHesse-Rheinfels. The lines ruling in Hesse-Rheinfels and Hesse-Marburg,\nor upper Hesse, became extinct in 1583 and 1604 respectively, and these\nlands passed to the two remaining branches of the family. The small\nlandgraviate of Hesse-Homburg was formed in 1622 from Hesse-Darmstadt.\nAfter the annexation of Hesse-Cassel and Hesse-Homburg by Prussia in\n1866 Hesse-Darmstadt remained the only independent part of Hesse, and it\ngenerally receives the common name.\n\nHesse-Philippsthal is an offshoot of Hesse-Cassel, and was founded in\n1685 by Philip (d. 1721), son of the Landgrave William VI. In 1909 the\nrepresentative of this family was the Landgrave Ernest (b. 1846).\nHesse-Barchfeld was founded in 1721 by Philip's son, William (d. 1761),\nand in 1909 its representative was the Landgrave Clovis (b. 1876). The\nlands of both these princes are now mediatized. Hesse-Nassau is a\nprovince of Prussia formed in 1866 from part of Hesse-Cassel and part of\nthe duchy of Nassau.\n\n See H. B. Wenck, _Hessische Landesgeschichte_ (Frankfort, 1783-1803);\n C. von Rommel, _Geschichte von Hesse_ (Cassel, 1820-1858); F.\n Munscher, _Geschichte von Hesse_ (Marburg, 1894); F. Gundlach, _Hesse\n und die Mainzer Stiftsfehde_ (Marburg, 1899); Walther, _Literarisches\n Handbuch fur Geschichte und Landeskunde von Hesse_ (Darmstadt, 1841;\n Supplement, 1850-1869); K. Ackermann, _Bibliotheca Hessiaca_ (Cassel,\n 1884-1899); Hoffmeister, _Historischgenealogisches Handbuch uber alle\n Linien des Regentenhauses Hesse_ (Marburg, 1874), and the _Zeitschrift\n des Vereins fur hessische Geschichte_ (1837-1904).\n\n\n\n\nHESSE-CASSEL (in German _Kurhessen_, i.e. Electoral Hesse), now the\ngovernment district of Cassel in the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau.\nIt was till 1866 a landgraviate and electorate of Germany, consisting of\nseveral detached masses of territory, to the N.E. of\nFrankfort-on-the-Main. It contained a superficial area of 3699 sq. m.,\nand its population in 1864 was 745,063.\n\n_History._--The line of Hesse-Cassel was founded by William IV.,\nsurnamed the Wise, eldest son of Philip the Magnanimous. On his father's\ndeath in 1567 he received one half of Hesse, with Cassel as his capital;\nand this formed the landgraviate of Hesse-Cassel. Additions were made to\nit by inheritance from his brother's possessions. His son, Maurice the\nLearned (1592-1627), turned Protestant in 1605, became involved later in\nthe Thirty Years' War, and, after being forced to cede some of his\nterritories to the Darmstadt line, abdicated in favour of his son\nWilliam V. (1627-1637), his younger sons receiving apanages which\ncreated several cadet lines of the house, of which that of\nHesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg survived till 1834. On the death of William\nV., whose territories had been conquered by the Imperialists, his widow\nAmalie Elizabeth, as regent for her son William VI. (1637-1663),\nreconquered the country and, with the aid of the French and Swedes, held\nit, together with part of Westphalia. At the peace of Westphalia (1648),\naccordingly, Hesse-Cassel was augmented by the larger part of the\ncountship of Schaumburg and by the abbey of Hersfeld, secularized as a\nprincipality of the Empire. The Landgravine Amalie Elizabeth introduced\nthe rule of primogeniture. William VI., who came of age in 1650, was an\nenlightened patron of learning and the arts. He was succeeded by his son\nWilliam VII., an infant, who died in 1670, and was succeeded by his\nbrother Charles (1670-1730). Charles's chief claim to remembrance is\nthat he was the first ruler to adopt the system of hiring his soldiers\nout to foreign powers as mercenaries, as a means of improving the\nnational finances. Frederick I., the next landgrave (1730-1751), had\nbecome by marriage king of Sweden, and on his death was succeeded in the\nlandgraviate by his brother William VIII. (1751-1760), who fought as an\nally of England during the Seven Years' War. From his successor\nFrederick II. (1760-1785), who had become a Roman Catholic, 22,000\nHessian troops were hired by England for about L3,191,000, to assist in\nthe war against the North American colonies. This action, often bitterly\ncriticized, has of late years found apologists (cf. v. Werthern, _Die\nhessischen Hilfstruppen im nordamerikanischen Unabhangigkeitskriege_,\nCassel, 1895). It is argued that the troops were in any case\nmercenaries, and that the practice was quite common. Whatever opinion\nmay be held as to this, it is certain that Frederick spent the money\nwell: he did much for the development of the economic and intellectual\nimprovement of the country. The reign of the next landgrave, William IX.\n(1785-1821), was an important epoch in the history of Hesse-Cassel.\nAscending the throne in 1785, he took part in the war against France a\nfew years later, but in 1795 peace was arranged by the treaty of Basel.\nFor the loss in 1801 of his possessions on the left bank of the Rhine he\nwas in 1803 compensated by some of the former French territory round\nMainz, and at the same time was raised to the dignity of Elector\n(_Kurfurst_) as William I. In 1806 he made a treaty of neutrality with\nNapoleon, but after the battle of Jena the latter, suspecting William's\ndesigns, occupied his country, and expelled him. Hesse-Cassel was then\nadded to Jerome Bonaparte's new kingdom of Westphalia; but after the\nbattle of Leipzig in 1813 the French were driven out and on the 21st of\nNovember the elector returned in triumph to his capital. A treaty\nconcluded by him with the Allies (Dec. 2) stipulated that he was to\nreceive back all his former territories, or their equivalent, and at the\nsame time to restore the ancient constitution of his country. This\ntreaty, so far as the territories were concerned, was carried out by the\npowers at the congress of Vienna. They refused, however, the elector's\nrequest to be recognized as \"King of the Chatti\" (_Konig der Katten_), a\nrequest which was again rejected at the conference of Aix-la-Chapelle\n(1818). He therefore retained the now meaningless title of elector, with\nthe predicate of \"royal highness.\"\n\nThe elector had signalized his restoration by abolishing with a stroke\nof the pen all the reforms introduced under the French regime,\nrepudiating the Westphalian debt and declaring null and void the sale of\nthe crown domains. Everything was set back to its condition on the 1st\nof November 1806; even the officials had to descend to their former\nrank, and the army to revert to the old uniforms and powdered pigtails.\nThe estates, indeed, were summoned in March 1815, but the attempt to\ndevise a constitution broke down; their appeal to the federal diet at\nFrankfort to call the elector to order in the matter of the debt and the\ndomains came to nothing owing to the intervention of Metternich; and in\nMay 1816 they were dissolved, never to meet again. William I. died on\nthe 27th of February 1821, and was succeeded by his son, William II.\nUnder him the constitutional crisis in Hesse-Cassel came to a head. He\nwas arbitrary and avaricious like his father, and moreover shocked\npublic sentiment by his treatment of his wife, a popular Prussian\nprincess, and his relations with his mistress, one Emilie Ortlopp,\ncreated countess of Reichenbach, whom he loaded with wealth. The July\nrevolution in Paris gave the signal for disturbances; the elector was\nforced to summon the estates; and on the 5th of January 1831 a\nconstitution on the ordinary Liberal basis was signed. The elector now\nretired to Hanau, appointed his son Frederick William regent, and took\nno further part in public affairs.\n\nThe regent, without his father's coarseness, had a full share of his\narbitrary and avaricious temper. Constitutional restrictions were\nintolerable to him; and the consequent friction with the diet was\naggravated when, in 1832, Hassenpflug (q.v.) was placed at the head of\nthe administration. The whole efforts of the elector and his minister\nwere directed to nullifying the constitutional control vested in the\ndiet; and the Opposition was fought by manipulating the elections,\npacking the judicial bench, and a vexatious and petty persecution of\npolitical \"suspects,\" and this policy continued after the retirement of\nHassenpflug in 1837. The situation that resulted issued in the\nrevolutionary year 1848 in a general manifestation of public discontent;\nand Frederick William, who had become elector on his father's death\n(November 20, 1847), was forced to dismiss his reactionary ministry and\nto agree to a comprehensive programme of democratic reform. This,\nhowever, was but short-lived. After the breakdown of the Frankfort\nNational Parliament, Frederick William joined the Prussian Northern\nUnion, and deputies from Hesse-Cassel were sent to the Erfurt\nparliament. But as Austria recovered strength, the elector's policy\nchanged. On the 23rd of February 1850 Hassenpflug was again placed at\nthe head of the administration and threw himself with renewed zeal into\nthe struggle against the constitution and into opposition to Prussia. On\nthe 2nd of September the diet was dissolved; the taxes were continued by\nelectoral ordinance; and the country was placed under martial law. It\nwas at once clear, however, that the elector could not depend on his\nofficers or troops, who remained faithful to their oath to the\nconstitution. Hassenpflug persuaded the elector to leave Cassel secretly\nwith him, and on the 15th of October appealed for aid to the\nreconstituted federal diet, which willingly passed a decree of\n\"intervention.\" On the 1st of November an Austrian and Bavarian force\nmarched into the electorate.\n\nThis was a direct challenge to Prussia, which under conventions with the\nelector had the right to the use of the military roads through Hesse\nthat were her sole means of communication with her Rhine provinces. War\nseemed imminent; Prussian troops also entered the country, and shots\nwere actually exchanged between the outposts. But Prussia was in no\ncondition to take up the challenge; and the diplomatic contest that\nfollowed issued in the Austrian triumph at Olmutz (1851). Hesse was\nsurrendered to the federal diet; the taxes were collected by the federal\nforces, and all officials who refused to recognize the new order were\ndismissed. In March 1852 the federal diet abolished the constitution of\n1831, together with the reforms of 1848, and in April issued a new\nprovisional constitution. The new diet had, under this, very narrow\npowers; and the elector was free to carry out his policy of amassing\nmoney, forbidding the construction of railways and manufactories, and\nimposing strict orthodoxy on churches and schools. In 1855, however,\nHassenpflug--who had returned with the elector--was dismissed; and five\nyears later, after a period of growing agitation, a new constitution was\ngranted with the consent of the federal diet (May 30, 1860). The new\nchambers, however, demanded the constitution of 1831; and, after several\ndissolutions which always resulted in the return of the same members,\nthe federal diet decided to restore the constitution of 1831 (May 24,\n1862). This had been due to a threat of Prussian occupation; and it\nneeded another such threat to persuade the elector to reassemble the\nchambers, which he had dismissed at the first sign of opposition; and he\nrevenged himself by refusing to transact any public business. In 1866\nthe end came. The elector, full of grievances against Prussia, threw in\nhis lot with Austria; the electorate was at once overrun with Prussian\ntroops; Cassel was occupied (June 20); and the elector was carried a\nprisoner to Stettin. By the treaty of Prague Hesse-Cassel was annexed to\nPrussia. The elector Frederick William (d. 1875) had been, by the terms\nof the treaty of cession, guaranteed the entailed property of his house.\nThis was, however, sequestered in 1868 owing to his intrigues against\nPrussia; part of the income was paid, however, to the eldest agnate, the\nlandgrave Frederick (d. 1884), and part, together with certain castles\nand palaces, was assigned to the cadet lines of Philippsthal and\nPhilippsthal-Barchfeld.\n\n See K. W. Wippermann, _Kurhessen seit den Freiheitskriegen_ (Cassel,\n 1850); Roth, _Geschichte von Hessen-Kassel_ (Cassel, 1856; 2nd ed.\n continued by Stamford, 1883-1885); H. Grafe, _Der Verfassungskampf in\n Kurhessen_ (Leipzig, 1851) and works under HESSE.\n\n\n\n\nHESSE-DARMSTADT, a grand-duchy in Germany, the history of which begins\nwith the partition of Hesse in 1567. George I. (1547-1597), the youngest\nson of the landgrave Philip, received the upper county of\nKatzenelnbogen, and, selecting Darmstadt as his residence, became the\nfounder of the Hesse-Darmstadt line. Additions to the landgraviate were\nmade both in the reigns of George and of his son and successor, Louis V.\n(1577-1626), but in 1622 Hesse-Homburg was cut off to form an apanage\nfor George's youngest son, Frederick (d. 1638). Although Louis V., who\nfounded the university of Giessen in 1607, was a Lutheran, he and his\nson, George II. (1605-1661), sided with the imperialists in the Thirty\nYears' War, during which Hesse-Darmstadt suffered very severely from the\nravages of the Swedes. In this struggle Hesse-Cassel took the other\nside, and the rivalry between the two landgraviates was increased by a\ndispute over Hesse-Marburg, the ruling family of which had become\nextinct in 1604. This quarrel was interwoven with the general thread of\nthe Thirty Years' War, and was not finally settled until 1648, when the\ndisputed territory was divided between the two claimants. Louis VI. (d.\n1678), a careful and patriotic prince, followed the policy of the three\nprevious landgraves, but the anxiety of his son, Ernest Louis (d. 1739),\nto emulate the French court under Louis XIV. led his country into debt.\nUnder Ernest Louis and his son and successor, Louis VIII. (d. 1768),\nanother dispute occurred between Darmstadt and Cassel; this time it was\nover the succession to the county of Hanau, which was eventually\ndivided, Hesse-Darmstadt receiving Lichtenberg. During the 18th century\nthe War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years' War dealt heavy\nblows at the prosperity of the landgraviate, which was always loyal to\nthe house of Austria. Louis IX. (1719-1790), who served in the Prussian\narmy under Frederick the Great, is chiefly famous as the husband of\nCaroline (1721-1774), \"the great landgravine,\" who counted Goethe,\nHerder and Grimm among her friends and was described by Frederick the\nGreat as _femina sexu, ingenio vir_. In April 1790, just after the\noutbreak of the French Revolution, Louis X. (1753-1830), an educated\nprince who shared the tastes and friendships of his mother, Caroline,\nbecame landgrave. In 1792 he joined the allies against France, but in\n1799 he was compelled to sign a treaty of neutrality. In 1803, having\nformally surrendered the part of Hesse on the left bank of the Rhine\nwhich had been taken from him in the early days of the Revolution, Louis\nreceived in return a much larger district which had formerly belonged to\nthe duchy of Westphalia, the electorate of Mainz and the bishopric of\nWorms. In 1806, being a member of the confederation of the Rhine, he\ntook the title of Louis I., grand-duke of Hesse; he supported Napoleon\nwith troops from 1805 to 1813, but after the battle of Leipzig he joined\nthe allies. In 1815 the congress of Vienna made another change in the\narea and boundaries of Hesse-Darmstadt. Louis secured again a district\non the left bank of the Rhine, including the cities of Mainz and Worms,\nbut he made cessions of territory to Prussia and to Bavaria and he\nrecognized the independence of Hesse-Homburg, which had recently been\nincorporated with his lands. However, his title of grand-duke was\nconfirmed, and as grand-duke of Hesse and of the Rhine he entered the\nGermanic confederation. Soon the growing desire for liberty made itself\nfelt in Hesse, and in 1820 Louis gave a constitution to the land;\nvarious forms were carried through; the system of government was\nreorganized, and in 1828 Hesse-Darmstadt joined the Prussian\n_Zollverein_. Louis I., who did a great deal for the welfare of his\ncountry, died on the 6th of April 1830, and was followed on the throne\nby his son, Louis II. (1777-1848). This grand-duke had some trouble with\nhis _Landtag_, but, dying on the 16th of June 1848, he left his son,\nLouis III. (1806-1877), to meet the fury of the revolutionary year 1848.\nMany concessions were made to the popular will, but during the\nsubsequent reaction these were withdrawn, and the period between 1850\nand 1871, when Karl Friedrich Reinhard, Freiherr von Dalwigk\n(1802-1880), was chiefly responsible for the government of\nHesse-Darmstadt, was one of repression, although some benefits were\nconferred upon the people. Dalwigk was one of Prussia's enemies, and\nduring the war of 1866 the grand-duke fought on the Austrian side, the\nresult being that he was compelled to pay a heavy indemnity and to cede\ncertain districts, including Hesse-Homburg, which he had only just\nacquired, to Prussia. In 1867 Louis entered the North German\nConfederation, but only for his lands north of the Main, and in 1871\nHesse-Darmstadt became one of the states of the new German empire. After\nthe withdrawal of Dalwigk from public life at this time a more liberal\npolicy was adopted in Hesse. Many reforms in ecclesiastical,\neducational, financial and administrative matters were introduced, and\nin general the grand-duchy may be said to have passed largely under the\ninfluence of Prussia, which, by an arrangement made in 1896, controls\nthe Hessian railway system. The constitution of 1820, subject to four\nsubsequent modifications, is still the law of the land, the legislative\npower being vested in two chambers and the executive power being\nexercised by the three departments of the ministry of state. Since the\nannexation of Hesse-Cassel by Prussia in 1866 the grand-duchy has been\nknown simply as Hesse. Louis III. died on the 13th of June 1877, and was\nsucceeded by his nephew, Louis IV. (1837-1892), a son-in-law of Queen\nVictoria; he died on the 13th of March 1892, and was succeeded by his\nson, Ernest Louis (b. 1868). This grand-duke's marriage with Victoria\n(b. 1876), daughter of Alfred, duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, was\ndissolved in 1901. The union was childless, and consequently in 1902 a\nlaw regulating the succession was passed. By this the landgrave\nAlexander Frederick (b. 1863), the representative of the family which\nruled Hesse-Cassel until 1866, was declared the heir to Hesse in case\nthe grand-duke died without sons. However, in 1905 Ernest Louis married\nElenore, princess of Solms-Hohensolms-Lich (b. 1871), by whom he had a\nson George (b. 1906).\n\n See L. Baur, _Urkunden zur hessischen Landes-, Orts- und\n Familiengeschichte_ (Darmstadt, 1846-1873); Steiner, _Geschichte des\n Grossherzogtums Hesse_n (Darmstadt, 1833-1834); Klein, _Das\n Grossherzogtum Hessen_ (Mainz, 1861); Ewald, _Historische Ubersicht\n der Territorialveranderungen der Landgrafschaft Hessen und des\n Grossherzogtums Hessen_ (Darmstadt, 1872); F. Soldan, _Geschichte des\n Grossherzogtums Hessen_ (Giessen, 1896); H. Heppe, _Kirchengeschichte\n beider Hessen_ (Marburg, 1876-1878); C. Hessler, _Geschichte von\n Hessen_ (Cassel, 1891), and _Hessische Landes- und Volkskunde_\n (Marburg, 1904-1906); F. Kuchler, A. E. Braun and A. K. Weber,\n _Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsrecht des Grossherzogtums Hessen_\n (Darmstadt, 1894-1897); H. Kunzel, _Grossherzogtum Hessen_ (Giessen,\n 1893); and W. Zeller, _Handbuch der Verfassung und Verwaltung im\n Grossherzogtum Hessen_ (Darmstadt, 1885-1893). See also _Archiv fur\n hessische Geschichte und Altertumskunde_ (Darmstadt, 1894 fol.) and\n _Hessisches Urkundenbuch_ (Leipzig, 1879 fol.).\n\n\n\n\nHESSE-HOMBURG, formerly a small landgraviate in Germany. It consisted of\ntwo parts, the district of Homburg on the right side of the Rhine, and the\ndistrict of Meisenheim, which was added in 1815, on the left side of the\nsame river. Its area was about 100 sq. m., and its population in 1864 was\n27,374. Homburg now forms part of the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau,\nand Meisenheim of the province of the Rhine. Hesse-Homburg was formed into\na separate landgraviate in 1622 by Frederick I. (d. 1638), son of George\nI., landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt, although it did not become independent\nof Hesse-Darmstadt until 1768. By two of Frederick's sons it was divided\ninto Hesse-Homburg and Hesse-Homburg-Bingenheim; but these parts were\nagain united in 1681 under the rule of Frederick's third son, Frederick\nII. (d. 1708). In 1806, during the long reign of the landgrave Frederick\nV., which extended from 1751 to 1820, Hesse-Homburg was mediatized, and\nincorporated with Hesse-Darmstadt; but in 1815 by the congress of Vienna\nthe latter state was compelled to recognize the independence of\nHesse-Homburg, which was increased by the addition of Meisenheim.\nFrederick V. joined the German confederation as a sovereign prince in\n1817, and after his death his five sons in succession filled the throne.\nThe last of these, Ferdinand, who succeeded in 1848, granted a liberal\nconstitution to his people, but cancelled it during the reaction of 1852.\nWhen he died on the 24th of March 1866, Hesse-Homburg was inherited by\nLouis III., grand-duke of Hesse-Darmstadt, while Meisenheim fell to\nPrussia. In the following September, however, Louis was forced to cede\nhis new possession to Prussia, as he had supported Austria during the war\nbetween these two powers.\n\n See R. Schwartz, _Landgraf Friedrich V. von Hessen-Homburg und seine\n Familie_ (1878); and von Herget, _Das landgrafliche Haus Homburg_\n (Homburg, 1903).\n\n\n\n\nHESSE-NASSAU (Ger. _Hessen-Nassau_), a province of Prussia, bounded,\nfrom N. to E., S. and W., successively by Westphalia, Waldeck, Hanover,\nthe province of Saxony, the Thuringian States, Bavaria, Hesse and the\nRhine Province. There are small detached portions in Waldeck, Thuringia,\n&c.; on the other hand the province enclaves the province of Oberhessen\nbelonging to the grand-duchy of Hesse, and the circle of Wetzlar\nbelonging to the Rhine Province. Hesse-Nassau was formed in 1867-1868\nout of the territories which accrued to Prussia after the war of 1866,\nnamely, the landgraviate of Hesse-Cassel and the duchy of Nassau, in\naddition to the greater part of the territory of Frankfort-on-Main,\nparts of the grand-duchy of Hesse, the territory of Homburg and the\ncountship of Hesse-Homburg, together with certain small districts which\nbelonged to Bavaria. It is now divided into the governments of Cassel\nand Wiesbaden, the second of which consists mainly of the former\nterritory of Nassau (q.v.).\n\nThe province has an area of 6062 sq. m., and had a population in 1905 of\n2,070,052, being the fourth most densely populated province in Prussia,\nafter Berlin, the Rhine Province and Westphalia. The east and north\nparts lie in the basin of the river Fulda, which near the north-eastern\nboundary joins with the Werra to form the Weser. The Main forms part of\nthe southern boundary, and the Rhine the south-western; the western part\nof the province lies mostly in the basin of the Lahn, a tributary of the\nRhine. The province is generally hilly, the highest hills occurring in\nthe east and west. The Fulda rises in the Wasserkuppe (3117 ft.), an\neminence of the Rhongebirge, the highest in the province. In the\nsouth-west are the Taunus, bordering the Main, and the Westerwald, west\nof the Lahn, in which the highest points respectively are the Grosser\nFeldberg (2887 ft.) and the Fuchskauten (2155 ft.). The congeries of\nsmall groups of lower hills in the north are known as the Hessische\nBergland.\n\nThe province is not notably well suited to agriculture, but in forests\nit is the richest in Prussia, and the timber trade is large. The chief\ntrees are beech, oak and conifers. Cattle-breeding is extensively\npractised. The vine is cultivated chiefly on the slopes of the Taunus,\nin the south-west, where the names of several towns are well known for\ntheir wines--Schierstein, Erbach (Marcobrunner), Johannisberg,\nGeisenheim, Rudesheim, Assmannshausen. Iron, coal, copper and manganese\nare mined. The mineral springs are important, including those at\nWiesbaden, Homburg, Langenschwalbach, Nenndorf, Schlangenbad and Soden.\nThe chief manufacturing centres are Cassel, Diez, Eschwege, Frankfort,\nFulda, Gross Almerode, Hanau and Hersfeld. The province is divided for\nadministration into 42 circles (_Kreise_), 24 in the government of\nCassel and 18 in that of Wiesbaden. It returns 14 representatives to the\nReichstag. Marburg is the seat of a university.\n\n\n\n\nHESSE-ROTENBURG, a German landgraviate which was broken up in 1834. In\n1627 Ernest (1623-1693), a younger son of Maurice, landgrave of\nHesse-Cassel (d. 1632), received Rheinsfels and lower Katzenelnbogen as\nhis inheritance, and some years later, on the deaths of two of his\nbrothers, he added Eschwege, Rotenburg, Wanfried and other districts to\nhis possessions. Ernest, who was a convert to the Roman Catholic Church,\nwas a great traveller and a voluminous writer. About 1700 his two sons,\nWilliam (d. 1725) and Charles (d. 1711), divided their territories, and\nfounded the families of Hesse-Rotenburg and Hesse-Wanfried. The latter\nfamily died out in 1755, when William's grandson, Constantine (d. 1778),\nreunited the lands except Rheinfels, which had been acquired by\nHesse-Cassel in 1735, and ruled them as landgrave of Hesse-Rotenburg. At\nthe peace of Luneville in 1801 the part of the landgraviate on the left\nbank of the Rhine was surrendered to France, and in 1815 other parts\nwere ceded to Prussia, the landgrave Victor Amadeus being compensated\nby the abbey of Corvey and the Silesian duchy of Ratibor. Victor was the\nlast male member of his family, so, with the consent of Prussia, he\nbequeathed his allodial estates to his nephews the princes Victor and\nChlodwig of Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Schillingsfurst (see HOHENLOHE). When\nthe landgrave died on the 12th of November 1834 the remaining parts of\nHesse-Rotenburg were united with Hesse-Cassel according to the\narrangement of 1627. It may be noted that Hesse-Rotenburg was never\ncompletely independent of Hesse-Cassel. Perhaps the most celebrated\nmember of this family was Charles Constantine (1752-1821), a younger son\nof the landgrave Constantine, who was called \"citoyen Hesse,\" and who\ntook part in the French Revolution.\n\n\n\n\nHESSIAN, the name of a jute fabric made as a plain cloth, in various\ndegrees of fineness, width and quality. The common, or standard, hessian\nis 40 in. wide, weighs 10(1/2) oz. per yd., and in the finished state\ncontains about 12 threads and 12(1/2) picks per in. The name is probably\nof German origin, and the fabric was originally made from flax and tow.\nSmall quantities of cloth are still made from yarns of these fibres, but\nthe jute fibre, owing to its comparative cheapness, has now almost\nsupplanted all others.\n\nThis useful cloth is employed in countless ways, especially for packing\nall kinds of dry goods, while large quantities, of different qualities,\nare made up into bags for sugar, flour, coffee, grain, ore, manure,\nsand, potatoes, onions, &c. Indeed, bags made from one or other quality\nof this cloth, or from sacking, bagging or tarpaulin, form the most\nconvenient, and at the same time the cheapest covering for any kind of\ngoods which are not damaged by being crushed.\n\nCertain types are specially treated, dyed black, tan or other colour, or\nleft in their natural colour, stiffened and used for paddings and\nlinings for cheap clothing, boots, shoes, bags and other articles. When\ndyed in art shades the cloth forms an attractive decoration for stages\nand platforms, and generally for any temporary erection, and in many\ncases it is stencilled and then used for wall decoration.\n\nThe great linoleum industry depends upon certain types of this fabric\nfor the foundation of its products, while large quantities are used for\nthe backs of fringe rugs, spring mattresses and the upholstery of\nfurniture.\n\nThe great centres for the manufacture of this fabric are Dundee and\nCalcutta, and every variety of the cloth, and all kinds of hand- and\nmachine-sewn, as well as seamless bags, are made in the former city. The\nAmerican name for hessian is burlap; this particular kind is 40 in.\nwide, and is now largely made in Calcutta as well as in Dundee and other\nplaces.\n\n\n\n\nHESSUS, HELIUS EOBANUS (1488-1540), German Latin poet, was born at\nHalgehausen in Hesse-Cassel, on the 6th of January 1488. His family name\nis said to have been Koch; Eoban was the name of a local saint; Hessus\nindicates the land of his birth, Helius the fact that he was born on\nSunday. In 1504 he entered the university of Erfurt, and soon after his\ngraduation was appointed rector of the school of St Severus. This post\nhe soon lost, and spent the years 1509-1513 at the court of the bishop\nof Riesenburg. Returning to Erfurt, he was reduced to great straits\nowing to his drunken and irregular habits. At length (in 1517) he was\nappointed professor of Latin in the university. He was prominently\nassociated with the distinguished men of the time (Johann Reuchlin,\nConrad Peutinger, Ulrich von Hutten, Conrad Mutianus), and took part in\nthe political, religious and literary quarrels of the period, finally\ndeclaring in favour of Luther and the Reformation, although his\nsubsequent conduct showed that he was actuated by selfish motives. The\nuniversity was seriously weakened by the growing popularity of the new\nuniversity of Wittenberg, and Hessus endeavoured (but without success)\nto gain a living by the practice of medicine. Through the influence of\nCamerarius and Melanchthon, he obtained a post at Nuremberg (1526), but,\nfinding a regular life distasteful, he again went back to Erfurt (1533).\nBut It was not the Erfurt he had known; his old friends were dead or had\nleft the place; the university was deserted. A lengthy poem gained him\nthe favour of the landgrave of Hesse, by whom he was summoned in 1536\nas professor of poetry and history to Marburg, where he died on the 5th\nof October 1540. Hessus, who was considered the foremost Latin poet of\nhis age, was a facile verse-maker, but not a true poet. He wrote what he\nthought was likely to pay or secure him the favour of some important\nperson. He wrote local, historical and military poems, idylls, epigrams\nand occasional pieces, collected under the title of _Sylvae_. His most\npopular works were translations of the Psalms into Latin distichs (which\nreached forty editions) and of the _Iliad_ into hexameters. His most\noriginal poem was the _Heroides_ in imitation of Ovid, consisting of\nletters from holy women, from the Virgin Mary down to Kunigunde, wife of\nthe emperor Henry II.\n\n His _Epistolae_ were edited by his friend Camerarius, who also wrote\n his life (1553). There are later accounts of him by M. Hertz (1860),\n G. Schwertzell (1874) and C. Krause (1879); see also D. F. Strauss,\n _Ulrich von Hutten_ (Eng. trans., 1874). His poems on Nuremberg and\n other towns have been edited with commentaries and 16th-century\n illustrations by J. Neff and V. von Loga in M. Herrmann and S.\n Szamatolski's _Lateinische Literaturdenkmaler des XV. u. XVI.\n Jahrhunderts_ (Berlin, 1896).\n\n\n\n\nHESTIA, in Greek mythology, the \"fire-goddess,\" daughter of Cronus and\nRhea, the goddess of hearth and home. She is not mentioned in Homer,\nalthough the hearth is recognized as a place of refuge for suppliants;\nthis seems to show that her worship was not universally acknowledged at\nthe time of the Homeric poems. In post-Homeric religion she is one of\nthe twelve Olympian deities, but, as the abiding goddess of the\nhousehold, she never leaves Olympus. When Apollo and Poseidon became\nsuitors for her hand, she swore to remain a maiden for ever; whereupon\nZeus bestowed upon her the honour of presiding over all sacrifices. To\nher the opening sacrifice was offered; to her at the sacrificial meal\nthe first and last libations were poured. The fire of Hestia was always\nkept burning, and, if by any accident it became extinct, only sacred\nfire produced by friction, or by burning glasses drawing fire from the\nsun, might be used to rekindle it. Hestia is the goddess of the family\nunion, the personification of the idea of home; and as the city union is\nonly the family union on a large scale, she was regarded as the goddess\nof the state. In this character her special sanctuary was in the\nprytaneum, where the common hearth-fire round which the magistrates meet\nis ever burning, and where the sacred rites that sanctify the concord of\ncity life are performed. From this fire, as the representative of the\nlife of the city, intending colonists took the fire which was to be\nkindled on the hearth of the new colony. Hestia was closely connected\nwith Zeus, the god of the family both in its external relation of\nhospitality and its internal unity round its own hearth; in the\n_Odyssey_ a form of oath is by Zeus, the table and the hearth. Again,\nHestia is often associated with Hermes, the two representing home and\ndomestic life on the one hand, and business and outdoor life on the\nother; or, according to others, the association is local--that of the\ngod of boundaries with the goddess of the house. In later philosophy\nHestia became the hearth of the universe--the personification of the\nearth as the centre of the universe, identified with Cybele and Demeter.\nAs Hestia had her home in the prytaneum, special temples dedicated to\nher are of rare occurrence. She is seldom represented in works of art,\nand plays no important part in legend. It is not certain that any really\nGreek statues of Hestia are in existence, although the Giustiniani Vesta\nin the Torlonia Museum is usually accepted as such. In this she is\nrepresented standing upright, simply robed, a hood over her head, the\nleft hand raised and pointing upwards. The Roman deity corresponding to\nthe Greek Hestia is Vesta (q.v.).\n\n See A. Preuner, _Hestia-Vesta_ (1864), the standard treatise on the\n subject, and his article in Roscher's _Lexikon der Mythologie_; J. G.\n Frazer, \"The Prytaneum,\" &c., in _Journal of Philology_, xiv. (1885);\n G. Hagemann, _De Graecorum prytaneis_ (1881), with bibliography and\n notes; _Homeric Hymns_, xxix., ed. T. W. Allen and E. E. Sikes (1904);\n Farnell, _Cults, the Greek States_, v. (1909).\n\n\n\n\nHESYCHASTS ([Greek: hesychastai] or [Greek: hesychazontes], from [Greek:\nhesychos], quiet, also called [Greek: omphalopsychoi], Umbilicanimi, and\nsometimes referred to as Euchites, Massalians or Palamites), a\nquietistic sect which arose, during the later period of the Byzantine\nempire, among the monks of the Greek church, especially at Mount Athos,\nthen at the height of its fame and influence under the reign of\nAndronicus the younger and the abbacy of Symeon. Owing to various\nadventitious circumstances the sect came into great prominence\npolitically and ecclesiastically for a few years about the middle of the\n14th century. Their opinion and practice will be best represented in the\nwords of one of their early teachers (quoted by Gibbon, _Decline and\nFall_, c. 63): \"When thou art alone in thy cell shut thy door, and seat\nthyself in a corner; raise thy mind above all things vain and\ntransitory; recline thy beard and chin on thy breast; turn thine eyes\nand thy thought towards the middle of thy belly, the region of the navel\n([Greek: omphalos]); and search the place of the heart, the seat of the\nsoul. At first all will be dark and comfortless; but if thou persevere\nday and night, thou wilt feel an ineffable joy; and no sooner has the\nsoul discovered the place of the heart than it is involved in a mystic\nand ethereal light.\" About the year 1337 this hesychasm, which is\nobviously related to certain well-known forms of Oriental mysticism,\nattracted the attention of the learned and versatile Barlaam, a\nCalabrian monk, who at that time held the office of abbot in the\nBasilian monastery of St Saviour's in Constantinople, and who had\nvisited the fraternities of Mount Athos on a tour of inspection. Amid\nmuch that he disapproved, what he specially took exception to as\nheretical and blasphemous was the doctrine entertained as to the nature\nof this divine light, the fruition of which was the supposed reward of\nhesychastic contemplation. It was maintained to be the pure and perfect\nessence of God Himself, that eternal light which had been manifested to\nthe disciples on Mount Tabor at the transfiguration. This Barlaam held\nto be polytheistic, inasmuch as it postulated two eternal substances, a\nvisible and an invisible God. On the hesychastic side the controversy\nwas taken up by Gregory Palamas, afterwards archbishop of Thessalonica,\nwho laboured to establish a distinction between eternal [Greek: ousia]\nand eternal [Greek: energeia]. In 1341 the dispute came before a synod\nheld at Constantinople and presided over by the emperor Andronicus; the\nassembly, influenced by the veneration in which the writings of the\npseudo-Dionysius were held in the Eastern Church, overawed Barlaam, who\nrecanted and returned to Calabria, afterwards becoming bishop of Hierace\nin the Latin communion. One of his friends, Gregory Acindynus, continued\nthe controversy, and three other synods on the subject were held, at the\nsecond of which the Barlaamites gained a brief victory. But in 1351\nunder the presidency of the emperor John Cantacuzenus, the uncreated\nlight of Mount Tabor was established as an article of faith for the\nGreeks, who ever since have been ready to recognize it as an additional\nground of separation from the Roman Church. The contemporary historians\nCantacuzenus and Nicephorus Gregoras deal very copiously with this\nsubject, taking the Hesychast and Barlaamite sides respectively. It may\nbe mentioned that in the time of Justinian the word hesychast was\napplied to monks in general simply as descriptive of the quiet and\ncontemplative character of their pursuits.\n\n See article \"Hesychasten\" in Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklopadie_ (3rd\n ed., 1900), where further references are given.\n\n\n\n\nHESYCHIUS, grammarian of Alexandria, probably flourished in the 5th\ncentury A.D. He was probably a pagan; and the explanations of words from\nGregory of Nazianzus and other Christian writers (_glossae sacrae_) are\ninterpolations of a later time. He has left a Greek dictionary,\ncontaining a copious list of peculiar words, forms and phrases, with an\nexplanation of their meaning, and often with a reference to the author\nwho used them or to the district of Greece where they were current.\nHence the book is of great value to the student of the Greek dialects;\nwhile in the restoration of the text of the classical authors generally,\nand particularly of such writers as Aeschylus and Theocritus, who used\nmany unusual words, its value can hardly be exaggerated. The\nexplanations of many epithets and phrases reveal many important facts\nabout the religion and social life of the ancients. In a prefatory\nletter Hesychius mentions that his lexicon is based on that of\nDiogenianus (itself extracted from an earlier work by Pamphilus), but\nthat he has also used similar works by Aristarchus, Apion, Heliodorus\nand others.\n\n The text is very corrupt, and the order of the words has often been\n disturbed. There is no doubt that many interpolations, besides the\n Christian glosses, have been made. The work has come down to us from a\n single MS., now in the library at Venice, from which the editio\n princeps was published. The best edition is by M. Schmidt (1858-1868);\n in a smaller edition (1867) he attempts to distinguish the additions\n made by Hesychius to the work of Diogenianus.\n\n\n\n\nHESYCHIUS OF MILETUS, Greek chronicler and biographer, surnamed\n_Illustrius_, son of an advocate, flourished at Constantinople in the\n5th century A.D. during the reign of Justinian. According to Photius\n(cod. 69) he was the author of three important works, (1) _A Compendium\nof Universal History_ in six books, from Belus, the reputed founder of\nthe Assyrian empire, to Anastasius I. (d. 518). A considerable fragment\nhas been preserved from the sixth book, entitled [Greek: Patria\nKonstantinoupoleos], a history of Byzantium from its earliest beginnings\ntill the time of Constantine the Great. (2) _A Biographical Dictionary_\n([Greek: Onomatologos] or [Greek: Pinax]) _of Learned Men_, arranged\naccording to classes (poets, philosophers), the chief sources of which\nwere the [Greek: Mousike historia] of Aelius Dionysius and the works of\nHerennius Philo. Much of it has been incorporated in the lexicon of\nSuidas, as we learn from that author. It is disputed, however, whether\nthe words in Suidas (\"of which this book is an epitome\") mean that\nSuidas himself epitomized the work of Hesychius, or whether they are\npart of the title of an already epitomized Hesychius used by Suidas. The\nsecond view is more generally held. The epitome referred to, in which\nalphabetical order was substituted for arrangement in classes and some\narticles on Christian writers added as a concession to the times, is\nassigned from internal indications to the years 829-837. Both it and the\noriginal work are lost, with the exception of the excerpts in Photius\nand Suidas. A smaller compilation, chiefly from Diogenes Laertius and\nSuidas, with a similar title, is the work of an unknown author of the\n11th or 12th century. (3) A _History_ of the Reign of Justin I.\n(518-527) and the early years of Justinian, completely lost. Photius\npraises the style of Hesychius, and credits him with being a veracious\nhistorian.\n\n Editions: J. C. Orelli (1820) and J. Flach (1882); fragments in C. W.\n Muller, _Frag. hist. Graec._ iv. 143 and in T. Preger's _Scriptores\n originis Constantinopolitanae_, i. (1901); _Pseudo-Hesychius_, by J.\n Flach (1880); see generally C. Krumbacher, _Geschichte der\n byzantinischen Literatur_ (1897).\n\n\n\n\nHETAERISM (Gr. [Greek: hetaira] mistress), the term employed by\nanthropologists to express the primitive condition of man in his sexual\nrelations. The earliest social organization of the human race was\ncharacterized by the absence of the institution of marriage in any form.\nWomen were the common property of their tribe, and the children never\nknew their fathers.\n\n\n\n\nHETEROKARYOTA, a zoological name proposed by S. J. Hickson for the\nInfusoria (q.v.) on the ground of the differentiation of their nuclear\napparatus into meganucleus and micronucleus (or nuclei).\n\n See Lankester's _Treatise of Zoology_, vol. i. fasc. 1 (1903).\n\n\n\n\nHETERONOMY (from Gr. [Greek: heteros] and [Greek: nomos], the rule of\nanother), the state of being under the rule of another person. In ethics\nthe term is specially used as the antithesis of \"autonomy,\" which,\nespecially in Kantian terminology, treats of the true self as will,\ndetermining itself by its own law, the moral law. \"Heteronomy\" is\ntherefore applied by Kant to all other ethical systems, inasmuch as they\nplace the individual in subjection to external laws of conduct.\n\n\n\n\nHETMAN (a Polish word, probably derived from the Ger. _Hauptmann_,\nhead-man or captain; the Russian form is _ataman_), a military title\nformerly in use in Poland; the _Hetman Wielki_, or Great Hetman, was the\nchief of the armed forces of the nation, and commanded in the field,\nexcept when the king was present in person. The office was abolished in\n1792. From Poland the word was introduced into Russia, in the form\n_ataman_, and was adopted by the Cossacks, as a title for their head,\nwho was practically an independent prince, when under the suzerainty of\nPoland. After the acceptance of Russian rule by the Cossacks in 1654,\nthe post was shorn of its power. The title of \"ataman\" or \"hetman of all\nthe Cossacks\" is held by the Cesarevitch. \"Ataman\" or \"hetman\" is also\nthe name of the elected elder of the _stanitsa_, the unit of Cossack\nadministration. (See COSSACKS.)\n\n\n\n\nHETTNER, HERMANN THEODOR (1821-1882), German literary historian and\nwriter on the history of art, was born at Leisersdorf, near Goldberg, in\nSilesia, on the 12th of March 1821. At the universities of Berlin, Halle\nand Heidelberg he devoted himself chiefly to the study of philosophy, but\nin 1843 turned his attention to aesthetics, art and literature. With a\nview to furthering these studies, he spent three years in Italy, and, on\nhis return, published a _Vorschule zur bildenden Kunst der Alten_ (1848)\nand an essay on _Die neapolitanischen Malerschulen_. He became\n_Privatdozent_ for aesthetics and the history of art at Heidelberg and,\nafter the publication of his suggestive volume on _Die romantische Schule\nin ihrem Zusammenhang mit Goethe und Schiller_ (1850), accepted a call as\nprofessor to Jena where he lectured on the history of both art and\nliterature. In 1855 he was appointed director of the royal collections of\nantiquities and the museum of plaster casts at Dresden, to which posts\nwere subsequently added that of director of the historical museum and a\nprofessorship at the royal _Polytechnikum_. He died in Dresden on the\n29th of May 1882. Hettner's chief work is his _Literaturgeschichte des\n18ten Jahrhunderts_, which appeared in three parts, devoted respectively\nto English, French and German literature, between 1856 and 1870 (5th ed.\nof I. and II., revised by A. Brandl and H. Morf, 1894; 4th of III.,\nrevised by O. Harnack, 1894). Although to some extent influenced by the\npolitical and literary theories of the Hegelian school, which, since\nHettner's day have fallen into discredit, and at times losing sight of\nthe main issues of literary development over questions of social\nevolution, this work belongs to the best histories that the 19th century\nproduced. Hettner's judgment is sound and his point of view always\noriginal and stimulating. His other works include _Griechische\nReiseskizzen_ (1853), _Das moderne Drama_ (1852)--a book that arose from\na correspondence with Gottfried Keller--_Italienische Studien_ (1879),\nand several works descriptive of the Dresden art collections. His _Kleine\nSchriften_ were collected and published in 1884.\n\n See A. Stern, _Hermann Hettner, ein Lebensbild_ (1885); H. Spitzer,\n _H. Hettners kunstphilosophische Anfange und Literaturasthetik_\n (1903).\n\n\n\n\nHETTSTEDT, a town of Germany, in Prussian Saxony, on the Wipper, and at\nthe junction of the railways Berlin-Blankenheim and Hettstedt-Halle, 23\nm. N.W. of the last town. Pop. (1905), 9230. It has a Roman Catholic and\nfour Evangelical churches, and has manufactures of machinery,\npianofortes and artificial manure. In the neighbourhood are mines of\nargentiferous copper, and the surrounding district and villages are\noccupied with smelting and similar works. Silver and sulphuric acid are\nthe other chief products; nickel and gold are also found in small\nquantities. In the Kaiser Friedrich mine close by, the first\nsteam-engine in Germany was erected on the 23rd of August 1785.\nHettstedt is mentioned as early as 1046; in 1220 it possessed a castle;\nand in 1380 it received civic privileges. When the countship of Mansfeld\nwas sequestrated, Hettstedt came into the possession of Saxony, passing\nto Prussia in 1815.\n\n\n\n\nHEUGLIN, THEODOR VON (1824-1876), German traveller in north-east Africa,\nwas born on the 20th of March 1824 at Hirschlanden near Leonberg in\nWurttemberg. His father was a Protestant pastor, and he was trained to\nbe a mining engineer. He was ambitious, however, to become a scientific\ninvestigator of unknown regions, and with that object studied the\nnatural sciences, especially zoology. In 1850 he went to Egypt where he\nlearnt Arabic, afterwards visiting Arabia Petraea. In 1852 he\naccompanied Dr Reitz, Austrian consul at Khartum, on a journey to\nAbyssinia, and in the next year was appointed Dr Reitz's successor in\nthe consulate. While he held this post he travelled in Abyssinia and\nKordofan, making a valuable collection of natural history specimens. In\n1857 he journeyed through the coast lands of the African side of the Red\nSea, and along the Somali coast. In 1860 he was chosen leader of an\nexpedition to search for Eduard Vogel, his companions including Werner\nMunzinger, Gottlob Kinzelbach, and Dr Hermann Steudner. In June 1861 the\nparty landed at Massawa, having instructions to go direct to Khartum and\nthence to Wadai, where Vogel was thought to be detained. Heuglin,\naccompanied by Dr Steudner, turned aside and made a wide detour through\nAbyssinia and the Galla country, and in consequence the leadership of\nthe expedition was taken from him. He and Steudner reached Khartum in\n1862 and there joined the party organized by Miss Tinne. With her or on\ntheir own account, they travelled up the White Nile to Gondokoro and\nexplored a great part of the Bahr-el-Ghazal, where Steudner died of\nfever on the 10th of April 1863. Heuglin returned to Europe at the end\nof 1864. In 1870 and 1871 he made a valuable series of explorations in\nSpitsbergen and Novaya Zemlya; but 1875 found him again in north-east\nAfrica, in the country of the Beni Amer and northern Abyssinia. He was\npreparing for an exploration of the island of Sokotra, when he died, at\nStuttgart, on the 5th of November 1876. It is principally by his\nzoological, and more especially his ornithological, labours that Heuglin\nhas taken rank as an independent authority.\n\n His chief works are _Systematische Ubersicht der Vogel\n Nordost-Afrikas_ (1855); _Reisen in Nordost-Afrika, 1852-1853_ (Gotha,\n 1857); _Syst. Ubersicht der Saugetiere Nordost-Afrikas_ (Vienna,\n 1867); _Reise nach Abessinien, den Gala-Landern_, &c., _1861-1862_\n (Jena, 1868); _Reise in das Gebiet des Weissen Nil_, &c. _1862-1864_\n (Leipzig, 1869); _Reisen nach dem Nordpolarmeer, 1870-1871_\n (Brunswick, 1872-1874); _Ornithologie von Nordost-Afrika_ (Cassel,\n 1869-1875); _Reise in Nordost-Afrika_ (Brunswick, 1877, 2 vols.) A\n list of the more important of his numerous contributions to\n _Petermann's Mitteilungen_ will be found in that serial for 1877 at\n the close of the necrological notice.\n\n\n\n\nHEULANDITE, a mineral of the zeolite group, consisting of hydrous\ncalcium and aluminium silicate, H4CaAl2(SiO3)6 + 3H20. Small amounts of\nsodium and potassium are usually present replacing part of the calcium.\nCrystals are monoclinic, and have a characteristic coffin-shaped habit.\nThey have a perfect cleavage parallel to the plane of symmetry (M in the\nfigure), on which the lustre is markedly pearly; on other faces the\nlustre is of the vitreous type. The mineral is usually colourless or\nwhite, sometimes brick-red, and varies from transparent to translucent.\nThe hardness is 3(1/2)-4, and the specific gravity 2.2.\n\n[Illustration]\n\nHeulandite closely resembles stilbite (q.v.) in appearance, and differs\nfrom it chemically only in containing rather less water of\ncrystallization. The two minerals may, however, be readily distinguished\nby the fact that in heulandite the acute positive bisectrix of the optic\naxes emerges perpendicular to the cleavage. Heulandite was first\nseparated from stilbite by A. Breithaupt in 1818, and named by him\neuzeolite (meaning beautiful zeolite); independently, in 1822, H. J.\nBrooke arrived at the same result, giving the name heulandite, after the\nmineral collector, Henry Heuland.\n\nHeulandite occurs with stilbite and other zeolites in the amygdaloidal\ncavities of basaltic volcanic rocks, and occasionally in gneiss and\nmetalliferous veins. The best specimens are from the basalts of\nBerufjord, near Djupivogr, in Iceland and the Faroe Islands, and the\nDeccan traps of the Sahyadri mountains near Bombay. Crystals of a\nbrick-red colour are from Campsie Fells in Stirlingshire and the\nFassathal in Tirol. A variety known as beaumontite occurs as small\nyellow crystals on syenitic schist near Baltimore in Maryland.\n\nIsomorphous with heulandite is the strontium and barium zeolite\nbrewsterite, named after Sir David Brewster. The greyish monoclinic\ncrystals have the composition H4(Sr, Ba, Ca)Al2(SiO3)6 + 3H2O, and are\nfound in the basalt of the Giant's Causeway in Co. Antrim, and with\nharmotome in the lead mines at Strontian in Argyllshire. (L. J. S.)\n\n\n\n\nHEUSCH, WILLEM, or GUILLIAM DE, a Dutch landscape painter in the 17th\ncentury at Utrecht. The dates of this artist's birth and death are\nunknown. Nothing certain is recorded of him except that he presided over\nthe gild of Utrecht, whilst Cornelis Poelemburg, Jan Both and Jan Weenix\nformed the council of that body, in 1649. According to the majority of\nhistorians, Heusch was born in 1638, and was taught by Jan Both. But\neach of these statements seems open to doubt; and although it is obvious\nthat the style of Heusch is identical with that of Both, it may be that\nthe two masters during their travels in Italy fell under the influence\nof Claude Lorraine, whose \"Arcadian\" art they imitated. Heusch certainly\npainted the same effects of evening in wide expanses of country varied\nby rock formations and lofty thin-leaved arborescence as Both. There is\nlittle to distinguish one master from the other, except that of the two\nBoth is perhaps the more delicate colourist. The gild of Utrecht in the\nmiddle of the 17th century was composed of artists who clung faithfully\nto each other. Poelemburg, who painted figures for Jan Both, did the\nsame duty for Heusch. Sometimes Heusch sketched landscapes for the\nbattlepieces of Molenaer. The most important examples of Heusch are in\nthe galleries of the Hague and Rotterdam, in the Belvedere at Vienna,\nthe Stadel at Frankfort and the Louvre. His pictures are signed with the\nfull name, beginning with a monogram combining a G (for Guilliam), D and\nH. Heusch's etchings, of which thirteen are known, are also in the\ncharacter of those of Both.\n\nAfter Guilliam there also flourished at Utrecht his nephew, Jacob de\nHeusch, who signs like his uncle, substituting an initial J for the\ninitial G. He was born at Utrecht in 1657, learnt drawing from his\nuncle, and travelled early to Rome, where he acquired friends and\npatrons for whom he executed pictures after his return. He settled for a\ntime at Berlin, but finally retired to Utrecht, where he died in 1701.\nJacob was an \"Arcadian,\" like his relative, and an imitator of Both, and\nhe chiefly painted Italian harbour views. But his pictures are now\nscarce. Two of his canvases, the \"Ponte Rotto\" at Rome, in the Brunswick\nGallery, and a lake harbour with shipping in the Lichtenstein collection\nat Vienna, are dated 1696. A harbour with a tower and distant mountains,\nin the Belvedere at Vienna, was executed in 1699. Other examples may be\nfound in English private galleries, in the Hermitage of St Petersburg\nand the museums of Rouen and Montpellier.\n\n\n\n\nHEVELIUS [HEVEL or HOWELCKE], JOHANN (1611-1687), German astronomer, was\nborn at Danzig on the 28th of January 1611. He studied jurisprudence at\nLeiden in 1630; travelled in England and France; and in 1634 settled in\nhis native town as a brewer and town councillor. From 1639 his chief\ninterest became centred in astronomy, though he took, throughout his\nlife, a leading part in municipal affairs. In 1641 he built an\nobservatory in his house, provided with a splendid instrumental outfit,\nincluding ultimately a tubeless telescope of 150 ft. focal length,\nconstructed by himself. It was visited, on the 29th of January 1660, by\nJohn II. and Maria Gonzaga, king and queen of Poland. Hevelius made\nobservations of sun-spots, 1642-1645, devoted four years to charting the\nlunar surface, discovered the moon's libration in longitude, and\npublished his results in _Selenographia_ (1647), a work which entitles\nhim to be called the founder of lunar topography. He discovered four\ncomets in the several years 1652, 1661, 1672 and 1677, and suggested the\nrevolution of such bodies in parabolic tracks round the sun. On the 26th\nof September 1679, his observatory, instruments and books were\nmaliciously destroyed by fire, the catastrophe being described in the\npreface to his _Annus climactericus_ (1685). He promptly repaired the\ndamage, so far as to enable him to observe the great comet of December\n1680; but his health suffered from the shock, and he died on the 28th of\nJanuary 1687. Among his works were: _Prodromus cometicus_ (1665);\n_Cometographia_ (1668); _Machina coelestis_ (first part, 1673),\ncontaining a description of his instruments; the second part (1679) is\nextremely rare, nearly the whole issue having perished in the\nconflagration of 1679. The observations made by Hevelius on the variable\nstar named by him \"Mira\" are included in _Annus climactericus_. His\ncatalogue of 1564 stars appeared posthumously in _Prodromus astronomiae_\n(1690). Its value was much impaired by his preference of the antique\n\"pinnules\" to telescopic sights on quadrants. This led to an\nacrimonious controversy with Robert Hooke. In an _Atlas_ of 56 sheets,\ncorresponding to his catalogue, and entitled _Firmamentum Sobiescianum_\n(1690), he delineated seven new constellations, still in use. Hevelius\nhad his book printed in his own house, at lavish expense, and himself\nnot only designed but engraved many of the plates.\n\n See J. H. Westphal, _Leben, Studien, und Schriften des Astronomen\n Johann Hevelius_ (1820); C. B. Lengnich, _Anekdoten und Nachrichten_\n (1780); _Allgemeine deutsche Biographie_ (C. Bruhns); J. B. J.\n Delambre, _Histoire de l'astronomie moderne_, ii. 471; J. F. Weidler,\n _Historia astronomiae_, p. 486; F. Baily's edition of the Catalogue of\n Hevelius, _Memoirs Roy. Astr. Society_, xiii. (1843); R. Wolf,\n _Geschichte der Astronomie_, p. 396; J. C. Poggendorff, _Biog.-lit.\n Handworterbuch_. For an account of the epistolary remains of Hevelius,\n see C. G. Hecker, _Monatl. Correspondenz_, viii. 30; also _Astr.\n Nachrichten_, vols. xxiii., xxiv. (A. M. C.)\n\n\n\n\nHEWETT, SIR PRESCOTT GARDNER, Bart. (1812-1891), British surgeon, was\nborn on the 3rd of July 1812, being the son of a Yorkshire country\ngentleman. He lived for some years in early life in Paris, and started\non a career as an artist, but abandoned it for surgery. He entered St\nGeorge's Hospital, London (where his half-brother, Dr Cornwallis Hewett,\nwas physician from 1825 to 1833) becoming demonstrator of anatomy and\ncurator of the museum. He was the pupil and intimate friend of Sir B. C.\nBrodie, and helped him in much of his work. Eventually he rose to be\nanatomical lecturer, assistant-surgeon and surgeon to the hospital. In\n1876 he was president of the College of Surgeons; in 1877 he was made\nserjeant-surgeon extraordinary to Queen Victoria, in 1884\nserjeant-surgeon, and in 1883 he was created a baronet. He was a very\ngood lecturer, but shrank from authorship; his lectures on _Surgical\nAffections of the Head_ were, however, embodied in his treatise on the\nsubject in Holmes's _System of Surgery_. As a surgeon he was always\nextremely conservative, but hesitated at no operation, however severe,\nwhen convinced of its expediency. He was a perfect operator, and one of\nthe most trustworthy of counsellors. He died on the 19th of June 1891.\n\n\n\n\nHEWITT, ABRAM STEVENS (1822-1903), American manufacturer and political\nleader, was born in Haverstraw, New York, on the 31st of July 1822. His\nfather, John, a Staffordshire man, was one of a party of four mechanics\nwho were sent by Boulton and Watt to Philadelphia about 1790 to set up a\nsteam engine for the city water-works and who in 1793-1794 built at\nBelleville, N.J., the first steam engine constructed wholly in America;\nhe made a fortune in the manufacture of furniture, but lost it by the\nburning of his factories. The boy's mother was of Huguenot descent. He\ngraduated with high rank from Columbia College in 1842, having supported\nhimself through his course. He taught mathematics at Columbia, and in\n1845 was admitted to the bar, but, owing to defective eyesight, never\npractised. With Edward Cooper (son of Peter Cooper, whom Hewitt greatly\nassisted in organizing Cooper Union, and whose daughter he married) he\nwent into the manufacture of iron girders and beams under the firm name\nof Cooper, Hewitt & Co. His study of the making of gun-barrel iron in\nEngland enabled him to be of great assistance to the United States\ngovernment during the Civil War, when he refused any profit on such\norders. The men in his works never struck--indeed in 1873-1878 his plant\nwas run at an annual loss of $100,000. In politics he was a Democrat. In\n1871 he was prominent in the re-organization of Tammany after the fall\nof the \"Tweed Ring\"; from 1875 until the end of 1886 (except in\n1879-1881) he was a representative in Congress; in 1876 he left Tammany\nfor the County Democracy; in the Hayes-Tilden campaign of that year he\nwas chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and in Congress he\nwas one of the House members of the joint committee which drew up the\nfamous Electoral Count Act providing for the Electoral Commission. In\n1886 he was elected mayor of New York City, his nomination having been\nforced upon the Democratic Party by the strength of the other nominees,\nHenry George and Theodore Roosevelt; his administration (1887-1888) was\nthoroughly efficient and creditable, but he broke with Tammany, was not\nrenominated, ran independently for re-election, and was defeated. In\n1896 and 1900 he voted the Republican ticket, but did not ally himself\nwith the organization. He died in New York City on the 18th of January\n1903. In Congress he was a consistent defender of sound money and civil\nservice reform; in municipal politics he was in favour of business\nadministrations and opposed to partisan nominations. He was a leader of\nthose who contended for reform in municipal government, was conspicuous\nfor his public spirit, and exerted a great influence for good not only\nin New York City but in the state and nation. His most famous speech was\nthat made at the opening of the Brooklyn Bridge in 1883. He was a terse,\nable and lucid speaker, master of wit and sarcasm, and a fearless\ncritic. He gave liberally to Cooper Union, of which he was trustee and\nsecretary, and which owes much of its success to him; was a trustee of\nColumbia University from 1901 until his death, chairman of the board of\ntrustees of Barnard College, and was one of the original trustees, first\nchairman of the board of trustees, and a member of the executive\ncommittee of the Carnegie Institution.\n\n\n\n\nHEWLETT, MAURICE HENRY (1861- ), English novelist, was born on the 22nd\nof January 1861, the eldest son of Henry Gay Hewlett, of Shaw Hall,\nAddington, Kent. He was educated at the London International College,\nSpring Grove, Isleworth, and was called to the bar in 1891. From 1896 to\n1900 he was keeper of the land revenue records and enrolments. He\npublished in 1895 two books on Italy, _Earthwork out of Tuscany_, and\n(in verse) _The Masque of Dead Florentines_. _Songs and Meditations_\nfollowed in 1897, and in 1898 he won an immediate reputation by his\n_Forest Lovers_, a romance of medieval England, full of rapid movement\nand passion. In the same year he printed the pastoral and pagan drama of\n_Pan and the Young Shepherd_, shortened for purposes of representation\nand produced at the Court Theatre in March 1905, when it was followed by\nthe _Youngest of the Angels_, dramatized from a chapter in his _Fool\nErrant_. In _Little Novels of Italy_ (1899), a collection of brilliant\nshort stories, he showed again his power of literary expression together\nwith a close knowledge of medieval Italy. The new and vivid portraits of\nRichard Coeur de Lion in his _Richard Yea-and-Nay_ (1900), and of Mary,\nqueen of Scots, in _The Queen's Quair_ (1904) showed the combination of\nfiction with real history at its best. _The New Canterbury Tales_ (1901)\nwas another volume of stories of English life, but he returned to\nItalian subjects with _The Road in Tuscany_ (1904); in _Fond Adventures,\nTales of the Youth of the World_ (1905), two are Italian tales, and _The\nFool Errant_ (1905) purports to be the memoirs of Francis Antony\nStretley, citizen of Lucca. Later works were the novel _The Stooping\nLady_ (1907), and a volume of poems, _Artemision_ (1909).\n\n\n\n\nHEXAMETER, the name of the earliest and most important form of classical\nverse in dactylic rhythm. The word is due to each line containing six\nfeet or measures ([Greek: metra]), the last of which must be a spondee\nand the penultimate a dactyl, though occasionally, for some special\neffect, a spondee may be allowed in the fifth foot, when the line is\nsaid to be spondaic. The four other feet may be either spondees or\ndactyls. All the great heroic and epic verse of the Greek and Roman\npoets is in this metre, of which the finest examples are to be found in\nHomer and in Virgil. Varied cadences and varied caesura are essential to\nthis form of verse, otherwise the monotony is wearying to the ear. The\nmost usual places for the caesura are at the middle of the third, or the\nmiddle of the fourth foot: the former is known as the penthemimeral and\nthe latter as hepthemimeral caesura. There are several more or less\nsuccessful examples of English poems in this metre, for example\nLongfellow's _Evangeline_, Kingsley's _Andromeda_ and Clough's _Bothie\nof Tober-na-Vuoilich_, but it does not really suit the genius of the\nEnglish language. In English the lack of true spondees is severely felt,\neven though the English metre depends, not, as in Greek and Latin, on\nthe distinction between long and short syllables, but on that between\naccented and unaccented syllables. The accent must always (or it sounds\nvery ugly) fall on the first syllable, whatever may have been the case\nin Greek and Latin--Voss, Klopstock and Goethe have written hexameter\npoems of varying merit and the metre suits the German language\ndistinctly better than the English. The customary form of hexameter in\nEnglish verse is exemplified by Coleridge's descriptive line:--\n\n \"In the hex | ameter | rises the | fountain's | silvery | column.\"\n\nSeveral modern poets, and in particular Robert Browning, and Lord Bowen\n(1835-1894) have used with effect a truncated hexameter consisting of\nthe usual verse deprived of its last syllable. Thus Browning:--\n\n \"Well, it is I gone at | last, the | palace of | music I | reared.\"\n\nIt is not sufficiently observed that even the classic Greek poets\nintroduced considerable variations into their treatment of the\nhexameter. These have been treated with erudition in G. Hermann's _De\naetate scriptoris Argonauticorum_. The differences in the hexameters of\nthe Latin poets were not so remarkable, but even these varied, in\nvarious epochs, their treatment of the separate feet, and the position\nof the caesura. The satirists in particular allowed themselves an\nextraordinary licence: these hexameters, from Persius, are as far\nremoved from the rhythm of Homer, or even of Virgil, as possible, if\nthey are to remain hexameters:--\n\n \"Mane piger stertis. 'Surge!' inquit Avaritia, 'heia\n Surge!' negas; instat 'Surge!' inquit 'Non queo.' 'Surge!'\n 'Et quid agam?' 'Rogitas? en saperdam advehe Ponto.'\"\n\nIt is also to be noted that various prosodical liberties, due originally\nto the extreme antiquity of the hexameter, and long reformed and\nrepressed by the culture of poets, were apt to be revived in later ages,\nby writers who slavishly copied the most antique examples of the art of\nverse.\n\n See Wilhelm Christ, _Metrik der Griechen und Romer_, 2te Aufl. (1879).\n\n\n\n\nHEXAPLA (Gr. for \"sixfold\"), the term for an edition of the Bible in six\nversions, and especially the edition of the Old Testament compiled by\nOrigen, which placed side by side (1) Hebrew, (2) Hebrew in Greek\ncharacter, (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) Septuagint, (6) Theodotion.\nSee BIBLE: _Old Testament, Texts and Versions_.\n\n\n\n\nHEXAPODA (Gr. [Greek: hex], six, and [Greek: pous], foot), a term used\nin systematic zoology for that class of the ARTHROPODA, popularly known\nas insects. Linnaeus in his _Systema naturae_ (1735) grouped under the\nclass Insecta all segmented animals with firm exoskeleton and jointed\nlimbs--that is to say, the insects, centipedes, millipedes, crustaceans,\nspiders, scorpions and their allies. This assemblage is now generally\nregarded as a great division (phylum or sub-phylum) of the animal\nkingdom and known by K. T. E. von Siebold's (1848) name of Arthropoda.\nFor the class of the true insects included in this phylum, Linnaeus's\nold term Insecta, first used in a restricted sense by M. J. Brisson\n(1756), is still adopted by many zoologists, while others prefer the\nname Hexapoda, first used systematically in its modern sense by P. A.\nLatreille in 1825 (_Familles naturelles du regne animal_), since it has\nthe advantage of expressing, in a single word, an important\ncharacteristic of the group. The terms \"Hexapoda\" and \"hexapod\" had\nalready been used by F. Willughby, J. Ray and others in the late 17th\ncentury to include the active larvae of beetles, as well as bugs, lice,\nfleas and other insects with undeveloped wings.\n\n\n_Characters._\n\nA true insect, or member of the class Hexapoda, may be known by the\ngrouping of its body-segments in three distinct regions--a head, a\nthorax and an abdomen--each of which consists of a definite number of\nsegments. In the terminology proposed by E. R. Lankester the arrangement\nis \"nomomeristic\" and \"nomotagmic.\" The head of an insect carries\nusually four pairs of conspicuous appendages--feelers, mandibles and two\npairs of maxillae, so that the presence of four primitive somites is\nimmediately evident. The compound eyes of insects resemble so closely\nthe similar organs in Crustaceans that there can hardly be reasonable\ndoubt of their homology, and the primitively appendicular nature of the\neyes in the latter class suggests that in the Hexapoda also they\nrepresent the appendages of an anterior (protocerebral) segment. Behind\nthe antennal (or deutocerebral) segment an \"intercalary\" or\ntritocerebral segment has been demonstrated by W. M. Wheeler (1893) and\nothers in various insect embryos, while in the lowest insect order--the\nAptera--a pair of minute jaws--the maxillulae--in close association with\nthe tongue are present, as has been shown by H. J. Hansen (1893) and J.\nW. Folsom (1900). Distinct vestiges of the maxillulae exist also in the\nearwigs and booklice, according to G. Enderlein and C. Borner (1904),\nand they are very evident in larval may-flies. The number of\nlimb-bearing somites in the insectan head is thus seen to be seven. All\nof these are to be regarded as primitively post-oral, but in the course\nof development the mouth moves back to the mandibular segment, so that\nthe first three somites--ocular, antennal and intercalary--lie in front\nof it. In Lankester's terminology, therefore, the head of an insect is\n\"triprosthomerous.\" The maxillae of the hinder pair become more or less\nfused together to form a \"lower lip\" or labium, and the segment of these\nappendages is, in some insects, only imperfectly united with the\nhead-capsule.\n\nThe thorax is composed of three segments; each bears a pair of jointed\nlegs, and in the vast majority of insects the two hindmost bear each a\npair of wings. From these three pairs of thoracic legs comes the\nname--Hexapoda--which distinguishes the class. And the wings, though not\nalways present, are highly characteristic of the Hexapoda, since no\nother group of the Arthropoda has acquired the power of flight. In the\nmore generalized insects the abdomen evidently consists of ten segments,\nthe hindmost of which often carries a pair of tail-feelers, (cerci or\ncercopods) and a terminal anal segment. In some cases, however, it can\nbe shown that the cerci really belong to an eleventh abdominal segment\nwhich usually becomes fused with the tenth. With very few exceptions the\nabdomen is without locomotor limbs. Paired processes on the eighth and\nninth abdominal segments may be specialized as external organs of\nreproduction, but these are probably not appendages. The female genital\nopening usually lies in front of the eighth abdominal segment, the male\nduct opens on the ninth.\n\nIn all main points of their internal structure the Hexapoda agree with\nother Arthropoda. Specially characteristic of the class, however, is the\npresence of a complex system of air-tubes (tracheae) for respiration,\nusually opening to the exterior by a series of paired spiracles on\ncertain of the body segments. The possession of a variable number of\nexcretory tubes (Malpighian tubes), which are developed as outgrowths of\nthe hind-gut and pour their excretion into the intestine, is also a\ndistinctive character of the Hexapoda.\n\nThe wings of insects are, in all cases, developed after hatching, the\nyounger stages being wingless, and often unlike the parent in other\nrespects. In such cases the development of wings and the attainment of\nthe adult form depend upon a more or less profound transformation or\nmetamorphosis.\n\nWith this brief summary of the essential characters of the Hexapoda, we\nmay pass to a more detailed account of their structure.\n\n\n EXOSKELETON\n\n The outer cellular layer (ectoderm or \"hypodermis\") of insects as of\n other Arthropods, secretes a chitinous cuticle which has to be\n periodically shed and renewed during the growth of the animal. The\n regions of this cuticle have a markedly segmental arrangement, and the\n definite hardened pieces (sclerites) of the exoskeleton are in close\n contact with one another along linear sutures, or are united by\n regions of the cuticle which are less chitinous and more membranous,\n so as to permit freedom of movement.\n\n _Head._--The head-capsule of an insect (figs. 1, 2) is composed of a\n number of sclerites firmly sutured together, so that the primitive\n segmentation is masked. Above is the crown (_vertex_ or _epicranium_),\n on which or on the \"front\" may be seated three simple eyes (ocelli).\n Below this comes the front, and then the face or clypeus, to which a\n very distinct upper lip (_labrum_) is usually jointed. Behind the\n labrum arises a process--the _epipharynx_--which in some blood-sucking\n insects becomes a formidable piercing-organ. On either side a variable\n amount of convex area is occupied by the compound eye; in many insects\n of acute sense and accurate flight these eyes are very large and\n sub-globular, almost meeting on the middle line of the head. Below\n each eye is a cheek area (_gena_), often divided into an anterior and\n a posterior part, while a distinct chin-sclerite (_gula_) is often\n developed behind the mouth.\n\n [Illustration: From Miall and Denny, _The Cockroach_, Lovell Reeve &\n Co.\n\n FIG. 1.--Head and Jaws of Cockroach (_Blatta_). Magnified 10 times. A,\n Front; B, side; C, back; v, vertex; f, frons; cl, clypeus; lbr,\n labrum; oc, compound eye; ge, gena; mn, mandible; ca, st, pa, ga, la,\n cardo, stipes, palp, galea, lacinia of first maxilla; sm, m, pa', pg,\n sub-mentum, mentum, palp, galea of 2nd maxilla.]\n\n _Feelers._--Most conspicuous among the appendages of the head are the\n feelers or antennae, which correspond to the anterior feelers\n (antennules) of Crustacea. In their simpler condition they are long\n and many-jointed, the segments bearing numerous olfactory and tactile\n nerve-endings. Elaboration in the form of the feelers, often a\n secondary sexual character in male insects, may result from a distal\n broadening of the segments, so that the appendage becomes serrate, or\n from the development of processes bearing sensory organs, so that the\n structure is pinnate or feather-like. On the other hand, the number of\n segments may be reduced, certain of them often becoming highly\n modified in form.\n\n [Illustration: After Marlatt, _Entom. Bull._ 14, n. s. (U.S. Dept.\n Agric.).\n\n FIG. 2.--Head of Cicad, front view. Ia, frons; b, clypeus (the pointed\n labrum beneath it); II, mandible; III, first maxilla; (a, base; b,\n sheath; c, piercer), III', inner view of sheath; IV, second maxillae\n forming rostrum (b, mentum; c, ligula).]\n\n _Jaws._--The mandibles of the Hexapoda are usually strong jaws with\n one or more teeth at the apex (fig. 1, A, B, mn), articulating at\n their bases with the head-capsule by sub-globular condyles, and\n provided with abductor and adductor muscles by means of which they can\n be separated or drawn together so as to bite solid food, or seize\n objects which have to be carried about. They never bear segmented\n limbs (palps) and only exceptionally (as in the chafers) is the\n skeleton composed of more than one sclerite. The mandibles often\n furnish a good example of \"secondary sexual characters,\" being more\n strongly developed in the male than in the female of the same species.\n In most insects that feed by suction the mandibles are modified. In\n bugs (Heteroptera) and many flies, for example, they are changed into\n needle-like piercers (fig. 2, II), while in moths and caddis-flies\n they are reduced to mere vestiges or altogether suppressed.\n\n As previously mentioned, a pair of minute jaws--the _maxillulae_--are\n present in the lowest order of insects, between the mandibles and the\n first maxillae. They usually consist of an inner and an outer lobe\n arising from a basal piece, which bears also in some genera a small\n palp (see APTERA).\n\n In their typical state of development, the _first maxillae_ offer a\n striking contrast to the mandibles, being composed of a two-segmented\n basal piece (_cardo_ and _stipes_, fig. 1, C, ca, st) bearing a\n distinct inner and outer lobe (_lacinia_ and _galea_, fig. 1, C, la,\n ga) and externally a jointed limb or palp (fig. 1, C, pa). Such\n maxillae are found in most biting insects. In insects whose mouths are\n adapted for sucking and piercing, remarkable modifications may occur.\n In many blood-sucking flies, for example, the galea is absent, while\n the lacinia becomes a strong knife-like piercer and the palp is well\n developed. In bugs and aphids the lacinia is a slender needle-like\n piercer (fig. 2, III), while the palp is wanting. In butterflies and\n moths the lacinia is absent while the galea becomes a flexible\n process, grooved on its inner face, so as to make with its fellow a\n hollow sucking-trunk, and the palp is usually very small.\n\n The _second pair of maxillae_ are more or less completely fused\n together to form what is known as the _labium_ or \"lower lip.\" In\n generalized biting insects, such as cockroaches and locusts\n (Orthoptera), the parts of a typical maxilla can be easily recognized\n in the labium. The fused cardines form a broad basal plate\n (_sub-mentum_) and the stipites a smaller plate (_mentum_)--see fig.\n 1, C, sm, m--jointed on to the sub-mentum, while the galeae, laciniae\n and palps remain distinct. In specialized biting insects, such as\n beetles (Coleoptera), the labium tends to become a hard transverse\n plate bearing the pair of palps, a median structure--known as the\n _ligula_--formed of the conjoined laciniae, and a pair of small\n rounded processes--the reduced galeae--often called the \"paraglossae,\"\n a term better avoided since it has been applied also to the maxillulae\n of Aptera, entirely different structures. The long sucking \"tongue\" of\n bees is probably a modification of the ligula. In bugs and aphids\n (Hemiptera), the fused second maxillae form a jointed grooved beak or\n rostrum (fig. 2, IV) in which the slender piercers (mandibles and\n first maxillae) work to and fro.\n\n This second pair of maxillae (or labium) form then the hinder or lower\n boundary of the mouth. In front or above the mouth is bounded by the\n labrum, while the mandibles and first maxillae lie on either side of\n it. A median process, known as the _hypopharynx_ or tongue, arises\n from the floor of the mouth in front of the labium, and becomes most\n variously developed or specialized in different insects. The salivary\n duct opens on its hinder surface. It does not appear to represent a\n pair of appendages, but the maxillulae of the Aptera become closely\n associated with it. According to the view of R. Heymons, the\n hypopharynx represents the sterna of all the jaw-bearing somites, but\n other students consider that it belongs to the mandibular and first\n maxillary segments, or entirely to the segment of the first maxillae.\n\n _Neck._--The head is usually connected with the thorax by a distinct\n membranous neck, strengthened in the more generalized orders with\n small chitinous plates (_cervical sclerites_). These have been\n interpreted as indicating one or more primitive segments between the\n head and thorax. Probably, however, as suggested by T. H. Huxley\n (_Anat. Invert. Animals_, 1877), they really belong to the labial\n segment which has not become completely fused with the head-capsule.\n It has been shown by C. Janet (1889), from careful studies of the\n musculature, that the greater part of the head-capsule is built up of\n the four anterior head-segments, the hindmost of which has the\n mandibles for its appendages, and this conclusion is in the main\n supported by the recent work on the head skeleton of J. H. Comstock\n and C. Kochi (1902) and W. A. Riley (1904).\n\n _Thorax._--The three segments which make up the thorax or fore-trunk\n are known as the _prothorax_, _mesothorax_ and _metathorax_ (see fig.\n 3). The dorsal area of the prothorax is occupied by a single sclerite,\n the _pronotum_ (fig. 3, d), which is large and conspicuous in those\n insects, such as cockroaches, bugs (Heteroptera) and beetles, which\n have the prothorax free--i.e. readily movable on the segment\n (mesothorax) immediately behind--smaller and of less importance where\n the prothorax is fixed to the mesothorax, as in bees and flies. The\n dorsal area of the mesothorax, and also of the metathorax, may be made\n up of a series of sclerites arranged one behind the\n other--_prescutum_, _scutum_, _scutellum_ and _post-scutellum_ (fig.\n 3, e, f, g, h), the scutellum of the mesothorax being often especially\n conspicuous. Ventrally, each segment of the thorax has a _sternum_\n with which a median _pre-sternum_ and paired _episterna_ and _epimera_\n are often associated (see figs. 3, 4). The recent suggestion of K. W.\n Verhoeff (1904) that the hexapodan thorax in reality contains six\n primitive segments is entirely without embryological support.\n\n _Legs._--Each segment of the thorax carries a pair of legs. In most\n insects the leg is built up of nine segments: (1) a broad triangular,\n sub-globular, conical or cylindrical haunch (_coxa_); (2) a small\n _trochanter_; (3) an elongate stout thigh (_femur_); (4) a more\n slender shin (_tibia_); and (5-9) a foot consisting of five _tarsal\n segments_. The fifth (distal) tarsal segment carries a median adhesive\n pad--the _pulvillus_--on either side of which is a claw. The pulvillus\n is probably to be regarded as a true terminal (tenth) segment of the\n leg, while the claws are highly modified bristles. Numerous bristles\n are usually present on the thighs, shins and feet of insects, some of\n them so delicate as to be termed \"hairs,\" others so stout and hard\n that they are named \"spines\" or \"spurs.\" In the relative development\n and shape of the various segments of the leg there is almost endless\n variety, dependent on the order to which the insect belongs, and the\n special function--walking, running, climbing, digging or swimming--for\n which the limb is adapted. The walking of insects has been carefully\n studied by V. Graber (1877) and J. Demoor (1890), who find that the\n legs are usually moved in two sets of three, the first and third legs\n of one side moving with the second leg of the other. One tripod thus\n affords a firm base of support while the legs of the other tripod are\n brought forward to their new positions.\n\n [Illustration: After Marlat, _Ent. Bull._ 3, n.s. (U.S. Dept. Agr.).\n\n FIG. 3.--Thorax of Saw-Fly (_Pachynematus_).\n\n I, Dorsal view.\n II, Ventral view.\n III, Lateral view.\n IV, Lateral view with segments separated. _Prothorax_:\n a, Episternum.\n b, Sternum.\n c, Coxa of fore-leg.\n d, Pronotum. _Mesothorax_:\n e, Prescutum.\n f, Scutum.\n g, Scutellum.\n h, Post-scutellum.\n i, Mesophragma.\n j, _Epimeron_.\n k, _Episternum_.\n l, Coxa of middle leg. _Metathorax_:\n m, Scutum.\n o, Epimeron.\n p, Coxa of hind leg.\n n, _First Abdominal Segment_.\n t, Tegula at base of fore-wing.]\n\n [Illustration: After Miall and Denny, _The Cockroach_, Lovell Reeve &\n Co.\n\n FIG. 4.--Legs and Ventral Thoracic Sclerites of Female Cockroach\n\n (_Blatta_).\n\n I, Fore-leg and pro-sternum (S) in front of which are the ventral\n cervical sclerites (c).\n cx, Coxa. tr, Trochanter.\n fe, Thigh. tb, Shin.\n ta, Tarsal segments.\n II, Middle leg and mesosternum.\n III, Hind-leg and metasternum.\n In IIIA, the episternum (a) and epimeron (b) are slightly separated.]\n\n _Wings._--Two pairs of wings are present in the vast majority of\n insects, borne respectively on the mesothorax and metathorax. At the\n base of the wing, i.e. its attachment to the trunk, we find a highly\n complex series of small sclerites adapted for the varied movements\n necessary for flight. Those of the dragon-flies (Odonata) have been\n described in detail by R. von Lendenfeld (1881). The long axis of the\n wings, when at rest, lies parallel to the body axis. In this position\n the outer margin of the wing is the _costa_, the inner the _dorsum_,\n and the hind-margin the _termen_. The angle between the costa and\n termen is the _apex_. When the wing is spread, its long axis is more\n or less at a right angle to the body axis. A wing is an outgrowth from\n the dorsal and pleural regions of the thoracic segment that bears it,\n and microscopic examination shows it to consist of a double layer of\n cuticularized skin, the two layers being in contact except where they\n are thickened and folded to form the firm tubular nervures, which\n serve as a supporting framework for the wing membrane, enclose\n air-tubes, and convey blood. These nervures consist of a series of\n trunks radiating from the wing-base and usually branching as they\n approach the wing-margins, the branches being often connected by short\n transverse nervures, so that the wing-area is marked off into a number\n of \"cells\" or areolets.\n\n [Illustration: After Quail, _Natural Science_, vol. xiii., J. M. Dent\n & Co.\n\n FIG. 5.--Wing-Neuration in a Cossid Moth. 2, sub-costal; 3, radial; 4,\n median; 5, cubital; 6, 7, 8, anal nervures.]\n\n The details of the nervuration vary greatly in the different orders,\n but J. H. Comstock and J. G. Needham have lately (1898-1899) shown\n that a common arrangement underlies all, six series of longitudinal or\n radiating nervures being present in the typical wing (see fig. 5).\n Along the costa runs a costal nervure. This is followed by a\n sub-costal which sometimes shows two main branches. Then comes the\n radial--usually the most important nervure of the wing--typically with\n five branches, and the median with four. These sets arise from a main\n trunk towards the front region of the wing-base. From another hinder\n trunk arise the two-branched cubital nervure and three separate anal\n nervures. In the hind-wing of many insects the number of radial\n branches becomes reduced, while the anal area is especially well\n developed and undergoes a fan-like folding when the wings are closed.\n Great diversity exists in the texture and functions of fore and\n hind-wings in different insects; these differences are discussed in\n the descriptions of the various orders. The wings often afford\n secondary sexual characters, being not infrequently absent or reduced\n in the female when well developed in the male (see fig. 6). Rarely the\n male is the wingless sex.\n\n In addition to the wings there are smaller dorsal outgrowths of the\n thorax in many insects. Paired erectile plates (patagia) are borne on\n the prothorax in moths, while in moths, sawflies, wasps, bees and\n other insects there are small plates (tegulae)--see Fig. 3, t--on the\n mesothorax at the base of the fore-wings.\n\n _Abdomen._--In the abdominal exoskeleton the segmental structure is\n very clearly marked, a series of sclerites--dorsal terga and abdominal\n sterna--being connected by pale, feebly chitinized cuticle, so that\n considerable freedom of movement between the segments is possible. The\n first and second abdominal sterna are often suppressed or reduced, on\n account of the strong development of the hind-legs. In many insects\n ten, and in a few eleven, abdominal segments can be clearly\n distinguished in addition to a small terminal anal segment. The female\n genital opening usually lies between the seventh and eighth segments,\n the male on the ninth. Prominent paired limbs are often borne on the\n tenth segment, the elongate tail-feelers (cerci) of bristle-tails and\n may-flies, or the forceps of earwigs, for example. In the Embiidae, a\n family of Isoptera, it has been shown by G. Enderlein (1901) that\n these cerci clearly belong to a partially suppressed eleventh segment,\n and R. Heymons (1895-1896) has proved by embryological study that in\n all cases they really belong to this eleventh segment, which in the\n course of development becomes fused with the tenth. Smaller appendages\n (such as the stylets of male cockroaches) may be carried on the ninth\n segment. Pairs of processes carried on the eighth and ninth segments\n often become specialized to form the ovipositor of the female (see\n fig. 14) and the genital armature of the male. A marked modification\n of the hinder abdominal segments may be noticed in most insects, the\n sclerites of the eighth and ninth being frequently hidden by those of\n the seventh. In the higher orders several of the hinder segments may\n be altogether suppressed.\n\n [Illustration: From Miall and Denny, _The Cockroach_, Lovell Reeve &\n Co.\n\n FIG. 6.--Outline of Male ([Male sign]) and Female ([Female sign])\n Cockroaches (_Blatta_) from the side, showing Abdominal Segments\n (numbered 1-10).]\n\n [Illustration: From Miall and Denny (after Newton), _The Cockroach_,\n Lovell Reeve & Co.\n\n FIG. 7.--Brain of Cockroach from side. oe, Gullet; op, optic nerve;\n sb, sub-oesophageal ganglion; mn, mx, mx', nerves to jaws; t,\n tentorium.]\n\n\n INTERNAL ORGANS\n\n _Nervous System._--The nervous system in the Hexapoda is built up on\n the typical arthropodan plan of a double ventral nerve-cord with a\n pair of ganglia in each segment, the cords passing on either side of\n the gullet and connecting with an anterior nerve-centre or brain (fig.\n 7) in the head. The brain innervates the eyes and feelers, and must be\n regarded as a \"syncerebrum\" representing the ganglia of the three\n foremost limb-bearing somites united with the primitive cephalic\n lobes. Behind the gullet lies the sub-oesophageal nerve-centre (fig.\n 7, sb), composed of the ganglia of the four hinder head-somites and\n sending nerves to the jaws. A pair of ganglia in each thoracic segment\n is usual (fig. 8), and as many as eight distinct pairs of abdominal\n ganglia may often be distinguished, the hindmost of which represents\n the fused ganglia of the last four segments. But in many highly\n organized insects a remarkable concentration of the trunk-ganglia\n takes place, all the nerve-centres of the thorax and abdomen in the\n chafers and in the Hemiptera, for instance, being represented by a\n single mass situated in the thorax. The legs, wings and other organs\n of the trunk receive their nerves from the thoracic and abdominal\n ganglia, and the fusion of several pairs of these ganglia may be\n regarded as corresponding to a centralization of individuality. A\n special \"sympathetic\" system arises by paired nerves from the\n oesophageal connectives; these nerves unite, and send back a median\n recurrent nerve associated with ganglia on the gullet and crop, whence\n proceed cords to various parts of the digestive system.\n\n In connexion with the central nervous system there are usually\n numerous organs of special sense. Most insects possess a pair of\n compound eyes, and many have, in addition, three simple eyes or ocelli\n on the vertex. The nature of these organs is described in the article\n ARTHROPODA. The surface of a compound eye is seen to be covered with a\n large number of hexagonal corneal facets, each of which overlies an\n ommatidium or series of cell elements (fig. 9, A, B). There are over\n 25,000 ommatidia in the eye of a hawk moth.\n\n [Illustration: After Miall and Denny, _The Cockroach_, Lovell Reeve &\n Co.\n\n FIG. 8.--Ventral Muscles and Nerve Cord of Cockroach.]\n\n Auditory organs of a simple type are present in most insects. These\n consist of fine rods suspended between two points of the cuticle, and\n connected with nerve-fibres; they are known as chordotonal organs. In\n many cases a more complex ear is developed, which may be situated in\n strangely diverse regions of the insect's body. In locusts\n (_Acridiidae_) a large ovate, tympanic membrane (fig. 9, G) is\n conspicuous on either side of the first abdominal segment; on the\n inner surface of this membrane are two horn-like processes in contact\n with a delicate sac containing fluid, connected with which are the\n actual nerve-endings. In the nearly-related crickets and long-horned\n grasshoppers (_Locustidae_) the ears are situated in the shins of the\n fore-legs (see fig. 9, F). Just below the knee-joint there is a\n swelling, along which two narrow slits run lengthwise. They lead into\n chambers, formed by inpushing of the cuticle, whose delicate inner\n walls are in contact with air-tubes; on the outer surface of these\n latter are ridges, along which the special nerve-endings are arranged.\n An ear of another type is found in the swollen second segment of the\n feeler in many male gnats and midges, the cuticle between this segment\n and the third forming an annular drum which is connected with numerous\n nerve-endings, while the fine bristles on the more distal segments\n vibrate in response to the note produced by the humming of the female.\n\n [Illustration: From Ridley, _Insect Life_, vol. 7 (U.S. Dept. Agr.).\n\n FIG. 9.--Single Ommatidium of Cockroach's Eye (after Grenacher). B,\n Section through compound eye (after Miall and Denny); C, organs of\n smell in cockchafer (after Kraepelin); D, a, b, sensory pits on\n cercopods of golden-eye fly; c, sensory pit on palp of stone-fly\n (after Packard); E, sensory hair (after Miall and Denny); F, ear of\n long-horned grasshopper; a, Front shin showing outer opening and\n air-tube; b, section (after Graber); G, ear of locust from within\n (after Graber). All highly magnified.]\n\n Many of the numerous hairs (fig. 9, E) that cover the body of an\n insect have a tactile function. The sense of smell resides chiefly in\n the feelers, on whose segments occur tiny pits, often guarded by\n peg-like or tooth-like structures and containing rod-like cells (fig.\n 9, C) in connexion with large nerve-cells. It is said that 13,000 such\n olfactory organs are present on the feeler of a wasp, and 40,000 on\n the complex antennae of a male cockchafer. Organs of similar type on\n the maxillae and epipharynx appear to exercise the function of taste.\n\n [Illustration: After Miall and Denny, _The Cockroach_, Lovell Reeve &\n Co.\n\n FIG. 10.--Dorsal Muscles, Heart and Pericardial Tendons of Cockroach.]\n\n _Muscular System._--The muscles in the Hexapoda are striated, as in\n Arthropods generally, the large fibres being associated in bundles\n which are attached from point to point of the cuticle, so as to move\n adjacent sclerites with respect to one another (see figs. 8, 10). For\n example, the contraction of the tergo-sternal muscles, connecting the\n dorsal with the ventral sclerites of the abdomen, lessens the capacity\n of the abdominal region, while the contraction of the powerful muscles\n arising from the thoracic walls, and inserted into the proximal ends\n of the thighs, flexes or extends the legs.\n\n _Circulatory System._--Insects afford an excellent illustration of the\n remarkable type of blood-system characterizing the Arthropoda. The\n dorsal vessel is an elongate tube, whose abdominal portion is usually\n chambered, forming a contractile heart (fig. 10). At the constrictions\n between the chambers are paired slits, through which the blood passes\n from the surrounding pericardial sinus. The dorsal vessel is prolonged\n anteriorly into an aorta, through which the blood is propelled into\n the great body-cavity or haemocoel. After bathing the various tissues\n and organs, the blood returns dorsalwards into the pericardial sinus\n through fine perforations of its floor, and so makes its way into the\n heart again. Some water-bugs, e.g. of the families _Belostomatidae_,\n _Nepidae_, _Corixidae_ and _Hydrometridae_ have a pulsating sac at\n each knee-joint to assist the flow of blood through the legs, while in\n dragon-flies and locusts (_Acridiidae_) there is a ventral pulsating\n diaphragm, which forms the roof of a sinus enclosing the nerve-cords.\n\n [Illustration: After Miall and Denny, _The Cockroach_, Lovell Reeve &\n Co.\n\n FIG. 11.--Ventral Portion of Air-Tubes in Cockroach.]\n\n _Respiratory System._--As mentioned above, respiration by means of\n air-tubes (tracheae) is a most characteristic feature of the Hexapoda.\n An air-tube consists of an epithelium of large polygonal cells with a\n thin basement-membrane externally and a chitinous layer internally,\n the last-named being continuous with the outer cuticle. The chitinous\n layer is usually strengthened by thread-like thickenings which, in the\n region close to the outer opening of the tube, form a network\n enclosing polygonal areas, but which, through most of the tracheal\n system, are arranged spirally, the strengthening thread not forming a\n continuous spiral, but being interrupted after a few turns around the\n tube. The tracheal system in Hexapods is very complex, forming a\n series of longitudinal trunks with transverse anastomosing connexions\n (fig. 11), and extending by the finest sub-division and by repeated\n branching into all parts of the body. In insects of active flight the\n tubes swell out into numerous air-sacs, by which the breathing\n capacity is much increased.\n\n Atmospheric air gains access to the air-tubes through paired\n _spiracles_ or _stigmata_, which usually occur laterally on most of\n the body-segments. These spiracles have firm chitinous edges, and can\n be closed by valves moved by special muscles. When the spiracles are\n open and the body contracts, air is expired. The subsequent expansion\n of the body causes fresh air to enter the tracheal system, and if the\n spiracles be then closed and the body again contracted, this air is\n driven to the finest branches of the air-tubes, where a direct\n oxygenation of the tissues takes place. The physiology of respiration\n has been carefully studied by F. Plateau (1884). In aquatic insects\n various devices for obtaining or entangling air are found; these\n modifications are described in the special articles on the various\n orders of insects (COLEOPTERA, HEMIPTERA, &c.). Many insects have\n aquatic larvae, some of which take in atmospheric air at intervals,\n while others breathe dissolved air by means of tracheal gills. These\n modifications are mentioned below in the section on metamorphosis.\n\n [Illustration: From Miall and Denny, _The Cockroach_, Lovell Reeve &\n Co.\n\n FIG. 12.--Food Canal of Cockroach.\n\n s, Salivary glands and reservoir.\n c, Crop (the gizzard below it).\n coe, Caecal tubes (below them the stomach).\n k, Kidney tubes.\n i, Intestine.\n r, Rectum.]\n\n _Digestive System._--A striking feature in the food-canal of the\n Hexapoda, as in other Arthropods, is the great extent of the\n \"fore-gut\" and \"hind-gut,\" lined with a chitinous cuticle, continuous\n with the exoskeleton. The fore-gut is composed of a tubular gullet, a\n large sac-like crop (fig. 12, c) and a proventriculus or \"gizzard,\"\n whose function is to strain the food-substances before they pass on\n into the tubular stomach, which has no chitinous lining. This organ,\n usually regarded as a \"mid-gut,\" gives off a number of secretory\n caecal tubes (fig. 12, coe). At its hinder end it is continuous with\n the hind-gut, which is usually differentiated into a tubular coiled\n intestine (fig. 12, i) and a swollen rectum (fig. 12, r). From the\n fore-end of the hind-gut arise the slender Malpighian tubes (fig. 12,\n k), which have a renal function.\n\n On either side of the gullet are from one to ten pairs of salivary\n glands (fig. 12, s) whose ducts open into the mouth. Some of these\n glands may be modified for special purposes--as silk-producing glands\n in caterpillars or as poison-glands in blood-sucking flies and bugs.\n The food passing into the crop is there acted on by the saliva and\n also by an acid gastric juice which passes forwards from the stomach\n through the proventriculus. As the various portions of the food\n undergo digestion, they are allowed to pass through the proventriculus\n into the stomach, where the nutrient substances are absorbed.\n\n _Excretory System._--Nitrogenous waste-matter is removed from the body\n by the Malpighian tubes which open into the food-canal, usually where\n the hind-gut joins the stomach. These tubes vary in number from four\n to over a hundred in different orders of insects. The cells which line\n them and also the cavities of the tubes contain urates, which are\n excreted from the blood in the surrounding body-cavity. This cavity\n contains an irregular mass of whitish tissue, the fat-body, consisting\n of fat-cells which undergo degradation and become more or less filled\n with urates. When the worn-out cells are broken down, the urates are\n carried dissolved in the blood to the Malpighian tubes for excretion.\n The fat-body is therefore the seat of important metabolic processes in\n the hexapod body.\n\n _Reproductive System._--All the Hexapoda are of separate sexes. The\n ovaries (fig. 13) in the female are paired, each ovary consisting of a\n variable number of tubes (one in the bristle-tail _Campodea_ and\n fifteen hundred in a queen termite) in which the eggs are developed.\n From each ovary an oviduct (fig. 13, od) leads, and in some of the\n more primitive insects (bristle-tails, earwigs, may-flies) the two\n oviducts open separately direct to the exterior. Usually they open\n into a median vagina, formed by an ectodermal inpushing and lined with\n chitin. The vagina usually opens in front of the eighth abdominal\n sternite. Behind it is situated a spermatheca (fig. 14, sp) and the\n ovipositor previously mentioned, with its three pairs of processes\n (Fig. 14, G, g).\n\n [Illustration: From Miall and Denny, _The Cockroach_, Lovell Reeve &\n Co.\n\n FIG. 13.--Ovaries of Cockroach, with Oviducts Od and Colleterial\n Glands CG.]\n\n [Illustration: From Miall and Denny, _The Cockroach_, Lovell Reeve &\n Co.\n\n FIG. 14.--Hinder Abdominal Segment and Ovipositor of Female Cockroach.\n Magnified.\n\n T^8 &c. Tergites.\n S^7, 7th Sternite.\n S^8, Sclerite between 7th and 8th sterna.\n S^9, 8th Sclerite.\n Od, Vagina.\n sp, Spermatheca.\n G, Anterior, and g, posterior gonapophyses.]\n\n The paired testes of the male consist of a variable number of seminal\n tubes, those of each testis opening into a _vas deferens_. In some\n bristle-tails and may-flies, the two _vasa deferentia_ open\n separately, but usually they lead into a sperm-reservoir, whence\n issues a median ejaculatory duet. The male opening is on the ninth\n abdominal segment, to which belong the processes that form the\n claspers or genital armature. Accessory glands are commonly present in\n connexion both with the male and the female reproductive organs. The\n poison-glands of the sting in wasps and bees are well-known examples\n of these.\n\n\n EMBRYOLOGY\n\n _The Egg._--Among the Hexapoda, as in Arthropods generally, the egg is\n large, containing an accumulation of yolk for the nourishment of the\n growing embryo. Most insect eggs are of an elongate oval shape; some\n are globular, others flattened, while others again are flask-shaped,\n and the outer envelope (_chorion_) is often beautifully sculptured\n (figs. 20, d; 21, a, b). Various devices are adopted for the\n protection of the eggs from mechanical injury or from the attacks of\n enemies, and for fixing them in appropriate situations. For example,\n the egg may be raised above the surface on which it is laid by an\n elongate stalk; the eggs may be protected by a secretion, which in\n some cases forms a hard protective capsule or \"purse\"; or they may be\n covered with shed hairs of the mother, while among water-insects a\n gelatinous envelope, often of rope-like form, is common. In various\n groups of the Hexapoda--aphids and some flesh-flies (_Sarcophaga_),\n for example--the egg undergoes development within the body of the\n mother, and the young insect is born in an active state; such insects\n are said to be \"viviparous.\"\n\n _Parthenogenesis._--A number of cases are known among the Hexapoda of\n the development of young from the eggs of virgin females. In insects\n so widely separated as bristle-tails and moths this occurs\n occasionally. In certain gall-flies (_Cynipidae_) no males are known\n to exist at all, and the species seems to be preserved entirely by\n successive parthenogenetic generations. In other gall-flies and in\n aphids we find that a sexual generation alternates with one or with\n many virgin generations. The offspring of the virgin females are in\n most of these instances females; but among the bees and wasps\n parthenogenesis occurs normally and always results in the development\n of males, the \"queen\" insect laying either a fertilized or\n unfertilized egg at will.\n\n _Maturation, Fertilization and Segmentation._--Polar bodies were first\n observed in the eggs of Hexapoda by F. Blochmann in 1887. The two\n nuclei are successively divided from the egg nucleus in the usual way,\n but they frequently become absorbed in the peripheral protoplasm\n instead of being extruded from the egg-cell altogether. It appears\n that in parthenogenetic eggs two polar nuclei are formed. According to\n A. Petrunkevich (1901-1903), the second polar nucleus uniting with one\n daughter-nucleus of the first polar body gives rise to the germ-cells\n of the parthenogenetically-produced male. There is no reunion of the\n second polar nucleus with the female pronucleus, but, according to the\n recent work of L. Doncaster (1906-1907) on the eggs of sawflies, the\n number of chromosomes is not reduced in parthenogenetic egg-nuclei,\n while, in eggs capable of fertilization, the usual reduction-divisions\n occur. Fertilization takes place as the egg is laid, the spermatozoa\n being ejected from the spermatheca of the female and making their way\n to the protoplasm of the egg through openings (micropyles) in its firm\n envelope. The segmentation of the fertilized nucleus results in the\n formation of a number of nuclei which arrange themselves around the\n periphery of the egg and, the protoplasm surrounding them becoming\n constricted, a blastoderm or layer of cells, enclosing the central\n yolk, is formed. Within the yolk the nuclei of some \"yolk cells\" can\n be distinguished.\n\n [Illustration: From Nussbaum in Miall and Denny's, _Cockroach_,\n Lovell, Reeve & Co.\n\n FIG. 15.--Diagram showing Formation of Germinal Layers. E, ectoderm;\n M, inner layer. Magnified.]\n\n _Germinal Layers and Food-Canal._--The embryo begins to develop as an\n elongate, thickened, ventral region of the blastoderm which is known\n as the ventral plate or germ band. Along this band a median furrow\n appears, and a mass of cells sinks within, the one-layered germ band\n thus becoming transformed into a band of two cell-layers (fig. 15). In\n some cases the inner layer is formed not by invagination but by\n proliferation or by delamination. The outer of these two layers (fig.\n 15, E) is the ectoderm. With regard to the inner layer (_endoblast_ of\n some authors, fig. 15, M) much difference of opinion has prevailed. It\n has usually been regarded as representing both endoderm and mesoderm,\n and the groove which usually leads to its formation has been compared\n to the abnormally elongated blastopore of a typical gastrula. No doubt\n can be entertained that the greater part of the inner layer\n corresponds to the mesoderm of more ordinary embryos, for the coelomic\n pouches, the germ-cells, the musculature and the vascular system all\n arise from it. Further, there is general agreement that the\n chitin-lined fore-gut and hind-gut, which form the greater part of\n the digestive tract, arise from ectodermal invaginations (stomodaeum\n and proctodaeum respectively) at the positions of the future mouth and\n anus. The origin of the mid-gut (mesenteron), that has no chitinous\n lining in the developed insect, is the disputed point. According to\n the classical researches of A. Kowalevsky (1871 and 1887) on the\n embryology of the water-beetle _Hydrophilus_ and of the muscid flies,\n an anterior and a posterior endoderm-rudiment both derived from the\n \"endoblast\" become apparent at an early stage, in close association\n with the stomodaeum and the proctodaeum respectively. These two\n endoderm-rudiments ultimately grow together and give rise to the\n epithelium of the mid-gut. These results were confirmed by the\n observations of K. Heider and W. M. Wheeler (1889) on the embryos of\n two beetles--_Hydrophilus_ and _Doryphora_ respectively. V. Graber,\n however (1889), stated that in the _Muscidae_, while the anterior\n endoderm-rudiment arises as Kowalevsky had observed, the posterior\n part of the \"mid-gut\" has its origin as a direct outgrowth from the\n proctodaeum. The recent researches of R. Heymons (1895) on the\n Orthoptera, and of A. Lecaillon (1898) on various leaf beetles, tend\n to show that the whole of the \"mid-gut\" arises from the proliferation\n of cells at the extremity of the stomodaeum and of the proctodaeum. On\n this view the entire food-canal in most Hexapoda must be regarded as\n of ectodermal origin, the \"endoblast\" represents mesoderm only, and\n the median furrow whence it arises can be no longer compared with the\n blastopore. According to Heymons, the yolk-cells must be regarded as\n the true endoderm in the hexapod embryo, for he states (1897) that in\n the bristle-tail _Lepisma_ and in dragon-flies they give rise to the\n mid-gut. These views are not, however, supported by other recent\n observers. J. Carriere's researches (1897) on the embryology of the\n mason bee (_Chalicodoma_) agree entirely with the interpretations of\n Kowalevsky and Heider, and so on the whole do those of F. Schwangart,\n who has studied (1904) the embryonic development of Lepidoptera. He\n finds that the endoderm arises from an anterior and a posterior\n rudiment derived from the \"endoblast,\" that many of the cells of these\n rudiments wander into the yolk, and that the mesenteric epithelium\n becomes reinforced by cells that migrate from the yolk. K. Escherich\n (1901), after a new research on the embryology of the muscid Diptera,\n claims that the fore and hind endodermal rudiments arise from the\n blastoderm by invagination, and are from their origin distinct from\n the mesoderm. On the whole it seems likely that the endoderm is\n represented in part by the yolk, and in part by those anterior and\n posterior rudiments which usually form the mesenteron, but that in\n some Hexapoda the whole digestive tract may be ectodermal. It must be\n admitted that some or the later work on insect embryology has\n justified the growing scepticism in the universal applicability of the\n \"germ-layer theory.\" Heider has suggested, however, that the apparent\n origin of the mid-gut from the stomodaeum and proctodaeum may be\n explained by the presence of a \"latent endoderm-group\" in those\n invaginations.\n\n [Illustration: From Nussbaum in Miall and Denny, _The Cockroach_,\n Lovell Reeve & Co.\n\n FIG. 16.--Cross section of Embryo of German Cockroach\n (_Phyllodromia_). S, serosa; A, amnion; E, ectoderm; N, rudiment of\n nerve-cord; M, mesodermal pouches.]\n\n _Embryonic Membranes._--A remarkable feature in the embryonic\n development of most Hexapoda is the formation of a protective membrane\n analogous to the amnion of higher Vertebrates and known by the same\n term. Usually there arises around the edge of the germ band a double\n fold in the undifferentiated blastoderm, which grows over the surface\n of the embryo, so that its inner and outer layers become continuous,\n forming respectively the _amnion_ and the _serosa_ (fig. 16, A, S).\n The embryo of a moth, a dragon-fly or a bug is invaginated into the\n yolk at the head end, the portion of the blastoderm necessarily pushed\n in with it forming the amnion. The embryo thus becomes transferred to\n the dorsal face of the egg, but at a later stage it undergoes\n reversion to its original ventral position. In some parasitic\n Hymenoptera there is only a single embryonic membrane formed by\n delamination from the blastoderm, while in a few insects, including\n the wingless spring-tails, the embryonic membranes are vestigial or\n entirely wanting. In the bristle-tails _Lepisma_ and _Machilis_, an\n interesting transitional condition of the embryonic membranes has\n lately been shown by Heymons. The embryo is invaginated into the yolk,\n but the surface edges of the blastoderm do not close over, so that a\n groove or pore puts the insunken space that represents the amniotic\n cavity into communication with the outside. Heymons believes that the\n \"dorsal organ\" in the embryos of the lower Arthropoda corresponds with\n the region invaginated to form the serosa of the hexapod embryo.\n Wheeler, however, compares with the \"dorsal organ\" the peculiar extra\n embryonic membrane or indusium which he has observed between serosa\n and amnion in the embryo of the grasshopper _Xiphidium_.\n\n _Metameric Segmentation._--The segments are perceptible at a very\n early stage of the development as a number of transverse bands\n arranged in a linear sequence. The first segmentation of the ventral\n plate is not, however, very definite, and the segmentation does not\n make its appearance simultaneously throughout the whole length of the\n plate; the anterior parts are segmented before the posterior. In\n Orthoptera and Thysanura, as well as some others of the lower insects,\n twenty-one of these divisions--not, however, all similar--may be\n readily distinguished, six of which subsequently enter into the\n formation of the head, three going to the thorax and twelve to the\n abdomen. In Hemiptera only eleven and in Collembola only six abdominal\n segments have been detected. The first and last of these twenty-one\n divisions are so different from the others that they can scarcely be\n considered true segments.\n\n _Head Segments._--In the adult insect the head is insignificant in\n size compared with the thorax or abdomen, but in the embryo it forms a\n much larger portion of the body than it does in the adult. Its\n composition has been the subject of prolonged difference of opinion.\n Formerly it was said that the head consisted of four divisions, viz.\n three segments and the procephalic or prae-oral lobes. It is now\n ascertained that the procephalic lobes consist of three divisions, so\n that the head must certainly be formed from at least six segments. The\n first of these, according to the nomenclature of Heymons (see fig.\n 17), is the mouth or oral piece; the second, the antennal segment; the\n third, the intercalary or prae-mandibular segment; while the fourth,\n fifth, and sixth are respectively the segments of the mandibles and of\n the first and second maxillae. These six divisions of the head are\n diverse in kind, and subsequently undergo so much change that the part\n each of them takes in the formation of the head-capsule is not finally\n determined. The labrum and clypeus are developed as a single\n prolongation of the oral piece, not as a pair of appendages. The\n antennal segment apparently entirely disappears, with the exception of\n a pair of appendages it bears; these become the antennae; it is\n possible that the original segment, or some part of it, may even\n become a portion of the actual antennae. The intercalary segment has\n no appendages, nor rudiments thereof, except, according to H. Uzel\n (1897), in the thysanuran _Campodea_, and probably entirely\n disappears, though J. H. Comstock and C. Kochi believe that the labrum\n belongs to it. The appendages of the posterior three or trophal\n segments become the parts of the mouth. The appendages of the two\n maxillary segments arise as treble instead of single projections, thus\n differing from other appendages. From these facts it appears that the\n anterior three divisions of the head differ strongly from the\n posterior three, which greatly resemble thoracic segments; hence it\n has been thought possible that the anterior divisions may represent a\n primitive head, to which three segments and their leg-like appendages\n were subsequently added to form the head as it now exists. This is,\n however, very doubtful, and an entirely different inference is\n possible. Besides the five limb-bearing somites just enumerated, two\n others must now be recognized in the head. One of these is the ocular\n segment, in front of the antennal, and behind the primitive pre-oral\n segment. The other is the segment of the maxillulae (see above, under\n _Jaws_), behind the mandibular somite; the presence of this in the\n embryo of the collembolan _Anurida_ has been lately shown (1900) by J.\n W. Folsom (fig. 18, v. 5), who terms the maxillulae \"superlinguae\" on\n account of their close association with the hypopharynx or lingua. In\n reference to the structure of the head-capsule in the imago, it\n appears that the clypeus and labrum represent, as already said, an\n unpaired median outgrowth of the oral piece. According to W. A. Riley\n (1904) the epicranium or \"vertex,\" the compound eyes and the front\n divisions of the genae are formed by the cephalic lobes of the embryo\n (belonging to the ocular segment), while the mandibular and maxillary\n segments form the hinder parts of the genae and the hypopharynx.\n\n [Illustration: After Heymons.\n\n FIG. 17.--Morphology of an Insect: the embryo of _Gryllotalpa_,\n somewhat diagrammatic. The longitudinal segmented band along the\n middle line represents the early segmentation of the nervous system\n and the subsequent median field of each sternite; the lateral\n transverse unshaded bands are the lateral fields of each segment; the\n shaded areas indicate the more internally placed mesoderm layer. The\n segments are numbered 1-21; 1-6 will form the head, 7-9 the thorax,\n 10-21 the abdomen. A, anus; Abx1 Abx11, appendage of 1st and of 11th\n abdominal segments; Ans, anal piece = telson or 12th abdominal\n segment; Ant, antenna; De, deuterencephalon; Md, mandible; Mx1, first\n maxilla; Mx2, second maxilla or labium; O, mouth; Obcl, rudimentary\n labrum and clypeus; Pre, protencephalon; St1 St10, stigmata 1 and 10;\n Terg, tergite; Thx1, appendage of first thoracic segment; Tre,\n tritencephalon; Ul, a thickening at hinder margin of the mouth.]\n\n Great difference of opinion exists as to the hypopharynx, which has\n even been thought to represent a distinct segment, or the pair of\n appendages of a distinct segment. Heymons considers that it represents\n the sternites of the three trophal segments, and that the gula is\n merely a secondary development. Folsom looks on the hypopharynx as a\n secondary development. Riley holds that the hypopharynx belongs to the\n mandibular and maxillary segments, while the cervical sclerites or\n gula represent the sternum of the labial segment. The ganglia of the\n nervous system offer some important evidence as to the morphology of\n the head, and are alluded to below.\n\n _Thoracic Segments._--These are always three in number. The three\n pairs of legs appear very early as rudiments. Though the thoracic\n segments bear the wings, no trace of these appendages exists till the\n close of the embryonic life, nor even, in many cases, till much later.\n The thoracic segments, as seen in an early stage of the ventral plate,\n display in a well-marked manner the essential elements of the insect\n segment. These elements are a central piece or sternite, and a lateral\n field on each side bearing the leg-rudiment. The external part of the\n lateral field subsequently grows up, and by coalescence with its\n fellow forms the tergite or dorsal part of the segment.\n\n _Abdominal Segments and Appendages._--We have already seen that in\n numerous lower insects the abdomen is formed from twelve divisions\n placed in linear fashion. Eleven of these may perhaps be considered as\n true segments, but the twelfth or terminal one is different, and is\n called by Heymons a telson; in it is placed the anal orifice, and the\n mass subsequently becomes the upper and lower laminae anales. In\n Hemiptera this telson is absent, and the anal orifice is placed quite\n at the termination of the eleventh segment. Moreover, in this order\n the abdomen shows at first a division into only nine segments and a\n terminal mass, which last subsequently becomes divided into two. The\n appendages of the abdomen are called cerci, stylets and gonapophyses.\n They differ much according to the kind of insect, and in the adult\n according to sex. Difference of opinion as to the nature of the\n abdominal appendages prevails. The cerci, when present, appear in the\n mature insect to be attached to the tenth segment, but according to\n Heymons they are really appendages of the eleventh segment, their\n connexion with the tenth being secondary and the result of\n considerable changes that take place in the terminal segments. It has\n been disputed whether any true cerci exist in the higher insects, but\n they are probably represented in the Diptera and in the scorpion-flies\n (Mecaptera). In those insects in which a median terminal appendage\n exists between the two cerci this is considered to be a prolongation\n of the eleventh tergite. The stylets, when present, are placed on the\n ninth segment, and in some Thysanura exist also on the eighth segment;\n their development takes place later in life than that of the cerci.\n The gonapophyses are the projections near the extremity of the body\n that surround the sexual orifices, and vary extremely according to the\n kind of insect. They have chiefly been studied in the female, and form\n the sting and ovipositor, organs peculiar to this sex. They are\n developed on the ventral surface of the body and are six in number,\n one pair arising from the eighth ventral plate and two pairs from the\n ninth. This has been found to be the case in insects so widely\n different as Orthoptera and Aculeate Hymenoptera. The genital armature\n of the male is formed to a considerable extent by modifications of the\n segments themselves. The development of the armature has been little\n studied, and the question whether there may be present gonapophyses\n homologous with those of the female is open.\n\n [Illustration: A. After Wheeler, _Journ. Morph._ vol. viii., and\n Folsom, _Bull. Mus. Harvard_, xxxvi.\n\n B. After Folsom.\n\n FIG. 18.--Embryos of Springtail (_Anuridamaritima_). Magnified. A,\n Head-region of germ band. B, Section through head and thorax. The\n neuromeres are shown in Arabic, the appendages in Roman numerals.\n\n 1, Ocular segment.\n 2, Antennal.\n 3, Trito-cerebral.\n 4, Mandibular.\n 5, Maxillular.\n 6, Maxillary.\n 7, Labial.\n 8, Prothoracic.\n 9, Mesothoracic.\n 10, Metathoracic.]\n\n In the adult state no insect possesses more than six legs, and they\n are always attached to the thorax; in many Thysanura there are,\n however, processes on the abdomen that, as to their position, are\n similar to legs. In the embryos of many insects there are projections\n from the segments of the abdomen similar, to a considerable extent, to\n the rudimentary thoracic legs. The question whether these projections\n can be considered an indication of former polypody in insects has been\n raised. They do not long persist in the embryo, but disappear, and the\n area each one occupied becomes part of the sternite. In some embryos\n there is but a single pair of these rudiments (or vestiges) situate on\n the first abdominal segment, and in some cases they become\n invaginations of a glandular nature. Whether cerci, stylets and\n gonapophyses are developed from these rudiments has been much debated.\n It appears that it is possible to accept cerci and stylets as\n modifications of the temporary pseudopods, but it is more difficult to\n believe that this is the case with the gonapophyses, for they\n apparently commence their development considerably later than cerci\n and stylets and only after the apparently complete disappearance of\n the embryonic pseudopods. The fact that there are two pairs of\n gonapophyses on the ninth abdominal segment would be fatal to the view\n that they are in any way homologous with legs, were it not that there\n is some evidence that the division into two pairs is secondary and\n incomplete. But another and apparently insuperable objection may be\n raised--that the appendages of the ninth segment are the stylets, and\n that the gonapophyses cannot therefore be appendicular. The pseudopods\n that exist on the abdomen of numerous caterpillars may possibly arise\n from the embryonic pseudopods, but this also is far from being\n established.\n\n _Nervous System._--The nervous system is ectodermal in origin, and is\n developed and segmented to a large extent in connexion with the outer\n part of the body, so that it affords important evidence as to the\n segmentation thereof. The continuous layer of cells from which the\n nervous system is developed undergoes a segmentation analogous with\n that we have described as occurring in the ventral plate; there is\n thus formed a pair of contiguous ganglia for each segment of the body,\n but there is no ganglion for the telson. The ganglia become greatly\n changed in position during the later life, and it is usually said that\n there are only ten pairs of abdominal ganglia even in the embryo. In\n Orthoptera, Heymons has demonstrated the existence of eleven pairs,\n the terminal pair becoming, however, soon united with the tenth. The\n nervous system of the embryonic head exhibits three ganglionic masses,\n anterior to the thoracic ganglionic masses; these three masses\n subsequently amalgamate and form the sub-oesophageal ganglion, which\n supplies the trophal segments. In front of the three masses that will\n form the sub-oesophageal ganglion the mass of cells that is to form\n the nervous system is very large, and projects on each side; this\n anterior or \"brain\" mass consists of three lobes (the prot-, deut-,\n and tritencephalon of Viallanes and others), each of which might be\n thought to represent a segmental ganglion. But the protocerebrum\n contains the ganglia of the ocular segment in addition to those of the\n procephalic lobes. These three divisions subsequently form the\n supra-oesophageal ganglion or brain proper. There are other ganglia in\n addition to those of the ventral chain, and Janet supposes that the\n ganglia of the sympathetic system indicate the existence of three\n anterior head-segments; the remains of the segments themselves are, in\n accordance with this view, to be sought in the stomodaeum. Folsom has\n detected in the embryo of _Anurida_ a pair of ganglia (fig. 18, 5)\n belonging to the maxillular (or superlingual) segment, thus\n establishing seven sets of cephalic ganglia, and supporting his view\n as to the composition of the head.\n\n _Air-tubes._--The air-tubes, like the food-canal, are formed by\n invaginations of the ectoderm, which arise close to the developing\n appendages, the rudimentary spiracles appearing soon after the budding\n limbs. The pits leading from these lengthen into tubes, and undergo\n repeated branching as development proceeds.\n\n _Dorsal Closure._--The germ band evidently marks the ventral aspect of\n the developing insect, whose body must be completed by the extension\n of the embryo so as to enclose the yolk dorsally. The method of this\n dorsal closure varies in different insects. In the Colorado beetle\n (_Doryphora_), whose development has been studied by W. M. Wheeler,\n the amnion is ruptured and turned back from covering the germ band,\n enclosing the yolk dorsally and becoming finally absorbed, as the\n ectoderm of the germ band itself spreads to form the dorsal wall. In\n some midges and in caddis-flies the serosa becomes ruptured and\n absorbed, while the germ band, still clothed with the amnion, grows\n around the yolk. In moths and certain saw-flies there is no rupture of\n the membranes; the Russian zoologists Tichomirov and Kovalevsky have\n described the growth of both amnion and embryonic ectoderm around the\n yolk, the embryo being thus completely enclosed until hatching time by\n both amnion and serosa. V. Graber has described a similar method of\n dorsal closure in the saw-fly _Hylotoma_.\n\n [Illustration: After Heymons, _Zeit. Wiss. Zoolog._ vol. 53.\n\n FIG. 19.--Cross sections through Abdomen of German Cockroach Embryo. A\n (later than fig. 16) magnified. B (still more advanced, dorsal closure\n complete) magnified.\n\n ec, Ectoderm.\n en, Endoderm.\n sp, Splanchnic layer of mesoderm.\n y, Yolk.\n h, Heart.\n p, Pericardial septum.\n c, Coelom.\n g, Germ-cells surrounded by rudiment-cells of ovarian tubes.\n m, Muscle-rudiment.\n n, Nerve-chain.\n f, Fat body.\n s, Inpushing of ectoderm to form air-tubes.\n x, Secondary body-cavity.]\n\n _Mesoderm, Coelom and Blood-System._--From the mesoderm most of the\n organs of the body--muscular, circulatory, reproductive--take their\n origin. The mass of cells undergoes segmentation corresponding with\n the outer segmentation of the embryo, and a pair of cavities--the\n coelomic pouches (fig. 16, M)--are formed in each segment. Each\n coelomic pouch--as traced by Heymons in his study on the development\n of the cockroach (_Phyllodromia_)--divides into three parts, of which\n the most dorsal contains the primitive germ-cells, the median\n disappears, and the ventral loses its boundaries as it becomes filled\n up with the growing fat body (fig. 19). This latter, as well as the\n heart and the walls of the blood spaces, arises by the modification of\n mesodermal cells, and the body cavity is formed by the enlargement and\n coalescence of the blood channels and by the splitting of the fat\n body. It is therefore a haemocoel, the coelom of the developed insect\n being represented only by the cavities of the genital glands and their\n ducts.\n\n _Reproductive Organs._--In the cockroach embryo, before the\n segmentation of the germ-band has begun, the primitive germ-cells can\n be recognized at the hinder end of the mesoderm, from whose ordinary\n cells they can be distinguished by their larger size. At a later stage\n further germ-cells arise from the epithelium of the coelomic pouches\n from the second to the seventh abdominal segments, and become\n surrounded by other mesoderm cells which form the ovarian or\n testicular tubes and ducts (fig. 19, g). In the male of _Phyllodromia_\n the rudiment of a vestigial ovary becomes separated from the\n developing testis, indicating perhaps an originally hermaphrodite\n condition. An exceedingly early differentiation of the primitive\n germ-cells occurs in certain Diptera. E. Metchnikoff observed (1866)\n in the development of the parthenogenetic eggs produced by the\n precocious larva of the gall-midge _Cecidomyia_ that a large\n \"polar-cell\" appeared at one extremity during the primitive\n cell-segmentation. This by successive divisions forms a group of four\n to eight cells, which subsequently pass through the blastoderm, and\n dividing into two groups become symmetrically arranged and surrounded\n by the rudiments of the ovarian tubes. E. G. Balbiani and R. Ritter\n (1890) have since observed a similar early origin for the germ-cells\n in the midge _Chironomus_ and in the _Aphidae_.\n\n The paired oviducts and vasa deferentia are, as we have seen,\n mesodermal in origin. The median vagina, spermatheca and ejaculatory\n duct are, on the other hand, formed by ectodermal inpushings. The\n classical researches of J. A. Palmen (1884) on these ducts have shown\n that in may-flies and in female earwigs the paired mesodermal ducts\n open directly to the exterior, while in male earwigs there is a single\n mesodermal duct, due either to the coalescence of the two or to the\n suppression of one. In the absence of the external ectodermal ducts\n usual in winged insects, these two groups resemble therefore the\n primitive Aptera. The presence of rudiments of the genital ducts of\n both sexes in the embryo of either sex is interesting and suggestive.\n The ejaculatory duct which opens on the ninth abdominal sternum in the\n adult male arises in the tenth abdominal embryonic segment and\n subsequently moves forward.\n\n\nGROWTH AND METAMORPHOSIS\n\n[Illustration: After Marlatt, _Ent. Bull._ 4, n. s. (U.S. Dept. Agr.).\n\nFIG. 20.--a, Bed-bug (_Cimex lectularis_, Linn.); newly hatched young\nfrom beneath; b, from above; d, egg, magnified; c, foot with claws; e,\nserrate spine, more highly magnified.]\n\n[Illustration: From Mally, _Ent. Bull._ 24 (U.S. Dept. Agr.).\n\nFIG. 21.--e, f, Owl moth (_Heliothis armigera_); a, b, egg, highly\nmagnified; c, larva or caterpillar; d, pupa in earthen cell.]\n\nAfter hatching or birth an insect undergoes a process of growth and\nchange until the adult condition is reached. The varied details of this\npost-embryonic development furnish some of the most interesting facts\nand problems to the students of the Hexapoda. Wingless insects, such as\nspring-tails and lice, make their appearance in the form of miniature\nadults. Some winged insects--cockroaches, bugs (fig. 20) and earwigs,\nfor example--when young closely resemble their parents, except for the\nabsence of wings. On the other hand, we find in the vast majority of the\nHexapoda a very marked difference between the perfect insect (imago) and\nthe young animal when newly hatched and for some time after hatching.\nFrom the moth's egg comes a crawling caterpillar (fig. 21, c), from the\nfly's a legless maggot (fig. 25, a). Such a young insect is a _larva_--a\nterm used by zoologists for young animals generally that are decidedly\nunlike their parents. It is obvious that the hatching of the young as a\nlarva necessitates a more or less profound transformation or\nmetamorphosis before the perfect state is attained. Usually this\ntransformation comes with apparent suddenness, at the penultimate stage\nof the insect's life-history, when the passive pupa (fig. 21, d) is\nrevealed, exhibiting the wings and other imaginal structures, which have\nbeen developed unseen beneath the cuticle of the larva. Hexapoda with\nthis resting pupal stage in their life-history are said to undergo \"a\ncomplete transformation,\" to be metabolic, or holometabolic, whereas\nthose insects in which the young form resembles the parent are said to\nbe ametabolic. Such insects as dragon-flies and may-flies, whose young,\nthough unlike the parent, develop into the adult form without a resting\npupal stage are said to undergo an \"incomplete transformation\" or to be\nhemimetabolic. The absence of the pupal stage depends upon the fact that\nin the ametabolic and hemimetabolic Hexapoda the wing-rudiments appear\nas lateral outgrowths (fig. 22) of the two hinder thoracic segments and\nare visible externally throughout the life-history, becoming larger\nafter each moult or casting of the cuticle. Hence, as has been pointed\nout by D. Sharp (1898), the marked divergence among the Hexapoda, as\nregards life-history, is between insects whose wings develop outside the\ncuticle (Exopterygota) and those whose wings develop inside the cuticle\n(Endopterygota), becoming visible only when the casting of the last\nlarval cuticle reveals the pupa. Metamorphosis among the Hexapoda\ndepends upon the universal acquisition of wings during post-embryonic\ndevelopment--no insect being hatched with the smallest external\nrudiments of those organs--and on the necessity for successive castings\nor \"moults\" (ecdyses) of the cuticle.\n\n[Illustration: After Howard, _Insect Life_, vol. vii.\n\nFIG. 22.--Nymph of Locust (_Schistocera americana_), showing\nwing-rudiments.]\n\n_Ecdysis._--The embryonic ectoderm of an insect consists of a layer of\ncells forming a continuous structure, the orifices in it--mouth,\nspiracles, anus and terminal portions of the genital ducts--being\ninvaginations of the outer wall. This cellular layer is called the\nhypodermis; it is protected externally by a cuticle, a layer of matter\nit itself excretes, or in the excretion of which it plays, at any rate,\nan important part. The cuticle is a dead substance, and is composed in\nlarge part of chitin. The cuticle contrasts strongly in its nature with\nthe hypodermis it protects. It is different in its details in different\ninsects and in different stages of the life of the same insect. The\n\"sclerites\" that make up the skeleton of the insect (which skeleton, it\nshould be remembered, is entirely external) are composed of this\nchitinous excretion. The growth of an insect is usually rapid, and as\nthe cuticle does not share therein, it is from time to time cast off by\nmoulting or ecdysis. Before a moult actually occurs the cuticle becomes\nseparated from its connexion with the underlying hypodermis. Concomitant\nwith this separation there is commencement of the formation of a new\ncuticle within the old one, so that when the latter is cast off the\ninsect appears with a partly completed new cuticle. The new instar--or\ntemporary form--is often very different from the old one, and this is\nthe essential fact of metamorphosis. Metamorphosis is, from this point\nof view, the sum of the changes that take place under the cuticle of an\ninsect between the ecdyses, which changes only become externally\ndisplayed when the cuticle is cast off. The hypodermis is the immediate\nagent in effecting the external changes.\n\n[Illustration: Adapted from Koerschelt and Herder and Lowne.\n\nFIG. 23.--Diagram showing position of imaginal buds in larva of fly. I.,\nII., III., the three thoracic segments of the larva; 1, 2, 3, buds of\nthe legs of the imago; h, bud of head-lobes; f, of feeler; e of eye; b,\nbrain.]\n\n The study of the physiology of ecdysis in its simpler forms has\n unfortunately been somewhat neglected, investigators having directed\n their attention chiefly to the cases that are most striking, such as\n the transformation of a maggot into a fly, or of a caterpillar into a\n butterfly. The changes have been found to be made up of two sets of\n processes: histolysis, by which the whole or part of a structure\n disappears: and histogenesis, or the formation of the new structure.\n By histolysis certain parts of the hypodermis are destroyed, while\n other portions of it develop into the new structures. The hypodermis\n is composed of parts of two different kinds, viz. (1) the larger part\n of the hypodermis that exists in the maggot or caterpillar and is\n dissolved at the metamorphosis; (2) parts that remain comparatively\n quiescent previously, and that grow and develop when the other parts\n degenerate. These centres of renovation are called imaginal disks or\n folds. The adult caterpillar may be described as a creature the\n hypodermis of which is studded with buds that expand and form the\n butterfly, while the parts around them degenerate. In some insects\n (e.g. the maggots of the blowfly, _Calliphora vomitoria_) the imaginal\n disks are to all appearance completely separated from the hypodermis,\n with which they are, however, really organically connected by strings\n or pedicels. This connexion was not at first recognized and the true\n nature of imaginal disks was not at first perceived, even by Weismann,\n to whom their discovery in Diptera is due. In other insects the\n imaginal disks are less completely disconnected from the superficies\n of the larval hypodermis, and may indeed be merely patches thereof.\n The number of imaginal disks in an individual is large, upwards of\n sixty having been discovered to take part in the formation of the\n outer body of a fly. With regard to the internal organs, we need only\n say that transformation occurs in an essentially similar manner, by\n means of a development from centres distributed in the various organs.\n The imaginal disks for the outer wall of the body, some of them, at\n any rate, include mesodermal rudiments (from which the muscles are\n developed) as well as hypodermis. The imaginal disks make their\n appearance (that is, have been first detected) at very different\n epochs in the life; their absolute origin has been but little\n investigated. Pratt has traced them in the sheep-tick (_Melophagus_)\n to an early stage of the embryonic life.\n\n _Histolysis and Histogenesis._--The process of destruction of the\n larval tissues was first studied in the forms where metamorphosis is\n greatest and most abrupt, viz. in the Muscid Diptera. It was found\n that the tissues were attacked by phagocytic cells that became\n enlarged and carried away fragments of the tissue; the cells were\n subsequently identified as leucocytes or blood-cells. Hence the\n opinion arose that histolysis is a process of phagocytosis. It has,\n however, since been found that in other kinds of insects the tissues\n degenerate and break down without the intervention of phagocytes. It\n has, moreover, been noticed that even in cases where phagocytosis\n exists a greater or less extent of degeneration of the tissue may be\n observed before phagocytosis occurs. This process can therefore only\n be looked on as a secondary one that hastens and perfects the\n destruction necessary to permit of the accompanying histogenesis. This\n view is confirmed by the fate of the phagocytic cells. These do not\n take a direct part in the formation of the new tissue, but it is\n believed merely yield their surplus acquisitions, becoming ordinary\n blood-cells or disappearing altogether. As to the nature of\n histogenesis, nothing more can be said than that it appears to be a\n phenomenon similar to embryonic growth, though limited to certain\n spots. Hence we are inclined to look on the imaginal disks as cellular\n areas that possess in a latent condition the powers of growth and\n development that exist in the embryo, powers that only become evident\n in certain special conditions of the organism. What the more essential\n of these conditions may be is a question on which very little light\n has been thrown, though it has been widely discussed.\n\nMuch consideration has been given to the nature of metamorphosis in\ninsects, to its value to the creatures and to the mode of its origin.\nInsect metamorphosis may be briefly described as phenomena of\ndevelopment characterized by abrupt changes of appearance and of\nstructure, occurring during the period subsequent to embryonic\ndevelopment and antecedent to the reproductive state. It is, in short, a\npeculiar mode of growth and adolescence. The differences in appearance\nbetween the caterpillar and the butterfly, striking as they are to the\neye, do not sufficiently represent the phenomena of metamorphosis to the\nintelligence. The changes that take place involve a revolution in the\nbeing, and may be summarized under three headings: (1) The\nfood-relations of the individual are profoundly changed, an entirely\ndifferent set of mouth-organs appears and the kind and quantity of the\nfood taken is often radically different. (2) A wingless, sedentary\ncreature is turned into a winged one with superlative powers of aerial\nmovement. (3) An individual in which the reproductive organs and powers\nare functionally absent becomes one in which these structures and powers\nare the only reason for existence, for the great majority of insects die\nafter a brief period of reproduction. These changes are in the higher\ninsects so extreme that it is difficult to imagine how they could be\nincreased. In the case of the common drone-fly, _Eristalis tenax_, the\nindividual, from a sedentary maggot living in filth, without any\nrelations of sex, and with only unimportant organs for the ingestion of\nits foul nutriment, changes to a creature of extreme alertness, with\nmagnificent powers of flight, living on the products of the flowers it\nfrequents, and endowed with highly complex sexual structures.\n\n[Illustration: After Westwood, _Modern Classification_.\n\nFIG. 24.--Campodeiform Larva of a Ground-Beetle (_Aepus marinus_).\nMagnified.]\n\n[Illustration: After Howard, _Ent. Bull._ 4, n. s. (_U.S. Dept. Agr._).\n\nFIG. 25.--Vermiform Larva (maggot) of House-fly (_Musca domestica_).\nMagnified. b, spiracle on prothorax; c, protruded head region; d,\ntail-end with functional spiracles; e, f, head region with mouth hooks\nprotruded; g, hooks retracted; h, eggs. All magnified.]\n\n_Forms of Larva._--The unlikeness of the young insect to its parent is\none of the factors that necessitates metamorphosis. It is instructive,\nfurther, to trace among metabolic insects an increase in the degree of\nthis dissimilarity. An adult Hexapod is provided with a firm,\nwell-chitinized cuticle and six conspicuous jointed legs. Many larval\nHexapods might be defined in similar general terms, unlike as they are\nto their parents in most points of detail. Examples of such are to be\nseen in the grubs of may-flies, dragon-flies, lacewing-flies and\nground-beetles (fig. 24). This type of active, armoured larva--often\nbearing conspicuous feelers on the head and long jointed cercopods on\nthe tenth abdominal segment--was styled campodeiform by F. Brauer\n(1869), on account of its likeness in shape to the bristle-tail\n_Campodea_. As an extreme contrast to this campodeiform type, we take\nthe maggot of the house-fly (fig. 25)--a vermiform larva, with soft,\nwhite, feebly-chitinized cuticle and without either head-capsule or\nlegs. Between these two extremes, numerous intermediate forms can be\ntraced: the grub (wireworm) of a click-beetle, with narrow elongate\nwell-armoured body, but with the legs very short; the grub of a chafer,\nwith the legs fairly developed, but with the cuticle of all the\ntrunk-segments soft and feebly chitinized; the well-known caterpillar of\na moth (fig. 21, e) or saw-fly, with its long cylindrical body, bearing\nthe six shortened thoracic legs and a variable number of pairs of\n\"pro-legs\" on the abdomen (this being the eruciform type of larva); the\nsoft, white, wood-boring grub of a longhorn-beetle or of the saw-fly\n_Sirex_, with its stumpy vestiges of thoracic legs; the large-headed but\nentirely legless, fleshy grub of a weevil; and the legless larva, with\ngreatly reduced head, of a bee. The various larvae of the above series,\nhowever, have all a distinct head-capsule, which is altogether wanting\nin the degraded fly maggot. These differences in larval form depend in\npart on the surroundings among which the larva finds itself after\nhatching; the active, armoured grub has to seek food for itself and to\nfight its own battles, while the soft, defenceless maggot is provided\nwith abundant nourishment. But in general we find that elaboration of\nimaginal structure is associated with degradation in the nature of the\nlarva, eruciform and vermiform larvae being characteristic of the\nhighest orders of the Hexapoda, so that unlikeness between parent and\noffspring has increased with the evolution of the class.\n\n_Hypermetamorphosis._--Among a few of the beetles or Coleoptera (q.v.),\nand also in the neuropterous genus _Mantispa_, are found life-histories\nin which the earliest instar is campodeiform and the succeeding larval\nstages eruciform. These later stages, comprising the greater part of the\nlarval history, are adapted for an inquiline or a parasitic life, where\nshelter is assured and food abundant, while the short-lived, active\ncondition enables the newly-hatched insect to make its way to the spot\nfavourable for its future development, clinging, for example, in the\ncase of an oil-beetle's larva, to the hairs of a bee as she flies\ntowards her nest. The presence of the two successive larval forms in the\nlife-history constitutes what is called hypermetamorphosis. Most\nsignificant is the precedence of the eruciform by the campodeiform type.\nIn conjunction with the association mentioned above of the most highly\ndeveloped imaginal with the most degraded larval structure, it indicates\nclearly that the active, armoured grub preceded the sluggish\nsoft-skinned caterpillar or maggot in the evolution of the Hexapoda.\n\n_Nymph._--The term nymph is applied by many writers on the Hexapoda to\nall young forms of insects that are not sufficiently unlike their\nparents to be called larvae. Other writers apply the term to a \"free\"\npupa (see _infra_). It is in wellnigh universal use for those instars of\nametabolous and hemimetabolous insects in which the external\nwing-rudiments have become conspicuous (fig. 27). The mature dragon-fly\nnymph, for example, makes its way out of the water in which the early\nstages have been passed and, clinging to some water-plant, undergoes the\nfinal ecdysis that the imago may emerge into the air. Like most\nametabolic and hemimetabolic Hexapoda, such nymphs continue to move and\nfeed throughout their lives. But examples are not wanting of a more or\nless complete resting habit during the latest nymphal instar. In some\ncicads the mature nymph ceases to feed and remains quiescent within a\npillar-shaped earthen chamber. The nymph of a thrips-insect\n(Thysanoptera) is sluggish, its legs and wings being sheathed by a\ndelicate membrane, while the nymph of the male scale-insect rests\nenclosed beneath a waxy covering.\n\n_Sub-imago._--Among the Hexapoda generally there is no subsequent\necdysis nor any further growth after the assumption of the winged state.\nThe may-flies, however, offer a remarkable exception to this rule. After\na prolonged aquatic larval and nymphal life-history, the winged insect\nappears as a sub-imago, whence, after the casting of a delicate cuticle,\nthe true imago emerges.\n\n_Pupa._--In the metabolic Hexapoda the resting pupal instar shows\nexternally the wings and other characteristic imaginal organs which have\nbeen gradually elaborated beneath the larval cuticle. It is usual to\ndistinguish between the free pupae (fig. 26, b)--of Coleoptera and\nHymenoptera, for example--in which the wings, legs and other appendages\nare not fixed to the trunk, and the obtect pupae (fig. 21, d)--such as\nmay be noticed in the majority of the Lepidoptera--whose appendages are\nclosely and immovably pressed to the body by a general hardening and\nfusion of the cuticle. In the degree of mobility there is great\ndiversity among pupae. A gnat pupa swims through the water by powerful\nstrokes of its abdomen, while the caddis-fly pupa, in preparation for\nits final ecdysis, bites its way out of its subaqueous protective case\nand rises through the water, so that the fly may emerge into the air.\nSome pupae are thus more active than some nymphs; the essential\ncharacter of a pupa is not therefore its passivity, but that it is the\ninstar in which the wings first become evident externally. The division\nof the winged Hexapoda into Exopteryga and Endopteryga is thus again\njustified.\n\n[Illustration: From Chittenden, _Bull._ 4 (n.s.) _Div. Ent. U.S. Dept.\nAgr._\n\nFIG. 26.--a, Saw-toothed Grain-Beetle (_Silvanus surinamensis_); b,\npupa; c, larva, magnified--; d, feeler of larva.]\n\n If we admit that the larva has, in the phylogeny of insects, gradually\n diverged from the imago, and if we recollect that in the ontogeny the\n larva has always to become the imago (and of course still does so)\n notwithstanding the increased difficulty of the transformation, we\n cannot but recognize that a period of helplessness in which the\n transformation may take place is to be expected. It is generally\n considered that this is sufficient as an explanation of the existence\n of the pupa. This, however, is not the case, because the greater part\n of the transformation precedes the disclosure of the pupa, which, as\n L. C. Miall remarks, is structurally little other \"than the fly\n enclosed in a temporary skin.\" Moreover, in many insects with\n imperfect metamorphosis the change from larva or (as the later stage\n of the larva is called in these cases) nymph to imago is about as\n great as the corresponding change in the Holometabola, as the student\n will recognize if he recalls the histories of _Ephemeridae_, Odonata\n and male _Coccidae_. But in none of these latter cases have the wings\n to be changed from a position inside the body to become external and\n actively functional organs. The difference between the nymph or false\n pupa and the true pupa is that in the latter a whole stage is devoted\n to the perfecting of the wings and body-wall after the wings have\n become external organs; the stage is one in which no food is or can be\n taken, however prolonged may be its existence. Amongst insects with\n imperfect metamorphosis the nearest approximations to the true pupa of\n the Holometabola are to be found in the sub-imago of _Ephemeridae_ and\n in the quiescent or resting stages of Thysanoptera, _Aleurodidae_ and\n _Coccidae_. A much more thorough appreciation than we yet possess of\n the phenomena in these cases is necessary in order completely to\n demonstrate the special characteristics of the holometabolous\n transformation. But even at present we can correctly state that the\n true pupa is invariably connected with the transference of the wings\n from the interior to the exterior of the body. It cannot but suggest\n itself that this transference was induced by some peculiarity as to\n formation of cuticle, causing the growth of the wings to be directed\n inwards instead of outwards. We may remark that fleas possess no\n wings, but are understood to possess a true pupa. This is a most\n remarkable case, but unfortunately very little information exists as\n to the details of metamorphosis in this group.\n\n_Life-Relations._--Only a brief reference can be made here to the\nfascinating subject of the life-relations of the larva, nymph and pupa,\nas compared with those of the imago. For details, the reader may consult\nthe special articles on the various orders and groups of insects. A\ncommon result of metamorphosis is that the larva and imago differ\nmarkedly in their habitat and mode of feeding. The larva may be aquatic,\nor subterranean, or a burrower in wood, while the imago is aerial. It\nmay bite and devour solid food, while the imago sucks liquids. It may\neat roots or refuse, while the imago lives on leaves and flowers. The\naquatic habit of many larvae is associated with endless beautiful\nadaptations for respiration. The series of paired spiracles on most of\nthe trunk-segments is well displayed, as a rule, in terrestrial\nlarvae--caterpillars and the grubs of most beetles, for example. In many\naquatic larvae we find that all the spiracles are closed up, or become\nfunctionless, except a pair at the hinder end which are associated with\nsome arrangement--such as the valvular flaps of the gnat larva or the\ntelescopic \"tail\" of the drone-fly larva--for piercing the surface film\nand drawing periodical supplies of atmospheric air. A similar\nrestriction of the functional spiracles to the tail-end (fig. 25, d) is\nseen in many larvae of flies (Diptera) that live and feed buried in\ncarrion or excrement. Other aquatic larvae have the tracheal system\nentirely closed, and are able to breathe dissolved air by means of\ntubular or leaf-like gills. Such are the grubs of stone-flies, may-flies\n(fig. 27) and some dragon-flies and midges. An interesting feature is\nthe difference often to be observed between an aquatic larva and pupa of\nthe same insect in the matter of breathing. The gnat larva, for example,\nbreathes at the tail-end, hanging head-downwards from the surface-film.\nBut the pupa hangs from the surface by means of paired respiratory\ntrumpets on the prothorax, the dorsal thoracic surface, where the\ncuticle splits to allow the emergence of the fly, being thus directed\ntowards the upper air.\n\n[Illustration: From Miall and Denny (after Vayssiere), _The Cockroach_,\nLovell Reeve & Co.\n\nFIG. 27.--Nymph of May-fly (_Chloeon dipterum_), with wing rudiments (a)\nand tracheal gill-plates (b, b). Magnified--. (The feelers and legs are\ncut short.)]\n\nA marked disproportion between the life-term of larva and imago is\ncommon; the former often lives for months or years, while the latter\nonly survives for weeks or days or hours. Generally the larval is the\nfeeding, the imaginal the breeding, stage of the life-cycle. The extreme\nof this \"division of labour\" is seen in those insects whose jaws are\nvestigial in the winged state, when, the need for feeding all behind\nthem, they have but to pair, to lay eggs and to die. The acquisition of\nwings is the sign of developed reproductive power.\n\n_Paedogenesis._--Nevertheless, the function of reproduction is\noccasionally exercised by larvae. In 1865 N. Wagner made his classical\nobservations on the production of larvae from unfertilized eggs\ndeveloped in the precociously-formed ovaries of a larval gall-midge\n(Cecidomyid), and subsequent observers have confirmed his results by\nstudies on insects of the same family and of the related _Chironomidae_.\nThe larvae produced by this remarkable method (paedogenesis) of\nvirgin-reproduction are hatched within the parent larva, and in some\ncases escape by the rupture of its body.\n\n_Polyembryony._--Occasionally the power of reproduction is thrown still\nfarther back in the life-history, and it is found that from a single egg\na large number of embryos may be formed. P. Marchal has (1904) described\nthis power in two small parasitic Hymenoptera--a Chalcid (_Encyrtus_)\nwhich lays eggs in the developing eggs of the small moth _Hyponomeuta_,\nand a Proctotrypid (_Polygnotus_) which infests a gall-midge\n(Cecidomyid) larva. In the egg of these insects a small number of nuclei\nare formed by the division of the nucleus, and each of these nuclei\noriginates by division the cell-layers of a separate embryo. Thus a mass\nor chain of embryos is produced, lying in a common cyst, and developing\nas their larval host develops. In this way over a hundred embryos may\nresult from a single egg. Marchal points out the analogy of this\nphenomenon to the artificial polyembryony that has been induced in\nEchinoderm and other eggs by separating the blastomeres, and suggests\nthat the abundant food-supply afforded by the host-larva is favourable\nfor this multiplication of embryos, which may be, in the first instance,\nincited by the abnormal osmotic pressure on the egg.\n\n_Duration of Life._--The flour-moth (_Ephestia kuhniella_) sometimes\npasses through five or six generations in a single year. Although one of\nthe characteristics of insects is the brevity of their adult lives, a\nconsiderable number of exceptions to the general rule have been\ndiscovered. These exceptions may be briefly summarized as follows: (1)\nCertain larvae, provided with food that may be adequate in quantity but\ndeficient in nutriment, may live and go on feeding for many years;\n(2) certain stages of the life that are naturally \"resting stages\" may\nbe in exceptional cases prolonged, and that to a very great extent; in\nthis case no food is taken, and the activity of the individual is almost\n_nil_; (3) the life of certain insects in the adult state may be much\nprolonged if celibacy be maintained; a female of _Cybister roeselii_ (a\nlarge water-beetle) has lived five and a half years in the adult state\nin captivity. In addition to these abnormal cases, the life of certain\ninsects is naturally more prolonged than usual. The females of some\nsocial insects have been known to live for many years. In _Tibicen\nseptemdecim_ the life of the larva extends over from thirteen to\nseventeen years. The eggs of locusts may remain for years in the ground\nbefore hatching; and there may thus arise the peculiar phenomenon of\nsome species of insect appearing in vast numbers in a locality where it\nhas not been seen for several years.\n\n\nCLASSIFICATION\n\n_Number of Species._--It is now considered that 2,000,000 is a moderate\nestimate of the species of insects actually existing. Some authorities\nconsider this total to be too small, and extend the number to\n10,000,000. Upwards of 300,000 species have been collected and\ndescribed, and at present the number of named forms increases at the\nrate of about 8000 species per annum. The greater part by far of the\ninsects existing in the world is still quite unknown to science. Many of\nthe species are in process of extinction, owing to the extensive changes\nthat are taking place in the natural conditions of the world by the\nextension of human population and of cultivation, and by the destruction\nof forests; hence it is probable that a considerable proportion of the\nspecies at present existing will disappear from the face of the earth\nbefore we have discovered or preserved any specimens of them.\nNevertheless, the constant increase of our knowledge of insect forms\nrenders classification increasingly difficult, for gaps in the series\nbecome filled, and while the number of genera and families increases,\nthe distinctions between these groups become dependent on characters\nthat must seem trivial to the naturalist who is not a specialist.\n\n_Orders of Hexapoda._--In the present article it is only possible to\ntreat of the division of the Hexapoda into orders and sub-orders and of\nthe relations of these orders to each other. For further classificatory\ndetails, reference must be made to the special articles on the various\norders. As regards the vast majority of insects, the orders proposed by\nLinnaeus are acknowledged by modern zoologists. His classification was\nfounded mainly on the nature of the wings, and five of his orders--the\nHymenoptera (bees, ants, wasps, &c.), Coleoptera (beetles), Diptera\n(two-winged flies), Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies), and Hemiptera\n(bugs, cicads, &c.)--are recognized to-day with nearly the same limits\nas he laid down. His order of wingless insects (Aptera) included\nCrustacea, spiders, centipedes and other creatures that now form classes\nof the Arthropoda distinct from the Hexapoda; it also included Hexapoda\nof parasitic and evidently degraded structure, that are now regarded as\nallied more or less closely to various winged insects. Consequently the\nmodern order Aptera comprises only a very small proportion of Linnaeus's\n\"Aptera\"--the spring-tails and bristle-tails, wingless Hexapoda that\nstand evidently at a lower grade of development than the bulk of the\nclass. The earwigs, cockroaches and locusts, which Linnaeus included\namong the Coleoptera, were early grouped into a distinct order, the\nOrthoptera. The great advance in modern zoology as regards the\nclassification of the Hexapoda lies in the treatment of a heterogeneous\nassembly which formed Linnaeus's order Neuroptera. The characters of the\nwings are doubtless important as indications of relationship, but the\nnature of the jaws and the course of the life-history must be considered\nof greater value. Linnaeus's Neuroptera exhibit great diversity in these\nrespects, and the insects included in it are now therefore distributed\ninto a number of distinct orders. The many different arrangements that\nhave been proposed can hardly be referred to in this article. Of special\nimportance in the history of systematic entomology was the scheme of F.\nBrauer (1885), who separated the spring tails and bristle-tails as a\nsub-class Apterygogenea from all the other Hexapoda, these forming the\nsub-class Pterygogenea distributed into sixteen orders. Brauer in his\narrangement of these orders laid special stress on the nature of the\nmetamorphosis, and was the first to draw attention to the number of\nMalpighian tubes as of importance in classification. Subsequent writers\nhave, for the most part, increased the number of recognized orders; and\nduring the last few years several schemes of classification have been\npublished, in the most revolutionary of which--that of A. Handlirsch\n(1903-1904)--the Hexapoda are divided into four classes and thirty-four\norders! Such excessive multiplication of the larger taxonomic divisions\nshows an imperfect sense of proportion, for if the term \"class\" be\nallowed its usual zoological value, no student can fail to recognize\nthat the Hexapoda form a single well-defined class, from which few\nentomologists would wish to exclude even the Apterygogenea. In several\nrecent attempts to group the orders into sub-classes, stress has been\nlaid upon a few characters in the imago. C. Borner (1904), for example,\nconsiders the presence or absence of cerci of great importance, while F.\nKlapalek (1904) lays stress on a supposed distinction between\nappendicular and non-appendicular genital processes. A natural system\nmust take into account the nature of the larva and of the metamorphosis\nin conjunction with the general characters of the imago. Hence the\ngrouping of the orders of winged Hexapoda into the divisions\nExopterygota and Endopterygota, as suggested by D. Sharp, is unlikely to\nbe superseded by the result of any researches into minute imaginal\nstructure. Sharp's proposed association of the parasitic wingless\ninsects in a group Anapterygota cannot, however, be defended as natural;\nand recent researches into the structure of these forms enables us to\nassociate them confidently with related winged orders. The\nclassification here adopted is based on Sharp's scheme, with the\naddition of suggestions from some of the most recent authors--especially\nBorner and Enderlein.\n\n Class: HEXAPODA.\n\n Sub-class: APTERYGOTA.\n\n Primitively (?) wingless Hexapods with cumacean mandibles, distinct\n maxillulae, and locomotor abdominal appendages. Without ectodermal\n genital ducts. Young closely resemble adults.\n\n The sub-class contains a single\n\n Order: _Aptera_,\n\n which is divided into two sub-orders:\n\n 1. _Thysanura_ (Bristle-tails): with ten abdominal segments; number of\n abdominal appendages variable. Cerci prominent. Developed tracheal\n system.\n\n 2. _Collembola_ (Spring-tails): with six abdominal segments;\n appendages of the first forming an adherent ventral tube, those of the\n third a minute \"catch,\" those of the fourth (fused basally) a\n \"spring.\" Tracheal system reduced or absent.\n\n Sub-class: EXOPTERYGOTA.\n\n Hexapoda mostly with wings, the wingless forms clearly degraded.\n Maxillulae rarely distinct. No locomotor abdominal appendages. The\n wing-rudiments develop visibly outside the cuticle. Young like or\n unlike parents.\n\n Order: _Dermaptera_.\n\n Biting mandibles; minute but distinct-maxillulae; second maxillae\n incompletely fused. When wings are present, the fore-wings are small\n firm elytra, beneath which the delicate hind-wings are complexly\n folded. Many forms wingless. Genital ducts entirely mesodermal. Cerci\n always present; usually modified into unjointed forceps. Numerous (30\n or more) Malpighian tubes. Young resembling parents.\n\n Includes two families--the _Forficulidae_ or _earwigs_ (q.v.) and the\n _Hemimeridae_.\n\n Order: _Orthoptera_.\n\n Biting mandibles; vestigial maxillulae; second maxillae incompletely\n fused. Wings usually well developed, net-veined; the fore-wings of\n firmer texture than the hind-wings, whose anal area folds fanwise\n beneath them. Jointed cerci always present; ovipositor well developed.\n Malpighian tubes numerous (100-150). Young resemble parents.\n\n Includes stick and leaf insects, cockroaches, mantids, grasshoppers,\n locusts and crickets (see ORTHOPTERA).\n\n Order: _Plecoptera_.\n\n Biting mandibles; second maxillae incompletely fused. Fore-wings\n similar in texture to hind-wings, whose anal area folds fanwise.\n Jointed, often elongate, cerci. Numerous (50-60) Malpighian tubes.\n Young resembling parents, but aquatic in habit, breathing dissolved\n air by thoracic tracheal gills.\n\n Includes the single family of the _Perlidae_ (Stone-flies), formerly\n grouped with the Neuroptera.\n\n Order: _Isoptera_.\n\n Biting mandibles; second maxillae incompletely fused. Fore-wings\n similar in shape and texture to hind-wings, which do not fold. In most\n species the majority of individuals are wingless. Short, jointed\n cerci. Six or eight Malpighian tubes. Young resembling adults;\n terrestrial throughout life.\n\n Includes two families, formerly reckoned among the Neuroptera--the\n _Embiidae_ and the _Termitidae_ or \"White Ants\" (see TERMITE).\n\n Order: _Corrodentia_.\n\n Biting mandibles; second maxillae incompletely fused; maxillulae often\n distinct. Cerci absent. Four Malpighian tubes.\n\n Includes two sub-orders, formerly regarded as Neuroptera:--\n\n 1. _Copeognatha_: Corrodentia with delicate cuticle. Wings usually\n developed; the fore-wings much larger than the hind-wings. One family,\n the _Psocidae_ (Book-lice). These minute insects are found amongst old\n books and furniture.\n\n 2. _Mallophaga_: Parasitic wingless Corrodentia (Bird-lice).\n\n Order: _Ephemeroptera_.\n\n Jaws vestigial. Fore-wings much larger than hind-wings. Elongate,\n jointed cerci. Genital ducts paired and entirely mesodermal.\n Malpighian tubes numerous (40). Aquatic larvae with distinct\n maxillulae, breathing dissolved air by abdominal tracheal gills.\n Penultimate instar a flying sub-imago. [Includes the single family of\n the _Ephemeridae_ or may-flies. See also NEUROPTERA, in which this\n order was formerly comprised.]\n\n Order: _Odonata_.\n\n Biting mandibles. Wings of both pairs closely alike; firm and glassy\n in texture. Prominent, unjointed cerci, male with genital armature on\n second abdominal segment. Malpighian tubes numerous (50-60). Aquatic\n larvae with caudal leaf-gills or with rectal tracheal system.\n\n Includes the three families of dragon-flies. Formerly comprised among\n the Neuroptera.\n\n Order: _Thysanoptera_.\n\n Piercing mandibles, retracted within the head-capsule. First maxillae\n also modified as piercers; maxillae of both pairs with distinct palps.\n Both pairs of wings similar, narrow and fringed. Four Malpighian\n tubes. Cerci absent. Ovipositor usually present. Young resembling\n parents, but penultimate instar passive and enclosed in a filmy\n pellicle.\n\n Includes three families of Thrips (see THYSANOPTERA).\n\n Order: _Hemiptera_.\n\n Mandibles and first maxillae modified as piercers; second maxillae\n fused to form a jointed, grooved rostrum. Wings usually present. Four\n Malpighian tubes. Cerci absent. Ovipositor developed.\n\n Includes two sub-orders:--\n\n 1. _Heteroptera_: Rostrum not in contact with haunches of fore-legs.\n Fore-wings partly coriaceous. Young resembling adults.\n\n Includes the bugs, terrestrial and aquatic.\n\n 2. _Homoptera_: Rostrum in contact with haunches of fore-legs.\n Fore-wings uniform in texture. Young often larvae. Penultimate instar\n passive in some cases.\n\n Includes the cicads, aphides and scale-insects (see HEMIPTERA).\n\n Order: _Anoplura_.\n\n Piercing jaws modified and reduced, a tubular, protrusible\n sucking-trunk being developed; mouth with hooks. Wingless, parasitic\n forms. Cerci absent. Four Malpighian tubes. Young resembling adults.\n\n Includes the family of the Lice (_Pediculidae_), often reckoned as\n Hemiptera (q.v.). See also LOUSE.\n\n Sub-class: ENDOPTERYGOTA.\n\n Hexapoda mostly with wings; the wingless forms clearly degraded or\n modified. Maxillulae vestigial or absent. No locomotor abdominal\n appendages (except in certain larvae). Young animals always unlike\n parents, the wing-rudiments developing beneath the larval cuticle and\n only appearing in a penultimate pupal instar, which takes no food and\n is usually passive.\n\n Order: _Neuroptera_.\n\n Biting mandibles; second maxillae completely fused. Prothorax large\n and free. Membranous, net-veined wings, those of the two pairs closely\n alike. Six or eight Malpighian tubes. Cerci absent. Larva\n campodeiform, usually feeding by suction (exceptionally\n hypermetamorphic with subsequent eruciform instars). Pupa free.\n\n Includes the alder-flies, ant-lions and lacewing-flies. See\n NEUROPTERA.\n\n Order: _Coleoptera_.\n\n Biting mandibles; second maxillae very intimately fused. Prothorax\n large and free. Fore-wings modified into firm elytra, beneath which\n the membranous hind-wings (when present) can be folded. Cerci absent.\n Four or six Malpighian tubes. Larva campodeiform or eruciform. Pupa\n free.\n\n Includes the beetles and the parasitic _Stylopidae_, often regarded as\n a distinct order (_Strepsiptera_). (See COLEOPTERA.)\n\n Order: _Mecaptera_.\n\n Biting mandibles; first maxillae elongate; second maxillae completely\n fused. Prothorax small. Two pairs of similar, membranous wings, with\n predominantly longitudinal neuration. Six Malpighian tubes. Larva\n eruciform. Pupa free. Cerci present.\n\n Includes the single family of _Panorpidae_ (scorpion-flies), often\n comprised among the Neuroptera.\n\n Order: _Trichoptera_.\n\n Mandibles present in pupa, vestigial in imago; maxillae suctorial\n without specialization; first maxillae with lacinia, galea and palp.\n Prothorax small. Two pairs of membranous, hair-covered wings, with\n predominantly longitudinal neuration. Larvae aquatic and eruciform.\n Pupa free. Six Malpighian tubes. Cerci absent.\n\n Includes the caddis-flies. See NEUROPTERA, among which these insects\n were formerly comprised.\n\n Order: _Lepidoptera_.\n\n Mandibles absent in imago, very exceptionally present in pupa; first\n maxillae nearly always without laciniae and often without palps, or\n only with vestigial palps, their galeae elongated and grooved inwardly\n so as to form a sucking trunk. Prothorax small. Wings with\n predominantly longitudinal neuration, covered with flattened scales.\n Fore-wings larger than hind-wings. Cerci absent. Four (rarely 6 or 8)\n Malpighian tubes. Larvae eruciform, with rarely more than five pairs\n of abdominal prolegs. Pupa free in the lowest families, in most cases\n incompletely or completely obtect.\n\n Includes the moths and butterflies. See LEPIDOPTERA.\n\n Order: _Diptera_.\n\n Mandibles rarely present, adapted for piercing; first maxillae with\n palps; second maxillae forming with hypopharynx a suctorial proboscis.\n Prothorax small, intimately united to mesothorax. Fore-wings well\n developed; hind-wings reduced to stalked knobs (\"halteres\"). Cerci\n present but usually reduced. Four Malpighian tubes. Larvae eruciform\n without thoracic legs, or vermiform without head-capsule. Pupa\n incompletely obtect or free, and enclosed in the hardened cuticle of\n the last larval instar (puparium).\n\n Includes the two-winged flies (see DIPTERA), which may be divided into\n two sub-orders:--\n\n 1. _Orthorrhapha_: Larva eruciform. Cuticle of pupa or puparium\n splitting longitudinally down the back, to allow escape of imago.\n\n Comprises the midges, gnats, crane-flies, gad-flies, &c.\n\n 2. _Cyclorrhapha_: Larva vermiform (no head-capsule). Puparium opening\n by an anterior \"lid.\"\n\n Comprises the hover-flies, flesh-flies, bot-flies, &c.\n\n Order: _Siphonaptera_.\n\n Mandibles fused into a piercer; first maxillae developed as piercers;\n palps of both pairs of maxillae present; hypopharynx wanting.\n Prothorax large. Wings absent or vestigial. Larva eruciform, limbless.\n\n Includes the fleas.\n\n Order: _Hymenoptera_.\n\n Biting mandibles; second maxillae incompletely or completely fused;\n often forming a suctorial proboscis. Prothorax small, and united to\n mesothorax. First abdominal segment united to metathorax. Wings\n membranous, fore-wings larger than hind-wings. Ovipositor always well\n developed, and often modified into a sting. Numerous (20-150)\n Malpighian tubes (in rare cases, 6-12 only). Larva eruciform, with\n seven or eight pairs of abdominal prolegs, or entirely legless. Pupa\n free.\n\n Includes two sub-orders:--\n\n 1. _Symphyta_: Abdomen not basally constricted. Larvae caterpillars\n with thoracic legs and abdominal prolegs.\n\n Comprises the saw-flies.\n\n 2. _Apocrita_: Abdomen markedly constricted at second segment. Larvae\n legless grubs.\n\n Comprises gall-flies, ichneumon-flies, ants, wasps, bees. See\n HYMENOPTERA.\n\n\nGEOLOGICAL HISTORY\n\nThe classification just given has been drawn up with reference to\nexisting insects, but the great majority of the extinct forms that have\nbeen discovered can be referred with some confidence to the same orders,\nand in many cases to recent families. The Hexapoda, being aerial,\nterrestrial and fresh-water animals, are but occasionally preserved in\nstratified rocks, and our knowledge of extinct members of the class is\ntherefore fragmentary, while the description, as insects, of various\nobscure fossils, which are perhaps not even Arthropods, has not tended\nto the advancement of this branch of zoology. Nevertheless, much\nprogress has been made. Several Silurian fossils have been identified as\ninsects, including a Thysanuran from North America, but upon these\nconsiderable doubt has been cast.\n\nThe Devonian rocks of Canada (New Brunswick) have yielded several\nfossils which are undoubtedly wings of Hexapods. These have been\ndescribed by S. H. Scudder, and include gigantic forms related to the\nEphemeroptera.\n\nIn the Carboniferous strata (Coal measures) remains of Hexapods become\nnumerous and quite indisputable. Many European forms of this age have\nbeen described by C. Brongniart, and American by S. H. Scudder. The\nlatter has established, for all the Palaeozoic insects, an order\nPalaeodictyoptera, there being a closer similarity between the\nfore-wings and the hind-wings than is to be seen in most living orders\nof Hexapoda, while affinities are shown to several of these\norders--notably the Orthoptera, Ephemeroptera, Odonata and Hemiptera. It\nis probable that many of these Carboniferous insects might be referred\nto the Isoptera, while others would fall into the existing orders to\nwhich they are allied, with some modification of our present diagnoses.\nOf special interest are cockroach-like forms, with two pairs of similar\nmembranous wings and a long ovipositor, and gigantic insects allied to\nthe Odonata, that measured 2 ft. across the outspread wings. A\nremarkable fossil from the Scottish Coal-measures (_Lithomantis_) had\napparently small wing-like structures on the prothorax, and in allied\ngenera small veined outgrowths--like tracheal gills--occurred on the\nabdominal segments. To the Permian period belongs a remarkable genus\n_Eugereon_, that combines hemipteroid jaws with orthopteroid\nwing-neuration. With the dawn of the Mesozoic epoch we reach Hexapods\nthat can be unhesitatingly referred to existing orders. From the Trias\nof Colorado, Scudder has described cockroaches intermediate between\ntheir Carboniferous precursors and their present-day descendants, while\nthe existence of endopterygotous Hexapods is shown by the remains of\nColeoptera of several families. In the Jurassic rocks are found\nEphemeroptera and Odonata, as well as Hemiptera, referable to existing\nfamilies, some representatives of which had already appeared in the\noldest of the Jurassic ages--the Lias. To the Lias also can be traced\nback the Neuroptera, the Trichoptera, the orthorrhaphous Diptera and,\naccording to the determination of certain obscure fossils, also the\nHymenoptera (ants). The Lithographic stone of Kimmeridgian age, at\nSolenhofen in Bavaria, is especially rich in insect remains,\ncyclorrhaphous Diptera appearing here for the first time. In Tertiary\ntimes the higher Diptera, besides Lepidoptera and Hymenoptera, referable\nto existing families, become fairly abundant. Numerous fossil insects\npreserved in the amber of the Baltic Oligocene have been described by G.\nL. Mayr and others, while Scudder has studied the rich Oligocene faunas\nof Colorado (Florissant) and Wyoming (Green River). The Oeningen beds of\nBaden, of Miocene age, have also yielded an extensive insect fauna,\ndescribed fifty years ago by O. Heer. Further details of the geological\nhistory of the Hexapoda will be found in the special articles on the\nvarious orders. Fragmentary as the records are, they show that the\nExopterygota preceded the Endopterygota in the evolution of the class,\nand that among the Endopterygota those orders in which the greatest\ndifference exists between imago and larva--the Lepidoptera, Diptera and\nHymenoptera--were the latest to take their rise.\n\n\nGEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION\n\nThe class Hexapoda has a world-wide range, and so have most of its\ncomponent orders. The Aptera have perhaps the most extensive\ndistribution of all animals, being found in Franz Josef Land and South\nVictoria Land, on the snows of Alpine glaciers, and in the depths of the\nmost extensive caves. Most of the families and a large proportion of the\ngenera of insects are exceedingly widespread, but a study of the genera\nand species in any of the more important families shows that faunas can\nbe distinguished whose headquarters agree fairly with the regions that\nhave been proposed to express the distribution of the higher\nvertebrates. Many insects, however, can readily extend their range, and\na careful study of their distribution leads us to discriminate between\nfaunas rather than definitely to map regions. A large and dominant\nHoloarctic fauna, with numerous subdivisions, ranges over the great\nnorthern continents, and is characterized by the abundance of certain\nfamilies like the _Carabidae_ and _Staphylinidae_ among the Coleoptera\nand the _Tenthredinidae_ among the Hymenoptera. The southern territory\nheld by this fauna is invaded by genera and species distinctly tropical.\nOriental types range far northwards into China and Japan. Ethiopian\nforms invade the Mediterranean area. Neotropical and distinctively\nSonoran insects mingle with members of the Holoarctic fauna across a\nwide \"transition zone\" in North America. \"Wallace's line\" dividing the\nIndo-Malayan and Austro-Malayan sub-regions is frequently transgressed\nin the range of Malayan insects. The Australian fauna is rich in\ncharacteristic and peculiar genera, and New Zealand, while possessing\nsome remarkable insects of its own, lacks entirely several families with\nan almost world-wide range--for example, the _Notodontidae_,\n_Lasiocampidae_, and other families of Lepidoptera. Interesting\nrelationships between the Ethiopian and Oriental, the Neotropical and\nWest African, the Patagonian and New Zealand faunas suggest great\nchanges in the distribution of land and water, and throw doubt on the\ndoctrine of the permanence of continental areas and oceanic basins.\nHoloarctic types reappear on the Andes and in South Africa, and even in\nNew Zealand. The study of the Hexapoda of oceanic islands is full of\ninterest. After the determination of a number of cosmopolitan insects\nthat may well have been artificially introduced, there remains a large\nproportion of endemic species--sometimes referable to distinct\ngenera--which suggest a high antiquity for the truly insular faunas.\n\n\nRELATIONSHIPS AND PHYLOGENY\n\nThe Hexapoda form a very clearly defined class of the Arthropoda, and\nmany recent writers have suggested that they must have arisen\nindependently of other Arthropods from annelid worms, and that the\nArthropoda must, therefore, be regarded as an \"unnatural,\" polyphyletic\nassemblage. The cogent arguments against this view are set forth in the\narticle on Arthropoda. A near relationship between the Apterygota and\nthe Crustacea has been ably advocated by H. J. Hansen (1893). It is\nadmitted on all hands that the Hexapoda are akin to the Chilopoda.\nVerhoeff has lately (1904) put forward the view that there are really\nsix segments in the hexapodan thorax and twenty in the abdomen--the\ncerci belonging to the seventeenth abdominal segment thus showing a\nclose agreement with the centipede _Scolopendra_. On the other hand, G.\nH. Carpenter (1899, 1902-1904) has lately endeavoured to show an exact\nnumerical correspondence in segmentation between the Hexapoda, the\nCrustacea, the Arachnida, and the most primitive of the Diplopoda. On\neither view it may be believed that the Hexapoda arose with the allied\nclasses from a primitive arthropod stock, while the relationships of the\nclass are with the Crustacea, the Chilopoda and the Diplopoda, rather\nthan with the Arachnida.\n\n_Nature of Primitive Hexapoda._--Two divergent views have been held as\nto the nature of the original hexapod stock. Some of those zoologists\nwho look to _Peripatus_, or a similar worm-like form, as representing\nthe direct ancestors of the Hexapoda have laid stress on a larva like\nthe caterpillar of a moth or saw-fly as representing a primitive stage.\nOn the other hand, the view of F. Muller and F. Brauer, that the\nThysanura represent more nearly than any other existing insects the\nancestors of the class, has been accepted by the great majority of\nstudents. And there can be little doubt that this belief is justified.\nThe caterpillar, or the maggot, is a specialized larval form\ncharacteristic of the most highly developed orders, while the\ncampodeiform larva is the starting-point for the more primitive insects.\nThe occurrence in the hypermetamorphic Coleoptera (see _supra_) of a\ncampodeiform preceding an eruciform stage in the life-history is most\nsuggestive. Taken in connexion with the likeness of the young among the\nmore generalized orders to the adults, it indicates clearly a\nthysanuroid starting-point for the evolution of the hexapod orders. And\nwe must infer further that the specialization of the higher orders has\nbeen accompanied by an increase in the extent of the metamorphosis--a\nvery exceptional condition among animals generally, as has been ably\npointed out by L. C. Miall (1895).\n\n_Origin of Wings._--The post-embryonic growth of Hexapods with or\nwithout metamorphosis is accompanied in most cases by the acquisition of\nwings. These organs, thus acquired during the lifetime of the\nindividual, must have been in some way acquired during the evolution of\nthe class. Many students of the group, following Brauer, have regarded\nthe Apterygota as representing the original wingless progenitors of the\nPterygota, and the many primitive characters shown by the former group\nlend support to this view. On the other hand, it has been argued that\nthe presence of wings in a vast majority of the Hexapoda suggests their\npresence in the ancestors of the whole class. It is most unlikely that\nwings have been acquired independently by various orders of Hexapoda,\nand if we regard the Thysanura as the slightly modified representatives\nof a primitively wingless stock, we must postulate the acquisition of\nwings by some early offshoot of that stock, an offshoot whence the whole\ngroup of the Pterygota took its rise. How wings were acquired by these\nprimitive Pterygota must remain for the present a subject for\nspeculation. Insect wings are specialized outgrowths of certain thoracic\nsegments, and are quite unrepresented in any other class of Arthropods.\nThey are not, therefore, like the wings of birds, modified from some\npre-existing structures (the fore-limbs) common to their phylum; they\nare new and peculiar structures. Comparison of the tracheated wings with\nthe paired tracheated outgrowths on the abdominal segments of the\naquatic campodeiform larva of may-flies (see fig. 27) led C. Gegenbaur\nto the brilliant suggestion that wings might be regarded as specialized\nand transformed gills. But a survey of the Hexapoda as a whole, and\nespecially a comparative study of the tracheal system, can hardly leave\nroom for doubt that this system is primitively adapted for atmospheric\nbreathing, and that the presence of tracheal gills in larvae must be\nregarded as a special adaptation for temporary aquatic life. The origin\nof insect wings remains, therefore, a mystery, deepened by the\ndifficulty of imagining any probable use for thoracic outgrowths,\ncomparable to the wing-rudiments of the Exopterygota, in the early\nstages of their evolution.\n\n_Origin of Metamorphosis._--In connexion with the question whether\nmetamorphosis has been gradually acquired, we have to consider two\naspects, viz. the bionomic nature of metamorphosis, and to what extent\nit existed in primitive insects. Bionomically, metamorphosis may be\ndefined as the sum of adaptations that have gradually fitted the larva\n(caterpillar or maggot) for one kind of life, the fly for another. So\nthat we may conclude that the factors of evolution would favour its\ndevelopment. With regard to its occurrence in primitive insects, our\nknowledge of the geological record is most imperfect, but so far as it\ngoes it supports the conclusion that holometabolism (i.e. extreme\nmetamorphosis) is a comparatively recent phenomenon of insect life. None\nof the groups of existing Endopterygota have been traced with certainty\nfarther back than the Mesozoic epoch, and all the numerous Palaeozoic\ninsect-fossils seem to belong to forms that possessed only imperfect\nmetamorphosis. The only doubt arises from the existence of insect\nremains, referred to the order Coleoptera, in the Silesian Culm of\nSteinkunzendorf near Reichenbach. The oldest larva known, _Mormolucoides\narticulatus_, is from the New Red Sandstone of Connecticut; it belongs\nto the _Sialidae_, one of the lowest forms of Holometabola. It is now,\nin fact, generally admitted that metamorphosis has been acquired\ncomparatively recently, and Scudder in his review of the earliest fossil\ninsects states that \"their metamorphoses were simple and incomplete, the\nyoung leaving the egg with the form of the parent, but without wings,\nthe assumption of which required no quiescent stage before maturity.\"\n\nIt has been previously remarked that the phenomena of holometabolism are\nconnected with the development of wings inside the body (except in the\ncase of the fleas, where there are no wings in the perfect insect). Of\nexisting insects 90% belong to the Endopterygota. At the same time we\nhave no evidence that any Endopterygota existed amongst Palaeozoic\ninsects, so that the phenomena of endopterygotism are comparatively\nrecent, and we are led to infer that the Endopterygota owe their origin\nto the older Exopterygota. In Endopterygota the wings commence their\ndevelopment as invaginations of the hypodermis, while in Exopterygota\nthe wings begin--and always remain--as external folds or evaginations.\nThe two modes of growth are directly opposed, and at first sight it\nappears that this fact negatives the view that Endopterygota have been\nderived from Exopterygota.\n\nOnly three hypotheses as to the origin of Endopterygota can be suggested\nas possible, viz.:--(1) That some of the Palaeozoic insects, though we\ninfer them to have been exopterygotous, were really endopterygotous, and\nwere the actual ancestors of the existing Endopterygota; (2) that\nEndopterygota are not descended from Exopterygota, but were derived\ndirectly from ancestors that were never winged; (3) that the predominant\ndivision--i.e. Endopterygota--of insects of the present epoch are\ndescended from the predominant--if not the sole--group that existed in\nthe Palaeozoic epoch, viz. the Exopterygota. The first hypothesis is not\nnegatived by direct evidence, for we do not actually know the ontogeny\nof any of the Palaeozoic insects; it is, however, rendered highly\nimprobable by the modern views as to the nature and origin of wings in\ninsects, and by the fact that the Endopterygota include none of the\nlower existing forms of insects. The second hypothesis--to the effect\nthat Endopterygota are the descendants of apterous insects that had\nnever possessed wings (i.e. the Apterygogenea of Brauer and others,\nthough we prefer the shorter term Apterygota)--is rendered improbable\nfrom the fact that existing Apterygota are related to Exopterygota, not\nto Endopterygota, and by the knowledge that has been gained as to the\nmorphology and development of wings, which suggest that--if we may so\nphrase it--were an apterygotous insect gradually to develop wings, it\nwould be on the exopterygotous system. From all points of view it\nappears, therefore, probable that Endopterygota are descended from\nExopterygota, and we are brought to the question as to the way in which\nthis has occurred.\n\nIt is almost impossible to believe that any species of insect that has\nfor a long period developed the wings outside the body could change this\nmode of growth suddenly for an internal mode of development of the\norgans in question, for, as we have already explained, the two modes of\ngrowth are directly opposed. The explanation has to be sought in another\ndirection. Now there are many forms of Exopterygota in which the\ncreatures are almost or quite destitute of wings. This phenomenon occurs\namong species found at high elevations, among others found in arid or\ndesert regions, and in some cases in the female sex only, the male being\nwinged and the female wingless. This last state is very frequent in\n_Blattidae_, which were amongst the most abundant of Palaeozoic insects.\nThe wingless forms in question are always allied to winged forms, and\nthere is every reason to believe that they have been really derived from\nwinged forms. There are also insects (fleas, &c.) in which metamorphosis\nof a \"complete\" character exists, though the insects never develop\nwings. These cases render it highly probable that insects may in some\ncircumstances become wingless, though their ancestors were winged. Such\ninsects have been styled anapterygotous. In these facts we have one\npossible clue to the change from exopterygotism to endopterygotism,\nnamely, by an intermediate period of anapterygotism.\n\nAlthough we cannot yet define the conditions under which exopterygotous\nwings are suppressed or unusually developed, yet we know that such\nfluctuations occur. There are, in fact, existing forms of Exopterygota\nthat are usually wingless, and that nevertheless appear in certain\nseasons or localities with wings. We are therefore entitled to assume\nthat the suppressed wings of Exopterygota tend to reappear; and,\nspeaking of the past, we may say that if after a period of suppression\nthe wings began to reappear as hypodermal buds while a more rigid\npressure was exerted by the cuticle, the growth of the buds would\nnecessarily be inwards, and we should have incipient endopterygotism.\nThe change that is required to transform Exopterygota into Endopterygota\nis merely that a cell of hypodermis should proliferate inwards instead\nof outwards, or that a minute hypodermal evaginated bud should be forced\nto the interior of the body by the pressure of a contracted cuticle.\n\nIf it should be objected that the wings so developed would be\nrudimentary, and that there would be nothing to encourage their\ndevelopment into perfect functional organs, we may remind the reader\nthat we have already pointed out that imperfect wings of Exopterygota\ndo, even at the present time under certain conditions, become perfect\norgans; and we may also add that there are, even among existing\nEndopterygota, species in which the wings are usually vestiges and yet\nsometimes become perfectly developed. In fact, almost every condition\nthat is required for the change from exopterygotism to endopterygotism\nexists among the insects that surround us.\n\nBut it may perhaps be considered improbable that organs like the wings,\nhaving once been lost, should have been reacquired on the large scale\nsuggested by the theory just put forward. If so, there is an alternative\nmethod by which the endopterygotous may have arisen from the\nexopterygotous condition. The sub-imago of the Ephemeroptera suggests\nthat a moult, after the wings had become functional, was at one time\ngeneral among the Hexapoda, and that the resting nymph of the\nThysanoptera or the pupa of the Endopterygota represents a formerly\nactive stage in the life-history. Further, although the wing-rudiments\nappear externally in an early instar of an exopterygotous insect, the\nearliest instars are wingless and wing-rudiments have been previously\ndeveloping beneath the cuticle, growing however outwards, not inwards as\nin the larva of an endopterygote. The change from an exopterygote to an\nendopterygote development could, therefore, be brought about by the\ngradual postponement to a later and later instar of the appearance of\nthe wing-rudiments outside the body, and their correlated growth inwards\nas imaginal disks. For in the post-embryonic development of the\nancestors of the Endopterygota we may imagine two or three instars with\nwing-rudiments to have existed, the last represented by the sub-imago of\nthe may-flies. As the life-conditions and feeding-habits of the larva\nand imago become constantly more divergent, the appearance of the\nwing-rudiments would be postponed to the pre-imaginal instar, and that\ninstar would become predominantly passive.\n\n_Relationships of the Orders._--Reasons have been given for regarding\nthe Thysanura as representing, more nearly than any other living group,\nthe primitive stock of the Hexapoda. It is believed that insects of this\ngroup are represented among Silurian fossils. We may conclude,\ntherefore, that they were preceded, in Cambrian times or earlier, by\nArthropods possessing well developed appendages on all the\ntrunk-segments. Of such Arthropods the living Symphyla--of which the\ndelicate little _Scutigerella_ is a fairly well-known example--give us\nsome representation.\n\nNo indications beyond those furnished by comparative anatomy help us to\nunravel the phylogeny of the Collembola. In most respects, the shortened\nabdomen, for example, they are more specialized than the Thysanura, and\nmost of the features in which they appear to be simple, such as the\nabsence of a tracheal system and of compound eyes, can be explained as\nthe result of degradation. In their insunken mouth and their jaws\nretracted within the head-capsule, the Collembola resemble the\nentotrophous division of the Thysanura (see APTERA), from which they are\nprobably descended.\n\nFrom the thysanuroid stock of the Apterygota, the Exopterygota took\ntheir rise. We have undoubted fossil evidence that winged insects lived\nin the Devonian and became numerous in the Carboniferous period. These\nancient Exopterygota were synthetic in type, and included insects that\nmay, with probability, be regarded as ancestral to most of the existing\norders. It is hard to arrange the Exopterygota in a linear series, for\nsome of the orders that are remarkably primitive in some respects are\nrather highly specialized in others. As regards wing-structure, the\nIsoptera with the two pairs closely similar are the most primitive of\nall winged insects; while in the paired mesodermal genital ducts, the\nelongate cerci and the conspicuous maxillulae of their larvae the\nEphemeroptera retain notable ancestral characters. But the vestigial\njaws, numerous Malpighian tubes, and specialized wings of may-flies\nforbid us to consider the order as on the whole primitive. So the\nDermaptera, which retain distinct maxillulae and have no ectodermal\ngenital ducts, have either specialized or aborted wings and a large\nnumber of Malpighian tubes. The Corrodentia retain vestigial maxillulae\nand two pairs of Malpighian tubes, but the wings are somewhat\nspecialized in the Copeognatha and absent in the degraded and parasitic\nMallophaga. The Plecoptera and Orthoptera agree in their numerous\nMalpighian tubes and in the development of a folding anal area in the\nhind-wing. As shown by the number and variety of species, the Orthoptera\nare the most dominant order of this group. Eminently terrestrial in\nhabit, the differentiation of their fore-wings and hind-wings can be\ntraced from Carboniferous, isopteroid ancestors through intermediate\nMesozoic forms. The Plecoptera resemble the Ephemeroptera and Odonata in\nthe aquatic habits of their larvae, and by the occasional presence of\ntufted thoracic gills in the imago exhibit an aquatic character unknown\nin any other winged insects. The Odonata are in many imaginal and larval\ncharacters highly specialized; yet they probably arose with the\nEphemeroptera as a divergent offshoot of the same primitive isopteroid\nstock which developed more directly into the living Isoptera,\nPlecoptera, Dermaptera and Orthoptera.\n\nAll these orders agree in the possession of biting mandibles, while\ntheir second maxillae have the inner and outer lobes usually distinct.\nThe Hemiptera, with their piercing mandibles and first maxillae and with\ntheir second maxillae fused to form a jointed beak, stand far apart from\nthem. This order can be traced with certainty back to the early Jurassic\nepoch, while the Permian fossil _Eugereon_, and the living\norder--specially modified in many respects--of the Thysanoptera indicate\nsteps by which the aberrant suctorial and piercing mouth of the\nHemiptera may have been developed from the biting mouth of primitive\nIsopteroids, by the elongation of some parts and the suppression of\nothers. The Anoplura may probably be regarded as a degraded offshoot of\nthe Hemiptera.\n\nThe importance of great cardinal features of the life-history as\nindicative of relationship leads us to consider the Endopterygota as a\nnatural assemblage of orders. The occurrence of weevils--among the most\nspecialized of the Coleoptera--in Triassic rocks shows us that this\ngreat order of metabolous insects had become differentiated into its\nleading families at the dawn of the Mesozoic era, and that we must go\nfar back into the Palaeozoic for the origin of the Endopterygota. In\nthis view we are confirmed by the impossibility of deriving the\nEndopterygota from any living order of Exopterygota. We conclude,\ntherefore, that the primitive stock of the former sub-class became early\ndifferentiated from that of the latter. So widely have most of the\nhigher orders of the Hexapoda now diverged from each other, that it is\nexceedingly difficult in most cases to trace their relationships with\nany confidence. The Neuroptera, with their similar fore- and hind-wings\nand their campodeiform larvae, seem to stand nearest to the presumed\nisopteroid ancestry, but the imago and larva are often specialized. The\ncampodeiform larvae of many Coleoptera are indeed far more primitive\nthan the neuropteran larvae, and suggest to us that the\nColeoptera--modified as their wing-structure has become--arose very\nearly from the primitive metabolous stock. The antiquity of the\nColeoptera is further shown by the great diversity of larval form and\nhabit that has arisen in the order, and the proof afforded by the\nhypermetamorphic beetles that the campodeiform preceded the eruciform\nlarva has already been emphasized.\n\nIn all the remaining orders of the Endopterygota the larva is eruciform\nor vermiform. The Mecaptera, with their predominantly longitudinal\nwing-nervuration, serve as a link between the Neuroptera and the\nTrichoptera, their retention of small cerci being an archaic character\nwhich stamps them as synthetic in type, but does not necessarily remove\nthem from orders which agree with them in most points of structure but\nwhich have lost the cerci. The standing of the Trichoptera in a position\nalmost ancestral to the Lepidoptera is one of the assured results of\nrecent morphological study, the mobile mandibulate pupa and the\nimperfectly suctorial maxillae of the Trichoptera reappearing in the\nlowest families of the Lepidoptera. This latter order, which is not\ncertainly known to have existed before Tertiary times, has become the\nmost highly specialized of all insects in the structure of the pupa.\nDiptera of the sub-order Orthorrhapha occur in the Lias and Cyclorrhapha\nin the Kimmeridgian. The order must therefore be ancient, and as no\nevidence is forthcoming as to the mode of reduction of the hind-wings,\nnor as to the stages by which the suctorial mouth-organs became\nspecialized, it is difficult to trace the exact relationship of the\ngroup, but the presence of cerci and a degree of correspondence in the\nnervuration of the fore-wings suggest the Mecaptera as possible allies.\nThere seems no doubt that the suctorial mouth-organs of the Diptera have\narisen quite independently from those of the Lepidoptera, for in the\nformer order the sucker is formed from the second maxillae, in the\nlatter from the first. The eruciform larva of the Orthorrhapha leads on\nto the headless vermiform maggot of the Cyclorrhapha, and in the latter\nsub-order we find metamorphosis carried to its extreme point, the muscid\nflies being the most highly specialized of all the Hexapoda as regards\nstructure, while their maggots are the most degraded of all insect\nlarvae. The Siphonaptera appear by the form of the larva and the nature\nof the metamorphosis to be akin to the Orthorrhapha--in which division\nthey have indeed been included by many students. They differ from the\nDiptera, however, in the general presence of palps to both pairs of\nmaxillae, and in the absence of a hypopharynx, so it is possible that\ntheir relationship to the Diptera is less close than has been supposed.\nThe affinities of the Hymenoptera afford another problem of much\ndifficulty. They differ from other Endopterygota in the multiplication\nof their Malpighian tubes, and from all other Hexapoda in the union of\nthe first abdominal segment with the thorax. Specialized as they are in\nform, development and habit, they retain mandibles for biting, and in\ntheir lower sub-order--the Symphyta--the maxillae are hardly more\nmodified than those of the Orthoptera. From the evidence of fossils it\nseems that the higher sub-order--Apocrita--can be traced back to the\nLias, so that we believe the Hymenoptera to be more ancient than the\nDiptera, and far more ancient than the Lepidoptera. They afford an\nexample--paralleled in other classes of the animal kingdom--of an order\nwhich, though specialized in some respects, retains many primitive\ncharacters, and has won its way to dominance rather by perfection of\nbehaviour, and specially by the development of family life and helpful\nsocialism, than by excessive elaboration of structure. We would trace\nthe Hymenoptera back therefore to the primitive endopterygote stock. The\nspecialization of form in the constricted abdomen and in the suctorial\n\"tongue\" that characterizes the higher families of the order is\ncorrelated with the habit of careful egg-laying and provision of food\nfor the young. In some way it is assured among the highest of the\nHexapoda--the Lepidoptera, Diptera and Hymenoptera--that the larva finds\nitself amid a rich food-supply. And thus perfection of structure and\ninstinct in the imago has been accompanied by degradation in the larva,\nand by an increase in the extent of transformation and in the degree of\nreconstruction before and during the pupal stage. The fascinating\ndifficulties presented to the student by the metamorphosis of the\nHexapoda are to some extent explained, as he ponders over the evolution\nof the class.\n\n BIBLIOGRAPHY.--References to the older classical writings on the\n Hexapoda are given in the article on Entomology. At present about a\n thousand works and papers are published annually, and in this place it\n is possible to enumerate only a few of the most important among\n (mostly) recent memoirs that bear upon the Hexapoda generally. Further\n references will be found appended to the special articles on the\n orders (APTERA, COLEOPTERA, &c.).\n\n General Works.--A. S. Packard, _Text-book of Entomology_ (London,\n 1898); V. Graber, _Die Insekten_ (Munich, 1877-1879); D. Sharp,\n _Cambridge Natural History_, vols. v., vi. (London, 1895-1899); L. C.\n Miall and A. Denny, _Structure and Life-history of the Cockroach_\n (London, 1886); B. T. Lowne, _The Anatomy, Physiology, Morphology and\n Development of the Blow-fly_ (2 vols., London, 1890-1895); G. H.\n Carpenter, _Insects: their Structure and Life_ (London, 1899); L. F.\n Henneguy, _Les Insectes_ (Paris, 1904); J. W. Folsom, _Entomology_\n (New York and London, 1906); A. Berlese, _Gli Insetti_ (Milan, 1906),\n &c. (Extensive bibliographies will be found in several of the above.)\n\n Head and Appendages.--J. C. Savigny, _Memoires sur les animaux sans\n vertebres_ (Paris, 1816); C. Janet, _Essai sur la constitution\n morphologique de la tete de l'insecte_ (Paris, 1899); J. H. Comstock\n and C. Kochi (_American Naturalist_, xxxvi., 1902); V. L. Kellogg\n (ibid.); W. A. Riley (_American Naturalist_, xxxviii., 1904); F.\n Meinert (_Entom. Tidsskr._ i., 1880); H. J. Hansen (_Zool. Anz._ xvi.,\n 1893); J. B. Smith (_Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc._ xix., 1896); H. Holmgren\n (_Zeitsch. wiss. Zoolog._ lxxvi., 1904); K. W. Verhoeff (_Abhandl. K.\n Leop.-Carol. Akad._ lxxxiv., 1905).\n\n Thorax, Legs and Wings.--K. W. Verhoeff (_Abhandl. K. Leop.-Carol.\n Akad._ lxxxii., 1903); F. Voss (_Zeits. wiss. Zool._ lxxviii., 1905);\n F. Dahl (_Arch. f. Naturgesch._ 1, 1884); J. Demoor (_Arch. de biol._\n x., 1890); J. Redtenbacher (_Ann. Kais. naturhist. Museum, Wien_, i.,\n 1886); R. von Lendenfeld (_S. B. Akad. Wissens., Wien_, lxxxiii.,\n 1881); J. H. Comstock and J. G. Needham (_Amer. Nat._, xxxii.,\n xxxiii., 1898-1899); C. W. Woodworth (_Univ. California Entom. Bull._\n i., 1906).\n\n Abdomen and Appendages.--E. Haase (_Morph. Jahrb._ xv., 1889); R.\n Heymons (_Morph. Jahrb._ xxiv., 1896; _Abhandl. K. Leop.-Carol. Akad._\n lxxiv., 1899); K. W. Verhoeff (_Zool. Anz._ xix., xx., 1896-1897); S.\n A. Peytoureau, _Contribution a l'etude de la morphologie de l'armure\n genitale des insectes_ (Bordeaux, 1895); H. Dewitz (_Zeits. wiss.\n Zool._ xxv., xxviii., 1874, 1877); E. Zander (ibid. lxvi., lxvii.,\n 1899-1900).\n\n Nervous System.--H. Viallanes (_Ann. Sci. Nat. Zool._ [6], xvii.,\n xviii., xix., [7] ii., iv., 1884-1887); S. J. Hickson (_Quart. Journ.\n Micr. Sci._ xxv., 1885); W. Patten (_Journ. Morph._ i., ii.,\n 1887-1888); F. Plateau (_Mem. Acad. Belg._ xliii., 1888); V. Graber\n (_Arch. mikr. Anat._ xx., xxi., 1882).\n\n Respiratory System.--J. A. Palmen, _Zur Morphologie des\n Tracheensystems_ (Leipzig, 1877); F. Plateau (_Mem. Acad. Belg._ xiv.,\n 1884); L. C. Miall, _Natural History of Aquatic Insects_ (London,\n 1895).\n\n Digestive System, &c.--L. Dufour (_Ann. Sci. Nat._, 1824-1860); V.\n Faussek (_Zeits. wiss. Zool._ xlv., 1887).\n\n Malpighian Tubes.--E. Schindler (_Zeits. wiss. Zool._ xxx., 1878); W.\n M. Wheeler (_Psyche_ vi., 1893); L. Cuenot (_Arch. de biol._ xiv.,\n 1895).\n\n Reproductive Organs.--H. V. Wielowiejski (Zool. Anz. ix., 1886); J. A.\n Palmen, _Uber paarige Ausfuhrungsgange der Geschlechtsorgane bei\n Insekten_ (Helsingfors, 1884); H. Henking (_Zeits. wiss. Zool._ xlix.,\n li., liv., 1890-1892); F. Leydig (_Zool. Jahrb. Anat._ iii., 1889).\n\n Embryology.--F. Blochmann (_Morph. Jahrb._ xii., 1887); A. Kovalevsky\n (_Mem. Acad. St-Petersbourg_, xvi., 1871; _Zeits. wiss. Zool._ xlv.,\n 1887); V. Graber (_Denksch. Akad. Wissens., Wien_, lvi., 1889); K.\n Heider, _Die Embryonalentwicklung von Hydrophilus piceus_ (Jena,\n 1889); W. M. Wheeler (_Journ. Morph._ iii., viii., 1889-1893); E.\n Korschelt and K. Heider, _Handbook of the Comparative Embryology of\n Invertebrates_ (trans. M. Bernard), (vol. iii., London, 1899); R.\n Heymons, _Die Embryonalentwicklung von Dermapteren und Orthopteren_\n (Jena, 1895) (also _Zeits. wiss. Zool._ liii., 1891, lxii., 1897;\n _Anhang zu den Abhandl. K. Akad. d. Wissens., Berlin_, 1896); A.\n Lecaillon (_Arch. d'anat. micr._ ii., 1898); J. Carriere and O. Burger\n (_Abhandl. K. Leop.-Carol. Akad._ lxix., 1897); K. Escherich (ibid.\n lxxvii., 1901); F. Schwangart (_Zeits. wiss. Zool._ lxxvi., 1904); R.\n Ritter (_ib._ li., 1890); E. Metchnikoff (_ib._ xvi., 1866); H. Uzel\n (_Zool. Anz._ xx., 1897); J. W. Folsom (_Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool.\n Harvard_., xxxvi., 1900).\n\n Parthenogenesis and Paedogenesis.--T. H. Huxley (_Trans. Linn. Soc._\n xxii., 1858); R. Leuckart, _Zur Kenntnis des Generationswechsels und\n der Parthogenesis bei den Insekten_ (Frankfurt, 1858); N. Wagner\n (_Zeits. wiss. Zool._ xv., 1865); L. F. Henneguy (_Bull. Soc.\n Philomath._ [9], i. 1899); A. Petrunkevich (_Zool. Jahrb. Anat._ xiv.,\n xvii., 1901-1903); P. Marchal (_Arch. zool. exp. et gen._ [4], ii.,\n 1904); L. Doncaster (_Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci._ xlix., li.,\n 1906-1907).\n\n Growth and Metamorphosis.--A. Weismann (_Zeits. wiss. Zool._ xiii.,\n xiv., 1863-1864); F. Brauer (_Verh. zool.-bot. Gesellsch., Wien_,\n xix., 1869); Sir J. Lubbock (Lord Avebury), _Origin and Metamorphosis\n of Insects_ (London, 1874); L. C. Miall (_Nature_, liii., 1895); L. C.\n Miall and A. R. Hammond, _Structure and Life-history of the\n Harlequin-fly_ (Oxford, 1900); J. Gonin (_Bull. Soc. Vaud. Sci. Nat._\n xxx., 1894); C. de Bruyne (_Arch. de biol._ xv. (1898); D. Sharp\n (_Proc. Inter. Zool. Congress_, 1898); E. B. Poulton (_Trans. Linn.\n Soc._ v., 1891); T. A. Chapman (_Trans. Ent. Soc._, 1893).\n\n Classification.--F. Brauer (_S. B. Akad. Wiss., Wien_, xci., 1885); A.\n S. Packard (_Amer. Nat._ xx.; 1886); C. Borner, A. Handlirsch, F.\n Klapalek (_Zool. Anz._ xxvii., 1904); G. Enderlein (_Zool. Anz._\n xxvi., 1903).\n\n Palaeontology.--S. H. Scudder, in Zittel's _Palaeontology_ (French\n trans., vol. ii., Paris, 1887, and Eng. trans., vol. i., London,\n 1900); C. Brongniart, _Insectes fossiles des temps primaires_\n (St-Etienne, 1894); A. Handlirsch, _Die fossilen Insekten und die\n Phylogenie der rezenten Formen_ (Leipzig, 1906).\n\n Phylogeny.--Brauer, Lubbock, Sharp, Borner, &c. (opp. cit.); P. Mayer\n (_Jena, Zeits. Naturw._ x., 1876); B. Grassi (_Atti R. Accad. dei\n Lincei, Roma_ [4], iv., 1888, and _Archiv ital. biol._ xi., 1889); F.\n Muller, _Facts and Arguments for Darwin_ (trans. W. S. Dallas, London,\n 1869); N. Zograf (_Congr. Zool. Int._, 1892); E. R. Lankester (_Quart.\n Journ. Micr. Sci._ xlvii., 1904); G. H. Carpenter (_Proc. R. Irish\n Acad._ xxiv., 1903; _Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci._ xlix., 1905).\n (D. S.*; G. H. C.)\n\n\n\n\nHEXASTYLE (Gr. [Greek: hex], six, and [Greek: stylos], column), an\narchitectural term given to a temple in the portico of which there are\nsix columns in front.\n\n\n\n\nHEXATEUCH, the name given to the first six books of the Old Testament\n(the Pentateuch and Joshua), to mark the fact that these form one\nliterary whole, describing the early traditional history of the\nIsraelites from the creation of the world to the conquest of Palestine\nand the origin of their national institutions. These books are the\nresult of an intricate literary process, on which see BIBLE (Old\nTestament: _Canon_), and the articles on the separate books (GENESIS,\nEXODUS, LEVITICUS, NUMBERS, DEUTERONOMY and JOSHUA).\n\n\n\n\nHEXHAM, a market town in the Hexham parliamentary division of\nNorthumberland, England, 21 m. W. from Newcastle by the Carlisle branch\nof the North-Eastern railway, served also from Scotland by a branch of\nthe North British railway. Pop. of urban district (1901) 7107. It is\npleasantly situated beneath the hills on the S. bank of the Tyne, and\nits market square and narrow streets bear many marks of antiquity. It is\nfamous for its great abbey church of St Andrew. This building, as\nrenovated in the 12th century, was to consist of nave and transepts,\nchoir and aisles, and massive central tower. The Scots are believed to\nhave destroyed the nave in 1296, but it may be doubted if it was ever\ncompleted. In 1536 the last prior was hanged for being concerned in the\ninsurrection called the Pilgrimage of Grace. The church as it stands is\na fine monument of Early English work, with Transitional details.\nWithin, although it suffered much loss during a restoration c. 1858,\nthere are several objects of interest. Among these are a Roman slab,\ncarved with figures of a horseman trampling upon an enemy, several fine\ntombs and stones of the 13th and 14th centuries, the frith or fridstool\nof stone, believed to be the original bishop's throne, and the fine\nPerpendicular roodscreen of oak, retaining its loft. The crypt,\ndiscovered in 1726, is part of the Saxon church, and a noteworthy\nexample of architecture of the period. Its material is Roman, some of\nthe stones having Roman inscriptions. These were brought from the Roman\nsettlement at Corbridge, 4 m. E. of Hexham on the N. bank of the Tyne;\nfor Hexham itself was not a Roman station. In 1832 a vessel containing\nabout 8000 Saxon coins was discovered in the churchyard. Fragments of\nthe monastic buildings remain, and west of the churchyard is the monks'\npark, known as the Seal, and now a promenade, commanding beautiful\nviews. In the town are two strong castellated towers of the 14th\ncentury, known as the Moot Hall and the Manor Office. Their names\nexplain their use, but they were doubtless also intended as defensive\nworks. In the interesting and beautiful neighbourhood of Hexham there\nshould be noticed Aydon castle near Corbridge, a fortified house of the\nlate 13th century; and Dilston or Dyvilston, a typical border fortress\ndating from Norman times, of which only a tower and small chapel remain.\nIt is replete with memories of the last earl of Derwentwater, who was\nbeheaded in 1716 for his part in the Stuart rising of the previous year,\nand was buried in the chapel. There is an Elizabethan grammar school.\nHexham and Newcastle form a Roman Catholic bishopric, with the cathedral\nat Newcastle. There are manufactures of leather gloves and other goods,\nand in the neighbourhood barytes and coal mines and extensive market\ngardens.\n\nThe church and monastery at Hexham (Hextoldesham) were founded about 673\nby Wilfrid, archbishop of York, who is said to have received a grant of\nthe whole of Hexhamshire from Aethelhryth, queen of Northumbria, and a\ngrant of sanctuary in his church from the king. The church in 678\nbecame the head of the new see of Bernicia, which was united to that of\nLindisfarne about 821, when the bishop of Lindisfarne appears to have\ntaken possession of the lordship which he and his successors held until\nit was restored to the archbishop of York by Henry II. The archbishops\nappear to have had almost royal power throughout the liberty, including\nthe rights of trying all pleas of the crown in their court, of taking\ninquisitions and of taxation. In 1545 the archbishop exchanged\nHexhamshire with the king for other property, and in 1572 all the\nseparate privileges which had belonged to him were taken away, and the\nliberty was annexed to the county of Northumberland. Hexham was a\nborough by prescription, and governed by a bailiff at least as early as\n1276, and the same form of government continued until 1853. In 1343 the\nmen of Hexham were accused of pretending to be Scots and imprisoning\nmany people of Northumberland and Cumberland, killing some and extorting\nransoms for others. The Lancastrians were defeated in 1464 near Hexham,\nand legend says that it was in the woods round the town that Queen\nMargaret and her son hid until their escape to Flanders. In 1522 the\nbishop of Carlisle complained to Cardinal Wolsey, then archbishop of\nYork, that the English thieves committed more thefts than \"all the Scots\nof Scotland,\" the men of Hexham being worst of all, and appearing 100\nstrong at the markets held in Hexham, so that the men whom they had\nrobbed dared not complain or \"say one word to them.\" This state of\naffairs appears to have continued until the accession of James I., and\nin 1595 the bailiff and constables of Hexham were removed as being\n\"infected with combination and toleration of thieves.\" Hexham was at one\ntime the market town of a large agricultural district. In 1227 a market\non Monday and a fair on the vigil and day of St Luke the Evangelist were\ngranted to the archbishop, and in 1320 Archbishop Melton obtained the\nright of holding two new fairs on the feasts of St James the Apostle\nlasting five days and of SS. Simon and Jude lasting six days. The market\nday was altered to Tuesday in 1662, and Sir William Fenwick, then lord\nof the manor, received a grant of a cattle market on the Tuesday after\nthe feast of St Cuthbert in March and every Tuesday fortnight until the\nfeast of St Martin. The market rights were purchased from Wentworth B.\nBeaumont, lord of the manor, in 1886. During the 17th and 18th centuries\nHexham was noted for the leather trade, especially for the manufacture\nof gloves, but in the 19th century the trade began to decline. Coal\nmines which had belonged to the archbishop, were sold to Sir John\nFenwick, Kt., in 1628. Hexham has never been represented in parliament,\nbut gives its name to one of the four parliamentary divisions of the\ncounty.\n\n See Edward Bateson and A. B. Hinds, _A History of Northumberland_ vol.\n iii. (1893-1896); A. B. Wright, _An Essay towards the History of\n Hexham_ (1823); James Hewitt, _A Handbook to Hexham and its\n Antiquities_ (1879).\n\n\n\n\nHEYDEN, JAN VAN DER (1637-1712), Dutch painter, was born at Gorcum in\n1637, and died at Amsterdam on the 12th of September 1712. He was an\narchitectural landscape painter, a contemporary of Hobbema and Jacob\nRuysdael, with the advantage, which they lacked, of a certain\nprofessional versatility; for, whilst they painted admirable pictures\nand starved, he varied the practice of art with the study of mechanics,\nimproved the fire engine, and died superintendent of the lighting and\ndirector of the firemen's company at Amsterdam. Till 1672 he painted in\npartnership with Adrian van der Velde. After Adrian's death, and\nprobably because of the loss which that event entailed upon him, he\naccepted the offices to which allusion has just been made. At no period\nof artistic activity had the system of division of labour been more\nfully or more constantly applied to art than it was in Holland towards\nthe close of the 17th century. Van der Heyden, who was perfect as an\narchitectural draughtsman in so far as he painted the outside of\nbuildings and thoroughly mastered linear perspective, seldom turned his\nhand to the delineation of anything but brick houses and churches in\nstreets and squares, or rows along canals, or \"moated granges,\" common\nin his native country. He was a travelled man, had seen The Hague, Ghent\nand Brussels, and had ascended the Rhine past Xanten to Cologne, where\nhe copied over and over again the tower and crane of the great\ncathedral. But he cared nothing for hill or vale, or stream or wood. He\ncould reproduce the rows of bricks in a square of Dutch houses sparkling\nin the sun, or stunted trees and lines of dwellings varied by steeples,\nall in light or thrown into passing shadow by moving cloud. He had the\nart of painting microscopically without loss of breadth or keeping. But\nhe could draw neither man nor beast, nor ships nor carts; and this was\nhis disadvantage. His good genius under these circumstances was Adrian\nvan der Velde, who enlivened his compositions with spirited figures; and\nthe joint labour of both is a delicate, minute, transparent work,\nradiant with glow and atmosphere.\n\n\n\n\nHEYLYN (or HEYLIN), PETER (1600-1662), English historian and\ncontroversialist, was born at Burford in Oxfordshire. Having made great\nprogress in his studies, he entered Hart Hall, Oxford, in 1613,\nafterwards joining Magdalen College; and in 1618 he began to lecture on\ncosmography, being made fellow of Magdalen in the same year. His\nlectures, under the title of [Greek: Mikrokosmos], were published in\n1621, and many editions of this useful book, each somewhat enlarged,\nsubsequently appeared. Having been ordained in 1624 Heylyn attracted the\nnotice of William Laud, then bishop of Bath and Wells; and in 1628 he\nmarried Laetitia, daughter of Thomas Highgate, or Heygate, of Hayes,\nMiddlesex; but he appears to have kept his marriage secret and did not\nresign his fellowship. After serving as chaplain to Danby in the Channel\nIslands, he became chaplain to Charles I. in 1630, and was appointed by\nthe king to the rectory of Hemingford, Huntingdonshire. John Williams,\nbishop of Lincoln, however, refused to institute Heylyn to this living,\nowing to his friendship with Laud; and in return Charles appointed him a\nprebendary of Westminster, where he made himself very objectionable to\nWilliams, who held the deanery _in commendam_. In 1633 he became rector\nof Alresford, soon afterwards vicar of South Warnborough, and he became\ntreasurer of Westminster Abbey in 1637; but before this date he was\nwidely known as one of the most prominent and able controversialists\namong the high-church party. Entering with great ardour into the\nreligious controversies of the time he disputed with John Prideaux,\nregius professor of divinity at Oxford, replied to the arguments of\nWilliams in his pamphlets, \"A Coal from the Altar\" and \"Antidotum\nLincolnense,\" and was hostile to the Puritan element both within and\nwithout the Church of England. He assisted William Noy to prepare the\ncase against Prynne for the publication of his _Histriomastix_, and made\nhimself useful to the Royalist party in other ways. However, when the\nLong Parliament met he was allowed to retire to Alresford, where he\nremained until he was disturbed by Sir William Waller's army in 1642,\nwhen he joined the king at Oxford. At Oxford Heylyn edited _Mercurius\nAulicus_, a vivacious but virulent news-sheet, which greatly annoyed the\nParliamentarians; and consequently his house at Alresford was plundered\nand his library dispersed. Subsequently he led for some years a\nwandering life of poverty, afterwards settling at Winchester and then at\nMinster Lovel in Oxfordshire; and he refers to his hardships in his\npamphlet \"Extraneus Vapulans,\" the cleverest of his controversial\nwritings, which was written in answer to Hamon l'Estrange. In 1653 he\nsettled at Lacy's Court, Abingdon, where he resided undisturbed by the\ngovernment of the Commonwealth, and where he wrote several books and\npamphlets, both against those of his own communion, like Thomas Fuller,\nwhose opinions were less unyielding than his own, and against the\nPresbyterians and others, like Richard Baxter.\n\nHis works, all of which are marred by political or theological rancour,\nnumber over fifty. Among the most important are: a legendary and learned\n_History of St. George of Cappadocia_, written in 1631; _Cyprianus\nAnglicus, or the history of the Life and Death of William Laud_, a\ndefence of Laud and a valuable authority for his life; _Ecclesia\nrestaurata, or the History of the Reformation of the Church of England_\n(1661; ed. J. C. Robertson, Cambridge, 1849); _Ecclesia vindicata, or\nthe Church of England justified_; _Aerius redivivus, or History of the\nPresbyterians_; and _Help to English History_, an edition of which, with\nadditions by P. Wright, was published in 1773. In 1636 he wrote a\n_History of the Sabbath_, by order of Charles I. to answer the Puritans;\nand in consequence of a journey through France in 1625 he wrote _A\nSurvey of France_, a work, frequently reprinted, which was termed by\nSouthey \"one of the liveliest books of travel in its lighter parts, and\none of the wisest and most replete with information that was ever\nwritten by a young man.\" Some verses of merit also came from his active\npen, and his poetical memorial of William of Waynflete was published by\nthe Caxton Society in 1851.\n\nHeylyn was a diligent writer and investigator, a good ecclesiastical\nlawyer, and had always learning at his command. His principles, to which\nhe was honestly attached, were defended with ability; but his efforts to\nuphold the church passed unrecognized at the Restoration, probably owing\nto his physical infirmities. His sight had been very bad for several\nyears; yet he rejoiced that his \"bad old eyes\" had seen the king's\nreturn, and upon this event he preached before a large audience in\nWestminster Abbey on the 29th of May 1661. He died on the 8th of May\n1662 and was buried in Westminster Abbey, where he had been sub-dean for\nsome years.\n\n Lives of Heylyn were written by his son-in-law Dr John Barnard or\n Bernard, and by George Vernon (1682). Bernard's work was reprinted\n with Robertson's edition of Heylyn's _History of the Reformation_ in\n 1849.\n\n\n\n\nHEYN, PIETER PIETERZOON [commonly abbreviated to PIET] (1578-1629),\nDutch admiral, was born at Delfshaven in 1578, the son of Pieter Hein,\nwho was engaged in the herring fishery. The son went early to sea. In\nhis youth he was taken prisoner by the Spaniards, and was forced to row\nin the galleys during four years. Having recovered his freedom by an\nexchange of prisoners, he worked for several years as a merchant skipper\nwith success. The then dangerous state of the seas at all times, and the\ncontinuous war with Spain, gave him ample opportunity to gain a\nreputation as a resolute fighting man. Wills which he made before 1623\nshow that he had been able to acquire considerable property. When the\nDutch West India Company was formed he was Director on the Rotterdam\nBoard, and in 1624 he served as second in command of the fleet which\ntook San Salvador in Bahia de Todos os Santos in Brazil. Till 1628 he\ncontinued to serve the Company, both on the coast of Brazil, and in the\nWest Indies. In the month of September of that year he made himself\nfamous, gained immense advantage for the Company, and inflicted ruinous\nloss on the Spaniards, by the capture of the fleet which was bringing\nthe bullion from the American mines home to Spain. The Spanish ships\nwere outnumbered chiefly because the convoy had become scattered by bad\nmanagement and bad seamanship. The more valuable part of it, consisting\nof the four galleons, and eleven trading ships in which the king's share\nof the treasure was being carried, became separated from the rest, and\non being chased by the superior force of Heyn endeavoured to take refuge\nat Matanzas in the island of Cuba, hoping to be able to land the bullion\nin the bush before the Dutchman could come up with them. But Juan de\nBenavides, the Spanish commander, failed to act with decision, was\novertaken, and his ships captured in the harbour before the silver could\nbe discharged. The total loss was estimated by the Spaniards at four\nmillions of ducats. Piet Heyn now returned home, and bought himself a\nhouse at Delft with the intention of retiring from the sea. In the\nfollowing year, however, he was chosen at a crisis to take command of\nthe naval force of the Republic, with the rank of Lieutenant-Admiral of\nHolland, in order to clear the North Sea and Channel of the Dunkirkers,\nwho acted for the king of Spain in his possessions in the Netherlands.\nIn June of 1629 he brought the Dunkirkers to action, and they were\nseverely beaten, but Piet Heyn did not live to enjoy his victory. He was\nstruck early in the battle by a cannon shot on the shoulder and fell\ndead on the spot. His memory has been preserved by his capture of the\nTreasure Galleons, which had never been taken so far, but he is also\nthe traditional representative of the Dutch \"sea dogs\" of the 17th\ncentury.\n\n See de Jonge, _Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche Zeewezen_; I. Duro,\n _Armada espanola_, iv.; der Aa, _Biograph. Woordenboek der\n Nederlanden_. (D. H.)\n\n\n\n\nHEYNE, CHRISTIAN GOTTLOB (1729-1812), German classical scholar and\narchaeologist, was born on the 25th of September 1729, at Chemnitz in\nSaxony. His father was a poor weaver, and the expenses of his early\neducation were paid by one of his godfathers. In 1748 he entered the\nuniversity of Leipzig, where he was frequently in want of the\nnecessaries of life. His distress had almost amounted to despair, when\nhe procured the situation of tutor in the family of a French merchant in\nLeipzig, which enabled him to continue his studies. After he had\ncompleted his university course, he was for many years in very\nstraitened circumstances. An elegy written by him in Latin on the death\nof a friend attracted the attention of Count von Bruhl, the prime\nminister, who expressed a desire to see the author. Accordingly, in\nApril 1752, Heyne journeyed to Dresden, believing that his fortune was\nmade. He was well received, promised a secretaryship and a good salary,\nbut nothing came of it. Another period of want followed, and it was only\nby persistent solicitation that Heyne was able to obtain the post of\nunder-clerk in the count's library, with a salary of somewhat less than\ntwenty pounds sterling. He increased his scanty pittance by translation;\nin addition to some French novels, he rendered into German the _Chaereas\nand Callirrhoe_ of Chariton, the Greek romance writer. He published his\nfirst edition of _Tibullus_ in 1755, and in 1756 his _Epictetus_. In the\nlatter year the Seven Years' War broke out, and Heyne was once more in a\nstate of destitution. In 1757 he was offered a tutorship in the\nhousehold of Frau Von Schonberg, where he met his future wife. In\nJanuary 1759 he accompanied his pupil to the university of Wittenberg,\nfrom which he was driven in 1760 by the Prussian cannon. The bombardment\nof Dresden (to which city he had meanwhile returned) on the 18th of July\n1760, destroyed all his possessions, including an almost finished\nedition of Lucian, based on a valuable codex of the Dresden Library. In\nthe summer of 1761, although still without any fixed income, he married,\nand for some time he found it necessary to devote himself to the duties\nof land-steward to the Baron von Loben in Lusatia. At the end of 1762,\nhowever, he was enabled to return to Dresden, where he was commissioned\nby P. D. Lippert to prepare the Latin text of the third volume of his\n_Dactyliotheca_ (an account of a collection of gems). On the death of\nJohann Matthias Gesner at Gottingen in 1761, the vacant chair was\nrefused first by Ernesti and then by Ruhnken, who persuaded Munchhausen,\nthe Hanoverian minister and principal curator of the university, to\nbestow it on Heyne (1763). His emoluments were gradually augmented, and\nhis growing celebrity brought him most advantageous offers from other\nGerman governments, which he persistently refused. After a long and\nuseful career, he died on the 14th of July 1812. Unlike Gottfried\nHermann, Heyne regarded the study of grammar and language only as the\nmeans to an end, not as the chief object of philology. But, although not\na critical scholar, he was the first to attempt a scientific treatment\nof Greek mythology, and he gave an undoubted impulse to philological\nstudies.\n\n Of Heyne's numerous writings, the following may be mentioned.\n Editions, with copious commentaries, of Tibullus (ed. E. C.\n Wunderlich, 1817), Virgil (ed. G. P. Wagner, 1830-1841), Pindar (3rd\n ed. by G. H. Schafer, 1817), Apollodorus, _Bibliotheca Graeca_ (1803),\n Homer, _Iliad_ (1802); _Opuscula academica_ (1785-1812), containing\n more than a hundred academical dissertations, of which the most\n valuable are those relating to the colonies of Greece and the\n antiquities of Etruscan art and history. His _Antiquarische Aufsatze_\n (1778-1779) is a valuable collection of essays connected with the\n history of ancient art. His contributions to the _Gottingische\n gelehrte Anzeigen_ are said to have been between 7000 and 8000 in\n number. See biography by A. H. Heeren (1813) which forms the basis of\n the interesting essay by Carlyle (_Misc. Essays_, ii.); H. Sauppe,\n _Gottinger Professoren_ (1872); C. Bursian in _Allgemeine deutsche\n Biographie_, xii.; J. E. Sandys, _Hist. Class. Schol._ iii. 36-44.\n\n\n\n\n\nHEYSE, PAUL JOHANN LUDWIG (1830- ), German novelist, dramatist and\npoet, was born at Berlin on the 15th of March 1830, the son of the\ndistinguished philologist Karl Wilhelm Ludwig Heyse (1797-1855). After\nattending the Friedrich Wilhelm Gymnasium in Berlin, he went, in 1849,\nto Bonn University as a student of the Romance languages, and in 1852\ntook his doctor's degree. He had already given proof of great literary\nability in the production in 1850 of _Der Jungbrunnen, Marchen eines\nfahrenden Schulers_ and of the tragedy _Francesca von Rimini_, when\nafter a year's stay in Italy, he was summoned, early in 1854, by King\nMaximilian II. to Munich, where he subsequently lived. Here he turned\nhis attention to novel-writing. He published at Munich in 1855 four\nshort stories in one volume, one of which, at least, _L'Arrabbiata_, was\na masterpiece of its kind. These were the precursors of a series of\nsimilar volumes, necessarily unequal at times, but on the whole\nconstituting such a mass of highly complex miniature fiction as seldom\nbefore had proceeded from the pen of a single writer. Heyse works in the\nspirit of a sculptor; he seizes upon some picturesque incident or\nsituation, and chisels and polishes until all the effect which it is\ncapable of producing has been extracted from it. The success of the\nstory usually depends upon the theme, for the artist's skill is\ngenerally much the same, and the situation usually leaves a deeper\nimpression than the characters. Heyse is also the author of several\nnovels on a larger scale, all of which have gained success and provoked\nabundant discussion. The more important are _Kinder der Welt_ (1873),\n_Im Paradiese_ (1875)--the one dealing with the religious and social\nproblems of its time, the other with artist-life in Munich--_Der Roman\nder Stiftsdame_ (1888), and _Merlin_ (1892), a novel directed against\nthe modern realistic movement of which Heyse had been the leading\nopponent in Germany. He has also been a prolific dramatist, but his\nplays are deficient in theatrical qualities and are rarely seen on the\nstage. Among the best of them are _Die Sabinerinnen_ (1859); _Hans\nLange_ (1866), _Kolberg_ (1868), _Die Weisheit Salomos_ (1886), and\n_Maria von Magdala_ (1903). There are masterly translations by him of\nLeopardi, Giusti, and other Italian poets (_Italienische Dichter seit\nder Mitte des 18ten Jahrhundert_) (4 vols., 1889-1890).\n\n Heyse's _Gesammelte Werke_ appeared in 29 vols. (1897-1899); there is\n also a popular edition of his _Romane_ (8 vols., 1902-1904) and\n _Novellen_ (10 vols., 1904-1906). See his autobiography,\n _Jugenderinnerungen und Bekenntnisse_ (1901); also O. Kraus, _Paul\n Heyses Novellen und Romane_ (1888); E. Petzet, _Paul Heyse als\n Dramatiker_ (1904), and the essays by T. Ziegler (in _Studien und\n Studienkopfe_, 1877), and G. Brandes (in _Moderne Geister_, 1887).\n\n\n\n\nHEYSHAM, a seaport in the Lancaster parliamentary division of\nLancashire, England, on the south shore of Morecambe Bay, served by the\nMidland railway. Pop. (1901) 3381. Under powers obtained from parliament\nin 1896, the Midland Railway Company constructed, and opened in 1904, a\nharbour, enclosed by breakwaters, for the development of traffic with\nBelfast and other Irish ports, a daily passenger-service of the first\nclass being established to Belfast. The harbour has a depth at low tide\nof 17 ft., and extensive accommodation for live-stock and goods of all\nkinds is provided. Heysham is in some favour as a watering-place. The\nchurch of St Peter is mainly Norman, and has fragments of even earlier\ndate. Ruins of a very ancient oratory stand near it. This was dedicated\nto St Patrick, and is traditionally said to have been erected as a place\nof prayer for those at sea.\n\n\n\n\nHEYWOOD, JOHN (b. 1497), English dramatist and epigrammatist, is\ngenerally said to have been a native of North Mimms, near St Albans,\nHertfordshire, though Bale says he was born in London. A letter from a\nJohn Heywood, who may fairly be identified with him, is dated from\nMalines in 1575, when he called himself an old man of seventy-eight,\nwhich would fix his birth in 1497. He was a chorister of the Chapel\nRoyal, and is said to have been educated at Broadgates Hall (Pembroke\nCollege), Oxford. From 1521 onwards his name appears in the king's\naccounts as the recipient of an annuity of ten marks as player of the\nvirginals, and in 1538 he received forty shillings for \"playing an\ninterlude with his children\" before the Princess Mary. He is said to\nhave owed his introduction to her to Sir Thomas More, at whose seat at\nGobions near St Albans he wrote his Epigrams, according to Henry\nPeacham. More took a keen interest in the drama, and is represented by\ntradition as stepping on to the stage and taking an impromptu part in\nthe dialogue. William Rastell, the printer of four of Heywood's plays,\nwas the son of More's brother-in-law, John Rastell, who organized\ndramatic representations, and possibly wrote plays himself. Mr A. W.\nPollard sees in Heywood's firm adherence to Catholicism and his free\nsatire of legal and social abuses a reflection of the ideas of More and\nhis friends, which counts for much in his dramatic development. His\nskill in music and his inexhaustible wit made him a favourite both with\nHenry VIII. and Mary. Under Edward VI. he was accused of denying the\nking's supremacy over the church, and had to make a public recantation\nin 1554; but with the accession of Mary his prospects brightened. He\nmade a Latin speech to her in St Paul's Churchyard at her coronation,\nand wrote a poem to celebrate her marriage. Shortly before her death she\ngranted him the lease of a manor and lands in Yorkshire. When Elizabeth\nsucceeded to the throne he fled to Malines, and is said to have returned\nin 1577. In 1587 he is spoken of as \"dead and gone\" in Thomas Newton's\nepilogue to his works.\n\nJohn Heywood is important in the history of English drama as the first\nwriter to turn the abstract characters of the morality plays into real\npersons. His interludes link the morality plays to the modern drama, and\nwere very popular in their day. They represent ludicrous incidents of a\nhomely kind in a style of the broadest farce, and approximate to the\nFrench dramatic renderings of the subjects of the _fabliaux_. The fun in\nthem still survives in spite of the long arguments between the\ncharacters and what one of their editors calls his \"humour of filth.\"\nHeywood's name was actually attached to four interludes. _The Playe\ncalled the foure PP; a newe and a very mery interlude of a palmer, a\npardoner, a potycary, a pedler_ (not dated) is a contest in lying,\neasily won by Palmer, who said he had never known a woman out of\npatience. _The Play of the Wether, a new and a very mery interlude of\nall maner of Wethers_ (printed 1533) describes the chaotic results of\nJupiter's attempts to suit the weather to the desires of a number of\ndifferent people. _The Play of Love_ (printed 1533) is an extreme\ninstance of the author's love of wire-drawn argument. It is a double\ndispute between \"Loving not Loved\" and \"Loved not Loving\" as to which is\nthe more wretched, and between \"Both Loved and Loving\" and \"Neither\nLoving nor Loved\" to decide which is the happier. The only action in\nthis piece is indicated by the stage direction marking the entrance of\n\"Neither loved nor loving,\" who is to run about the audience with a huge\ncopper tank on his head full of lighted squibs, and is to cry \"Water,\nwater! Fire, fire!\" _The Dialogue of Wit and Folly_ is more of an\nacademic dispute than a play. But two pieces universally assigned to\nHeywood, although they were printed by Rastell without any author's\nname, combine action with dialogue, and are much more dramatic. In _The\nMery Play between the Pardoner and the Frere, the Curate and Neybour\nPratte_ (printed 1533, but probably written much earlier) the Pardoner\nand the Friar both try to preach at the same time, and, coming at last\nto blows, are separated by the other two personages of the piece. The\n_Mery Play betwene Johan Johan the Husbande, Tyb the Wyfe, and Syr Jhan\nthe Preest_ (printed 1533) is the best constructed of all his pieces.\nTyb and Syr Jhan eat the \"Pye\" which is the central \"property\" of the\npiece, while Johan Johan is made to chafe wax at the fire to stop a hole\nin a pail. This incident occurs in a French _Farce nouvelle tres bonne\net fort joyeuse de Pernet qui va au vin_. Heywood has sometimes been\ncredited with the authorship of the dialogue of _Gentylnes and Nobylyte_\nprinted by Rastell without date, and Mr Pollard adduces some ground for\nattributing to him the anonymous _New Enterlude called Thersytes_\n(played 1538). Heywood's other works are a collection of proverbs and\nepigrams, the earliest extant edition of which is dated 1562; some\nballads, one of them being the \"Willow Garland,\" known to Desdemona;\nand a long verse allegory of over 7000 lines entitled _The Spider and\nthe Flie_ (1556). A contemporary writer in Holinshed's _Chronicle_ said\nthat neither its author nor any one else could \"reach unto the meaning\nthereof.\" But the flies are generally taken to represent the Roman\nCatholics and the spiders the Protestants, while Queen Mary is\nrepresented by the housemaid who with her broom (the sword) executes the\ncommands of her master (Christ) and her mistress (the church). Dr A. W.\nWard speaks of its \"general lucidity and relative variety of treatment.\"\nHeywood says that he laid it aside for twenty years before he finished\nit, and, whatever may be the final interpretation put upon it, it\ncontains a very energetic statement of the social evils of the time, and\nespecially of the deficiencies of English law.\n\n The proverbs and epigrams were reprinted by the Spenser Society in\n 1867, the _Dialogue on Wit and Folly_ by the Percy Society from an MS.\n in the British Museum in 1846, with an account of Heywood by F. W.\n Fairholt, and there are modern reprints of _Johan Johan_ (Chiswick\n Press, 1819), _The Foure PP_. (Dodsley's _Old Plays_, 1825, 1874), and\n _The Pardoner and the Frere_ (Dodsley's _Old Plays_, 1874). _The\n Spider and the Flie_ was edited by A. W. Ward for the Spenser Society\n in 1894. For notes and strictures on that edition see J. Haber in\n _Litterarhistorische Forschungen_, vol. xv. (1900). See also A. W.\n Pollard's introduction to the reprint of the _Play of the Wether_ and\n _Johan Johan in Representative English Comedies_ (1903), and _The\n Dramatic Writings of John Heywood_, edited by John S. Farmer for the\n Early English Drama Society (1905).\n\nHis son, JASPER HEYWOOD (1535-1598), who translated into English three\nplays of Seneca, the _Troas_ (1559), the _Thyestes_ (1560) and _Hercules\nFurens_ (1561), was a fellow of Merton College, Oxford, but was\ncompelled to resign from that society in 1558. In the same year he was\nelected a fellow of All Souls College, but, refusing to conform to the\nchanges in religion at the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth, he gave\nup his fellowship and went to Rome, where he was received into the\nSociety of Jesus. For seventeen years he was professor of moral theology\nand controversy in the Jesuit College at Dillingen, Bavaria. In 1581 he\nwas sent to England as superior of the Jesuit mission, but his leniency\nin that position led to his recall. He was on his way back to the\nContinent when a violent storm drove him back to the English coast. He\nwas arrested on the charge of being a priest, but, although\nextraordinary efforts were made to induce him to abjure his opinions, he\nremained firm. He was condemned to perpetual exile on pain of death, and\ndied at Naples on the 9th of January 1598. His translations of Seneca\nwere supplemented by other plays contributed by Alexander Neville,\nThomas Nuce, John Studley and Thomas Newton. Newton collected these\ntranslations in one volume, _Seneca, his tenne tragedies translated into\nEnglysh_ (1581). The importance of this work in the development of\nEnglish drama can hardly be over-estimated.\n\n See Dr J. W. Cunliffe, _On the Influence of Seneca upon Elizabethan\n Tragedy_ (1893).\n\n\n\n\nHEYWOOD, THOMAS (d. c. 1650), English dramatist and miscellaneous\nauthor, was a native of Lincolnshire, born about 1575, and said to have\nbeen educated at Cambridge and to have become a fellow of Peterhouse.\nHeywood is mentioned by Philip Henslowe as having written a book or play\nfor the Lord Admiral's company of actors in October 1596; and in 1598 he\nwas regularly engaged as a player in the company, in which he presumably\nhad a share, as no wages are mentioned. He was also a member of other\ncompanies, of Lord Southampton's, of the earl of Derby's and of the earl\nof Worcester's players, afterwards known as the Queen's Servants. In his\npreface to the _English Traveller_ (1633) he describes himself as having\nhad \"an entire hand or at least a main finger in two hundred and twenty\nplays.\" Of this number, probably considerably increased before the close\nof his dramatic career, only twenty-three survive. He wrote for the\nstage, not for the press, and protested against the printing of his\nworks, which he said he had no time to revise. He was, said Tieck, the\n\"model of a light and rapid talent,\" and his plays, as might be expected\nfrom his rate of production, bear little trace of artistic elaboration.\nCharles Lamb called him a \"prose Shakespeare\"; Professor Ward, one of\nHeywood's most sympathetic editors, points out that this epigrammatic\nstatement can only be accepted with reservations. Heywood had a keen eye\nfor dramatic situations and great constructive skill, but his powers of\ncharacterization were not on a par with his stagecraft. He delighted in\nwhat he called \"merry accidents,\" that is, in coarse, broad farce; his\nfancy and invention were inexhaustible. It was in the domestic drama of\nsentiment that he won his most distinctive success. For this he was\nespecially fitted by his genuine tenderness and his freedom from\naffectation, by the sweetness and gentleness for which Lamb praised him.\nHis masterpiece, _A Woman kilde with kindnesse_ (acted 1603; printed\n1607), is a type of the _comedie larmoyante_, and _The English\nTraveller_ (1633) is a domestic tragedy scarcely inferior to it in\npathos and in the elevation of its moral tone. His first play was\nprobably _The Foure Prentises of London: With the Conquest of Jerusalem_\n(printed 1615, but acted some fifteen years earlier). This may have been\nintended as a burlesque of the old romances, but it is more likely that\nit was meant seriously to attract the apprentice public to whom it was\ndedicated, and its popularity was no doubt aimed at in Beaumont and\nFletcher's travesty of the City taste in drama in their _Knight of the\nBurning Pestle_. The two parts of _King Edward the Fourth_ (printed\n1600), and of _If you know not me, you know no bodie; Or, The Troubles\nof Queene Elizabeth_ (1605 and 1606) are chronicle histories. His other\ncomedies include: _The Royall King, and the Loyall subject_ (acted c.\n1600; printed 1637); the two parts of _The Fair Maid of the West; Or, A\nGirle worth Gold_ (two parts, printed 1631); _The Fayre Maid of the\nExchange_ (printed anonymously 1607); _The Late Lancashire Witches_\n(1634), written with Richard Brome, and prompted by an actual trial in\nthe preceding year; _A Pleasant Comedy, called A Mayden-Head well lost_\n(1634); _A Challenge for Beautie_ (1636); _The Wise-Woman of Hogsdon_\n(printed 1638), the witchcraft in this case being matter for comedy, not\nseriously treated as in the Lancashire play; and _Fortune by Land and\nSea_ (printed 1655), with William Rowley. The five plays called\nrespectively _The Golden_, _The Silver_, _The Brazen_ and _The Iron Age_\n(the last in two parts), dated 1611, 1613, 1613, 1632, are series of\nclassical stories strung together with no particular connexion except\nthat \"old Homer\" introduces the performers of each act in turn. _Loves\nMaistresse; Or, The Queens Masque_ (printed 1636) is on the story of\nCupid and Psyche as told by Apuleius; and the tragedy of the _Rape of\nLucrece_ (1608) is varied by a \"merry lord,\" Valerius, who lightens the\ngloom of the situation by singing comic songs. A series of pageants,\nmost of them devised for the City of London, or its guilds, by Heywood,\nwere printed in 1637. In vol. iv. of his _Collection of Old English\nPlays_ (1885), Mr A. H. Bullen printed for the first time a comedy by\nHeywood, _The Captives, or The Lost Recovered_ (licensed 1624), and in\nvol. ii. of the same series, _Dicke of Devonshire_, which he tentatively\nassigns to the same hand.\n\nBesides his dramatic works, twelve of which were reprinted by the\n\"Shakespeare Society,\" and were published by Mr John Pearson in a\ncomplete edition of six vols. with notes and illustrations in 1874, he\nwas the author of _Troia Britannica, or Great Britain's Troy_ (1609), a\npoem in seventeen cantos \"intermixed with many pleasant poetical tales\"\nand \"concluding with an universal chronicle from the creation until the\npresent time\"; _An Apology for Actors, containing three brief treatises_\n(1612) edited for the Shakespeare Society in 1841; [Greek: Gynaikeion]\n_or nine books of various history concerning women_ (1624); _England's\nElizabeth, her Life and Troubles during her minority from the Cradle to\nthe Crown_ (1631); _The Hierarchy of the Blessed Angels_ (1635), a\ndidactic poem in nine books; _Pleasant Dialogue, and Dramas selected out\nof Lucian_, &c. (1637; ed. W. Bang, Louvain, 1903); and _The Life of\nMerlin surnamed Ambrosius_ (1641).\n\n See A. W. Ward, _History of English Dram. Lit._ ii. 550 seq. (1899);\n the same author's Introduction to _A woman killed with kindness_\n (\"Temple Dramatists,\" 1897); J. A. Symonds in the Introduction to\n _Thomas Heywood_ in the \"Mermaid\" series (new issue, 1903).\n\n\n\n\nHEYWOOD, a municipal borough in the Heywood parliamentary division of\nLancashire, England, 9 m. N. of Manchester on the Lancashire and\nYorkshire railway. Pop. (1901) 25,458. It is of modern growth and\npossesses several handsome churches, chapels and public buildings. The\nQueen's Park, purchased and laid out at a cost of L11,000 with money\nwhich devolved to Queen Victoria in right of her duchy and county\npalatine of Lancaster, was opened in 1879. Heywood Hall in the\nneighbourhood of the town was the residence of Peter Heywood, who\ncontributed to the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot. Heywood owes its\nrise to the enterprise of the Peels, its first manufactures having been\nintroduced by the father of the first Sir Robert Peel. It is an\nimportant seat of the cotton manufacture, and there are power-loom\nfactories, iron foundries, chemical works, boiler-works and railway\nwagon works. Coal is worked extensively in the neighbourhood. Heywood\nwas incorporated in 1881, and the corporation consists of a mayor, 6\naldermen and 18 councillors. Area, 3660 acres.\n\n\n\n\nHEZEKIAH (Heb. for \"[my] strength is [of] Yah\"), in the Bible son of\nAhaz, one of the greatest of the kings of Judah. He flourished at the\nend of the 8th and beginning of the 7th century B.C., when Palestine\npassed through one of the most eventful periods of its history. There is\nmuch that is uncertain in his reign, and with the exception of the great\ncrisis of 701 B.C. its chronology has not been unanimously fixed.\nWhether he came to the throne before or after the fall of Samaria\n(722-721 B.C.) is disputed,[1] nor is it clear what share Judah took in\nthe Assyrian conflicts down to 701.[2] Shortly before this date the\nwhole of western Asia was in a ferment; Sargon had died and Sennacherib\nhad come to the throne (in 705); vassal kings plotted to recover their\nindependence and Assyrian puppets were removed by their opponents. Judah\nwas in touch with a general rising in S.W. Palestine, in which Ekron,\nLachish, Ascalon (Ashkelon) and other towns of the Philistines were\nsupported by the kings of Musri and Meluhha.[3] Sennacherib completely\nrouted them at Eltekeh (a Danite city), and thence turned against\nHezekiah, who had been in league with Ekron and had imprisoned its king\nPadi, an Assyrian vassal. In this invasion of Judah the Assyrian claims\nentire success; 46 towns of Judah were captured, 200,150 men and many\nherds of cattle were carried off among the spoil, and Jerusalem itself\nwas closely invested. Hezekiah was imprisoned \"like a bird in a\ncage\"[4]--to quote Sennacherib, and the Urbi (Arabian?) troops in\nJerusalem laid down their arms. Thirty talents of gold, eight hundred of\nsilver, precious stones, couches and seats of ivory--\"all kinds of\nvaluable treasure\",--the ladies of the court, male and female attendants\n(perhaps \"singers\") were carried away to Nineveh. Here the Assyrian\nrecord ends somewhat abruptly, for, in the meanwhile, Babylonia had\nagain revolted (700 B.C.) and Sennacherib's presence was urgently needed\nnearer home.\n\nAt what precise period the Babylonian Merodach (i.e. Marduk)-Baladan\nsent his embassy to Hezekiah is disputed. Although ostensibly to\ncongratulate the king upon his recovery from a sickness, it was really\nsent in the hope of enlisting his support, and the excessive courtesy\nand complaisance with which it was received suggest that it found a\nready ally in Judah (2 Kings xx. 12 sqq.; Isa. xxxix.). Merodach-Baladan\nwas overthrown by Sargon in 710 B.C., but succeeded in making a fresh\nrevolt some years later (704-703 B.C.), and opinion is much divided\nwhether his embassy was to secure the friendship of the youthful\nHezekiah at his succession or is to be associated with the later\nwidespread attempt to remove the Assyrian yoke.[5]\n\nThe brief account of the Assyrian invasion, Hezekiah's submission, and\nthe payment of tribute in 2 Kings xviii. 14-16, supplements the Assyrian\nrecord by the statement that Sennacherib besieged Lachish, a fact which\nis confirmed by a bas-relief (now in the British Museum) depicting the\nking in the act of besieging that town.[6] This thoroughly historical\nfragment is followed by two narratives which tell how the king sent an\nofficial from Lachish to demand the submission of Hezekiah and conclude\nwith the unexpected deliverance of Jerusalem. Both these stories appear\nto belong to a biography of Isaiah, and, like the similar biographies of\nElijah and Elisha, are open to the suspicion that historical facts have\nbeen subordinated to idealize the work of the prophet. See KINGS, BOOKS\nOF.\n\n The narratives are (a) 2 Kings xviii. 13, 17-xix. 8; cf. Isa. xxxvi.\n 1-xxxvii. 8, and (b) xix. 9b-35; cp. Isa. xxxvii. 9-36 (2 Chron.\n xxxii. 9 sqq. is based on both), and Jerusalem's deliverance is\n attributed to a certain rumour (xix. 7), to the advance of Tirhakah,\n king of Ethiopia (v. 9), and to a remarkable pestilence (v. 35) which\n finds an echo in a famous story related, not without some confusion of\n essential facts, by Herodotus (ii. 141; cf. Josephus _Antiq._ x. i.\n 5).[7] It is difficult to decide whether xix. 9a belongs to the first\n or second of these narratives; and whether the \"rumour\" refers to the\n approach of Tirhakah, or rather to the serious troubles which had\n arisen in Babylonia. It is equally difficult to determine whether\n Tirhakah actually appeared on the scene in 701, and the precise\n application of the term Musri (Mizraim) is much debated. Unless the\n two narratives are duplicates of the same event, it may be urged that\n Sennacherib's attack upon Arabia (apparently about 689) involved an\n invasion of Judah, by which time Egypt was in a position to be of\n material assistance (cf. Isa. xxx. 1-5, xxxi. 1-3?). This theory of a\n second campaign (first suggested by Sir Henry Rawlinson) has been\n contested, although it is pointed out that Sennacherib at all events\n did not invade Egypt, and that 2 Kings xix. 24 (Isa. xxxvii. 25) can\n only refer to his successor. The allusion to the murder of Sennacherib\n (xix. 36 sq.)[8] points to the year 681, but it is uncertain to which\n of the above narratives it belongs. On the whole, the question must be\n left open, and with it both the problem of the extension of the name\n Musri and Mizraim outside Egypt in the Assyrian and Hebrew records of\n this period and the true historical background of a number of the\n Isaianic prophecies. It is quite possible that later events which\n belong to the time of the Egyptian supremacy and the wars of\n Esarhaddon have been confused with the history of Sennacherib's\n invasion.\n\nIt is not certain whether Hezekiah's conflict with the Philistines as\nfar as Gaza or his preparations to secure for Jerusalem a good water\nsupply (xviii. 8, xx. 20; 2 Chron. xxxii. 30; Ecclus. xlviii. 17 sq.)[9]\nshould precede or follow the events which have been discussed. On the\nother hand, the reforms which the compiler of the book has attributed to\nthe early part of the reign were doubtless much later (2 Kings xviii.\n1-8). Not the fall of Samaria, but the crisis of 701, is the earliest\ndate that could safely be chosen, and the extent of these reforms must\nnot be overestimated. They are related in terms that imply an\nacquaintance with the great \"Deuteronomic\" movement (see DEUTERONOMY),\nand are magnified further with characteristic detail by the chronicler\n(2 Chron. xxix.-xxxi.). The most remarkable was the destruction of a\nbrazen serpent, the cult of which was traditionally traced back to the\ntime of Moses (Num. xxi. 9).[10] This persistence of serpent-cult, and\nthe idolatry (necromancy, tree-worship) which the contemporary prophets\ndenounce, do not support the view that the apparently radical reforms of\nHezekiah were extensive or permanent, and Jer. xxvi. 17-19 (which\nsuggests that Micah had a greater influence than Isaiah) throws another\nlight upon the conditions during his reign. Hezekiah was succeeded by\nhis son MANASSEH (q.v.).\n\n See further W. R. Smith, _Prophets_, 359-364, and HEBREW RELIGION.\n According to PROV. xxv. 1, Hezekiah was a patron of literature (see\n PROVERBS). The hymn which is ascribed to the king (Isa. xxxviii. 9-20,\n wanting in 2 Kings) is of post-exilic origin (see Cheyne, _Introd. to\n Isaiah_, 222 sq.), but is further proof of the manner in which the\n Judaean king was idealized in subsequent ages, partly, perhaps, in the\n belief that the deliverance of Jerusalem was the reward for his piety.\n For special discussions, see Stade, _Zeits. d. alttest. Wissenschaft_,\n 1886, pp. 173 sqq.; Winckler, _Alttest. Untersuch_., 26 sqq.;\n Schrader, _Cuneiform Inscr. and Old Test_. (on 2 Kings, _l.c_.);\n Driver, _Isaiah, his Life and Times_, pp. 43-83; A. Jeremias, _Alte\n Test_. 304-310; Nagel, _Zug d. Sanherib gegen Jerus_. (Leipzig, 1903,\n conservative); and especially Prasek, Sanherib's \"Feldzuge gegen Juda\"\n (_Mitteil. d. Vorderasiat. Gesell_., 1903, pp. 113-158), K. Fullerton,\n _Bibliotheca sacra_, 1906, pp. 577-634, A. Alt, _Israel u. Agypten_\n (Leipzig, 1909); also the bibliography to ISAIAH. (S. A. C.)\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [1] See W. R. Smith, Prophets of Israel,[2] 415 sqq.; O. C.\n Whitehouse, _Isaiah_, pp. 20 sqq., 372; J. Skinner, _Kings_, p. 43\n seq.; T. K. Cheyne, _Ency. Bib._ col. 2058, n. 1, and references.\n\n [2] The chief dates are: 720, defeat of a coalition (Hamath, Gaza and\n Musri) at Karkar in north Syria and Raphia (S. Palestine); 715, a\n rising of Musri and Arabian tribes; 713-711, revolt and capture of\n Ashdod (cp. Is. xx.). That Judah was invaded on this latter occasion\n is not improbable.\n\n [3] Meluhha is held by many critics to be N.W. Arabia; the\n identification of Musri is uncertain, see below.\n\n [4] The phrase was a favourite one of Rib-Addi, king of Gebal\n (Byblus), in the 15th century B.C.; _Tell-el-Amarna Letters_ (ed.\n Knudtzon), Nos. 74, 79, &c. Jeremiah (v. 27) uses the simile in a\n different way. For a discussion of Sennacherib's record, see Wilke,\n _Jesaja u. Assur_ (Leipzig, 1905), pp. 97 sqq.\n\n [5] For the early date (between 720 and 710), Winckler, _Alttest.\n Unt._ 139 sqq., Burney, _Kings_, 350 sq.; Driver; Kuchler, &c.; for\n the later, Whitehouse, _Isaiah_, 29 sq., in agreement with Schrader,\n Wellhausen, W. R. Smith, Cheyne, M'Curdy, Paton, &c.\n\n [6] Isa. x. 28-32 may perhaps refer to this invasion. Allusions to\n the Assyrian oppression are found in Isa. x. 5-15, xiv. 24-27, xvii.\n 12-14; and to internal Judaean intrigues perhaps in Isa. xxii. 15-18,\n xxix. 15. For a picture of the ruins in Jerusalem, see Isa. xxii.\n 9-11. But see further ISAIAH (BOOK).\n\n [7] See, on the story, Griffith, in D. Hogarth's _Authority and\n Archaeology_, p. 167, n. 1.\n\n [8] The house of _Nisroch_ should probably be that of the god\n _Nusku_; see also Driver in Hogarth, _op. cit._ p. 109; Winckler,\n _op. cit._ p. 84.\n\n [9] It is commonly believed that Hezekiah constructed the conduit of\n Siloam, famous for its Hebrew inscription (see INSCRIPTIONS,\n JERUSALEM). But Isa. viii. 6, would seem to show that the pool was\n already in existence, and, for palaeographical details, see _Pal.\n Explor. Fund, Quart. Stat._ (1909), pp. 289, 305 sqq.\n\n [10] The name Nehushtan (2 Kings xviii. 4, cp. _nahash_, \"serpent\")\n is obscure: see the commentaries.\n\n\n\n\nHIATUS (Lat. for gaping, or gap), a break in continuity, whether in\nspeech, thought or events, a lacuna. In anatomy the term is used for an\nopening or foramen, as the _hiatus Fallopii_, a foramen of the temporal\nbone. In logic a hiatus occurs when a step or link in reasoning is\nwanting; and in grammar it is the pause made for the sake of euphony in\npronouncing two successive vowels, which are not separated by a\nconsonant.\n\n\n\n\nHIAWATHA (\"he makes rivers\"), a legendary chief (_c_. 1450) of the\nOnondaga tribe of North American Indians. The formation of the League of\nSix Nations, known as the Iroquois, is attributed to him by Indian\ntradition. In his miraculous character Hiawatha is the incarnation of\nhuman progress and civilization. He teaches agriculture, navigation,\nmedicine and the arts, conquering by his magic all the powers of nature\nwhich war against man.\n\n See J. N. B. Hewitt, in _Amer. Anthrop_. for April 1892.\n\n\n\n\nHIBBING, a village of St Louis county, Minnesota, U.S.A., 75 m. N.W. of\nDuluth. Pop. (1900) 2481; (1905 state census) 6566, of whom 3537 were\nforeign-born (1169 Finns, 516 Swedes, 498 Canadians, 323 Austrians and\n314 Norwegians); (1910) 8832. Hibbing is served by the Great Northern\nand the Duluth, Missabe & Northern railways. It lies in the midst of the\ngreat Mesabi iron-ore deposits of the state; in 1907 forty iron mines\nwere in operation within 10 m. of the village. Lumbering and farming are\nalso important industries. The village owns and operates the water-works\nand electric-lighting plant. Hibbing was settled in 1892 and was\nincorporated in 1893.\n\n\n\n\nHIBERNACULUM (Lat. for winter quarters), in botany a term for a winter\nbud; in botanic gardens, the winter quarters for plants; in zoology, the\nwinter bud of a polyzoan.\n\n\n\n\nHIBERNATION (winter sleep), the dormant condition in which certain\nanimals pass the winter in cold latitudes. Aestivation (summer sleep) is\nthe similar condition in which other species pass periods of heat or\ndrought in warm latitudes. The origins of these kindred phenomena are\nprobably to be sought in the regularly recurrent failure of food supply\nor of other factors essential to existence due to the seasonal onset of\ncold in the one case and of excessively dry hot weather in the other.\nThey are means whereby certain non-migratory species are enabled to live\nthrough unfavourable climatic conditions which would end fatally in\nstarvation or desiccation were the animals to maintain their normal\nstate of activity.\n\nI. _The Physiology of Hibernation. Hibernation and Aestivation_.--The\nphysiology of hibernation, as exemplified in mammalia, has been worked\nout in detail by several observers in the case of some European species,\nnotably bats, hedgehogs, dormice and marmots. Of the physiology of\naestivation nothing definite appears to have been ascertained. It seems\nprobable, however, from observations upon the dormant animals that the\nphysiological accompaniments of winter and summer sleep are to all\nintents and purposes the same. The state of hibernation, for example,\nin the European hedgehog (_Erinaceus europaeus_) is not distinguished by\nexternal signs from the state of aestivation of the allied Mascarene\ngenus, the tenrec (_Centetes ecaudatus_). The lethargy in both cases\nappears to be directly due to fall in the temperature of the organisms;\nand the fall in temperature proceeds _pari passu_ with the slowing down\nand weakening of the respiration and with retardation in the circulation\nof the blood. Similarity, moreover, between hibernation and aestivation\nis shown not only in their physiological accompaniments but also in the\nspecies of animals which become seasonally dormant. Birds neither\nhibernate nor aestivate. The tenrec (_Centetes_) of Madagascar, which\naestivates, closely resembles the hedgehog (_Erinaceus_) in habits and\nbelongs to the same order of mammalia. In the case of reptiles and\nbatrachians, snakes, lizards, tortoises, frogs and toads sleep the\nwinter through in cold countries; and some species of these groups\nhabitually bury themselves in the sand or mud in tropical latitudes\nwhere drought is of periodical occurrence. Terrestrial molluscs lie\ndormant in the winter in cold and temperate latitudes and their tropical\nallies aestivate in districts where conditions enforce the habit. Some\nfresh-water molluscs bury themselves in the mud at the bottom of ponds\nwhen the surface is covered with ice; others take refuge in the same way\nwhen pools and tanks become exhausted during the dry season in the\ntropics. In temperate and north temperate countries insects and\narachnida either die or retire to winter quarters during the cold\nweather, and in the tropics they similarly disappear during times of\ndrought.\n\n_Predisposing Causes of Hibernation._--The likeness between hibernation\nand aestivation and the coincidence of the one with cold and of the\nother with heat arrest the conclusion that the temperature of the\nsurrounding medium, whether atmospheric or aquatic, is the prime, much\nless the sole, cause of either. The effect of extreme cold is to rouse\nthe hibernating animal from its slumber; and its continuance thereafter\nbrings about a state of torpor which proves fatal. This at least appears\nto be the case with mammals, where actual freezing of the tissues is\nfollowed by death because the gases are expelled from the fluids as\nbubbles and the salts separate in the form of crystals. Some\ncold-blooded animals, however, may be cooled to 0 deg. C. Fish have been\nresuscitated after solidification in blocks of ice, and frogs have been\nknown to recover when ice has been formed in the blood and in the lymph\nof the peritoneal cavity (Landois).\n\nFor the reasons given, all hibernating mammals take precautions against\nexposure to extreme cold. They either bury themselves in the soil or\nunder the snow or seek the shelter of hollow trees or of caves, not\ninfrequently congregating in the same spot so that the temperature is\nkept up by corporeal contact. Again the hibernating instinct may be\nsuspended unless the conditions are favourable for safely entering upon\nwinter sleep. It is alleged that bears in Scandinavia do not hibernate\nunless food has been sufficiently plentiful during the summer and autumn\nto fatten them for their winter fast; and hedgehogs and dormice in\ncaptivity have been known to remain active in the cold until warm\nsleeping-quarters were insured by placing hay and cotton-wool in their\ncages. Finally the wood-chucks (_Arctomys monax_) in the Adirondacks\nretire to winter quarters at about the time of the autumnal equinox,\nwhen the weather is warm and pleasant, and emerge at the vernal equinox\nbefore the snows of winter have vanished from the ground. These and\nother facts justify Marshall Hall's conclusion that cold is merely a\npredisposing cause of hibernation in the sense that it is a predisposing\ncause of ordinary sleep. It has also been shown that the state of\nhibernation cannot be forced upon snails in summer by submitting them to\nartificial cold even almost to freezing point; but that at the proper\nseason they prepare for winter quarters at temperatures varying from 37\ndeg. to 77 deg. Fahr. Again insects sometimes retire to winter quarters\nin the autumn when the temperature of the atmosphere is higher than that\nof preceding days during which they retain their activity.\n\nThus the oncoming and ceasing both of winter and summer sleep depend to\na considerable extent upon conditions of existence other than those of\ntemperature. Darwin saw scarcely a sign of a living thing on his arrival\nat Bahia Blanca, Argentina, on the 7th of Sept., although by digging\nseveral insects, large spiders and lizards were found in a half-torpid\nstate. During the days of his visit when nature was dormant the mean\ntemperature was 51 deg., the thermometer seldom rising above 55 deg. at\nmid-day. But during the succeeding days when the mean temperature was 58\ndeg. and that of the middle of the day between 60 deg. and 70 deg. both\ninsect and reptilian life was in a state of activity. Nevertheless at\nMontevideo, lying only four degrees further north, between the 26th of\nJuly and the 19th of August when the mean temperature was 58.4 deg. and\nthe mean highest temperature of mid-day 65.5 deg. almost every beetle,\nseveral genera of spiders, land molluscs, toads and lizards were all\nlying dormant beneath stones. Thus the animal-life at Montevideo\nremained dormant at a temperature which roused that at Bahia Blanca from\nits torpidity. Darwin unfortunately does not record whether the species\nobserved were identical in the two localities.\n\nThe temperature of animals in a profound state of hibernation is\napproximately the same as that of the surrounding medium or at most a\ndegree or two higher. If, however, the temperature of the chosen\nhibernaculum (winter quarters) falls as low as freezing point, life is\nendangered at least in the case of mammals.\n\nIn most cold-blooded animals, like reptiles, the temperature is normally\nonly a little above that of the atmosphere, the two rising and falling\ntogether. But, setting aside the young, especially of those species in\nwhich the offspring are born or hatched at a comparatively early stage\nof development, the majority of warm-blooded animals are able to\nmaintain a high and approximately level temperature irrespective of\ndecline in the temperature of the surrounding medium. This faculty of\ntemperature adjustment, however, appears to be absent or weakened in\nmost if not in all hibernating mammals both in their normal nocturnal or\ndiurnal sleep and in their winter sleep. In the case of European bats it\nhas been shown that the ordinary day sleep in summer differs only in the\nmatter of duration from the prolonged slumber of the same animals in\nwinter. The temperature falls with that of the atmosphere, respiration\npractically ceases and immersion in water for as many as eleven minutes\nhas been known to prove innocuous. At moderate temperatures ranging from\n45 deg. to 50 deg. F., dormice (_Muscardinus avellanarius_) and\nhedgehogs (_Erinaceus europaeus_) alternately wake to feed and sink into\nslumber. Dormice awake once in every twenty-four hours; the sleep of the\nhedgehogs may last for two or three days. The temperature of the\nhedgehog, when awake and active, rises to about 87 deg. F., that of the\ndormouse to 92 deg. or 94 deg. F.; but during sleep the temperature of\nboth species falls to about that of the atmosphere. In other words, all\nthe phenomena characteristic of hibernation are exhibited in these\nanimals during the periods of sleep interrupting their periods of\nwakeful activity. Sleep of this nature, for which the term \"diurnation\"\nhas been proposed, because it has only been observed in nocturnal\nanimals, lies phenomenally midway between the normal sleep of\nnon-hibernating mammals and the dormant condition in winter of\nhibernating species. The stimulus of hunger appears to be the prime\ncause of its periodic cessation. Since then the faculty of temperature\nadjustment is in abeyance during the ordinary diurnal summer sleep in\nhibernating mammals, which in this physiological particular resemble\nreptiles, it seems probable that hibernation can only be practised by\nthose species in which the power to maintain, when sleeping, a permanent\naverage high temperature has been lost or perhaps never acquired. That\nthere is no broad line of demarcation between the ordinary sleep of\nthese hibernating mammals in which the temperature is known to drop\nconsiderably and that of non-hibernating species is indicated by the\nfact that the temperature of human beings and possibly of all\nnon-hibernating species falls to a certain, though to a limited, extent\nin ordinary sleep.\n\nThe relation between the internal body-temperature and the respiratory\nmovements has been worked out in hibernating dormice, hedgehogs, marmots\nand bats. When the temperature is below 12 deg. C., the torpid animal\nexhibits long periods of apnoea of several minutes' duration and\ninterrupted by a few respirations. With the temperature rising above 13\ndeg. C., the periods of apnoea in the still inactive animal become\nshorter, the respiration suddenly commencing and ceasing (Biot's type),\nor gradually waxing and waning (Cheyne-Stokes' type). When the\ntemperature is at about 16 deg. C., the periods of apnoea in the\ngradually awaking animal are very short and infrequent. When the\ntemperature is about 20 deg. and rising apace, respiration becomes\ncontinuous and rapid and the animal is awake. These stages have been\nespecially recorded in the case of dormice. In the last stage the\nrespiration of hedgehogs and marmots is somewhat different, there being\na series of rapid respirations, often followed by a single deep sighing\nrespiration.\n\n_Respiration_ appears to be totally suspended in animals in a complete\nstate of hibernation, if left undisturbed. It may however, be readily\nre-excited by the slightest stimulus; and to this fact may perhaps be\nattributed the belief that breathing does not actually cease. If a\nhibernating hedgehog be lightly touched it draws a deep breath, and\nbreathing is maintained for a longer or shorter time before again\nceasing; but if at the same time the temperature of the atmosphere be\nraised, respiration becomes continuous and lethargy is succeeded by\nactivity (Marshall Hall). The opinion that respiration is totally\nsuspended is supported by a number of facts. Hibernating marmots and\nbats, for example, have been known to live four hours in carbon dioxide,\na gas which proves almost instantly fatal to mammals in a state of\nnormal activity (Spallanzani). A hedgehog which may be drowned in about\nthree minutes when awake and active, has been removed from water\nuninjured when in deep winter sleep after twenty-two and a half minutes'\nsubmergence. A hibernating noctule bat, when similarly treated, survived\nsixteen minutes' immersion. Further proof of the suspension of\nrespiration has been furnished by experiments upon a bat which while in\na deep and undisturbed state of lethargy was kept in a pneumatometer for\nten hours without appreciably affecting the percentage of oxygen in the\nair. The same animal, when active, removed over 5 cub. in. of oxygen in\nthe space of one hour from the instrument.\n\nAs in the case of respiration, _alimentation_ and _excretion_ are\nsuspended during hibernation.\n\nThe _circulation of the blood_, on the other hand, continues without\ninterruption, though its rapidity is greatly retarded. This fact may be\nobserved by microscopic examination of the wings of bats in a state of\nwinter sleep. Moreover, in the case of a hedgehog lethargic from\nhibernation, it was experimentally shown that when the spinal cord was\nsevered behind the occipital foramen, the brain removed and the entire\nspinal cord gently destroyed, the heart continued to beat strongly and\nregularly for several hours, the contraction of the auricles and\nventricles being quite perceptible, though feeble, even after the lapse\nof ten hours. After eleven hours the organ was motionless; but resumed\nits activity when stimulated by a knife-point. Even after twelve hours\nboth auricles responded to the same stimulus, though the ventricles\nremained motionless. Shortly afterwards the auricles gave no response.\nOn the other hand, when the spinal cord of a hedgehog in a normal state\nof activity was severed at the occiput, the left ventricle ceased to\nbeat almost at once, and the left auricle in less than fifteen minutes;\nthe right auricle was the next to cease, whereas the right ventricle\ncontinued its contraction for about two hours. Experiments upon marmots\nhave yielded very similar results. The heart of a marmot decapitated in\na state of lethargy continued to beat for over three hours. The\npulsations, at first strong and frequent and varying from 16 to 18 per\nminute, became gradually weaker and less frequent, until at the end of\nthe third hour only 3 were recorded in the same length of time. Excised\npieces of voluntary muscular tissue contracted vigorously three hours\nafter death under electric stimulus. Only at the end of four hours did\nthey cease to respond. The heart of an active marmot killed in the same\nway contracted about 28 times a minute at first, the number of\npulsations falling to about 12 at the end of fifteen minutes, to 8 at\nthe end of thirty minutes, and ceasing altogether at the end of fifty\nminutes. Similarly the response of the muscles to galvanic shock failed\nat a correspondingly rapid rate. It is evident, therefore, that during\nhibernation the irritability of the heart is augmented in a marked\ndegree, and that the irritability of the left side of the organ is\nscarcely less pronounced than that of the right side. Similar reduction\nin the rate of the circulation has been demonstrated in certain\nhibernating mollusca, Mr C. Ashford having proved experimentally that\nthe number of pulsations of the heart per minute gradually lessens with\na falling temperature. At a temperature of 52 deg. F. the number was 22\nin the common garden snail (_Helix hortensis_), and 21 in the cellar\nslug (_Hyalinia cellaria_). At a temperature of 30 deg. F. the pulsation\nfell to 4 in the former and to 3 in the latter animal.\n\nThe nature of hibernation, and probably also of aestivation, and the\nprincipal physiological phenomena connected with them, may be briefly\nsummarized as follows:--\n\n 1. During hibernation death from starvation and wasting of the tissues\n is prevented by the absorption of fat, which, at least in the case of\n mammalia, is stored in considerable quantities, sometimes in definite\n parts of the body, during the weeks of activity immediately preceding\n the period of winter sleep.\n\n 2. Every gradation seems to exist between ordinary sleep and\n hibernation; the differences between the ordinary diurnal or nocturnal\n sleep in summer of hibernating animals and their prolonged and\n lethargic quiescence in winter are merely differences of degree,\n differences, that is to say, of intensity and duration.\n\n 3. The physiological accompaniments of hibernation are: (a)\n Cessation of all activities associated with alimentation and\n excretion; (b) lowering of the body temperature to that of the\n surrounding medium or to within a few degrees of it; (c) total or\n almost total cessation of respiration, accompanied by power to survive\n immersion for a considerable time in water or asphyxiating gases,\n which prove rapidly fatal to the same animals when normally active;\n (d) marked increase in the irritability of the muscles, especially\n of those of the left side of the heart, whereby the pulsations of that\n organ, although retarded, are uninterruptedly maintained; (e) a\n slight exchange of gases in the lungs is kept up by the\n cardio-pneumatic movement.\n\n 4. Amongst cold-blooded animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate,\n devoid of the faculty of temperature adjustment, the phenomenon of\n hibernation or aestivation is of general occurrence wherever the\n conditions of existence accompanying the onset of cold or drought are\n inimical to active life. In hot-blooded vertebrates, on the contrary,\n the phenomena are non-existent so far as birds are concerned;\n aestivation is of very rare occurrence in mammalia, while hibernation\n is practised by a comparatively small number of species; and in these\n the faculty of temperature adjustment appears to be temporarily at all\n events in abeyance.\n\nII. _The Zoology of Hibernation and Aestivation._--Owing to the extreme\ndifficulty of keeping wild animals under observation in their natural\nhaunts for any lengthened time, it is almost impossible to get accurate\nknowledge of the details of this state of existence. In a general way it\nis known, or assumed from their disappearance, that certain species\nretire to winter quarters in particular districts, but on such important\npoints as whether the winter sleep is continuous or interrupted, light\nor profound, assured information is for the most part not forthcoming.\nThis is true even of familiar species inhabiting Europe and North\nAmerica, which have been objects of study for many years. It is still\nmore true of species occurring in countries uninhabited and rarely\nvisited, especially in winter, by naturalists interested in such\nquestions. The Chiroptera (bats) furnish an illustration of this truth.\nIt was formerly assumed that the winter sleep of these animals in north\nand temperate Europe was complete and uninterrupted. Marshall Hall, for\nexample, remarked that \"perhaps the bat may be the only animal which\nsleeps profoundly the winter through without awaking to take food.\" It\nwas known, it is true, that in countries where gnats and other winged\ninsects disappear with the first frosts of winter, bats which feed upon\nthem retire to winter quarters in hollow trees, caves, sheds or other\nplaces likely to afford them sufficient shelter. Here they hang\nsuspended, solitary or in companies according to the species. But a mild\nspell of weather in mid-winter will sometimes entice a few to take wing\nwhile it lasts, although they never appear in any numbers until\ncrepuscular and nocturnal insects are plentiful. But Mr T. A. Coward\nhas recently shown in the case of the greater and lesser horseshoe bats\n(_Rhinolophus ferrum-equinum_ and _R. hipposiderus_), that during the\nearly period of their occupation of the winter retreat, hibernation, in\nthe strict sense of the word, does not take place, and that even later\nin the season the sleep is constantly interrupted, especially when the\ntemperature of the air rises above 46 deg. F., and that during their\nwakeful intervals they crawl about and feed apparently upon the insects\nwhich live throughout the year in the caves. This is also true of the\nlong-eared bat (_Plecotus auritus_), and probably of other species of\nthis group. At Mussoorie in the Himalayas, and in other parts of\nnorthern India, insectivorous bats, such as _Rhinolophus luctus_ and\n_Rh. affinis_, pass the winter in a semi-torpid state, and are rarely\nseen abroad during the cold season. The fruit-eating bats, on the\ncontrary (_Pteropidae_), which are more southern in their distribution\nand are restricted in the Himalayas to the warmer valleys and lower\nslopes of the mountains, are as active in the winter as at other times\nof the year (Blanford).\n\nAlthough almost as exclusively insectivorous as bats, moles and shrews\ndo not, so far as is known, hibernate. This distinction between two\ngroups so nearly alike in diet, no doubt depends upon the difference in\ntheir habitats and in those of the creatures they live upon. By\ntunnelling deeper in winter than in summer, moles are still able to find\nworms and various insects buried in the earth beyond the reach of frost;\nand shrews hunt out spiders, centipedes and insects which in their\nlarval, pupal or sexual stages have taken shelter and lie dormant in\nholes and crannies of the soil, beneath the leaves of ground plants or\nunder stones and logs of wood. In view of the perennially active life of\nthe two insectivora just mentioned, it is a singular fact that the\ncommon hedgehog (_Erinaceus europaeus_)--the only member of this order\nbesides genera referable to the moles (_Talpidae_) and shrews\n(_Soricidae_) that inhabits temperate and north-temperate latitudes in\nEurope and Asia--passes the winter in a state of torpor unsurpassed in\nprofundity by that of any species of mammal so far as is known. Possibly\nthe explanation of this seeming anomaly may be found in the bionomial\ndifferences between the three animals. The subterranean feeding habits\nof the mole render hibernation unnecessary on his part. Therefore the\nshrew and the hedgehog, both surface feeders for the most part, need\nonly be considered in this connexion. As compared with shrews, amongst\nthe smallest of palaearctic mammals, the hedgehog is of considerable\nsize. Moreover, in point of vivacious energy it would be difficult to\nfind two mammals of the same order more utterly unlike. Hence in winter\nwhen insects are scarce and demand active and diligent search, it is\nquite intelligible that the shrews, in virtue of their smallness and\nrapidity of movement, are able to procure sufficient food for their\nneeds; whereas the hedgehogs, requiring a far larger quantity and\nhandicapped by lack of activity, would probably starve under the same\nconditions. Like the common hedgehog of Europe, the long-eared hedgehog\n(_Erinaceus megalotis_) hibernates in Afghanistan from November till\nFebruary. The tenrec (_Centetes ecaudatus_), a large insectivore from\nMadagascar, aestivates during the hottest weeks of the year; and\nspecimens exhibited in the Zoological Gardens in London preserved the\nhabit although kept at a uniform temperature and regularly supplied with\nfood.\n\nAmongst the Rodentia, no members of the Lagomorpha (hares, rabbits and\npicas) are known to hibernate, although some of the species, like the\nmountain hare (_Lepus timidus_), extend far to the north in the\npalaearctic region, and the picas (_Ochotona_) live at high altitudes in\nthe Himalayas and Central Asia, where the cold of winter is excessive,\nand where the snow lies deep for many months. It is probable that the\npicas live in fissures and burrows beneath the snow, and feed on stores\nof food accumulated during the summer and autumn. The Hystrico-morpha\nalso are non-hibernators. It is true that the common porcupine (_Hystrix\ncristata_) of south Europe and north Africa is alleged to hibernate; the\nstatement cannot, however, be accepted without confirmation, because the\ncold is seldom excessive in the countries it frequents, and specimens\nexhibited in the Zoological Gardens in London remain active throughout\nthe year, although kept in enclosures without artificial heat of any\nkind. Even the most northerly representative of this group, the Canadian\nporcupine (_Erethizon dorsatus_), which inhabits forest-covered tracts\nin the United States and Canada, may be trapped and shot in the winter.\nSome members of this group, like capybaras (_Hydrochaerus capybara_) and\ncoypus (_Myocastors coypus_) which live in tropical America, are\nunaffected by the winter cold of temperate countries, and live in the\nopen all the year round in parks and zoological gardens in England.\nSeveral of the genera of Myomorpha contain species inhabiting the\nnorthern hemisphere, which habitually hibernate. The three European\ngenera of dormice (_Myoxidae_), namely _Muscardinus_, _Eliomys_ and\n_Glis_, sleep soundly practically throughout the winter; and examples of\nthe South African genus _Graphiurus_ practise the same habit when\nimported to Europe. If a warm spell in the winter rouses dormice from\ntheir slumbers, they feed upon nuts or other food accumulated during the\nautumn, but do not as a rule leave the nests constructed for shelter\nduring the winter. According to the weather, the sleep lasts from about\nfive to seven months. In the family _Muridae_, the true mice and rats\n(_Murinae_) and the voles and lemmings (_Arvicolinae_) seem to remain\nactive through the winter, although some species, like the lemmings,\nrange far to the north in Europe and Asia; but the white-footed mice\n(_Hesperomys_) of North America, belonging to the _Cricetinae_, spend\nthe winter sleeping in underground burrows, where food is laid up for\nconsumption in the early spring. The Canadian jumping mouse (_Zapus\nhudsonianus_), one of the Jaculidae, also hibernates, although the sleep\nis frequently interrupted by milder days. Some of the most northerly\nspecies of jerboas (Jaculidae), namely _Alactaga decumana_ of the\nKirghiz Steppes and _A. indica_ of Afghanistan, sleep from September or\nOctober till April; and the Egyptian species (_Jaculus jaculus_) and the\nCape jumping hare (_Pedetes caffer_), one of the Hystrico-morpha, remain\nin their burrows during the wet season in a state analogous to winter\nsleep. The sub-order Sciuromorpha also contains many hibernating\nspecies. None of the true squirrels, however, appear to sleep throughout\nthe winter. Even the red squirrel (_Sciurus hudsonianus_) of North\nAmerica retains its activity in spite of the sub-arctic conditions that\nprevail. The same is true of its European ally _Sc. vulgaris_. The North\nAmerican grey squirrel (_Sc. cinereus_), although more southerly in its\ndistribution than the red squirrel of that country, hibernates\npartially. Specimens running wild in the Zoological Gardens in London\ndisappear for a day or two when the cold is exceptionally keen, but for\nthe most part they may be seen abroad throughout the season. On the\nother hand, ground squirrels like the chipmunks (_Tamias_) and the\nsusliks or gophers (_Spermophilus_) of North America and Central Asia,\nat all events in the more northern districts of their range, sleep from\nthe late autumn till the spring in their subterranean burrows, where\nthey accumulate food for use in early spring and for spells of warmer\nweather in the winter which may rouse them from their slumbers. The\nNorth American flying squirrel (_Sciuropterus volucella_) and its ally\n_Pteromys inornatus_ are believed to hibernate in hollow trees. All the\ntrue marmots (_Arctomys_), a genus of which the species live at\ntolerably high altitudes in Central Europe, Asia and North America,\nappear to spend the winter in uninterrupted slumber buried deep in their\nburrows. They apparently lay up no store of food, but accumulate a\nquantity of fat as the summer and autumn advance, and frequently, as in\nthe case of the woodchuck (_A. monax_) of the Adirondacks, retire to\nwinter quarters in the autumn long before the onset of the winter cold.\nThe prairie marmots or prairie dogs (_Cynomys ludovicianus_) of North\nAmerica, which live in the plains, do not hibernate to the same extent\nas the true marmots, although they appear to remain in their burrows\nduring the coldest portions of the winter. Beavers (_Castor_), although\nformerly at all events extending in North America from the tropic of\nCancer up to the Arctic circle, do not hibernate. When the ground is\ndeep in snow and the river frozen over, they are still able to feed on\naquatic plants beneath the ice.\n\nAmongst the terrestrial carnivora hibernation appears to be practised,\nwith one possible exception, only by species belonging to the group\nArctoidea. In north temperate latitudes both in Europe and Asia, as well\nas in the Himalayas, brown bears (_Ursus arctos_) hibernate, so also\ndoes the North American grizzly bear (_U. horribilis_), at least in the\nmore northern districts of its range. The smaller black bear of the\nHimalayas (_U. tibetanus_) appears to lapse into a state of semi-torpor\nduring the winter, only emerging from his retreat to hunt for food when\noccasional breaks in the weather occur. In the case of the American\nblack bear (_U. americanus_) the female seeks winter quarters\ncomparatively early in the season in preparation for the birth of her\nprogeny soon after the turn of the year; but the males remain active so\nlong as plenty of food is to be found. In the case of all bears, except\nthe Polar bear (_U. maritimus_), the site chosen as the hibernaculum is\neither a cave or hole or some sheltered spot beneath a ledge of rock, or\nthe roots of large trees, more or less overgrown with brushwood which\nholds the snow until it freezes into a solid roof over the hollow where\nthe sleeping animal lies. In the hibernating brown and black bears the\nintestine is blocked by a plug commonly called \"tappen\" and composed\nprincipally of pine leaves, which is usually not evacuated until the\nspring. There is much diversity of opinion on the subject of the\nhibernation of Polar bears. Their absence during the winter from\nparticular spots in the Arctic regions where icebound ships have spent\nthe winter, and the occasional discovery of specimens buried beneath the\nsnow, have led to the belief that these animals habitually retire to\nwinter quarters through the cold sunless months of the year. This may\npossibly be the true explanation at least for certain districts. But it\nhas been alleged that bears, both adult and half-grown, may be seen\nthroughout the winter; and it is known that pregnant females bury\nthemselves in the autumn under the snow, where they remain without\nfeeding with their newly-born young until the spring of the following\nyear. Hence the absence of bears in the winter from the neighbourhood of\nicebound ships may be explained on the supposition that the adult\nfemales alone hibernate for breeding purposes, while the full-grown\nmales and half-grown specimens of both sexes migrate in the winter to\nthe edges of the ice-floes and to coast lines, where the water is open.\nBefore retiring to winter quarters the pregnant females store up\nsufficient quantity of fat in their tissues not only to sustain\nthemselves but also to supply milk for their cubs. In the Adirondack\nregion and probably in other districts of the same or more northern\nlatitudes in North America, raccoons (_Procyon lotor_) retire in the\nwinter to some sheltered place, such as a hollow tree-trunk, and pass\nthe severest part of the season in sleep, emerging in February or March\nwhen the snow has begun to disappear. In the same country, the skunks\n(_Mephitis mephitica_), a member of the weasel family, also seek shelter\nduring the coldest portion of the winter. Merriam believes that the\nhibernation of this animal is determined by cold, and not by failure of\nfood-supply, for he observes that skunks may frequently be seen in\nnumbers on snow lying 5 ft. deep at a time of the year when they feed\nalmost entirely upon mice and shrews which do not hibernate even when\nthe thermometer registers over twelve degrees of frost. In British North\nAmerica the badger (_Taxidea americana_) is said to hibernate from\nOctober till April; but the duration of the period probably depends, as\nin the case of its European ally (_Meles meles_), upon the length and\nseverity of the inclement season. In the last-named species the winter\nrepose is not as a rule sufficiently profound to prevent a break in the\nweather rousing the animal from sleep to sally forth in search of food.\nThis interrupted hibernation takes place at least in England and even in\nScandinavia; but in countries where frost is continuous throughout the\nwinter it is probable that the badger's sleep is unbroken.\n\nThe one exception to the general rule that hibernation in the Carnivora\nis restricted to the Arctoidea, is supplied by the raccoon dog\n(_Nyctereutes procyonoides_) of Japan and north-eastern Asia, which is\nsaid by Radde to hibernate in burrows in Amurland if food has been\nsufficiently plentiful in late summer and autumn to enable the animal to\nlay on enough fat to resist the cold and sustain a long period of fast.\nIf, however, food has been scarce, this dog is compelled to remain\nactive all through the winter. The Arctic fox (_Vulpes lagopus_),\nalthough considerably more northern in range than the raccoon dog, does\nnot hibernate. It was long a mystery how these animals obtained food in\nwinter, but it has been ascertained that in some districts they migrate\nsouthwards in large numbers in the late autumn, whereas in other\ndistricts apparently they lay up stores of dead lemmings or hares, for\nfood during the winter months. In Australia the porcupine ant-eater\n(_Echidna aculeata_) hibernates; and the habit is retained by specimens\nimported to Europe if exposed to the cold in outdoor cages.\n\nInstances of quasi-hibernation have been recorded in the case of man.\nFor example, in the government of Pskov in Russia, where food is scarce\nthroughout the year and in danger of exhaustion during the winter, the\npeasants are said to resort to a practice closely akin to hibernation,\nspending at least one-half of the cold weather in sleep. From time\nimmemorial it has been the custom when the first snows fall for families\nto shut themselves up in their huts, huddle round the stove and lapse\ninto slumber, each member taking his turn to keep the fire alight. Once\na day only do the inmates rouse themselves from sleep to eat a little\ndry bread.\n\nReptiles in which the body-temperature falls with that of the\nsurrounding medium pass the winter in temperate countries in a state of\nlethargy; and specimens exported from the tropics into northern\nlatitudes become dormant when exposed to cold in virtue of their\ninability to maintain their temperature at a higher level than that of\nthe atmosphere. The common land tortoise (_Testudo graeca_) of South\nEurope buries itself in the soil during the winter in its natural\nhabitat, and even when imported to England is able, in some cases at\nleast, to withstand the more rigorous winter by practising the same\nhabit, as Gilbert White originally recorded. In Pennsylvania the\nbox-tortoise (_Cistudo carolina_) passes the winter in a burrow; and\n_Testudo elegans_, which inhabits dry hilly districts in north India,\ntakes shelter beneath tufts of grass or bushes as the cold weather\napproaches and remains in a semi-lethargic state until the return of the\nwarmth. The European pond tortoise (_Emys orbicularis_) also hibernates\nburied in the soil; and the North American salt-water terrapin\n(_Malacoclemmys concentrica_), abundant in the salt-marshes round\nCharleston, S. Carolina, retires into the muddy banks to spend the cold\nmonths of the year. In certain parts of the tropics tortoises protect\nthemselves from the excessive heat by burrowing into the soil which\nafterwards becomes indurated. When drought sets in with the dry season\nand the tanks become exhausted and food unobtainable, crocodiles and\nalligators sometimes wander across country in search of water, but more\ncommonly bury themselves in the mud and remain in a state of quiescence\nuntil the return of the rains; and according to Humboldt, large snakes,\nanacondas or boa constrictors are often found by the Indians in South\nAmerica buried in the same lethargic state. Snakes and lizards in all\ncountries where there is any considerable seasonal variation in\ntemperature become dormant or semi-dormant during the colder months.\n\nBatrachians, like reptiles, hibernate in Europe and other countries\nsituated in temperate latitudes. Frogs bury themselves in the mud at the\nbottom of tanks and ponds, often congregating in numbers in the same\nspot. Toads retire to burrows or other secluded places on the land, and\nnewts either bury themselves in the mud of ponds, like frogs, or lie up\nbeneath stones and pieces of wood on the land. According to Mr G. A.\nBoulenger, however, European frogs and toads do not pass the winter in\nprofound torpor, but merely in a state of sluggish quiescence. In\ntropical countries, where wet and dry seasons alternate, frogs which,\nlike the rest of the batrachians, are for the most part intolerant of\ngreat heat, especially when accompanied by dryness of atmosphere, bury\nthemselves deep in the soil during the time of drought and emerge from\ntheir retreats in numbers with the breaking of the rains.\n\nThis habit of passing the dry season in the hardened mud forming the\nbottom of exhausted pools and rivers is practised by several species of\ntropical freshwater fishes, belonging principally to the family\n_Siluridae_. The members of this group are able to exist and thrive in\nmoist mud, and can even support life for a comparatively long time out\nof water altogether. The instinct is exhibited by species occurring both\nin the eastern and western hemispheres, as is shown by its record in the\ncase of species of _Callicthys_ and _Loricaria_ in Guiana and by\n_Clarias lazera_ in Senegambia. It is also met with, according to\nTennent, in a species of climbing perch (_Anabas oligolepis_) found in\nCeylon and belonging to the family _Anabantidae_, all the species of\nwhich are able to live for a certain length of time out of water, and\nmay sometimes be found crawling across land in search of fresh pools.\nThe habit is also common to some species of mud fishes of the order\nDipneusti, in which the air bladder plays the part of lungs.\n_Protopterus_, from tropical Africa, for instance, burrows into the mud\nand remains for nearly half the year coiled up at the bottom in a\nslightly enlarged chamber. The walls of this are lined with a layer of\nslime secreted from the fish's skin, and the orifice is closed with a\nlid the centre of which is perforated and forms an inturned tube by\nmeans of which air is conducted to the fish's mouth. The aestivating\nburrow of the Brazilian mudfish (_Lepidosiren_) is similar, except that\nthe lid is perforated with several apertures. The Australian mudfish\n(_Ceratodus_) is not known to hibernate or aestivate.\n\nIn countries where winter frosts arrest the growth of vegetation\nterrestrial mollusca seek hibernacula beneath stones or fallen tree\ntrunks, in rock crannies, holes in walls, in heaps of dead leaves, in\nmoss or under the soil, and remain quiescent until the coming of spring.\nAmongst pulmonate gastropods, most species of snails (_Helix_,\n_Clausilia_) close the mouth of the shell at this period with a\nmembranous or calcified plate, the epiphragm. Slugs (_Limax_, _Arion_),\non the contrary, lie buried in the earth encysted in a coating of slime.\nSimilarly in the tropics members of this group, such as _Achatina_ in\ntropical Africa and _Orthalicus_ in Brazil, aestivate during the dry\nseason, the epiphragm preserving them against desiccation; and examples\nof two species of _Achatina_ from east and west Africa exhibited in the\nZoological Gardens in London remained concealed in their shells during\nthe winter, although kept in an artificially warmed house, and resumed\ntheir activity in the summer.\n\nFreshwater Pulmonata do not appear to hibernate, such forms as _Limnaea_\nand _Planorbis_ having been frequently seen crawling about beneath the\nice of frozen ponds. During periods of drought in England, however, they\ncommonly bury themselves in the mud, a habit which is also practised\nduring the dry season in the tropics by species of Prosobranchiate\nGastropods belonging to the genera _Ampullaria_, _Melania_ and others,\nwhich lie dormant until the first rains rouse them from their lethargy.\nFreshwater Pelecypoda (_Anodonta_, _Unio_) spend the European winter\nburied deep in the muddy bottom of ponds and streams.\n\nIn cold and temperate latitudes a great majority of insects pass the\nwinter in a dormant state, either in the larval, pupal or imaginal\n(reproductive) stages. In some the state of hibernation is complete in\nthe sense that although the insects may be roused from their lethargy to\nthe extent of movement by spells of warm weather, they do not leave\ntheir hibernacula to feed; in others it is incomplete in the sense that\nthe insects emerge to feed, as in the case of the caterpillar of\n_Euprepia fuliginosa_, or to take the wing as in the case of the midge\n_Trichocera hiemalis_. Others again, like _Podura nivalis_ and _Boreus\nhiemalis_, never appear to hibernate, at least in England. The insects\nwhich hibernate as larvae belong to those species which pass more than\none season in that stage, such as the goat-moth (_Cossus ligniperda_),\ncockchafers (_Melolontha_), stagbeetles (_Lucanus_) and dragon-flies\n(_Libellula_), &c.; and to some species which, although they only live a\nfew months in this immature state, are hatched in the autumn or summer\nand only reach the final stage of growth in the following spring, like\nthe butterflies of the genus _Argynnis_ (_paphia_, _aglaia_, &c.) in\nEngland. As an instance of species which survive the winter in the\npupal or chrysalis stage may be cited the swallow-tailed butterfly of\nEurope (_Papilio machaon_); while to the category of species which\nhibernate as perfect insects belong many of the Coleoptera (Rhyncophora,\n_Coccinellidae_), &c., as well as some Hemiptera, Hymenoptera, Diptera\nand Lepidoptera (_Vanessa io_, _urticae_, &c.). In the case of the\nsocial Hymenoptera it is only the fertilized queen wasp out of the nest\nthat survives the frost of winter, all the workers dying with the onset\nof cold in the autumn; the common hive bees (_Apis mellifica_), although\nthey retire to the hive, do not hibernate, the numbers and activity of\nthe individuals within the hive being sufficient to keep up the\ntemperature above soporific point. Ants also remain actively at work\nunderground unless the temperature falls several degrees below zero.\n\nSpiders, like nearly all insects, hibernate in cold temperate latitudes.\nBurrowing species like trap-door spiders of the family _Ctenizidae_ and\nsome species of _Lycosidae_ seal the doors of their burrows with silk or\nclose up the orifice with a sheet of that material. Other non-burrowing\nspecies, like some species of _Clubionidae_ and _Drassidae_, lie up in\nsilken cases attached to the underside of stones or of pieces of loose\nbark, or buried under dead leaves or concealed in the cracks of walls.\nOther species, on the contrary, pass the winter in an immature state\nprotected from the cold by the silken cocoon spun by the mother for her\neggs before she dies in the late autumn, as in the \"garden spider\"\n(_Aranea diadema_). Commonly, however, when the cocoons are later in the\nmaking, or the cold weather sets in early, the eggs of this and of\nallied species do not hatch until the spring; but in either case the\nyoung emerge in the warm weather, become adult during the summer and die\nin the autumn after pairing and oviposition. Some members of this\nfamily, nevertheless, like _Zilla x-notata_, which live in the corners\nof windows, or in outhouses where the habitat affords a certain degree\nof protection from the cold, may survive the winter in the adult stage\nand be roused from lethargy by breaks in the weather and tempted by the\nwarmth to spin new webs. Typical members of the Opiliones or harvest\nspiders, belonging to the family _Phalangiidae_, do not hibernate in\ntemperate and more northern latitudes in Europe and America, but perish\nin the autumn, leaving their eggs buried in the soil to hatch in the\nsucceeding spring. During the early summer, therefore, only immature\nindividuals are found. Other species of this order, belonging to the\nfamily _Trogulidae_, spend the winter in a dormant state under stones or\nburied in the soil. False scorpions (_Pseudo-scorpiones_) also hibernate\nin temperate latitudes, passing the cold months, like many spiders,\nenclosed in silken cases attached to the underside of stones or loosened\npieces of bark. Centipedes and millipedes bury themselves in the earth,\nor lie up in some secluded shelter such as stones or fallen tree trunks\nafford during the winter; and in the tropics millipedes lie dormant\nduring seasons of drought.\n\nWhat is true of the dormant condition of arthropod life in the winter of\nthe northern hemisphere is also true in a general way of that of the\nsouthern hemisphere at the same season of the year. This is proved--to\nmention no other cases--by the observations of Darwin on the hibernation\nof insects and spiders at Montevideo and Bahia Blanca in South America,\nand by Distant's account of the paucity of insect life in the winter in\nSouth Africa; by his discovery under stones of hibernating semi-torpid\nColeoptera and Hemiptera at the end of August in the Transvaal, and of\nthe gradual increase in the numbers of individuals and species of\ninsects in that country as the spring advanced and the dry season came\nto an end.\n\n BIBLIOGRAPHY.--T. Bell, _A History of British Reptiles (and\n Amphibians)_ (1849); W. T. Blanford, _Fauna of British India:\n Mammalia_ (1889-1891); G. A. Boulenger, _Monograph of the Tailless\n Batrachians of Europe_, edited by the Ray Society; \"Teleostei\" in\n _Cambridge Natural History_, vii. 541-727 (1904); T. W. Bridge,\n \"Dipneustei\" in _Cambridge Natural History_, vii. 505-520 (1904); A.\n H. Cooke, \"Molluscs\" in _Cambridge Natural History_, iii. 25-27\n (1895); T. A. Coward, _P.Z.S._ pp. 849-855 (1906), and pp. 312-324\n (1907); C. Darwin, _A Naturalist's Voyage Round the World_, pp.\n 97-98 (1907 ed.); W. L. Distant, _A Naturalist in the Transvaal_, ch.\n iii. (1892); Marshall Hall, \"Hibernation,\" in _Todd's Cyclopaedia of\n Anatomy and Physiology_, pp. 764-776 (1839) (Bibliography); _Phil.\n Trans. Roy. Soc._ (1832); John Hunter, _Observations on parts of the\n Animal Economy_ (1837); _Index Catalogue of the Library of the\n Surgeon-General's Office of the U.S. Army_, vii. (1902), Bibliography\n relating to physiology of Hibernation; W. Kirby and W. Spence, _An\n Introduction to Entomology_, ed. 17, pp. 517-533 (1856); L. Landois,\n _A Text-book of Human Physiology_, translated by W. Stirling, i. 410\n (1904); V. Laporte, \"Suspension of Vitality in Animals,\" _Pop. Sci.\n Monthly_, xxxvi. 257-259 (New York, 1889-1890); Mangili, \"Essai sur la\n lethargie periodique,\" _Annales du Museum_, x. 453-456 (1807); C. Hart\n Merriam, _North American Pocket Mice_ (Washington, 1889); W. Miller,\n \"Hibernation and Allied States in Animals,\" _Trans. Pan-Amer. Med.\n Congr._ (1893), pt. ii. pp. 1274-1285 (Washington, 1895); M. S.\n Pembrey and A. G. Pitts, \"The Relation between the Internal\n Temperature and the Respiratory Movements of Hibernating Animals,\"\n _Journ. Physiol._ (London, 1899), pp. 305-316; Prunelle, \"Recherches\n sur les phenomenes et sur les causes du sommeil hivernal,\" _Annales du\n Museum_, xviii.; J. A. Saissy, _Recherches sur les animaux hivernans_\n (1808); L. Spallanzani, _Memoires sur la respiration_ (1803); J.\n Emerson Tennent, _Sketches of the Natural History of Ceylon_, pp.\n 351-358 (1861); Volkov, \"Le Sommeil hivernal chez les paysans russes,\"\n _Bull. Mem. Soc. Anthropol._ (Paris, 1900), i. 67; abstract in _Brit.\n Med. Journ._ (1900), i. 1554. (R. I. P.)\n\n\n\n\nHIBERNIA, in ancient geography, one of the names by which Ireland was\nknown to Greek and Roman writers. Other names were Ierne, Iuverna,\nIberio. All these are adaptations of a stem from which also Erin is\ndescended. The island was well known to the Romans through the reports\nof traders, so far at least as its coasts. But it never became part of\nthe Roman empire. Agricola (about A.D. 80) planned its conquest, which\nhe judged an easy task, but the Roman government vetoed the enterprise.\nDuring the Roman occupation of Britain, Irish pirates seem to have been\nan intermittent nuisance, and Irish emigrants may have settled\noccasionally in Wales; the best attested emigration is that of the Scots\ninto Caledonia. It was only in post-Roman days that Roman civilization,\nbrought perhaps by Christian missionaries like Patrick, entered the\nisland.\n\n\n\n\nHICKERINGILL (or HICKHORNGILL), EDMUND (1631-1708), English divine,\nlived an eventful life in the days of the Commonwealth and the\nRestoration. After graduating at Caius College, Cambridge, where he was\njunior fellow in 1651-1652, he joined Lilburne's regiment as chaplain,\nand afterwards served in the ranks in Scotland and in the Swedish\nservice, ultimately becoming a captain in Fleetwood's regiment. He then\nlived for a time in Jamaica, of which he published an account in 1661.\nIn the same year he was ordained by Robert Sanderson, bishop of Lincoln,\nhaving already passed through such shades of belief as are connoted by\nthe terms Baptist, Quaker and Deist. From 1662 until his death in 1708\nhe was vicar of All Saints', Colchester. He was a vigorous pamphleteer,\nand came into collision with Henry Compton, bishop of London, to whom he\nhad to pay heavy damages for slander in 1682. He made a public\nrecantation in 1684, was excluded from his living in 1685-1688, and\nended his career by being convicted for forgery in 1707.\n\n\n\n\nHICKES, GEORGE (1642-1715), English divine and scholar, was born at\nNewsham near Thirsk, Yorkshire, on the 20th of June 1642. In 1659 he\nentered St John's College, Oxford, whence after the Restoration he\nremoved to Magdalen College and then to Magdalen Hall. In 1664 he was\nelected fellow of Lincoln College, and in the following year proceeded\nM.A. In 1673 he graduated in divinity, and in 1675 he was appointed\nrector of St Ebbe's, Oxford. In 1676, as private chaplain, he\naccompanied the duke of Lauderdale, the royal commissioner, to Scotland,\nand shortly afterwards received the degree of D.D. from St Andrews. In\n1680 he became vicar of All Hallows, Barking, London; and after having\nbeen made chaplain to the king in 1681, he was in 1683 promoted to the\ndeanery of Worcester. He opposed both James II.'s declaration of\nindulgence and Monmouth's rising, and he tried in vain to save from\ndeath his nonconformist brother John Hickes (1633-1685), one of the\nSedgemoor refugees harboured by Alice Lisle. At the revolution of 1688,\nhaving declined to take the oath of allegiance, Hickes was first\nsuspended and afterwards deprived of his deanery. When he heard of the\nappointment of a successor he affixed to the cathedral doors a\n\"protestation and claim of right.\" After remaining some time in\nconcealment in London, he was sent by Sancroft and the other nonjurors\nto James II. in France on matters connected with the continuance of\ntheir episcopal succession; upon his return in 1694 he was himself\nconsecrated suffragan bishop of Thetford. His later years were largely\noccupied in controversies and in writing, while in 1713 he persuaded two\nScottish bishops, James Gadderar and Archibald Campbell, to assist him\nin consecrating Jeremy Collier, Samuel Hawes and Nathaniel Spinckes as\nbishops among the nonjurors. He died on the 15th of December 1715.\n\n The chief writings of Hickes are the _Institutiones Grammaticae\n Anglo-Saxonicae et Moeso-Gothicae_ (1689), and _Linguarum veterum\n Septentrionalium Thesaurus grammatico-criticus et archaeologicus_\n (1703-1705), a work of great learning and industry.\n\n Apart from these two works Hickes was a voluminous and laborious\n author. His earliest writings, which were anonymous, were suggested by\n contemporary events in Scotland that gave him great satisfaction--the\n execution of James Mitchell on a charge of having attempted to murder\n Archbishop Sharp, and that of John Kid and John King, Presbyterian\n ministers, \"for high treason and rebellion\" (_Ravillac Redivivus_,\n 1678; _The Spirit of Popery speaking out of the Mouths of Phanatical\n Protestant_s, 1680). In his _Jovian_ (an answer to S. Johnson's\n _Julian the Apostate_, 1683), he endeavoured to show that the Roman\n empire was not hereditary, and that the Christians under Julian had\n recognized the duty of passive obedience. His two treatises, one _Of\n the Christian Priesthood_ and the other _Of the Dignity of the\n Episcopal Order_, originally published in 1707, have been more than\n once reprinted, and form three volumes of the _Library of\n Anglo-Catholic Theology_ (1847). In 1705 and 1710 were published\n _Collections of Controversial Letters_, in 1711 a collection of\n _Sermons_, and in 1726 a volume of _Posthumous Discourses_. Other\n treatises, such as the _Apologetical Vindication of the Church of\n England_, are to be met with in Edmund Gibson's _Preservative against\n Popery_. There is a manuscript in the Bodleian Library which sketches\n his life to the year 1689, and many of his letters are extant in\n various collections. A posthumous publication of his _The Constitution\n of the Catholick Church and the Nature and Consequences of Schism_\n (1716) gave rise to the celebrated Bangorian controversy.\n\n See the article by the Rev. W. D. Macray in the _Dictionary of\n National Biography_, vol. xxvi. (1891); and J. H. Overton, _The\n Nonjurors_ (1902).\n\n\n\n\nHICKOK, LAURENS PERSEUS (1798-1888), American philosopher and divine,\nwas born at Bethel, Connecticut, on the 29th of December 1798. He took\nhis degree at Union College in 1820. Until 1836 he was occupied in\nactive pastoral work, and was then appointed professor of theology at\nthe Western Reserve College, Ohio, and later (1844-1852) at the Auburn\n(N.Y.) Theological Seminary. From this post he was elected\nvice-president of Union College and professor of mental and moral\nscience. In 1866 he succeeded Dr E. Nott as president, but in July 1868\nretired to Amherst, Massachusetts, where he devoted himself to writing\nand study. A collected edition of his principal works was published at\nBoston in 1875. He died at Amherst on the 7th of May 1888. He wrote\n_Rational Psychology_ (1848), _System of Moral Science_ (1853),\n_Empirical Psychology_ (1854), _Rational Cosmology_ (1858), _Creator and\nCreation, or the Knowledge in the Reason of God and His Work_ (1872),\n_Humanity Immortal_ (1872), _Logic of Reason_ (1874).\n\n\n\n\nHICKORY, a shortened form of the American Indian name _pohickery_.\nHickory trees are natives of North America, and belong to the genus\n_Carya_. They are closely allied to the walnuts (_Juglans_), the chief\nor at least one very obvious difference being that, whilst in _Carya_\nthe husk which covers the shell of the nut separates into four valves,\nin _Juglans_ it consists of but one piece, which bursts irregularly. The\ntimber is both strong and heavy, and remarkable for its extreme\nelasticity, but it decays rapidly when exposed to heat and moisture, and\nis peculiarly subject to the attacks of worms. It is very extensively\nemployed in manufacturing musket stocks, axle-trees, screws, rake teeth,\nthe bows of yokes, the wooden rings used on the rigging of vessels,\nchair-backs, axe-handles, whip-handles and other purposes requiring\ngreat strength and elasticity. Its principal use in America is for\nhoop-making; and it is the only American wood found perfectly fit for\nthat purpose.\n\nThe wood of the hickory is of great value as fuel, on account of the\nbrilliancy with which it burns and the ardent heat which it gives out,\nthe charcoal being heavy, compact and long-lived. The species which\nfurnish the best wood are _Carya alba_ (shell-bark hickory), _C.\ntomentosa_ (mockernut), _C. olivaeformis_ (pecan or pacane nut), and _C.\nporcina_ (pig-nut), that of the last named, on account of its extreme\ntenacity, being preferred for axle-trees and axle-handles. The wood of\n_C. alba_ splits very easily and is very elastic, so that it is much\nused for making whip-handles and baskets. The wood of this species is\nalso used in the neighbourhood of New York and Philadelphia for making\nthe back bows of Windsor chairs. The timber of _C. amara_ and _C.\naquatica_ is considered of inferior quality.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 1.--Shell-bark Hickory (_Carya alba_) in flower.]\n\nMost of the hickories form fine-looking noble trees of from 60 to 90 ft.\nin height, with straight, symmetrical trunks, well-balanced ample heads,\nand bold, handsome, pinnated foliage. When confined in the forest they\nshoot up 50 to 60 ft. without branches, but when standing alone they\nexpand into a fine head, and produce a lofty round-headed pyramid of\nfoliage. They have all the qualities necessary to constitute fine\ngraceful park trees. The most ornamental of the species are _C.\nolivaeformis_, _C. alba_ and _C. porcina_, the last two also producing\ndelicious nuts, and being worthy of cultivation for their fruit alone.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 2.--1, Fruit of _Carya alba_; 2, Hickory Nut; 3,\nCross Section of Nut; 4, Vertical Section of the Seed.]\n\nThe husk of the hickory nut, as already stated, breaks up into four\nequal valves or separates into four equal portions in the upper part,\nwhile the nut itself is tolerably even on the surface, but has four or\nmore blunt angles in its transverse outline. The hickory nuts of the\nAmerican markets are the produce of _C. alba_, called the shell-bark\nhickory because of the roughness of its bark, which becomes loosened\nfrom the trunk in long scales bending outwards at the extremities and\nadhering only by the middle. The nuts are much esteemed in all parts of\nthe States, and are exported in considerable quantities to Europe. The\npecan-nuts, which come from the Western States, are from 1 in. to\n1(1/2) in. long, smooth, cylindrical, pointed at the ends and\nthin-shelled, with the kernels full, not like those of most of the\nhickories divided by partitions, and of delicate and agreeable flavour.\nThe thick-shelled fruits of the pig-nut are generally left on the ground\nfor swine, squirrels, &c., to devour. In _C. amara_ the kernel is so\nbitter that even squirrels refuse to eat it.\n\n\n\n\nHICKS, ELIAS (1748-1830), American Quaker, was born in Hempstead\ntownship, Long Island, on the 19th of March 1748. His parents were\nFriends, but he took little interest in religion until he was about\ntwenty; soon after that time he gave up the carpenter's trade, to which\nhe had been apprenticed when seventeen, and became a farmer. By 1775 he\nhad \"openings leading to the ministry\" and was \"deeply engaged for the\nright administration of discipline and order in the church,\" and in 1779\nhe first set out on his itinerant preaching tours between Vermont and\nMaryland. He attacked slavery, even when preaching in Maryland; wrote\n_Observations on the Slavery of the Africans and their Descendants_\n(1811); and was influential in procuring the passage (in 1817) of the\nact declaring free after 1827 all negroes born in New York and not freed\nby the Act of 1799. He died at Jericho, Long Island, on the 27th of\nFebruary 1830. His preaching was practical rather than doctrinal and he\nwas heartily opposed to any set creed; hence his successful opposition\nat the Baltimore yearly meeting of 1817 to the proposed creed which\nwould make the Society in America approach the position of the English\nFriends by definite doctrinal statements. His _Doctrinal Epistle_ (1824)\nstated his position, and a break ensued in 1827-1828, Hicks's followers,\nwho call themselves the \"Liberal Branch,\" being called \"Hicksites\" by\nthe \"Orthodox\" party, which they for a time outnumbered. The village of\nHicksville, in Nassau County, New York, 15 m. E. of Jamaica, lies in the\ncentre of the Quaker district of Long Island and was named in honour of\nElias Hicks.\n\n See _A Series of Extemporaneous Discourses ... by Elias Hicks_\n (Philadelphia, 1825); _The Journal of the Life and Labors of Elias\n Hicks_ (Philadelphia, 1828), and his _Letters_ (Philadelphia, 1834).\n\n\n\n\nHICKS, HENRY (1837-1899), British physician and geologist, was born on\nthe 26th of May 1837 at St David's, in Pembrokeshire, where his father,\nThomas Hicks, was a surgeon. He studied medicine at Guy's Hospital,\nLondon, qualifying as M.R.C.S. in 1862. Returning to his native place he\ncommenced a practice which he continued until 1871, when he removed to\nHendon. He then devoted special attention to mental diseases, took the\ndegree of M.D. at St Andrews in 1878, and continued his medical work\nuntil the close of his life. In Wales he had been attracted to geology\nby J. W. Salter (then palaeontologist to the Geological Survey), and his\nleisure time was given to the study of the older rocks and fossils of\nSouth Wales. In conjunction with Salter, he established in 1865 the\nMenevian group (Middle Cambrian) characterized by the trilobite\n_Paradoxides_. Subsequently Hicks contributed a series of important\npapers on the Cambrian and Lower Silurian rocks, and figured and\ndescribed many new species of fossils. Later he worked at the\nPre-Cambrian rocks of St David's, describing the Dimetian (granitoid\nrock) and the Pebidian (volcanic series), and his views, though\ncontested, have been generally accepted. At Hendon Dr Hicks gave much\nattention to the local geology and also to the Pleistocene deposits of\nthe Denbighshire caves. For a few years before his death he had laboured\nat the Devonian rocks. With his keen eye for fossils he detected organic\nremains in the Morte slates, previously regarded as unfossiliferous, and\nthese he regarded as including representatives of Lower Devonian and\nSilurian. His papers were mostly published in the _Geol. Mag._ and\n_Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._ He was elected F.R.S. in 1885, and president\nof the Geological Society of London 1896-1898. He died at Hendon on the\n18th of November 1899.\n\n\n\n\nHICKS, WILLIAM (1830-1883), British soldier, entered the Bombay army in\n1849, and served through the Indian mutiny, being mentioned in\ndespatches for good conduct at the action of Sitka Ghaut in 1859. In\n1861 he became captain, and in the Abyssinian expedition of 1867-68 was\na brigade major, being again mentioned in despatches and given a brevet\nmajority. He retired with the honorary rank of colonel in 1880. After\nthe close of the Egyptian war of 1882, he entered the khedive's service\nand was made a pasha. Early in 1883 he went to Khartum as chief of the\nstaff of the army there, then commanded by Suliman Niazi Pasha. Camp was\nformed at Omdurman and a new force of some 8000 fighting men\ncollected--mostly recruited from the fellahin of Arabi's disbanded\ntroops, sent in chains from Egypt. After a month's vigorous drilling\nHicks led 5000 of his men against an equal force of dervishes in Sennar,\nwhom he defeated, and cleared the country between the towns of Sennar\nand Khartum of rebels. Relieved of the fear of an immediate attack by\nthe mahdists the Egyptian officials at Khartum intrigued against Hicks,\nwho in July tendered his resignation. This resulted in the dismissal of\nSuliman Niazi and the appointment of Hicks as commander-in-chief of an\nexpeditionary force to Kordofan with orders to crush the mahdi, who in\nJanuary 1883 had captured El Obeid, the capital of that province. Hicks,\naware of the worthlessness of his force for the purpose contemplated,\nstated his opinion that it would be best to \"wait for Kordofan to settle\nitself\" (telegram of the 5th of August). The Egyptian ministry, however,\ndid not then believe in the power of the mahdi, and the expedition\nstarted from Khartum on the 9th of September. It was made up of 7000\ninfantry, 1000 cavalry and 2000 camp followers and included thirteen\nEuropeans. On the 20th the force left the Nile at Duem and struck inland\nacross the almost waterless wastes of Kordofan for Obeid. On the 5th of\nNovember the army, misled by treacherous guides and thirst-stricken, was\nambuscaded in dense forest at Kashgil, 30 m. south of Obeid. With the\nexception of some 300 men the whole force was killed. According to the\nstory of Hicks's cook, one of the survivors, the general was the last\nofficer to fall, pierced by the spear of the khalifa Mahommed Sherif.\nAfter emptying his revolver, the pasha kept his assailants at bay for\nsome time with his sword, a body of Baggara who fled before him being\nknown afterwards as \"Baggar Hicks\" (the cows driven by Hicks), a play on\nthe words _baggara_ and _baggar_, the former being the herdsmen and the\nlatter the cows. Hicks's head was cut off and taken to the mahdi.\n\n See _Mahdiism and the Egyptian Sudan_, book iv., by Sir F. R. Wingate\n (London, 1891), and _With Hicks Pasha in the Soudan_, by J. Colborne\n (London, 1884), Also EGYPT: _Military Operations_.\n\n\n\n\nHIDALGO, an inland state of Mexico, bounded N. by San Luis Potosi and\nVera Cruz, E. by Vera Cruz and Puebla, S. by Tlaxcala and Mexico\n(state), and W. by Queretaro. Pop. (1895) 551,817, (1900) 605,051. Area,\n8917 sq. m. The northern and eastern parts are elevated and mountainous,\nculminating in the Cerro de Navajas (10,528 ft.). A considerable area of\nthis region on the eastern side of the state is arid and semi-barren,\nbeing part of the elevated tableland of Apam where the _maguey_\n(American aloe) has been grown for centuries. The southern and western\nparts of the state consist of rolling plains, in the midst of which is\nthe large lake of Metztitlan. Hidalgo produces cereals in the more\nelevated districts, sugar, maguey, coffee, beans, cotton and tobacco.\nMaguey is cultivated for the production of _pulque_, the national drink.\nThe chief industry, however, is mining, the mineral districts of\nPachuca, El Chico, Real del Monte, San Jose del Oro, and Zimapan being\namong the richest in Mexico. The mineral products include silver, gold,\nmercury, copper, iron, lead, zinc, antimony, manganese and plumbago.\nCoal, marble and opals are also found. Railway facilities are afforded\nby a branch of the Vera Cruz and Mexico line, which runs from Ometusco\nto Pachuca, the capital of the state, and by the Mexican Central. Among\nthe principal towns are Tulancingo (pop. 9037), a rich mining centre 24\nm. E. of Pachuca, Ixmiquilpan (about 9000) with silver mines 80 m. N. by\nW. of the Federal Capital, and Actopan (2666), the chief town of the\ndistrict N.N.W. of Pachuca, inhabited principally by Indians of the\nOthomies nation.\n\n\n\n\nHIDALGO (a Spanish word, contracted from _hijo d'algo_ or _hijo de\nalgo_, son of something, or somewhat), originally a Spanish title of the\nlower nobility; the hidalgo being the lowest grade of nobility which was\nentitled to use the prefix \"don.\" The term is now used generally to\ndenote one of gentle birth. The Portuguese _fidalgo_ has a similar\nhistory and meaning.\n\n\n\n\nHIDALGO Y COSTILLA, MIGUEL (1753-1811), Mexican patriot, was born on the\n8th of May 1753, on a farm at Corralejos, near Guanajuato. His mother's\nmaiden name was Gallaga, but contrary to the usual custom of the\nSpaniards he used only the surname of his father, Cristobal Hidalgo y\nCostilla. He was educated at Valladolid in Mexico, and was ordained\npriest in 1779. Until 1809 he was known only as a man of pious life who\nexerted himself to introduce various forms of industry, including the\ncultivation of silk, among his parishioners at Dolores. But Napoleon's\ninvasion of Spain in 1808 caused a widespread commotion. The colonists\nwere indisposed to accept a French ruler and showed great zeal in\nproclaiming Ferdinand VII. as king. The societies they formed for their\nprofessedly loyal purpose were regarded, however, by the Spanish\nauthorities with suspicion as being designed to prepare the independence\nof Mexico. Hidalgo and several of his friends, among whom was Miguel\nDominguez, mayor of Queretaro, engaged in consultation and preparations\nwhich the authorities considered treasonable. Dominguez was arrested,\nbut Hidalgo was warned in time. He collected some hundred of his\nparishioners, and on the 16th of September 1810 they seized the prison\nat Dolores. This action began what was in fact a revolt against the\nSpanish and Creole elements of the population. With what is known as the\n\"_grito_\" or cry of Dolores as their rallying shout, a multitude\ngathered round Hidalgo, who took for his banner a wonder-working picture\nof the Virgin belonging to a popular shrine. At first he met with some\nsuccess. A regiment of dragoons of the militia joined him, and some\nsmall posts were stormed. The whole tumultuous host moved on the city of\nMexico. But here the Spaniards and Creoles were concentrated. Hidalgo\nlost heart and retreated. Many of his followers deserted, and on the\nmarch to Queretaro he was attacked at Aculco by General Felix Calleja on\nthe 7th of November 1810, and routed. He endeavoured to continue the\nstruggle, and did succeed in collecting a mob estimated at 100,000 about\nGuadalajara. With this ill-armed and undisciplined crowd he took up a\nposition on the bridge of Calderon on the river Santiago. On the 17th of\nJanuary 1811 he was completely beaten by Calleja and a small force of\nsoldiers. Hidalgo was deposed by the other leaders, and soon afterwards\nall of them were betrayed to the Spaniards. They were tried at\nChihuahua, and condemned. Hidalgo was first degraded from the priesthood\nand then shot as a rebel, on the 31st of July or the 1st of August 1811.\n\n See H. H. Bancroft, _The Pacific States_, vol. vii., which contains a\n copious bibliography.\n\n\n\n\nHIDDENITE, a green transparent variety of spodumene, (q.v.) used as a\ngem-stone. It was discovered by William E. Hidden (b. 1853) about 1879\nat Stonypoint, Alexander county, North Carolina, and was at first taken\nfor diopside. In 1881 J. Lawrence Smith proved it to be spodumene, and\nnamed it. Hiddenite occurs in small slender monoclinic crystals of\nprismatic habit, often pitted on the surface. A well-marked prismatic\ncleavage renders the mineral rather difficult to cut. Its colour passes\nfrom an emerald green to a greenish-yellow, and is often unevenly\ndistributed through the stone. The mineral is dichroic in a marked\ndegree, and shows much \"fire\" when properly cut. The composition of the\nmineral is represented by the formula LiAl(SiO3)2, the green colour\nbeing probably due to the presence of a small proportion of chromium.\nThe presence of lithia in this green mineral suggested the inappropriate\nname of lithia emerald, by which it is sometimes known. Hiddenite was\noriginally found as loose crystals in the soil, but was afterwards\nworked in a veinstone, where it occurred in association with beryl,\nquartz, garnet, mica, rutile, &c.\n\n\n\n\nHIDE[1] (Lat. _hida_, A.-S. _higid_, _hid_ or _hiwisc_, members of a\nhousehold), a measure of land. The word was in general use in England in\nAnglo-Saxon and early English times, although its meaning seems to have\nvaried somewhat from time to time. Among its Latin equivalents are\n_terra unius familiae_, _terra unius cassati_ and _mansio_; the first of\nthese forms is used by Bede, who, like all early writers, gives to it no\ndefinite area. In its earliest form the hide was the typical holding of\nthe typical family. Gradually, this typical holding came to be regarded\nas containing 120 \"acres\" (not 120 acres of 4840 sq. yds. each, but 120\ntimes the amount of land which a ploughteam of eight oxen could plough\nin a single day). This definition appears to have been very general in\nEngland before the Norman Conquest, and in Domesday Book 30, 40, 50 and\n80 acres are repeatedly mentioned as fractions of a hide. Some\nhistorians, however, have thought that the hide only contained 30 acres\nor thereabouts.\n\n \"The question about the hide,\" says Professor Maitland in _Domesday\n Book and Beyond_, \"is 'pre-judicial' to all the great questions of\n early English history.\" The main argument employed by J. M. Kemble\n (_The Saxons in England_) in favour of the \"small\" hide is that the\n number of hides stated to have existed in the various parts of England\n gives an acreage far in excess of the total acreage of these parts,\n making due allowance for pasture and for woodland, an allowance\n necessary because the hide was only that part of the land which came\n under the plough, and each hide must have carried with it a certain\n amount of pasture. Two illustrations in support of Kemble's theory\n must suffice. Bede says the Isle of Wight contained 1200 hides. Now\n 1200 hides of 120 acres each gives a total acreage of 144,000 acres,\n while the total acreage of the island to-day is only 93,000 acres.\n Again a document called _The Tribal Hidage_ puts the number of hides\n in the whole of England at nearly a quarter of a million. This gives\n in acres a figure about equal to the total acreage of England at the\n present time, but it leaves no room for pasture and for the great\n proportion of land which was still woodland. On these grounds Kemble\n regarded the hide as containing 30 or 33, certainly not more than 40\n acres, and thought that each acre contained about 4000 sq. yds., i.e.\n that it was roughly equal to the modern acre. Another argument brought\n forward is that 30 or 40 acres was enough land for the support of the\n average family, in other words that it was the _terra unius familiae_\n of Bede. Another Domesday student, R. W. Eyton, puts down the hide at\n 48 acres.\n\n But formidable arguments have been advanced against the \"small\" hide.\n There is no doubt that at the time of Domesday the hide was equated\n with 120 and not with 30 acres. Then, taking the word _familia_ in its\n proper sense, a household with many dependent members, and making an\n allowance for primitive methods of agriculture, it is questionable\n whether 30 or 40 acres were sufficient for its support; and again if\n the equation 1 hide = 120 acres is rejected there is no serious\n evidence in favour of any other. A possible explanation is that,\n although in early Anglo-Saxon times the hide consisted of 30 acres or\n thereabouts, it had come before the time of Domesday to contain 120\n acres. But no trace of such change can be found; there is no break in\n the continuity of the land-charters which refer to hides and manses.\n Reviewing the whole question Professor Maitland accepts the view that\n the hide contained 120 acres. The difficulties are serious but they\n are not insuperable. Bede, writing in a primitive age and speaking for\n the most part of lands far away from Northumbria, uses figures in a\n vague and general fashion; then the hide of 120 acres does not mean\n 120 times 4840 yds., it means much less; and lastly at the time of\n Domesday the hide was not a unit of measurement, it was a unit for\n purposes of taxation. On the other hand, Mr. H. M. Chadwick (_Studies\n on Anglo-Saxon Institutions_) says there is no evidence that the hide\n contained 120 acres before the 10th century. He suggests that possibly\n the size of the hide in Mercia may have been fixed at 40 acres, while\n in Wessex it was regarded as containing 120 acres. Dr Stubbs (_Const.\n Hist._ i.) suggests that the confusion may have arisen because the\n word was used \"to express the whole share of one man in all the fields\n of the village.\" Thus it might refer to 30 acres, his share in one\n field, or to 120 acres, his share in the four fields. He adds,\n however, that this explanation is not adequate for all cases. But\n these differences about the size of the hide are not peculiar to\n modern times. Henry of Huntingdon says, _Hida Anglice vocatur terra\n unius aratri culturae sufficiens per annum_, while the _Dialogus de\n scaccario puts its size at 100 acres, though this may be the long\n hundred, or_ 120. Perhaps, therefore, Selden is wisest when he says,\n \"hides were of an incertain quantity.\" Certainly he gives a very good\n description of the early hide when he says (_Titles of Honour_): \"Now\n a hide of land regularly is and was (as I think) as much land as might\n be well manured with one plough, together with pasture, meadow and\n wood competent for the maintenance of that plough, and the servants of\n the family.\" The view that the size of the hide varied from district\n to district is borne out by Professor Vinogradoff's more recent\n researches. In his _English Society in the Eleventh Century_ he\n mentions that there was a hide of 48 acres in Wiltshire and one of 40\n acres in Dorset. In addition some authorities distinguish between\n English hides and Welsh hides, and in Sussex the hide often contained\n 8 virgates. Sometimes again in the 11th century hides were not merely\n fiscal units; they were shares in the land itself.\n\nThe fact that the hide was a unit of assessment, has been established by\nMr J. H. Round in his _Feudal England_, and is regarded as throwing a\nmost valuable light upon the many problems which present themselves to\nthe student of Domesday. The process which converted the hide from a\nunit of measurement to a unit for assessment purposes is probably as\nfollows. Being in general use to denote a large piece of land, and such\npieces of land being roughly equal all over England, the hide was a\nuseful unit on which to levy taxation, a use which dates doubtless from\nthe time of the Danegeld. For some time the two meanings were used side\nby side, but before the Norman Conquest the hide, a unit for taxation,\nhad quite supplanted the hide, a measure of land, and this was the state\nof affairs when in 1086 William I. ordered his great inquest to be made.\nThe formula used in Domesday varies from county to county, but a single\nillustration may be given. _Huntedun Burg defendebat se ad geldum regis\npro quarta parte de Hyrstingestan hundred pro L. hidis_. This does not\nmean that the town of Huntingdon contained a certain fixed number of\nsquare yards multiplied by 50, but that for purposes of taxation\nHuntingdon was regarded as worth 50 times a certain fiscal unit.\n\n This view of the nature of the hide was hinted at by R. W. Eyton in _A\n Key to Domesday_ and was accepted by Maitland. Its proof rests\n primarily upon the prevalence of the five-hide unit. By collating\n various documents which formed part of the Domesday inquest Mr Round\n has brought together for certain parts of England, especially for\n Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire, the holdings of the various lords in\n the different vills, and vill after vill shows a total of 5 hides or\n 10 hides or only a slight discrepancy therefrom. A similar result is\n shown for the hundreds where multiples of 5 are almost universal, and\n the total hidage for the county of Worcester is very near the round\n figure of 1200. This arrangement is obviously artificial; it must have\n been imposed upon the counties or the hundreds by the central\n authority and then divided among the vills. Another proof is found in\n what is called \"beneficial hidation.\" It is shown that in certain\n cases the number of hides in a hundred has been reduced since the time\n of Edward the Confessor, and that this reduction had been transferred\n _pro rata_ to the vills in the hundred. Thus Mr Round concludes that\n the hide was fixed \"independently of area or value.\" Some slight\n criticism has been directed against the idea of \"artificial hidation,\"\n but the most that can be said against it is that its proof rests upon\n isolated cases, a reproach which further research will doubtless\n remove. However, Professor Vinogradoff accepts the hide primarily as a\n fiscal unit \"which corresponds only in a very rough way to the\n agrarian reality,\" and Maitland says the fiscal hide is \"at its best a\n lame compromise between a unit of area and a unit of value.\"\n\nWhat is the origin of the five-hide unit? Various conjectures have been\nhazarded, and the unit is undoubtedly older than the Danegeld. Rejecting\nthe idea that it is of Roman or of British origin, and pointing to the\nserious difference in the rates at which the various counties were\nassessed, Mr Round thinks that it dates from the time when the various\nAnglo-Saxon kingdoms were independent. Possibly it was the unit of\nassessment for military service, possibly it was the recognized\nendowment of a Saxon thegn. In Anglo-Saxon times a man's standing in\nsociety was dependent to a great extent upon the number of hides which\nhe possessed; this statement is fully proved from the laws. Moreover, in\nthe laws of the Wessex king, Ine, the value of a man's oath is expressed\nin hides, the oath for a king's thegn being probably worth 60 hides and\nthat of a ceorl 5 hides.\n\nThe usual division of the hide was into virgates, a virgate being, after\nthe Conquest at least, the normal holding of the villein with two oxen.\nMr Round holds that in Domesday at all events the hide always consisted\nof four virgates; Mr F. Seebohm in _The English Village Community_,\nalthough thinking that the normal hide \"consisted as a rule of four\nvirgates of 30 acres each,\" says that the Hundred Rolls for\nHuntingdonshire show that \"the hide did not always contain the same\nnumber of virgates.\" The virgate, it may be noted, consisted of a strip\nof land in _each_ acre of the hide, and there is undoubtedly a strong\ncase in favour of the equation 1 hide = 4 virgates.\n\nMr Seebohm, propounding his theory that English institutions are rooted\nin those of Rome, argues for some resemblance between the methods of\ntaxation of land in Rome and in England; he sees some connexion between\nthe Roman _centuria_ and the hide, and between the Roman system of\ntaxation called _jugatio_ and the English hidage. Professor Vinogradoff\n(_Villainage in England_) summarizes the views of those who hold a\ncontrary opinion thus: \"The curious fact that the normal holding, the\nhide, was equal all over England can be explained only by its origin; it\ncame full-formed from Germany and remained unchanged in spite of all\ndiversities of geographical and economical conditions.\"\n\n In the Danish parts of England, or rather in the district of the \"Five\n Boroughs,\" the carucate takes the place of the hide as the unit of\n value, and six supplants five, six carucates being the unit of\n assessment. In Leicestershire and in part of Lancashire the hide is\n quite different from what it is elsewhere in England. According to Mr\n Round the Leicestershire hide consisted of 18 carucates; Mr W. H.\n Stevenson (_English Historical Review_, vol. v.) argues that it\n contained only 12 and that it was a hundred and not a hide. Mr Seebohm\n thinks there was a _solanda_ or double hide of 240 acres in Essex and\n other southern counties, but Mr Round does not think that this word\n refers to a measure or unit of assessment at all. For Kent, however,\n the word _sullung_ or solin, is used in _Domesday Book_ and in the\n charters instead of hide and carucate as elsewhere, and Vinogradoff\n thinks that this contained from 180 to 200 acres.\n\nUnder the Norman and early Plantagenet kings a levy of two or more\nshillings on each hide of land was a usual and recognized method of\nraising money, royal and some other estates, however, as is seen from\nDomesday, not being hidated and not paying the tax. This geld, or tax,\nreceived several names, one of the most general being _hidage_ (Lat.\n_hidagium_). \"Hidage,\" says Vinogradoff, \"is historically connected with\nthe old English Danegeld system,\" and as Danegeld and then hidage it was\nlevied long after its original purpose was forgotten, and was during the\n11th century \"the most sweeping and the heaviest of all the taxes.\"\nHenry of Huntingdon says its usual rate was 2s. on each hide of land,\nand this was evidently the rate at the time of the famous dispute\nbetween Henry II. and Becket at Woodstock in 1163, but it was not always\nkept at this figure, as in 1084 William I. had levied a tax of 6s. on\neach hide, an unusual extortion. The feudal aids were levied on the\nhide. Thus in 1109 Henry I. raised one at the rate of 3s. per hide for\nthe marriage of his daughter Matilda with the emperor Henry V., and in\n1194, when money was collected for the ransom of Richard I., some of the\ntaxation for this purpose seems to have been assessed according to the\nhidage given in Domesday Book.\n\nBy this time the word hidage as the designation of the tax was\ndisappearing, its place being taken by the word _carucage_. The carucate\n(Lat. _caruca_, a plough) was a measure of land which prevailed in the\nnorth of England, the district inhabited by people of Danish descent.\nSome authorities regard it as equivalent to the hide, others deny this\nidentity. In 1198, however, when Richard I. imposed a tax of 5s. on each\n_carucata terrae sive hyda_, the two words were obviously\ninterchangeable, and about the same time the size of the carucate was\nfixed at 100 acres. The word carucage remained in use for some time\nlonger, and then other names were given to the various taxes on land.\n\n One or two other questions with regard to the hide still remain\n unsolved. What is the connexion, if any, between the hundred and a\n hundred hides? Again, was the size of the hide fixed at 120 acres to\n make the work of reckoning the amount of Danegeld, or hidage, a simple\n process? 120 acres to the hide, 240 pence to the pound, makes\n calculations easy. Lastly, is the English hide derived from the German\n _hufe_ or _huba_? (A. W. H.*)\n\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [1] The homonym \"hide,\" meaning to conceal, is in O. Eng. _hydan_;\n the word appears in various forms in Old Teutonic languages. The root\n is probably seen in Gr. [Greek: keuthein] to hide, or may be the same\n as in \"hide,\" skin, O. Eng. _hyd_, which is also seen in Ger. _Haut_,\n Dutch _huid_; the root appears in Lat. _cutis_, Gr. [Greek: kytos].\n The Indo-European root _ku_-, weakened form of _sku_-, seen in \"sky,\"\n and meaning \"to cover,\" may be the ultimate source of both words. The\n slang use of \"to hide,\" to flog or whip, means \"to take the skin off,\n to flay.\"\n\n\n\n\nHIEL, EMMANUEL (1834-1899), Belgian-Dutch poet and prose writer, was\nborn at Dendermonde, in Flanders, in May 1834. He acted in various\nfunctions, from teacher and government official to journalist and\nbookseller, busily writing all the time both for the theatre and the\nmagazines of North and South Netherlands. His last posts were those of\nlibrarian at the Industrial Museum and professor of declamation at the\nConservatoire in Brussels. Among his better-known poetic works may be\ncited _Looverkens_ (\"Leaflets,\" 1857); _Nieuwe Liedekens_ (\"New\nPoesies,\" 1861); _Gedichten_ (\"Poems,\" 1863); _Psalmen, Zangen, en\nOratorios_ (\"Psalms, Songs, and Oratorios,\" 1869); _De Wind_ (1869), an\ninspiriting cantata, which had a large measure of success and was\ncrowned; _De Liefde in 't Leven_ (\"Love in Life,\" 1870); _Elle_ and\n_Isa_ (two musical dramas, 1874); _Liederen voor Groote en Kleine\nKinderen_ (\"Songs for Big and Small Folk,\" 1879); _Jakoba van Beieren_\n(\"Jacqueline of Bavaria,\" a poetic drama, 1880); _Mathilda van\nDenemarken_ (a lyrical drama, 1890). His collected poetical works were\npublished in three volumes at Rousselaere in 1885. Hiel took an active\nand prominent part in the so-called \"Flemish movement\" in Belgium, and\nhis name is constantly associated with those of Jan van Beers, the\nWillems and Peter Benoit. The last wrote some of his compositions to\nHiel's verses, notably to his oratorios _Lucifer_ (performed in London\nat the Royal Albert Hall and elsewhere) and _De Schelde_ (\"The\nScheldt\"); whilst the Dutch composer, Richard Hol (of Utrecht), composed\nthe music to Hiel's \"Ode to Liberty,\" and van Gheluwe to the poet's\n\"Songs for Big and Small Folk\" (second edition, much enlarged, 1879),\nwhich has greatly contributed to their popularity in schools and among\nBelgian choral societies. Hiel also translated several foreign lyrics.\nHis rendering of Tennyson's _Dora_ appeared at Antwerp in 1871. For the\nnational festival of 1880 at Brussels, to commemorate the fiftieth\nanniversary of Belgian independence, Hiel composed two cantatas,\n_Belgenland_ (\"The Land of the Belgians\") and _Eer Belgenland_ (\"Honour\nto Belgium\"), which, set to music, were much appreciated. He died at\nSchaerbeek, near Brussels, on the 27th of August 1899. Hiel's efforts to\ncounteract Walloon influences and bring about a _rapprochement_ between\nthe Netherlanders in the north and the Teutonic racial sympathizers\nacross the Rhine made him very popular with both, and a volume of his\nbest poems was in 1874 the first in a collection of Dutch authors\npublished at Leipzig.\n\n\n\n\nHIEMPSAL, the name of the two kings of Numidia. For Hiempsal I. see\nunder JUGURTHA. Hiempsal II. was the son of Gauda, the half-brother of\nJugurtha. In 88 B.C., after the triumph of Sulla, when the younger\nMarius fled from Rome to Africa, Hiempsal received him with apparent\nfriendliness, his real intention being to detain him as a prisoner.\nMarius discovered this intention in time and made good his escape with\nthe assistance of the king's daughter. In 81 Hiempsal was driven from\nhis throne by the Numidians themselves, or by Hiarbas, ruler of part of\nthe kingdom, supported by Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, the leader of the\nMarian party in Africa. Soon afterwards Pompey was sent to Africa by\nSulla to reinstate Hiempsal, whose territory was subsequently increased\nby the addition of some land on the coast in accordance with a treaty\nconcluded with L. Aurelius Cotta. When the tribune P. Servilius Rullus\nintroduced his agrarian law (63), these lands, which had been originally\nassigned to the Roman people by Scipio Africanus, were expressly\nexempted from sale, which roused the indignation of Cicero (_De lege\nagraria_, i. 4, ii. 22). From Suetonius (_Caesar_, 71) it is evident\nthat Hiempsal was alive in 62. According to Sallust (_Jugurtha_, 17), he\nwas the author of an historical work in the Punic language.\n\n Plutarch, _Marius_, 40, _Pompey_, 12; Appian, _Bell. civ._, i. 62. 80;\n Dio Cassius xli. 41.\n\n\n\n\nHIERAPOLIS. 1. (Arabic _Manbij_ or _Mumbij_) an ancient Syrian town\noccupying one of the finest sites in Northern Syria, in a fertile\ndistrict about 16 m. S.W. of the confluence of the Sajur and Euphrates.\nThere is abundant water supply from large springs. In 1879, after the\nRusso-Turkish war, a colony of Circassians from Vidin (Widdin) was\nplanted in the ruins, and the result has been the constant discovery of\nantiquities, which find their way into the bazaars of Aleppo and Aintab.\nThe place first appears in Greek as _Bambyce_, but Pliny (v. 23) tells\nus its Syrian name was _Mabog_. It was doubtless an ancient Commagenian\nsanctuary; but history knows it first under the Seleucids, who made it\nthe chief station on their main road between Antioch and\nSeleucia-on-Tigris; and as a centre of the worship of the Syrian Nature\nGoddess, Atargatis (q.v.), it became known to the Greeks as the city of\nthe sanctuary [Greek: Hieropolis], and finally as the Holy City [Greek:\nHierapolis]. Lucian, a native of Commagene (or some anonymous writer)\nhas immortalized this worship in the tract _De Dea Syria_, wherein are\ndescribed the orgiastic luxury of the shrine and the tank of sacred\nfish, of which Aelian also relates marvels. According to the _De Dea\nSyria_, the worship was of a phallic character, votaries offering little\nmale figures of wood and bronze. There were also huge _phalli_ set up\nlike obelisks before the temple, which were climbed once a year with\ncertain ceremonies, and decorated. For the rest the temple was of Ionic\ncharacter with golden plated doors and roof and much gilt decoration.\nInside was a holy chamber into which priests only were allowed to enter.\nHere were statues of a goddess and a god in gold, but the first seems to\nhave been the more richly decorated with gems and other ornaments.\nBetween them stood a gilt _xoanon_, which seems to have been carried\noutside in sacred processions. Other rich furniture is described, and a\nmode of divination by movements of a _xoanon_ of Apollo. A great bronze\naltar stood in front, set about with statues, and in the forecourt lived\nnumerous sacred animals and birds (but not swine) used for sacrifice.\nSome three hundred priests served the shrine and there were numerous\nminor ministrants. The lake was the centre of sacred festivities and it\nwas customary for votaries to swim out and decorate an altar standing in\nthe middle of the water. Self-mutilation and other orgies went on in the\ntemple precinct, and there was an elaborate ritual on entering the city\nand first visiting the shrine under the conduct of local guides, which\nreminds one of the Meccan Pilgrimage.\n\nThe temple was sacked by Crassus on his way to meet the Parthians (53\nB.C.); but in the 3rd century of the empire the city was the capital of\nthe Euphratensian province and one of the great cities of Syria.\nProcopius called it the greatest in that part of the world. It was,\nhowever, ruinous when Julian collected his troops there ere marching to\nhis defeat and death in Mesopotamia, and Chosroes I. held it to ransom\nafter Justinian had failed to put it in a state of defence. Harun\nrestored it at the end of the 8th century and it became a bone of\ncontention between Byzantines, Arabs and Turks. The crusaders captured\nit from the Seljuks in the 12th century, but Saladin retook it (1175),\nand later it became the headquarters of Hulagu and his Mongols, who\ncompleted its ruin. The remains are extensive, but almost wholly of late\ndate, as is to be expected in the case of a city which survived into\nMoslem times. The walls are Arab, and no ruins of the great temple\nsurvive. The most noteworthy relic of antiquity is the sacred lake, on\ntwo sides of which can still be seen stepped quays and water-stairs. The\nfirst modern account of the site is in a short narrative appended by H.\nMaundrell to his _Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem_. He was at Mumbij in\n1699.\n\nThe coinage of the city begins in the 4th century B.C. with an Aramaic\nseries, showing the goddess, either as a bust with mural crown or as\nriding on a lion. She continues to supply the chief type even during\nimperial times, being generally shown seated with the _tympanum_ in her\nhand. Other coins substitute the legend [Greek: Theas Surias\nHieropoliton], within a wreath. It is interesting to note that from\n_Bambyce_ (near which much silk was produced) were derived the\n_bombycina vestis_ of the Romans and, through the crusaders, the\nbombazine of modern commerce.\n\n See F. R. Chesney, _Euphrates Expedition_ (1850); W. F. Ainsworth,\n _Personal Narrative of the Euphrates Expedition_ (1888); E. Sachau,\n _Reise in Syrien_, &c. (1883); D. G. Hogarth in _Journal of Hellenic\n Studies_ (1909).\n\n2. A Phrygian city, altitude 1200 ft. on the right bank of the Churuk Su\n(Lycus), about 8 m. above its junction with the Menderes (Maeander),\nsituated on a broad terrace, 200 ft. above the valley and 6 m. N. of\nLaodicea. On the terrace rise calcareous springs, that have deposited\nvast incrustations of snowy whiteness. To these springs, which are warm\nand slightly sulphureous, and to the \"Plutonium\"--a hole reaching deep\ninto the earth, from which issued a mephitic vapour--the place owed its\ncelebrity and sanctity. Here, at an early date, a religious\nestablishment (_hieron_) existed in connexion with the old Phrygian\nKydrara, a settlement of the tribe Hydrelitae; and the town which grew\nround it became one of the greatest centres of Phrygian native life but\nof non-political importance. The chief religious festival was the\nLetoia, named after the goddess Leto, a local variety of the Mother\nGoddess (Cybele), who was honoured with orgiastic rites in which\nelements of the original Anatolian matriarchate and Nature-cult\nsurvived: there was also a worship of Apollo Lairbenos. Hierapolis was\nthe seat of an early church (Col. iv. 13), with which tradition closely\nconnects the apostle Philip. Epictetus, the philosopher, and Papias, a\ndisciple of St John and author of a lost work on the Sayings of Jesus,\nwere born there. Hierapolis is now easily reached from Gonjeli, a\nstation on the Dineir railway about 7 m. distant. A village of Yuruks\nhas gradually grown below the site. The native name for the place is\napparently _Pambuk Kale_ (though doubt has been thrown on the\nstatement), and this has always been explained by the cotton-like\nappearance of the white incrustations. It should be noted, however, that\nthis name, if genuine, is curiously like that given by the Syrians to\nthe Commagenian Hierapolis (above), _Bambyce_, the origin of which it\nhas been suggested was a native name of the goddess Pambe or Mambe\n(whence Mabog). Considering that cotton is a comparatively modern\nphenomenon in Anatolia, it is worth suggesting that _Pambuk_ in this\ncase may be a survival of a primitive name, derived from the same\ngoddess, Pambe. The goddesses of the two Hierapoleis were in any case\nclosely akin. If an old native name has reappeared here after the\ndecline of Greek influence, and been given a meaning in modern Turkish,\nit affords another instance of a very common feature of west Asian\nnomenclature. Combined with the petrified terraces, the ruins of\nHierapolis present the most attractive of the easily accessible\nspectacles in Asia Minor. They are remarkable for the long avenue of\ntombs, mostly inscribed sarcophagi on plinths, by which the city is\napproached from the W., and for a very perfect theatre partly excavated\nin the hill at the N. side of the site. Stage buildings as well as\nauditorium are well preserved. On the S., just above the white terraces\nand largely blocked with petrified deposit, stand large baths, into\nwhich the natural warm spring was once conducted. Behind these is a fine\ntriumphal arch, whence runs a colonnade. Ruins of several churches\nsurvive, and also of a large basilica. There is a sulphureous pool which\nmay represent the \"Plutonium,\" but it has no such deadly power as was\nascribed to that pond. Ramsay thinks that the \"Plutonium\" was\nobliterated by Christians in the 4th century. Over 300 inscriptions have\nbeen collected, mostly sepulchral, whence Ramsay has deduced interesting\nfacts about the very early Christian community which existed here. The\nsite has been often visited and described, and was systematically\nexamined in 1887 by parties under W. M. Ramsay and K. Humann\nrespectively.\n\n See K. Humann, _Altertumer v. Hierapolis_ (1888); Sir W. M. Ramsay,\n _Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia_, vol. i. (1895).\n (C. W. W.; D. G. H.)\n\n\n\n\nHIERARCHY (Gr. [Greek: hieros], holy, and [Greek: archein], to rule),\nthe office of a steward or guardian of holy things, not a \"ruler of\npriests\" or \"priestly ruler\" (see Boeckh, _Corp. inscr. Gr._ No. 1570),\na term commonly used in ecclesiastical language to denote the aggregate\nof those persons who exercise authority within the Christian Church, the\npatriarchate, episcopate or entire three-fold order of the clergy. The\nword [Greek: hierarchia], which does not occur in any classical Greek\nwriter, owes its present extensive currency to the celebrated writings\nof Dionysius Areopagiticus. Of these the most important are the two\nwhich treat of the celestial and of the ecclesiastical hierarchy\nrespectively. Defining hierarchy as the \"function which comprises all\nsacred things,\" or, more fully, as \"a sacred order and science and\nactivity, assimilated as far as possible to the godlike, and elevated to\nthe imitation of God proportionately to the Divine illuminations\nconceded to it,\" the author proceeds to enumerate the nine orders of the\nheavenly host, which are subdivided again into hierarchies or triads, in\ndescending order, thus: Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones; Dominations,\nVirtues, Powers; Principalities, Archangels, Angels. These all exist for\nthe common object of raising men through ascending stages of\npurification and illumination to perfection. The ecclesiastical or\nearthly hierarchy is the counterpart of the other. In it the first or\nhighest triad is formed by baptism, communion and chrism. The second\ntriad consists of the three orders of the ministry, bishop or hierarch,\npriest and minister or deacon ([Greek: hierarches, hiereus,\nleitourgos]); this is the earliest known instance in which the title\nhierarch is applied to a bishop. The third or lowest triad is made up of\nmonks, \"initiated\" and catechumens. To Dionysius may be traced, through\nThomas Aquinas and other Catholic writers of the intervening period, the\ndefinition of the term usually given by Roman Catholic writers--\"coetus\nseu ordo praesidum et sacrorum ministrorum ad regendam ecclesiam\ngignendamque in hominibus sanctitatem divinitus institutus\"[1]--although\nit immediately rests upon the authority of the sixth canon of the\ntwenty-third session of the council of Trent, in which anathema is\npronounced upon all who deny the existence within the Catholic Church of\na hierarchy instituted by divine appointment, and consisting of bishops,\npriests and ministers.[2] (See ORDER, HOLY).\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [1] Perrone, _De locis theologicis_, pt. i., sec. i. cap. 2.\n\n [2] Si quis dixerit in ecclesia catholica non esse hierarchiam divina\n ordinatione institutam, quae constat ex episcopis, presbyteris, et\n ministris: anathema sit.\n\n\n\n\nHIERATIC, priestly or sacred (Gr. [Greek: hieratikos, hieros], sacred),\na term particularly applied to a style of ancient Egyptian writing,\nwhich is a simplified cursive form of hieroglyphic. The name was first\ngiven by Champollion (see EGYPT, S _Language_).\n\n\n\n\nHIERAX, or HIERACAS, a learned ascetic who flourished about the end of\nthe 3rd century at Leontopolis in Egypt, where he lived to the age of\nninety, supporting himself by calligraphy and devoting his leisure to\nscientific and literary pursuits, especially to the study of the Bible.\nHe was the author of Biblical commentaries both in Greek and Coptic, and\nis said to have composed many hymns. He became leader of the so-called\nsect of the Hieracites, an ascetic society from which married persons\nwere excluded, and of which one of the leading tenets was that only the\ncelibate could enter the kingdom of heaven. He asserted that the\nsuppression of the sexual impulse was emphatically the new revelation\nbrought by the Logos, and appealed to 1 Cor. vii., Heb. xii. 14, and\nMatt. xix. 12, xxv. 21. Hierax may be called the connecting link between\nOrigen and the Coptic monks. A man of deep learning and prodigious\nmemory, he seems to have developed Origen's Christology in the direction\nof Athanasius. He held that the Son was a torch lighted at the torch of\nthe Father, that Father and Son are a bipartite light. He repudiated the\nideas of a bodily resurrection and a material paradise, and on the\nground of 2 Tim. ii. 5 questioned the salvation of even baptized\ninfants, \"for without knowledge no conflict, without conflict no\nreward.\" In his insistence on virginity as the specifically Christian\nvirtue he set up the great theme of the church of the 4th and 5th\ncenturies.\n\n\n\n\nHIERO (strictly HIERON), the name of two rulers of Syracuse.\n\nHIERO I. was the brother of Gelo, and tyrant of Syracuse from 478 to\n467/6 B.C. During his reign he greatly increased the power of Syracuse.\nHe removed the inhabitants of Naxos and Catana to Leontini, peopled\nCatana (which he renamed Aetna) with Dorians, concluded an alliance with\nAcragas (Agrigentum), and espoused the cause of the Locrians against\nAnaxilaus, tyrant of Rhegium. His most important achievement was the\ndefeat of the Etruscans at Cumae (474), by which he saved the Greeks of\nCampania. A bronze helmet (now in the British Museum), with an\ninscription commemorating the event, was dedicated at Olympia. Though\ndespotic in his rule Hiero was a liberal patron of literature. He died\nat Catana in 467.\n\n See Diod. Sic. xi. 38-67; Xenophon, _Hiero_, 6. 2; E. Lubbert,\n _Syrakus zur Zeit des Gelon und Hieron_ (1875); for his coins see\n NUMISMATICS (section _Sicily_).\n\n\n\n\nHIERO II., tyrant of Syracuse from 270 to 216 B.C., was the illegitimate\nson of a Syracusan noble, Hierocles, who claimed descent from Gelo. On\nthe departure of Pyrrhus from Sicily (275) the Syracusan army and\ncitizens appointed him commander of the troops. He materially\nstrengthened his position by marrying the daughter of Leptines, the\nleading citizen. In the meantime, the Mamertines, a body of Campanian\nmercenaries who had been employed by Agathocles, had seized the\nstronghold of Messana, whence they harassed the Syracusans. They were\nfinally defeated in a pitched battle near Mylae by Hiero, who was only\nprevented from capturing Messana by Carthaginian interference. His\ngrateful countrymen then chose him king (270). In 264 he again returned\nto the attack, and the Mamertines called in the aid of Rome. Hiero at\nonce joined the Punic leader Hanno, who had recently landed in Sicily;\nbut being defeated by the consul Appius Claudius, he withdrew to\nSyracuse. Pressed by the Roman forces, in 263 he was compelled to\nconclude a treaty with Rome, by which he was to rule over the south-east\nof Sicily and the eastern coast as far as Tauromenium (Polybius i. 8-16;\nZonaras viii. 9). From this time till his death in 216 he remained loyal\nto the Romans, and frequently assisted them with men and provisions\nduring the Punic wars (Livy xxi. 49-51, xxii. 37, xxiii. 21). He kept up\na powerful fleet for defensive purposes, and employed his famous kinsman\nArchimedes in the construction of those engines that, at a later date,\nplayed so important a part during the siege of Syracuse by the Romans.\n\n A picture of the prosperity of Syracuse during his rule is given in\n the sixteenth idyll of Theocritus, his favourite poet. See Diod. Sic.\n xxii. 24-xxvi. 24; Polybius i. 8-vii. 7; Justin xxiii. 4.\n\n\n\n\nHIEROCLES, proconsul of Bithynia and Alexandria, lived during the reign\nof Diocletian (A.D. 284-305). He is said to have been the instigator of\nthe fierce persecution of the Christians under Galerius in 303. He was\nthe author of a work (not extant) entitled [Greek: logoi philaletheis\npros tous Christianous] in two books, in which he endeavoured to\npersuade the Christians that their sacred books were full of\ncontradictions, and that in moral influence and miraculous power Christ\nwas inferior to Apollonius of Tyana. Our knowledge of this treatise is\nderived from Lactantius (_Instit. div._ v. 2) and Eusebius, who wrote a\nrefutation entitled [Greek: Antirrhetikos pros ta Hierokleous].\n\n\n\n\nHIEROCLES OF ALEXANDRIA, Neoplatonist writer, flourished c. A.D. 430. He\nstudied under the celebrated Neoplatonist Plutarch at Athens, and taught\nfor some years in his native city. He seems to have been banished from\nAlexandria and to have taken up his abode in Constantinople, where he\ngave such offence by his religious opinions that he was thrown into\nprison and cruelly flogged. The only complete work of his which has been\npreserved is the commentary on the _Carmina Aurea_ of Pythagoras. It\nenjoyed a great reputation in middle age and Renaissance times, and\nthere are numerous translations in various European languages. Several\nother writings, especially one on providence and fate, a consolatory\ntreatise dedicated to his patron Olympiodorus of Thebes, author of\n[Greek: historikoi logoi], are quoted or referred to by Photius and\nStobaeus. The collection of some 260 witticisms ([Greek: asteia]) called\n[Greek: Philogelos] (ed. A. Eberhard, Berlin, 1869), attributed to\nHierocles and Philagrius, has no connexion with Hierocles of Alexandria,\nbut is probably a compilation of later date, founded on two older\ncollections. It is now agreed that the fragments of the _Elements of\nEthics_ ([Greek: Ethike stoicheiosis]) preserved in Stobaeus are from a\nwork by a Stoic named Hierocles, contemporary of Epictetus, who has been\nidentified with the \"Hierocles Stoicus vir sanctus et gravis\" in Aulus\nGellius (ix. 5. 8). This theory is confirmed by the discovery of a\npapyrus (ed. H. von Arnim in _Berliner Klassikertexte_, iv. 1906; see\nalso C. Prachter, _Hierokles der Stoiker_, 1901).\n\n\n There is an edition of the commentary by F. W. Mullach in _Fragmenta\n philosophorum Graecorum_ (1860), i. 408, including full information\n concerning Hierocles, the poem and the commentary; see also E. Zeller,\n _Philosophie der Griechen_ (2nd ed.), iii. 2, pp. 681-687; W. Christ,\n _Geschichte der griechischen Literatur_ (1898), pp. 834, 849.\n\n Another Hierocles, who flourished during the reign of Justinian, was\n the author of a list of provinces and towns in the Eastern Empire,\n called [Greek: Synekdemos] (\"fellow-traveller\"; ed. A. Burckhardt,\n 1893); it was one of the chief authorities used by Constantine\n Porphyrogenitus in his work on the \"themes\" of the Roman Empire (see\n C. Krumbacher, _Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur_, 1897, p.\n 417). In Fabricius's _Bibliotheca Graeca_ (ed. Harles), i. 791,\n sixteen persons named Hierocles, chiefly literary, are mentioned.\n\n\n\n\nHIEROGLYPHICS (Gr. [Greek: hieros], sacred, and [Greek: glyphe],\ncarving), the term used by Greek and Latin writers to describe the\nsacred characters of the ancient Egyptian language in its classical\nphase. It is now also used for various systems of writing in which\nfigures of objects take the place of conventional signs. Such characters\nwhich symbolize the idea of a thing without expressing the name of it\nare generally styled \"ideographs\" (Gr. [Greek: idea], idea, and [Greek:\ngraphein], to write), e.g. the Chinese characters.\n\n See EGYPT, _Language_; CUNEIFORM; INSCRIPTIONS and WRITING.\n\n\n\n\nHIERONYMITES, a common name for three or four congregations of hermits\nliving according to the rule of St Augustine with supplementary\nregulations taken from St Jerome's writings. Their habit was white, with\na black cloak. (1) The Spanish Hieronymites, established near Toledo in\n1374. The order soon became popular in Spain and Portugal, and in 1415\nit numbered 25 houses. It possessed some of the most famous monasteries\nin the Peninsula, including the royal monastery of Belem near Lisbon,\nand the magnificent monastery built by Philip II. at the Escurial.\nThough the manner of life was very austere the Hieronymites devoted\nthemselves to studies and to the active work of the ministry, and they\npossessed great influence both at the Spanish and the Portuguese courts.\nThey went to Spanish and Portuguese America and played a considerable\npart in Christianizing and civilizing the Indians. There were\nHieronymite nuns founded in 1375, who became very numerous. The order\ndecayed during the 18th century and was completely suppressed in 1835.\n(2) Hieronymites of the Observance, or of Lombardy: a reform of (1)\neffected by the third general in 1424; it embraced seven houses in Spain\nand seventeen in Italy, mostly in Lombardy. It is now extinct. (3) Poor\nHermits of St Jerome, established near Pisa in 1377: it came to embrace\nnearly fifty houses whereof only one in Rome and one in Viterbo survive.\n(4) Hermits of St Jerome of the congregation of Fiesole, established in\n1406: they had forty houses but in 1668 they were united to (3).\n\n See Helyot, _Histoire des ordres religieux_ (1714), iii. cc. 57-60,\n iv. cc. 1-3; Max Heimbucher, _Orden und Kongregationen_ (1896), i. S\n 70; and art. \"Hieronymiten\" in Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklopadie_ (ed.\n 3), and in Welte and Wetzer, _Kirchenlexicon_ (ed. 2). (E. C. B.)\n\n\n\n\nHIERONYMUS OF CARDIA, Greek general and historian, contemporary of\nAlexander the Great. After the death of the king he followed the\nfortunes of his friend and fellow-countryman Eumenes. He was wounded and\ntaken prisoner by Antigonus, who pardoned him and appointed him\nsuperintendent of the asphalt beds in the Dead Sea. He was treated with\nequal friendliness by Antigonus's son Demetrius, who made him polemarch\nof Thespiae, and by Antigonus Gonatas, at whose court he died at the age\nof 104. He wrote a history of the Diadochi and their descendants,\nembracing the period from the death of Alexander to the war with Pyrrhus\n(323-272 B.C.), which is one of the chief authorities used by Diodorus\nSiculus (xviii.-xx.) and also by Plutarch in his life of Pyrrhus. He\nmade use of official papers and was careful in his investigation of\nfacts. The simplicity of his style rendered his work unpopular, but it\nis probable that it was on a high level as compared with that of his\ncontemporaries. In the last part of his work he made a praiseworthy\nattempt to acquaint the Greeks with the character and early history of\nthe Romans. He is reproached by Pausanias (i. 9. 8) with unfairness\ntowards all rulers with the exception of Antigonus Gonatas.\n\n See Lucian, _Macrobii_, 22; Plutarch, _Demetrius_, 39; Diod. Sic.\n xviii. 42. 44. 50, xix. 100; Dion. Halic. _Antiq. Rom._ i. 6; F.\n Bruckner, \"De vita et scriptis Hieronymi Cardii\" in _Zeitschrift fur\n die Alterthumswissenschaft_ (1842); F. Reuss, _Hieronymus von Kardia_\n (Berlin, 1876); C. Wachsmuth, _Einleitung in das Studium der alten\n Geschichte_ (1895); fragments in C. W. Muller, _Frag. hist. Graec._\n ii. 450-461.\n\n\n\n\nHIERRO, or FERRO, an island in the Atlantic Ocean, forming part of the\nSpanish archipelago of the Canary Islands (q.v.). Pop. (1900) 6508; area\n107 sq. m. Hierro, the most westerly and the smallest island of the\ngroup, is somewhat crescent-shaped. Its length is about 18 m., its\ngreatest breadth about 15 m., and its circumference 50 m. It lies 92 m.\nW.S.W. of Teneriffe. Its coast is bound by high, steep rocks, which only\nadmit of one harbour, but the interior is tolerably level. Its hill-tops\nin winter are sometimes wrapped in snow. Better and more abundant grass\ngrows here than on any of the other islands. Hierro is exposed to\nwesterly gales which frequently inflict great damage. Fresh water is\nscarce, but there is a sulphurous spring, with a temperature of 102 deg.\nFahr. The once celebrated and almost sacred Til tree, which was reputed\nto be always distilling water in great abundance from its leaves, no\nlonger exists. Only a small part of the cultivable land is under\ntillage, the inhabitants being principally employed in pasturage.\nValverde (pop. about 3000) is the principal town. Geographers were\nformerly in the habit of measuring all longitudes from Ferro, the most\nwesterly land known to them. The longitude assigned at first has,\nhowever, turned out to be erroneous; and the so-called \"Longitude of\nFerro\" does not coincide with the actual longitude of the island.\n\n\n\n\nHIGDON (or HIGDEN), RANULF (c. 1299-c. 1363), English chronicler, was a\nBenedictine monk of the monastery of St Werburg in Chester, in which he\nlived, it is said, for sixty-four years, and died \"in a good old age,\"\nprobably in 1363. Higdon was the author of a long chronicle, one of\nseveral such works based on a plan taken from Scripture, and written for\nthe amusement and instruction of his society. It closes the long series\nof general chronicles, which were soon superseded by the invention of\nprinting. It is commonly styled the _Polychronicon_, from the longer\ntitle _Ranulphi Castrensis, cognomine Higdon, Polychronicon (sive\nHistoria Polycratica) ab initio mundi usque ad mortem regis Edwardi III.\nin septem libros dispositum_. The work is divided into seven books, in\nhumble imitation of the seven days of Genesis, and, with exception of\nthe last book, is a summary of general history, a compilation made with\nconsiderable style and taste. It seems to have enjoyed no little\npopularity in the 15th century. It was the standard work on general\nhistory, and more than a hundred MSS. of it are known to exist. The\nChrist Church MS. says that Higdon wrote it down to the year 1342; the\nfine MS. at Christ's College, Cambridge, states that he wrote to the\nyear 1344, after which date, with the omission of two years, John of\nMalvern, a monk of Worcester, carried the history on to 1357, at which\ndate it ends. According, however, to its latest editor, Higdon's part of\nthe work goes no further than 1326 or 1327 at latest, after which time\nit was carried on by two continuators to the end. Thomas Gale, in his\n_Hist. Brit. &c., scriptores_, xv. (Oxon., 1691), published that portion\nof it, in the original Latin, which comes down to 1066. Three early\ntranslations of the _Polychronicon_ exist. The first was made by John of\nTrevisa, chaplain to Lord Berkeley, in 1387, and was printed by Caxton\nin 1482; the second by an anonymous writer, was written between 1432 and\n1450; the third, based on Trevisa's version, with the addition of an\neighth book, was prepared by Caxton. These versions are specially\nvaluable as illustrating the change of the English language during the\nperiod they cover.\n\n The _Polychronicon_, with the continuations and the English versions,\n was edited for the Rolls Series (No. 41) by Churchill Babington (vols.\n i. and ii.) and Joseph Rawson Lumby (1865-1886). This edition was\n adversely criticized by Mandell Creighton in the _Eng. Hist. Rev._ for\n October 1888.\n\n\n\n\nHIGGINS, MATTHEW JAMES (1810-1868), British writer over the nom-de-plume\n\"Jacob Omnium,\" which was the title of his first magazine article, was\nborn in County Meath, Ireland, on the 4th of December 1810. His letters\nin _The Times_ were instrumental in exposing many abuses. He was a\nfrequent contributor to the _Cornhill_, and was a friend of Thackeray,\nwho dedicated to him _The Adventures of Philip_, and one of his ballads,\n\"Jacob Omnium's Hoss,\" deals with an incident in Higgins's career. He\ndied on the 14th of August 1868. Some of his articles were published in\n1875 as _Essays on Social Subjects_.\n\n\n\n\nHIGGINSON, THOMAS WENTWORTH (1823-1911), American author and soldier,\nwas born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on the 22nd of December 1823. He\nwas a descendant of Francis Higginson (1588-1630), who emigrated from\nLeicestershire to the colony of Massachusetts Bay and was a minister of\nthe church of Salem, Mass., in 1629-1630; and a grandson of Stephen\nHigginson (1743-1828), a Boston merchant, who was a member of the\nContinental Congress in 1783, took an active part in suppressing Shay's\nRebellion, was the author of the \"Laco\" letters (1789), and rendered\nvaluable services to the United States government as navy agent from the\n11th of May to the 22nd of June 1798. Graduating from Harvard in 1841,\nhe was a schoolmaster for two years, studied theology at the Harvard\nDivinity School, and was pastor in 1847-1850 of the First Religious\nSociety (Unitarian) of Newburyport, Massachusetts, and of the Free\nChurch at Worcester in 1852-1858. He was a Free Soil candidate for\nCongress (1850), but was defeated; was indicted with Wendell Phillips\nand Theodore Parker for participation in the attempt to release the\nfugitive slave, Anthony Burns, in Boston (1853); was engaged in the\neffort to make Kansas a free state after the passage of the\nKansas-Nebraska Bill of 1854; and during the Civil War was captain in\nthe 51st Massachusetts Volunteers, and from November 1862 to October\n1864, when he was retired because of a wound received in the preceding\nAugust, was colonel of the First South Carolina Volunteers, the first\nregiment recruited from former slaves for the Federal service. He\ndescribed his experiences in _Army Life in a Black Regiment_ (1870). In\npolitics Higginson was successively a Republican, an Independent and a\nDemocrat. His writings show a deep love of nature, art and humanity, and\nare marked by vigour of thought, sincerity of feeling, and grace and\nfinish of style. In his _Common Sense About Women_ (1881) and his _Women\nand Men_ (1888) he advocated equality of opportunity and equality of\nrights for the two sexes.\n\n Among his numerous books are _Outdoor Papers_ (1863); _Malbone: an\n Oldport Romance_ (1869); Life of _Margaret Fuller Ossoli_ (in\n \"American Men of Letters\" series, 1884); _A Larger History of the\n United States of America to the Close of President Jackson's\n Administration_ (1885); _The Monarch of Dreams_ (1886); _Travellers\n and Outlaws_ (1889); _The Afternoon Landscape_ (1889), poems and\n translations; _Life of Francis Higginson_ (in \"Makers of America,\"\n 1891); _Concerning All of Us_ (1892); _The Procession of the Flowers\n and Kindred Papers_ (1897); _Henry Wadsworth Longfellow_ (in \"American\n Men of Letters\" series, 1902); _John Greenleaf Whittier_ (in \"English\n Men of Letters\" series, 1902); _A Reader's History of American\n Literature_ (1903), the Lowell Institute lectures for 1903, edited by\n Henry W. Boynton; and _Life and Times of Stephen Higginson_ (1907).\n His volumes of reminiscence, _Cheerful Yesterdays_ (1898), _Old\n Cambridge_ (1899), _Contemporaries_ (1899), and _Part of a Man's Life_\n (1905), are characteristic and charming works. His collected works\n were published in seven vols. (1900).\n\n\n\n\nHIGHAM FERRERS, a market town and municipal borough in the Eastern\nparliamentary division of Northamptonshire, England, 63 m. N.N.W. from\nLondon, on branches of the London & North-Western and Midland railways.\nPop. (1901), 2540. It is pleasantly situated on high ground above the\nsouth bank of the river Nene. The church of St Mary is among the most\nbeautiful of the many fine churches in Northamptonshire. To the Early\nEnglish chancel a very wide north aisle, resembling a second nave, was\nadded in the Decorated period, and the general appearance of the\nchancel, with its north aisle and Lady-chapel, is Decorated. The tower\nwith its fine spire and west front was partially but carefully rebuilt\nin the 17th century. Close to the church, but detached from it, stands a\nbeautiful Perpendicular building, the school-house, founded by\nArchbishop Chichele in 1422. The Bede House, a somewhat similar\nstructure by the same founder, completes a striking group of buildings.\nIn the town are remains of Chichele's college. Higham Ferrers shares in\nthe widespread local industry of shoemaking. The town is governed by a\nmayor, 4 aldermen and 12 councillors. Area, 1945 acres.\n\nHigham (Hecham, Heccam, Hegham Ferers) was evidently a large village\nbefore the Domesday Survey. It was then held by William Peverel of the\nking, but on the forfeiture of the lordship by his son it was granted in\n1199 to William Ferrers, earl of Derby. On the outlawry of Robert his\ngrandson it passed to Edmund, earl of Lancaster, and, reverting to the\ncrown in 1322, was granted to Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, but\nescheated to the crown in 1327, and was granted to Henry, earl of\nLancaster. The castle, which may have been built before Henry III.\nvisited Higham in 1229, is mentioned in 1322, but had been destroyed by\n1540. It appears by the confirmation of Henry III. in 1251 that the\nborough originated in the previous year when William de Ferrers, earl of\nDerby, manumitted by charter ninety-two persons, granting they should\nhave a free borough. A mayor was elected from the beginning of the reign\nof Richard II., while a town hall is mentioned in 1395. The revenues of\nChichele's college were given to the corporation by the charter of 1566,\nwhereby the borough returned one representative to parliament, a\nprivilege enjoyed until 1832. James I. in 1604 gave the mayor the\ncommission of the peace with other privileges which were confirmed by\nCharles II. in 1664. The old charters were surrendered in 1684 and a new\ngrant obtained; a further charter was granted in 1887.\n\n\n\n\nHIGHGATE, a northern district of London, England, partly in the\nmetropolitan borough of St Pancras, but extending into Middlesex. It is\na high-lying district, the greatest elevation being 426 ft. The Great\nNorth Road passes through Highgate, which is supposed to have received\nits name from the toll-gate erected by the bishop of London when the\nroad was formed through his demesne in the 14th century. It is possible,\nhowever, that \"gate\" is used here in its old signification, and that the\nname means simply high road. The road rose so steeply here that in 1812\nan effort was made to lessen the slope for coaches by means of an\narchway, and a new way was completed in 1900. In the time of\nstage-coaches a custom was introduced of making ignorant persons believe\nthat they required to be sworn and admitted to the freedom of the\nHighgate before being allowed to pass the gate, the fine of admission\nbeing a bottle of wine. Not a few famous names occur among the former\nresidents of Highgate. Bacon died here in 1626; Coleridge and Andrew\nMarvell, the poets, were residents. Cromwell House, now a convalescent\nhome, was presented by Oliver Cromwell to his eldest daughter Bridget on\nher marriage with Henry Ireton (January 15, 1646/7). Lauderdale House,\nnow attached to the public grounds of Waterlow Park, belonged to the\nDuke of Lauderdale, one of the \"Cabal\" of Charles II. Among various\ninstitutions may be mentioned Whittington's almshouses, near Whittington\nStone, at the foot of Highgate Hill, on which the future mayor of London\nis reputed to have been resting when he heard the peal of Bow bells and\n\"turned again.\" Highgate grammar school was founded (1562-1565) by Sir\nRoger Cholmley, chief-justice. St Joseph's Retreat is the mother-house\nof the Passionist Fathers in England. There is an extensive and\nbeautiful cemetery on the slope below the church of St Michael.\n\n\n\n\nHIGHLANDS, THE, that part of Scotland north-west of a line drawn from\nDumbarton to Stonehaven, including the Inner and Outer Hebrides and the\ncounty of Bute, but excluding the Orkneys and Shetlands, Caithness, the\nflat coastal land of the shires of Nairn, Elgin and Banff, and all East\nAberdeenshire (see SCOTLAND). This area is to be distinguished from the\nLowlands by language and race, the preservation of the Gaelic speech\nbeing characteristic. Even in a historical sense the Highlanders were a\nseparate people from the Lowlanders, with whom, during many centuries,\nthey shared nothing in common. The town of Inverness is usually regarded\nas the capital of the Highlands. The Highlands consist of an old\ndissected plateau, or block, of ancient crystalline rocks with incised\nvalleys and lochs carved by the action of mountain streams and by ice,\nthe resulting topography being a wide area of irregularly distributed\nmountains whose summits have nearly the same height above sea-level, but\nwhose bases depend upon the amount of denudation to which the plateau\nhas been subjected in various places. The term \"highland\" is used in\nphysical geography for any elevated mountainous plateau.\n\n\n\n\nHIGHNESS, literally the quality of being lofty or high, a term used, as\nare so many abstractions, as a title of dignity and honour, to signify\nexalted rank or station. These abstractions arose in great profusion in\nthe Roman empire, both of the East and West, and \"highness\" is to be\ndirectly traced to the _altitudo_ and _celsitudo_ of the Latin and the\n[Greek: hypselotes] of the Greek emperors. Like other \"exorbitant and\nswelling attributes\" of the time, they were conferred on ruling princes\ngenerally. In the early middle ages such titles, couched in the second\nor third person, were \"uncertain and much more arbitrary (according to\nthe fancies of secretaries) than in the later times\" (Selden, _Titles of\nHonour_, pt. i. ch. vii. 100). In English usage, \"Highness\" alternates\nwith \"Grace\" and \"Majesty,\" as the honorific title of the king and queen\nuntil the time of James I. Thus in documents relating to the reign of\nHenry VIII. all three titles are used indiscriminately; an example is\nthe king's judgment against Dr Edward Crome (d. 1562), quoted, from the\nlord chamberlain's books, ser. 1, p. 791, in _Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc._\nN.S. xix. 299, where article 15 begins with \"Also the Kinges Highness\"\nhath ordered, 16 with \"Kinges Majestie,\" and 17 with \"Kinges Grace.\" In\nthe Dedication of the Authorized Version of the Bible of 1611 James I.\nis still styled \"Majesty\" and \"Highness\"; thus, in the first paragraph,\n\"the appearance of Your Majesty, as of the Sun in his strength,\ninstantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists ... especially\nwhen we beheld the government established in Your Highness and Your\nhopeful Seed, by an undoubted title.\" It was, however, in James I.'s\nreign that \"Majesty\" became the official title. It may be noted that\nCromwell, as lord protector, and his wife were styled \"Highness.\" In\npresent usage the following members of the British Royal Family are\naddressed as \"Royal Highness\" (H.R.H.): all sons and daughters, brothers\nand sisters, uncles and aunts of the reigning sovereign, grandsons and\ngranddaughters if children of sons, and also great grandchildren (decree\nof 31st of May 1898) if children of an eldest son of any prince of\nWales. Nephews, nieces and cousins and grandchildren, offspring of\ndaughters, are styled \"Highness\" only. A change of sovereign does not\nentail the forfeiture of the title \"Royal Highness,\" once acquired,\nthough the father of the bearer has become a nephew and not a grandson\nof the sovereign. The principal feudatory princes of the Indian empire\nare also styled \"Highness.\"\n\nAs a general rule the members of the blood royal of an Imperial or Royal\nhouse are addressed as \"Imperial\" or \"Royal Highness\" (_Altesse\nImperiale_, _Royale_, _Kaiserliche_, _Konigliche Hoheit_) respectively.\nIn Germany the reigning heads of the Grand Duchies bear the title of\nRoyal or Grand Ducal Highness (_Konigliche_ or _Gross-Herzogliche\nHoheit_), while the members of the family are addressed as _Hoheit_,\nHighness, simply. _Hoheit_ is borne by the reigning dukes and the\nprinces and princesses of their families. The title \"Serene Highness\"\nhas also an antiquity equal to that of \"highness,\" for [Greek:\ngalenotes] and [Greek: hemerotes] were titles borne by the Byzantine\nrulers, and serenitas and _serenissimus_ by the emperors Honorius and\nArcadius. The doge of Venice was also styled _Serenissimus_. Selden\n(_op. cit._ pt. ii. ch. x. 739) calls this title \"one of the greatest\nthat can be given to any Prince that hath not the superior title of\nKing.\" In modern times \"Serene Highness\" (_Altesse Serenissime_) is used\nas the equivalent of the German _Durchlaucht_, a stronger form of\n_Erlaucht_, illustrious, represented in the Latin honorific\n_superillustris_. Thackeray's burlesque title \"Transparency\" in the\ncourt at Pumpernickel very accurately gives the meaning. The title of\n_Durchlaucht_ was granted in 1375 by the emperor Charles IV. to the\nelectoral princes (_Kurfursten_). In the 17th century it became the\ngeneral title borne by the heads of the reigning princely states of the\nempire (_reichslandische Fursten_), as _Erlaucht_ by those of the\ncountly houses (_reichstandische Grafen_). In 1825 the German Diet\nagreed to grant the title _Durchlaucht_ to the heads of the mediatized\nprincely houses whether domiciled in Germany or Austria, and it is now\ncustomary to use it of the members of those houses. Further, all those\nwho are elevated to the rank of prince (_Furst_) in the secondary\nmeaning of that title (see PRINCE) are also styled _Durchlaucht_. In\n1829 the title of _Erlaucht_, which had formerly been borne by the\nreigning counts of the empire, was similarly granted to the mediatized\ncountly families (see _Almanack de Gotha_, 1909, 107).\n\n\n\n\nHIGH PLACE, in the English version of the Old Testament, the literal\ntranslation of the Heb. _bamah_. This rendering is etymologically\ncorrect, as appears from the poetical use of the plural in such\nexpressions as to ride, or stalk, or stand on the high places of the\nearth, the sea, the clouds, and from the corresponding usage in\nAssyrian; but in prose _bamah_ is always a place of worship. It has been\nsurmised that it was so called because the places of worship were\noriginally upon hill-tops, or that the _bamah_ was an artificial\nplatform or mound, perhaps imitating the natural eminence which was the\noldest holy place, but neither view is historically demonstrable. The\ndevelopment of the religious significance of the word took place\nprobably not in Israel but among the Canaanites, from whom the\nIsraelites, in taking possession of the holy places of the land, adopted\nthe name also.\n\nIn old Israel every town and village had its own place of sacrifice, and\nthe common name for these places was _bamah_, which is synonymous with\n_mikdash_, holy place (Amos vii. 9; Isa. xvi. 12, &c.). From the Old\nTestament and from existing remains a good idea may be formed of the\nappearance of such a place of worship. It was often on the hill above\nthe town, as at Ramah (I Sam. ix. 12-14); there was a stele\n(_massebah_), the seat of the deity, and a wooden post or pole\n(_asherah_), which marked the place as sacred and was itself an object\nof worship; there was a stone altar, often of considerable size and hewn\nout of the solid rock[1] or built of unhewn stones (Ex. xx. 25; see\nALTAR), on which offerings were burnt (_mizbeh_, lit. \"slaughter\nplace\"); a cistern for water, and perhaps low stone tables for dressing\nthe victims; sometimes also a hall (_lishkah_) for the sacrificial\nfeasts.\n\nAround these places the religion of the ancient Israelite centred; at\nfestival seasons, or to make or fulfil a vow, he might journey to more\nfamous sanctuaries at a distance from his home, but ordinarily the\nofferings which linked every side of his life to religion were paid at\nthe _bamah_ of his own town. The building of royal temples in Jerusalem\nor in Samaria made no change in this respect; they simply took their\nplace beside the older sanctuaries, such as Bethel, Dan, Gilgal,\nBeersheba, to which they were, indeed, inferior in repute.\n\nThe religious reformers of the 8th century assail the popular religion\nas corrupt and licentious, and as fostering the monstrous delusion that\nimmoral men can buy the favour of God by worship; but they make no\ndifference in this respect between the high places of Israel and the\ntemple in Jerusalem (cf. Amos v. 21 sqq.; Hos. iv.; Isa. i. 10 sqq.);\nHosea stigmatizes the whole cultus as pure heathenism--Canaanite\nbaal-worship adopted by apostate Israel. The fundamental law in Deut.\nxii. prohibits sacrifice at every place except the temple in Jerusalem;\nin accordance with this law Josiah, in 621 B.C., destroyed and\ndesecrated the altars (_bamoth_) throughout his kingdom, where Yahweh\nhad been worshipped from time immemorial, and forcibly removed their\npriests to Jerusalem, where they occupied an inferior rank in the temple\nministry. In the prophets of the 7th and 6th centuries the word _bamoth_\nconnotes \"seat of heathenish or idolatrous worship\"; and the historians\nof the period apply the term in this opprobrious sense not only to\nplaces sacred to other gods but to the old holy places of Yahweh in the\ncities and villages of Judah, which, in their view, had been\nillegitimate from the building of Solomon's temple, and therefore not\nreally seats of the worship of Yahweh; even the most pious kings of\nJudah are censured for tolerating their existence. The reaction which\nfollowed the death of Josiah (608 B.C.) restored the old altars of\nYahweh; they survived the destruction of the temple in 586, and it is\nprobable that after its restoration (520-516 B.C.) they only slowly\ndisappeared, in consequence partly of the natural predominance of\nJerusalem in the little territory of Judaea, partly of the gradual\nestablishment of the supremacy of the written law over custom and\ntradition in the Persian period.\n\nIt may not be superfluous to note that the deuteronomic dogma that\nsacrifice can be offered to Yahweh only at the temple in Jerusalem was\nnever fully established either in fact or in legal theory. The Jewish\nmilitary colonists in Elephantine in the 5th century B.C. had their\naltar of Yahweh beside the high way; the Jews in Egypt in the Ptolemaic\nperiod had, besides many local sanctuaries, one greater temple at\nLeontopolis, with a priesthood whose claim to \"valid orders\" was much\nbetter than that of the High Priests in Jerusalem, and the legitimacy of\nwhose worship is admitted even by the Palestinian rabbis.\n\n See Baudissin, \"Hohendienst,\" _Protestantische Realencyklopadie_^3\n (viii. 177-195); Hoonacker, _Le Lieu du culte dans la legislation\n rituelle des Hebreux_ (1894); v. Gall, _Altisraelitische Kultstadte_\n (1898).\n\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [1] Several altars of this type have been preserved.\n\n\n\n\nHIGH SEAS, an expression in international law meaning all those parts of\nthe sea not under the sovereignty of adjacent states. Claims have at\ntimes been made to exclusive dominion over large areas of the sea as\nwell as over wide margins, such as a 100 m., 60 m., range of vision,\n&c., from land. The action and reaction of the interests of navigation,\nhowever, have brought states to adopt a limitation first enunciated by\nBynkershoek in the formula \"terrae dominium finitur ubi finitur armorum\nvis.\" Thenceforward cannon-shot range became the determining factor in\nthe fixation of the margin of sea afterwards known as \"territorial\nwaters\" (q.v.). With the exception of these territorial waters, bays of\ncertain dimensions and inland waters surrounded by territory of the same\nstate, and serving only as a means of access to ports of the state by\nwhose territory they are surrounded, and some waters allowed by\nimmemorial usage to rank as territorial, all seas and oceans form part\nof the high sea. The usage of the high sea is free to all the nations of\nthe world, subject only to such restrictions as result from respect for\nthe equal rights of others, and to those which nations may contract with\neach other to observe. An interesting case affecting land-locked seas\nwas that of the _Emperor of Japan_ v. _The Peninsular and Oriental Steam\nNavigation Company_, in which a collision had taken place in the inland\nsea of Japan. The British Supreme Court at Shanghai declared this sea to\nform part of the high sea. On appeal to the privy council, the\nappellants were successful. Though the decision of the Shanghai court on\nthe point in question was not dealt with by the privy council, Japan\ncontinues to treat her inland sea as under her exclusive jurisdiction.\n (T. Ba.)\n\n\n\n\nHIGHWAY, a public road over which all persons have full right of\nway--walking, riding or driving. Such roads in England for the most part\neither are of immemorial antiquity or have been created under the\nauthority of an act of parliament. But a private owner may create a\nhighway at common law by dedicating the soil to the use of the public\nfor that purpose; and the using of a road for a number of years, without\ninterruption, will support the presumption that the soil has been so\ndedicated. At common law the parish is required to maintain all highways\nwithin its bounds; but by special custom the obligation may attach to a\nparticular township or district, and in certain cases the owner of land\nis bound by the conditions of his holding to keep a highway in repair.\nBreach of the obligation is treated as a criminal offence, and is\nprosecuted by indictment. Bridges, on the other hand, and so much of the\nhighway as is immediately connected with them, are as a general rule a\ncharge on the county; and by 22 Henry VIII. c. 5 the obligation of the\ncounty is extended to 300 yds. of the highway on either side of the\nbridge. A bridge, like a highway, may be a burden on neighbouring land\n_ratione tenurae_. Private owners so burdened may sometimes claim a\nspecial toll from passengers, called a \"toll traverse.\"\n\nExtensive changes in the English law of highways have been made by\nvarious highway acts, viz. the Highway Act 1835, and amending acts of\n1862, 1864, 1878 and 1891. The leading principle of the Highway Act 1835\nis to place the highways under the direction of parish surveyors, and to\nprovide for the necessary expenses by a rate levied on the occupiers of\nland. It is the duty of the surveyor to keep the highways in repair; and\nif a highway is out of repair, the surveyor may be summoned before\njustices and convicted in a penalty not exceeding L5, and ordered to\ncomplete the repairs within a limited time. The surveyor is likewise\nspecially charged with the removal of nuisances on the highway. A\nhighway nuisance may be abated by any person, and may be made the\nsubject of indictment at common law. The amending acts, while not\ninterfering with the operation of the principal act, authorize the\ncreation of highway districts on a larger scale. The justices of a\ncounty may convert it or any portion of it into a highway district to be\ngoverned by a highway board, the powers and responsibilities of which\nwill be the same as those of the parish surveyor under the former act.\nThe board consists of representatives of the various parishes, called\n\"way wardens\" together with the justices for the county residing within\nthe district. Salaries and similar expenses incurred by the board are\ncharged on a district fund to which the several parishes contribute; but\neach parish remains separately responsible for the expenses of\nmaintaining its own highways. By the Local Government Act 1888 the\nentire maintenance of main roads was thrown upon county councils. The\nPublic Health Act 1875 vested the powers and duties of surveyors of\nhighways and vestries in urban authorities, while the Local Government\nAct 1894 transferred to the district councils of every rural district\nall the powers of rural sanitary authorities and highway authorities\n(see ENGLAND: _Local Government_).\n\nThe Highway Act of 1835 specified as offences for which the driver of a\ncarriage on the public highway might be punished by a fine, in addition\nto any civil action that might be brought against him--riding upon the\ncart, or upon any horse drawing it, and not having some other person to\nguide it, unless there be some person driving it; negligence causing\ndamage to person or goods being conveyed on the highway; quitting his\ncart, or leaving control of the horses, or leaving the cart so as to be\nan obstruction on the highway; not having the owner's name painted up;\nrefusing to give the same; and not keeping on the left or near side of\nthe road, when meeting any other carriage or horse. This rule does not\napply in the case of a carriage meeting a foot-passenger, but a driver\nis bound to use due care to avoid driving against any person crossing\nthe highway on foot. At the same time a passenger crossing the highway\nis also bound to use due care in avoiding vehicles, and the mere fact of\na driver being on the wrong side of the road would not be evidence of\nnegligence in such a case.\n\nThe \"rule of the road\" given above is peculiar to the United Kingdom.\nCooley's treatise on the _American Law of Torts_ states that \"the custom\nof the country, in some states enacted into statute law, requires that\nwhen teams approach and are about to pass on the highway, each shall\nkeep to the right of the centre of the travelled portion of the road.\"\nThis also appears to be the general rule on the continent of Europe.\n\nBy the Lights on Vehicles Act 1907, all vehicles on highways in England\nand Wales must display to the front a white light during the period\nbetween one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise. Locomotives\nand motor cars, being dealt with by special acts, are excluded from the\noperation of the act, as are bicycles and tricycles (dealt with by the\nLocal Government Act 1888), and vehicles drawn or propelled by hand, but\nevery machine or implement drawn by animals comes within the act. There\nare two exceptions: (1) vehicles carrying inflammable goods in the\nneighbourhood of places where inflammable goods are stored, and (2)\nvehicles engaged in harvesting. The public have a right to pass along a\nhighway freely, safely and conveniently, and any wrongful act or\nomission which prevents them doing so is a nuisance, for the prevention\nand abatement of which the highways and other acts contain provisions.\nGenerally, nuisance to highway may be caused by encroachment, by\ninterfering with the soil of the highway, by attracting crowds, by\ncreating danger or inconvenience on or near the highway, by placing\nobstacles on the highway, by unreasonable user, by offences against\ndecency and good order, &c.\n\nThe use of locomotives, motor cars and other vehicles on highways is\nregulated by acts of 1861-1903.\n\nFormerly under the Turnpike Acts many of the more important highways\nwere placed under the management of boards of commissioners or trustees.\nThe trustees were required and empowered to maintain, repair and improve\nthe roads committed to their charge, and the expenses of the trust were\nmet by tolls levied on persons using the road. The various grounds of\nexemption from toll on turnpike roads were all of a public character,\ne.g. horses and carriages attending the sovereign or royal family, or\nused by soldiers or volunteers in uniform, were free from toll. In\ngeneral horses and carriages used in agricultural work were free from\ntoll. By the Highways and Locomotives Act of 1878 disturnpiked roads\nbecame \"main roads.\" Ordinary highways might be declared to be \"main\nroads,\" and \"main roads\" be reduced to the status of ordinary highways.\n\nIn Scotland the highway system is regulated by the Roads and Bridges Act\n1878 and amending acts. The management and maintenance of the highways\nand bridges is vested in county road trustees, viz. the commissioners of\nsupply, certain elected trustees representing ratepayers in parishes and\nothers. One of the consequences of the act was the abolition of tolls,\nstatute-labour, causeway mail and other exactions for the maintenance of\nbridges and highways, and all turnpike roads became highways, and all\nhighways became open to the public free of tolls and other exactions.\nThe county is divided into districts under district committees, and\ncounty and district officers are appointed. The expenses of highway\nmanagement in each district (or parish), together with a proportion of\nthe general expenses of the act, are levied by the trustees by an\nassessment on the lands and heritages within the district (or parish).\n\nHighway, in the law of the states of the American Union, generally means\na lawful public road, over which all citizens are allowed to pass and\nrepass on foot, on horseback, in carriages and waggons. Sometimes it is\nheld to be restricted to county roads as opposed to town-ways. In\nstatutes dealing with offences connected with the highway, such as\ngaming, negligence of carriers, &c., \"highway\" includes navigable\nrivers. But in a statute punishing with death robbery on the highway,\nrailways were held not to be included in the term. In one case it has\nbeen held that any way is a highway which has been used as such for\nfifty years.\n\n See Glen, _Law Relating to Highways_; Pratt, _Law of Highways, Main\n Roads and Bridges_.\n\n\n\n\nHIGINBOTHAM, GEORGE (1827-1893), chief-justice of Victoria, Australia,\nsixth son of T. Higinbotham of Dublin, was born on the 19th of April\n1827, and educated at the Royal School, Dungannon, and at Trinity\nCollege, Dublin. After entering as a law student at Lincoln's Inn, and\nbeing engaged as reporter on the _Morning Chronicle_ in 1849, he\nemigrated to Victoria, where he contributed to the _Melbourne Herald_\nand practised at the bar (having been \"called\" in 1853) with much\nsuccess. In 1850 he became editor of the _Melbourne Argus_, but resigned\nin 1859 and returned to the bar. He was elected to the legislative\nassembly in 1861 for Brighton as an independent Liberal, was rejected at\nthe general election of the same year, but was returned nine months\nlater. In 1863 he became attorney-general. Under his influence measures\nwere passed through the legislative assembly of a somewhat extreme\ncharacter, completely ignoring the rights of the legislative council,\nand the government was carried on without any Appropriation Act for more\nthan a year. Mr Higinbotham, by his eloquence and earnestness, obtained\ngreat influence amongst the members of the legislative assembly, but his\ncolleagues were not prepared to follow him as far as he desired to go.\nHe contended that in a constitutional colony like Victoria the secretary\nof state for the colonies had no right to fetter the discretion of the\nqueen's representative. Mr Higinbotham did not return to power with his\nchief, Sir James M'Culloch, after the defeat of the short-lived Sladen\nadministration; and being defeated for Brighton at the next general\nelection by a comparatively unknown man, he devoted himself to his\npractice at the bar. Amongst his other labours as attorney-general he\nhad codified all the statutes which were in force throughout the colony.\nIn 1874 he was returned to the legislative assembly for Brunswick, but\nafter a few months he resigned his seat. In 1880 he was appointed a\npuisne judge of the supreme court, and in 1886, on the retirement of Sir\nWilliam Stawell, he was promoted to the office of chief justice. Mr\nHiginbotham was appointed president of the International Exhibition held\nat Melbourne in 1888-1889, but did not take any active part in its\nmanagement. One of his latest public acts was to subscribe a sum of L10,\n10s. a week towards the funds of the strikers in the great Australian\nlabour dispute of 1890, an act which did not meet with general approval.\nHe died in 1893.\n\n\n\n\nHILARION, ST (c. 290-371), abbot, the first to introduce the monastic\nsystem into Palestine. The chief source of information is a life written\nby St Jerome; it was based upon a letter, no longer extant, written by\nSt Epiphanius, who had known Hilarion. The accounts in Sozomen are\nmainly based on Jerome's _Vita_; but Otto Zocker has shown that Sozomen\nalso had at his disposal authentic local traditions (see \"Hilarion von\nGaza\" in the _Neue Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie_, 1894), the most\nimportant study on Hilarion, which is written against the hypercritical\nschool of Weingarten and shows that Hilarion must be accepted as an\nhistorical personage and the _Vita_ as a substantially correct account\nof his career. He was born of heathen parents at Tabatha near Gaza about\n290; he was sent to Alexandria for his education and there became a\nconvert to Christianity; about 306 he visited St Anthony and became his\ndisciple, embracing the eremitical life. He returned to his native place\nand for many years lived as a hermit in the desert by the marshes on the\nEgyptian border. Many disciples put themselves under his guidance; but\nhis influence must have been limited to south Palestine, for there is no\nmention of him in Palladius or Cassian. In 356 he left Palestine and\nwent again to Egypt; but the accounts given in the _Vita_ of his travels\nduring the last fifteen years of his life must be taken with extreme\ncaution. It is there said that he went from Egypt to Sicily, and thence\nto Epidaurus, and finally to Cyprus where he met Epiphanius and died in\n371.\n\n An abridged story of his life will be found in Alban Butler's _Lives\n of the Saints_, on the 21st of October, and a critical sketch with\n full references in Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklopadie_ (ed. 3).\n (E. C. B.)\n\n\n\n\nHILARIUS (HILARY[1]), ST (c. 300-367), bishop of Pictavium (Poitiers),\nan eminent \"doctor\" of the Western Church, sometimes referred to as the\n\"malleus Arianorum\" and the \"Athanasius of the West,\" was born at\nPoitiers about the end of the 3rd century A.D. His parents were pagans\nof distinction. He received a good education, including what had even\nthen become somewhat rare in the West, some knowledge of Greek. He\nstudied, later on, the Old and New Testament writings, with the result\nthat he abandoned his neo-platonism for Christianity, and with his wife\nand his daughter received the sacrament of baptism. So great was the\nrespect in which he was held by the citizens of Poitiers that about 353,\nalthough still a married man, he was unanimously elected bishop. At that\ntime Arianism was threatening to overrun the Western Church; to repel\nthe irruption was the great task which Hilary undertook. One of his\nfirst steps was to secure the excommunication, by those of the Gallican\nhierarchy who still remained orthodox, of Saturninus, the Arian bishop\nof Arles and of Ursacius and Valens, two of his prominent supporters.\nAbout the same time he wrote to the emperor Constantius a remonstrance\nagainst the persecutions by which the Arians had sought to crush their\nopponents (_Ad Constantium Augustum liber primus_, of which the most\nprobable date is 355). His efforts were not at first successful, for at\nthe synod of Biterrae (Beziers), summoned in 356 by Constantius with\nthe professed purpose of settling the longstanding disputes, Hilary was\nby an imperial rescript banished with Rhodanus of Toulouse to Phrygia,\nin which exile he spent nearly four years. Thence, however, he continued\nto govern his diocese; while he found leisure for the preparation of two\nof the most important of his contributions to dogmatic and polemical\ntheology, the _De synodis_ or _De fide Orientalium_, an epistle\naddressed in 358 to the Semi-Arian bishops in Gaul, Germany and Britain,\nexpounding the true views (sometimes veiled in ambiguous words) of the\nOriental bishops on the Nicene controversy, and the _De trinitate libri\nxii._,[2] composed in 359 and 360, in which, for the first time, a\nsuccessful attempt was made to express in Latin the theological\nsubtleties elaborated in the original Greek. The former of these works\nwas not entirely approved by some members of his own party, who thought\nhe had shown too great forbearance towards the Arians; to their\ncriticisms he replied in the _Apologetica ad reprehensores libri de\nsynodis responsa_. In 359 Hilary attended the convocation of bishops at\nSeleucia In Isauria, where, with the Egyptian Athanasians, he joined the\nHomoiousian majority against the Arianizing party headed by Acacius of\nCaesarea; thence he went to Constantinople, and, in a petition (_Ad\nConstantium Augustum liber secundus_) personally presented to the\nemperor in 360, repudiated the calumnies of his enemies and sought to\nvindicate his trinitarian principles. His urgent and repeated request\nfor a public discussion with his opponents, especially with Ursacius and\nValens, proved at last so inconvenient that he was sent back to his\ndiocese, which he appears to have reached about 361, within a very short\ntime of the accession of Julian. He was occupied for two or three years\nin combating Arianism within his diocese; but in 364, extending his\nefforts once more beyond Gaul, he impeached Auxentius, bishop of Milan,\nand a man high in the imperial favour, as heterodox. Summoned to appear\nbefore the emperor (Valentinian) at Milan and there maintain his\ncharges, Hilary had the mortification of hearing the supposed heretic\ngive satisfactory answers to all the questions proposed; nor did his\n(doubtless sincere) denunciation of the metropolitan as a hypocrite save\nhimself from an ignominious expulsion from Milan. In 365 he published\nthe _Contra Arianos vel Auxentium Mediolanensem liber_, in connexion\nwith the controversy; and also (but perhaps at a somewhat earlier date)\nthe _Contra Constantium Augustum liber_, in which he pronounced that\nlately deceased emperor to have been Antichrist, a rebel against God, \"a\ntyrant whose sole object had been to make a gift to the devil of that\nworld for which Christ had suffered.\" Hilary is sometimes regarded as\nthe first Latin Christian hymn-writer, but none of the compositions\nassigned to him is indisputable. The later years of his life were spent\nin comparative quiet, devoted in part to the preparation of his\nexpositions of the Psalms (_Tractatus super Psalmos_), for which he was\nlargely indebted to Origen; of his _Commentarius in Evangelium\nMatthaei_, a work on allegorical lines of no exegetical value; and of\nhis no longer extant translation of Origen's commentary on Job. While he\nthus closely followed the two great Alexandrians, Origen and Athanasius,\nin exegesis and Christology respectively, his work shows many traces of\nvigorous independent thought. He died in 367; no more exact date is\ntrustworthy. He holds the highest rank among the Latin writers of his\ncentury. Designated already by Augustine as \"the illustrious doctor of\nthe churches,\" he by his works exerted an increasing influence in later\ncenturies; and by Pius IX. he was formally recognized as \"universae\necclesiae doctor\" at the synod of Bordeaux in 1851. Hilary's day in the\nRoman calendar is the 13th of January.[3]\n\n EDITIONS.--Erasmus (Basel, 1523, 1526, 1528); P. Coustant\n (Benedictine, Paris, 1693); Migne (_Patrol. Lat._ ix., x.). The\n _Tractatus de mysteriis_, ed. J. F. Gamurrini (Rome, 1887), and the\n _Tractatus super Psalmos_, ed. A. Zingerle in the Vienna _Corpus\n scrip. eccl. Lat._ xxii. Translation by E. W. Watson in _Nicene and\n Post-Nicene Fathers_, ix.\n\n LITERATURE.--The life by (Venantius) Fortunatus c. 550 is almost\n worthless. More trustworthy are the notices in Jerome (_De vir.\n illus._ 100), Sulpicius Severus (_Chron._ ii. 39-45) and in Hilary's\n own writings. H. Reinkens, _Hilarius von Poictiers_ (1864); O.\n Bardenhewer, _Patrologie_; A. Harnack, _Hist. of Dogma_, esp. vol.\n iv.; F. Loofs, in Herzog-Hauck's _Realencyk._ viii.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [1] The name is derived from Gr. [Greek: hilaros], gay, cheerful,\n whence hilarious, hilarity.\n\n [2] Hilary's own title was _De fide contra Arianos_. It really deals\n less with the doctrine of the Trinity than with that of the\n Incarnation. That it is not an easy work to read is due partly to the\n nature of the subject, partly to the fact that it was issued in\n detached portions.\n\n [3] \"Hilary\" was the name of one of the four terms of the English\n legal year. These terms were abolished by the Judicature Act, 1873,\n s. 26, and \"sittings\" substituted. It is now the name of the sitting\n of the Supreme Court of Judicature which commences on the 11th of\n January and terminates on the Wednesday before Easter. In the Inns of\n Court, Hilary is one of the four dining terms; it begins on the 11th\n of January and ends on the 1st of February. It is also the name of\n one of the terms at the universities of Oxford (more usually \"Lent\n term\") and Dublin.\n\n\n\n\nHILARIUS, or HILARUS (HILARY), bishop of Rome from 461 to 468, is known\nto have been a deacon and to have acted as legate of Leo the Great at\nthe \"robber\" synod of Ephesus in 449. There he so vigorously defended\nthe conduct of Flavian in deposing Eutyches that he was thrown into\nprison, whence he had great difficulty in making his escape to Rome. He\nwas chosen to succeed Leo on the 19th of November 461. In 465 he held at\nRome a council which put a stop to some abuses, particularly to that of\nbishops appointing their own successors. His pontificate was also marked\nby a successful encroachment of the papal authority on the metropolitan\nrights of the French and Spanish hierarchy, and by a resistance to the\ntoleration edict of Anthemius, which ultimately caused it to be\nrecalled. Hilarius died on the 17th of November 467, and was succeeded\nby Simplicius.\n\n\n\n\nHILARIUS (fl. 1125), a Latin poet who is supposed to have been an\nEnglishman. He was one of the pupils of Abelard at his oratory of\nParaclete, and addressed to him a copy of verses with its refrain in the\nvulgar tongue, \"_Tort avers vos li mestre_,\" Abelard having threatened\nto discontinue his teaching because of certain reports made by his\nservant about the conduct of the scholars. Later Hilarius made his way\nto Angers. His poems are contained in MS. supp. lat. 1008 of the\nBibliotheque Nationale, Paris, purchased in 1837 at the sale of M. de\nRosny. Quotations from this MS. had appeared before, but in 1838 it was\nedited by Champollion Figeac as _Hilarii versus et ludi_. His works\nconsist chiefly of light verses of the goliardic type. There are verses\naddressed to an English nun named Eva, lines to Rosa, \"_Ave splendor\npuellarum, generosa domina_,\" and another poem describes the beauties of\nthe priory of Chaloutre la Petite, in the diocese of Sens, of which the\nwriter was then an inmate. One copy of satirical verses seems to aim at\nthe pope himself. He also wrote three miracle plays in rhymed Latin with\nan admixture of French. Two of them, _Suscitatio Lazari_ and _Historia\nde Daniel repraesentanda_, are of purely liturgical type. At the end of\n_Lazarus_ is a stage direction to the effect that if the performance has\nbeen given at matins, Lazarus should proceed with the _Te Deum_, if at\nvespers, with the _Magnificat_. The third, _Ludus super iconia Sancti\nNicholai_, is founded on a sufficiently foolish legend. Petit de\nJulleville sees in the play a satiric intention and a veiled incredulity\nthat put the piece outside the category of liturgical drama.\n\n A rhymed Latin account of a dispute in which the nuns of Ronceray at\n Angers were concerned, contained in a cartulary of Ronceray, is also\n ascribed to the poet, who there calls himself Hilarius Canonicus. The\n poem is printed in the _Bibliotheque de l'Ecole des Chartes_ (vol.\n xxxvii. 1876), and is dated by P. Marchegay from 1121. See also a\n notice in _Hist. litt. de la France_ (xii. 251-254), supplemented (in\n xx. 627-630), s.v. Jean Bodel, by Paulin Paris; also Wright,\n _Biographia Britannica literaria, Anglo-Norman Period_ (1846); and\n Petit de Julleville, _Les Mysteres_ (vol. i. 1880).\n\n\n\n\nHILARIUS (HILARY), ST (c. 403-449), bishop of Arles, was born about 403.\nIn early youth he entered the abbey of Lerins, then presided over by his\nkinsman Honoratus (St Honore), and succeeded Honoratus in the bishopric\nof Arles in 429. Following the example of St Augustine, he is said to\nhave organized his cathedral clergy into a \"congregation,\" devoting a\ngreat part of their time to social exercises of ascetic religion. He\nheld the rank of metropolitan of Vienne and Narbonne, and attempted to\nrealize the sort of primacy over the church of south Gaul which seemed\nimplied in the vicariate granted to his predecessor Patroclus (417).\nHilarius deposed the bishop of Besancon (Chelidonus), for ignoring this\nprimacy, and for claiming a metropolitan dignity for Besancon. An appeal\nwas made to Rome, and Leo I. used it to extinguish the Gallican\nvicariate (A.D. 444). Hilarius was deprived of his rights as\nmetropolitan to consecrate bishops, call synods, or exercise\necclesiastical oversight in the province, and the pope secured the edict\nof Valentinian III., so important in the history of the Gallican church,\n\"ut episcopis Gallicanis omnibusque pro lege esset quidquid apostolicae\nsedis auctoritas sanxisset.\" The papal claims were made imperial law,\nand violation of them subject to legal penalties (_Novellae Valent._\niii. tit. 16). Hilarius died in 449, and his name was afterwards\nintroduced into the Roman martyrology for commemoration on the 5th of\nMay. He enjoyed during his lifetime a high reputation for learning and\neloquence as well as for piety; his extant works (_Vita S. Honorati\nArelatensis episcopi_ and _Metrum in Genesin_) compare favourably with\nany similar literary productions of that period.\n\n A poem, _De Providentia_, usually included among the writings of\n Prosper, is sometimes attributed to Hilary of Arles.\n\n\n\n\nHILDA, ST, strictly Hild (614-680), was the daughter of Hereric, a\nnephew of Edwin, king of Northumbria. She was converted to Christianity\nbefore 633 by the preaching of Paulinus. According to Bede she took the\nveil in 614, when Oswio was king of Northumbria and Aidan bishop of\nLindisfarne, and spent a year in East Anglia, where her sister Hereswith\nhad married Aethelhere, who was to succeed his brother Anna, the reigning\nking. In 648 or 649 Hilda was recalled to Northumbria by Aidan, and\nlived for a year in a small monastic community north of the Wear. She\nthen succeeded Heiu, the foundress, as abbess of Hartlepool, where she\nremained several years. From Hartlepool Hilda moved to Whitby, where in\n657 she founded the famous double monastery which in the time of the\nfirst abbess included among its members five future bishops, Bosa, Aetta,\nOftfor, John and Wilfrid II. as well as the poet Caedmon. Hilda exercised\ngreat influence in Northumbria, and ecclesiastics from all over\nChristian England and from Strathclyde and Dalriada visited her\nmonastery. In 655 after the battle of Winwaed Oswio entrusted his\ndaughter Aelfled to Hilda, with whom she went to Whitby. At the synod of\nWhitby in 664 Hilda sided with Colman and Cedd against Wilfrid. In spite\nof the defeat of the Celtic party she remained hostile to Wilfrid until\n679 at any rate. Hilda died in 680 after a painful illness lasting for\nseven years.\n\n See Bede, _Hist. eccl._ (ed. C. Plummer, Oxford, 1869), iii. 24, 25,\n iv. 23; Eddius, _Vita Wilfridi_ (Raine, _Historians of Church of\n York_, Rolls Series, vol. i., 1879), c. liv.\n\n\n\n\nHILDBURGHAUSEN, a town of Germany, in the duchy of Saxe-Meiningen,\nsituated in a wide and fruitful valley on the river Werra, 19 m. S.E. of\nMeiningen, on the railway Eisenach-Lichtenfels. Pop. (1905) 7456. The\nprincipal buildings are a ducal palace, erected 1685-1695, now used as\nbarracks, with a park in which there is a monument to Queen Louisa of\nPrussia, the old town hall, two Evangelical and a Roman Catholic church\nand a theatre. A technical college occupies the premises in which\nMeyer's Bibliographisches Institut carried on business from 1828, when\nit removed hither from Gotha, until 1874, when it was transferred to\nLeipzig. A monument has been erected to those citizens who died in the\nFranco-Prussian War of 1870-71. The manufactures include linen fabrics,\ncloth, toys, buttons, optical instruments, agricultural machines,\nknives, mineral waters, condensed soups and condensed milk.\nHildburghausen (in records _Hilpershusia_ and _Villa Hilperti_) belonged\nin the 13th century to the counts of Henneberg, from whom it passed to\nthe landgraves of Thuringia and then to the dukes of Saxony. In 1683 it\nbecame the capital of a principality which in 1826 was united to\nSaxe-Meiningen.\n\n See R. A. Human, _Chronik der Stadt Hildburghausen_ (Hildburghausen,\n 1888).\n\n\n\n\nHILDEBERT, HYDALBERT, GILDEBERT or ALDEBERT (c. 1055-1133), French\nwriter and ecclesiastic, was born of poor parents at Lavardin, near\nVendome, and was intended for the church. He was probably a pupil of\nBerengarius of Tours, and became master (_scholasticus_) of the school\nat Le Mans; in 1091 he was made archdeacon and in 1096 bishop of Le\nMans. He had to face the hostility of a section of his clergy and also\nof the English king, William II., who captured Le Mans and carried the\nbishop with him to England for about a year. Hildebert then travelled to\nRome and sought permission to resign his bishopric, which Pope Paschal\nII. refused. In 1116 his diocese was thrown into great confusion owing\nto the preaching of Henry of Lausanne, who was denouncing the higher\nclergy, especially the bishop. Hildebert compelled him to leave the\nneighbourhood of Le Mans, but the effects of his preaching remained. In\n1125 Hildebert was translated very unwillingly to the archbishopric of\nTours, and there he came into conflict with the French king Louis VI.\nabout the rights of ecclesiastical patronage and with the bishop of Dol\nabout the authority of his see in Brittany. He presided over the synod\nof Nantes, and died at Tours probably on the 18th of December 1133.\nHildebert, who built part of the cathedral at Le Mans, has received from\nsome writers the title of saint, but there appears to be no authority\nfor this. He was not a man of very strict life; his contemporaries,\nhowever, had a very high opinion of him and he was called _egregius\nversificator_.\n\nThe extant writings of Hildebert consist of letters, poems, a few\nsermons, two lives and one or two treatises. An edition of his works\nprepared by the Maurist, Antoine Beaugendre, and entitled _Venerabilis\nHildeberti, primo Cenomannensis episcopi, deinde Turonensis\narchiepiscopi, opera tam edita quam inedita_, was published in Paris in\n1708 and was reprinted with additions by J. J. Bourasse in 1854. These\neditions, however, are very faulty. They credit Hildebert with numerous\nwritings which are the work of others, while some genuine writings are\nomitted. The revelation of this fact has affected Hildebert's position\nin the history of medieval thought. His standing as a philosopher rested\nupon his supposed authorship of the important _Tractatus theologicus_;\nbut this is now regarded as the work of Hugh of St Victor, and\nconsequently Hildebert can hardly be counted among the philosophers. His\ngenuine writings include many letters. These _Epistolae_ enjoyed great\npopularity in the 12th and 13th centuries, and were frequently used as\nclassics in the schools of France and Italy. Those which concern the\nstruggle between the emperor Henry V. and Pope Paschal II. have been\nedited by E. Sackur and printed in the _Monumenta Germaniae historica.\nLibelli de lite ii._ (1893). His poems, which deal with various\nsubjects, are disfigured by many defects of style and metre, but they\ntoo were very popular. Hildebert attained celebrity also as a preacher\nboth in French and Latin, but only a few of his sermons are in\nexistence, most of the 144 attributed to him by his editors being the\nwork of Peter Lombard and others. The _Vitae_ written by Hildebert are\nthe lives of Hugo, abbot of Cluny, and of St Radegunda. Undoubtedly\ngenuine is also his _Liber de querimonia et conflictu carnis et spiritus\nseu animae_. Hildebert was an excellent Latin scholar, being acquainted\nwith Cicero, Ovid and other authors, and his spirit is rather that of a\npagan than of a Christian writer.\n\n See B. Haureau, _Les Melanges poetiques d'Hildebert de Lavardin_\n (Paris, 1882), and _Notices et extraits de quelques manuscrits latins\n de la Bibliotheque nationale_ (Paris, 1890-1893); Comte P. de\n Deservillers, _Un Eveque au XII^e siecle, Hildebert et son temps_\n (Paris, 1876); E. A. Freeman, _The Reign of Rufus_, vol. ii. (Oxford,\n 1882); tome xi. of the _Histoire litteraire de la France_, and H.\n Bohmer in Band viii. of Herzog-Hauck's _Realencyklopadie_ (1900). The\n most important work, however, to be consulted is L. Dieudonne's\n _Hildebert de Lavardin, eveque du Mans, archeveque de Tours. Sa vie,\n ses lettres_ (Paris, 1898).\n\n\n\n\nHILDEBRAND, LAY OF (_Das Hildebrandslied_), a unique example of Old\nGerman alliterative poetry, written about the year 800 on the first and\nlast pages of a theological manuscript, by two monks of the monastery of\nFulda. The fragment, or rather fragments, only extend to sixty-eight\nlines, and the conclusion of the poem is wanting. The theory propounded\nby Karl Lachmann, that the poem had been written in its present form\nfrom memory, has been discredited by later philological investigation;\nit is clearly a transcript of an older original, which the copyists--or\nmore probably the writer to whom we owe the older version--imperfectly\nunderstood. The language of the poem shows a curious mixture of Low and\nHigh German forms; as the High German elements point to the dialect of\nFulda, the inference is that the copyists were reproducing an originally\nLow German lay in the form in which it was sung in Franconia.\n\nThe fragment is mainly taken up with a dialogue between Hildebrand and\nhis son Hadubrand. When Hildebrand followed his master, Theodoric the\nGreat, who was fleeing eastwards before Odoacer, he left his young wife\nand an infant child behind him. At his return to his old home, after\nthirty years' absence among the Huns, he is met by a young warrior and\nchallenged to single combat. Before the fight begins, Hildebrand asks\nfor the name of his opponent, and discovering his own son in him, tries\nto avert the fight, but in vain; Hadubrand only regards the old man's\nwords as the excuse of cowardice. \"In sharp showers the ashen spears\nfall on the shields, and then the warriors seize their swords and hew\nvigorously at the white shields until these are beaten to pieces....\"\nWith these words the fragment breaks off abruptly, giving no clue as to\nthe issue of the combat. There is little doubt, however, that, as in the\nOld Norse _Asmundar saga_, where the tale is alluded to, the fight must\nhave been fatal to Hadubrand. But in the later traditions, both of the\nOld Norse _Thidreks saga_ (13th century), and the so-called _Jungere\nHildebrandslied_--a German popular lay, preserved in several versions\nfrom the 15th to the 17th century--Hadubrand is simply represented as\ndefeated, and obliged to recognize his father. The Old High German\n_Hildebrandslied_ is dramatically conceived, and written in a terse,\nvigorous style; it is the only remnant that has come down from early\nGermanic times of an undoubtedly extensive ballad literature, dealing\nwith the national sagas.\n\n The MS. of the _Hildebrandslied_, originally in Fulda, is now\n preserved in the Landesbibliothek at Cassel. The literature on the\n poem will be found most conveniently in K. Mullenhoff and W. Scherer,\n _Denkmaler deutscher Poesie und Prosa aus dem VIII. bis XI. Jahrh._,\n 3rd ed. (1892), and in W. Braune, _Althochdeutsches Lesebuch_, 5th ed.\n (1902), to which authorities the reader is referred for a critical\n text. The poem was discovered and first printed (as prose) by J. G.\n von Eckhart, _Commentarii de rebus Franciae orientalis_ (1729), i. 864\n ff.; the first scholarly edition was that of the brothers Grimm\n (1812). Facsimile reproductions of the MS. have been published by W.\n Grimm (1830), E. Sievers (1872), G. Konnecke in his _Bilderatlas_\n (1887; 2nd ed., 1895) and M. Enneccerus (1897). See also K. Lachmann,\n _Uber das Hildebrandslied_ (1833) in _Kleine Schriften_, i. 407 ff.;\n C. W. M. Grein, _Das Hildebrandslied_ (1858; 2nd ed., 1880); O.\n Schroder, _Bemerkungen zum Hildebrandslied_ (1880); H. Moller, _Zur\n althochdeutschen Alliterationspoesie_ (1888); R. Heinzel, _Uber die\n ostgotische Heldensage_ (1889); B. Busse, \"Sagengeschichtliches zum\n Hildebrandslied,\" in Paul und Braune's _Beitrage_, xxvi. (1901), pp. 1\n ff.; R. Koegel, _Geschichte der deutschen Literatur bis zum Ausgang\n des Mittelalters_, i. (1894), pp. 210 ff.; and R. Koegel and W.\n Bruckner, in Paul's _Grundriss der germanischen Philologie_, 2nd ed.,\n ii. (1901), pp. 71 ff. (J. G. R.)\n\n\n\n\nHILDEBRANDT, EDUARD (1818-1868), German painter, was born in 1818, and\nserved as apprentice to his father, a house-painter at Danzig. He was\nnot twenty when he came to Berlin, where he was taken in hand by Wilhelm\nKrause, a painter of sea pieces. Several early pieces exhibited after\nhis death--a breakwater, dated 1838, ships in a breeze off Swinemunde\n(1840), and other canvases of this and the following year--show\nHildebrandt to have been a careful student of nature, with inborn\ntalents kept down by the conventionalisms of the formal school to which\nKrause belonged. Accident made him acquainted with masterpieces of\nFrench art displayed at the Berlin Academy, and these awakened his\ncuriosity and envy. He went to Paris, where, about 1842, he entered the\natelier of Isabey and became the companion of Lepoittevin. In a short\ntime he sent home pictures which might have been taken for copies from\nthese artists. Gradually he mastered the mysteries of touch and the\nsecrets of effect in which the French at this period excelled. He also\nacquired the necessary skill in painting figures, and returned to\nGermany, skilled in the rendering of many kinds of landscape forms. His\npictures of French street life, done about 1843, while impressed with\nthe stamp of the Paris school, reveal a spirit eager for novelty, quick\nat grasping, equally quick at rendering, momentary changes of tone and\natmosphere. After 1843 Hildebrandt, under the influence of Humboldt,\nextended his travels, and in 1864-1865 he went round the world. Whilst\nhis experience became enlarged his powers of concentration broke down.\nHe lost the taste for detail in seeking for scenic breadth, and a fatal\nfacility of hand diminished the value of his works for all those who\nlook for composition and harmony of hue as necessary concomitants of\ntone and touch. In oil he gradually produced less, in water colours\nmore, than at first, and his fame must rest on the sketches which he\nmade in the latter form, many of them represented by chromo-lithography.\nFantasies in red, yellow and opal, sunset, sunrise and moonshine,\ndistances of hundreds of miles like those of the Andes and the Himalaya,\nnarrow streets in the bazaars of Cairo or Suez, panoramas as seen from\nmastheads, wide cities like Bombay or Pekin, narrow strips of desert\nwith measureless expanses of sky--all alike display his quality of\nbravura. Hildebrandt died at Berlin on the 25th of October 1868.\n\n\n\n\nHILDEBRANDT, THEODOR (1804-1874), German painter, was born at Stettin.\nHe was a disciple of the painter Schadow, and, on Schadow's appointment\nto the presidency of a new academy in the Rhenish provinces in 1828,\nfollowed that master to Dusseldorf. Hildebrandt began by painting\npictures illustrative of Goethe and Shakespeare; but in this form he\nfollowed the traditions of the stage rather than the laws of nature. He\nproduced rapidly \"Faust and Mephistopheles\" (1824), \"Faust and Margaret\"\n(1825), and \"Lear and Cordelia\" (1828). He visited the Netherlands with\nSchadow in 1829, and wandered alone in 1830 to Italy; but travel did not\nalter his style, though it led him to cultivate alternately eclecticism\nand realism. At Dusseldorf, about 1830, he produced \"Romeo and Juliet,\"\n\"Tancred and Clorinda,\" and other works which deserved to be classed\nwith earlier paintings; but during the same period he exhibited (1829)\nthe \"Robber\" and (1832) the \"Captain and his Infant Son,\" examples of an\naffected but kindly realism which captivated the public, and marked to a\ncertain extent an epoch in Prussian art. The picture which made\nHildebrandt's fame is the \"Murder of the Children of King Edward\"\n(1836), of which the original, afterwards frequently copied, still\nbelongs to the Spiegel collection at Halberstadt. Comparatively late in\nlife Hildebrandt tried his powers as an historical painter in pictures\nrepresenting Wolsey and Henry VIII., but he lapsed again into the\nromantic in \"Othello and Desdemona.\" After 1847 Hildebrandt gave himself\nup to portrait-painting, and in that branch succeeded in obtaining a\nlarge practice. He died at Dusseldorf in 1874.\n\n\n\n\nHILDEGARD, ST (1098-1179), German abbess and mystic, was born of noble\nparents at Bockelheim, in the countship of Sponheim, in 1098, and from\nher eighth year was educated at the Benedictine cloister of\nDisibodenberg by Jutta, sister of the count of Sponheim, whom she\nsucceeded as abbess in 1136. From earliest childhood she was accustomed\nto see visions, which increased in frequency and vividness as she\napproached the age of womanhood; these, however, she for many years kept\nalmost secret, nor was it until she had reached her forty-third year\n(1141) that she felt constrained to divulge them. Committed to writing\nby her intimate friend the monk Godefridus, they now form the first and\nmost important of her printed works, entitled _Scivias_ (probably an\nabbreviation for \"sciens vias\" or \"nosce vias Domini\") _s. visionum et\nrevelatianum libri iii._, and completed in 1151. In 1147 St Bernard of\nClairvaux, while at Bingen preaching the new crusade, heard of\nHildegard's revelations, and became so convinced of their reality that\nhe not only wrote to her a letter cordially acknowledging her as a\nprophetess of God, but also successfully advocated her recognition as\nsuch by his friend and former pupil Pope Eugenius III. in the synod of\nTreves (1148). In the same year Hildegard migrated along with eighteen\nof her nuns to a new convent on the Rupertsberg near Bingen, over which\nshe presided during the remainder of her life. By means of voluminous\ncorrespondence, as well as by extensive journeys, in the course of\nwhich she was unwearied in the exercise of her gift of prophecy, she\nwielded for many years an increasing influence upon her\ncontemporaries--an influence doubtless due to the fact that she was\nimbued with the most widely diffused feelings and beliefs, fears and\nhopes, of her time. Amongst her correspondents were Popes Anastasius IV.\nand Adrian IV., the emperors Conrad III. and Frederick I., and also the\ntheologian Guibert of Gembloux, who submitted numerous questions in\ndogmatic theology for her determination. She died in 1179, but has never\nbeen canonized; her name, however, was received into the Roman\nmartyrology in the 15th century, September 17th being the day fixed for\nher commemoration.\n\n Her biography, which was written by two contemporaries, Godefridus and\n Theodoricus, was first printed at Cologne in 1566. Hildegard's\n writings, besides the _Scivias_ already mentioned and first printed in\n Paris in 1513, include the _Liber divinorum operum_, _Explanatio\n regulae S. Benedicti_, _Physica_ and _the Letters_, &c., are contained\n in Migne, _Patr. Lat._ t. cxcvii., and in Cardinal Pitra's _Analecta\n sacra spicilegio Solesmensi parata; Nova S. Hildegardis opera_ (Paris,\n 1882).\n\n For a modern study of the saint's writings, see _Sainte Hildegarde_ by\n Pal Franche, \"_Les Saints_\" series (Paris, 1903); and U. Chevalier,\n _Repertoire des sources historiques, bio.-bibl._ 2153.\n\n\n\n\nHILDEN, a town in the Prussian Rhine province on the Itter, 9 m. S.E. of\nDusseldorf by rail. Pop. (1905) 13,946. It possesses an Evangelical and\na Roman Catholic church and a monument to the emperor William I. Its\nmanufactures include silks, velvets, carpets, calico-printing, machinery\nand brick-making.\n\n\n\n\nHILDESHEIM, a town and episcopal see of Germany, in the Prussian\nprovince of Hanover, beautifully situated at the north foot of the Harz\nMountains, on the right bank of the Innerste, 18 m. S.E. of Hanover by\nrailway, and on the main line from Berlin, via Magdeburg to Cologne.\nPop. (1885) 20,386, (1905) 47,060. The town consists of an old and a new\npart, and is surrounded by ramparts which have been converted into\npromenades. Its streets are for the most part narrow and irregular, and\ncontain many old houses with overhanging upper storeys and richly and\ncuriously adorned wooden facades. Its religious edifices are five Roman\nCatholic and four Evangelical churches and a synagogue. The most\ninteresting is the Roman Catholic cathedral, which dates from the middle\nof the 11th century and occupies the site of a building founded by the\nemperor Louis the Pious early in the 9th century. It is famous for its\nantiquities and works of art. These include the bronze doors executed by\nBishop Bernward, with reliefs from the history of Adam and of Jesus\nChrist; a brazen font of the 13th century; two large candelabra of the\n11th century; the sarcophagus of St Godehard; and the tomb of St\nEpiphanius. In the cathedral also there is a bronze column 15 ft. high,\nadorned with reliefs from the life of Christ and dating from 1022, and\nanother column, at one time thought to be an Irminsaule erected in\nhonour of the Saxon idol Irmin, but now regarded as belonging to a Roman\naqueduct. On the wall of the Romanesque crypt, which was restored in\n1896, is a rose-bush, alleged to be a thousand years old; this sends its\nbranches to a height of 24 ft. and a breadth of 30 ft., and they are\ntrained to interlace one of the windows. Before the cathedral is the\npretty cloister garth, with the chapel of St Anne, erected in 1321 and\nrestored in 1888. The Romanesque church of St Godehard was built in the\n12th century and restored in the 19th. The church of St Michael, founded\nby Bishop Bernward early in the 11th century and restored after injury\nby fire in 1186, contains a unique painted ceiling of the 12th century,\nthe sarcophagus and monument of Bishop Bernward, and a bronze font; it\nis now a Protestant parish church, but the crypt is used by the Roman\nCatholics. The church of the Magdalene possesses two candelabra, a gold\ncross, and various other works in metal by Bishop Bernward; and the\nLutheran church of St Andrew has a choir dating from 1389 and a tower\n385 ft. high. In the suburb of Moritzberg there is an abbey church\nfounded in 1040, the only pure columnar basilica in north Germany.\n\nThe chief secular buildings are the town-hall (Rathaus), which dates\nfrom the 15th century and was restored in 1883-1892, adorned with\nfrescoes illustrating the history of the city; the Tempelherrenhaus, in\nLate Gothic erroneously said to have been built by the Knights Templars;\nthe Knochenhaueramthaus, formerly the gild-house of the butchers, which\nwas restored after being damaged by fire in 1884, and is probably the\nfinest specimen of a wooden building in Germany; the Michaelis\nmonastery, used as a lunatic asylum; and the old Carthusian monastery.\nThe Romer museum of antiquities and natural history is housed in the\nformer church of St Martin; the buildings of Trinity hospital, partly\ndating from the 14th century, are now a factory; and the Wedekindhaus\n(1598) is now a savings-bank. The educational establishments include a\nRoman Catholic and a Lutheran gymnasium, a Roman Catholic school and\ncollege and two technical institutions, the Georgstift for daughters of\nstate servants and a conservatoire of music. Hildesheim is the seat of\nconsiderable industry. Its chief productions are sugar, tobacco and\ncigars, stoves, machines, vehicles, agricultural implements and bricks.\nOther trades are brewing and tanning. It is connected with Hanover by an\nelectric tram line, 19 m. in length.\n\nHildesheim owes its rise and prosperity to the fact that in 822 it was\nmade the seat of the bishopric which Charlemagne had founded at Elze a\nfew years before. Its importance was greatly increased by St Bernward,\nwho was bishop from 993 to 1022 and walled the town. By his example and\npatronage the art of working in metals was greatly stimulated. In the\n13th century Hildesheim became a free city of the Empire; in 1249 it\nreceived municipal rights and about the same time it joined the\nHanseatic league. Several of its bishops belonged to one or other of the\ngreat families of Germany; and gradually they became practically\nindependent. The citizens were frequently quarrelling with the bishops,\nwho also carried on wars with neighbouring princes, especially with the\nhouse of Brunswick-Luneburg, under whose protection Hildesheim placed\nitself several times. The most celebrated of these struggles is the one\nknown as the _Hildesheimer Stiftsfehde_, which broke out early in the\n16th century when John, duke of Saxe-Lauenburg, was bishop. At first the\nbishop and his allies were successful, but in 1521 the king of Denmark\nand the duke of Brunswick overran his lands and in 1523 he made peace,\nsurrendering nearly all his possessions. Much, however, was restored\nwhen Ferdinand, prince of Bavaria, was bishop (1612-1650), as this\nwarlike prelate took advantage of the disturbances caused by the Thirty\nYears' War to seize the lost lands, and at the beginning of the 19th\ncentury the extent of the prince bishopric was 682 sq. m. In 1801 the\nbishopric was secularized and in 1803 was granted to Prussia; in 1807 it\nwas incorporated with the kingdom of Westphalia and in 1813 was\ntransferred to Hanover. In 1866, along with Hanover, it was annexed by\nPrussia. In 1803 a new bishopric of Hildesheim, a spiritual organization\nonly, was established, and this has jurisdiction over all the Roman\nCatholic churches in the centre of north Germany.\n\nIn October 1868 a unique collection of ancient Augustan silver plate was\ndiscovered on the Galgenberg near Hildesheim by some soldiers who were\nthrowing up earthworks. This _Hildesheimer Silberfund_ excited great\ninterest among classical archaeologists. Some authorities think that it\nis the actual plate which belonged to Drusus himself. The most\nnoteworthy pieces are a crater richly ornamented with arabesques and\nfigures of children, a platter with a representation of Minerva, another\nwith one of the boy Hercules and another with one of Cybele. The\ncollection is in the Kunstgewerbemuseum in Berlin.\n\n See the _Urkundenbuch der Stadt Hildesheim_, edited by R. Dobner\n (Hildesheim, 1881-1901); the _Urkundenbuch des Hochstifts Hildesheim_,\n edited by K. Janicke and H. Hoogeweg (Leipzig and Hanover, 1896-1903);\n C. Bauer, _Geschichte von Hildesheim_ (Hildesheim, 1892); A. Bertram,\n _Geschichte des Bistums Hildesheim_ (Hildesheim, 1899 fol.); C.\n Euling, _Hildesheimer Land und Leute des 16ten Jahrhunderts_\n (Hildesheim, 1892); O. Fischer, _Die Stadt Hildesheim wahrend des\n dreissigjahrigen Krieges_ (Hildesheim, 1897); A. Grebe, _Auf\n Hildesheimschem Boden_ (Hildesheim, 1884); H. Cuno, _Hildesheims\n Kunstler im Mittelalter_ (Hildesheim, 1886); W. Wachsmuth,\n _Geschichte von Hochstift und Stadt Hildesheim_ (Hildesheim, 1863); R.\n Dobner, _Studien zur Hildesheimischen Geschichte_ (Hildesheim, 1901);\n Lachner, _Die Holzarchitektur Hildesheims_ (Hildesheim, 1882);\n Seifart, _Sagen, Marchen, Schwanke und Gebrauche aus Stadt und Stift\n Hildesheims_ (Hildesheim, 1889). For the _Hildesheimer Stiftsfehde_,\n see H. Delius, _Die Hildesheimische Stiftsfehde_ 1519 (Leipzig, 1803).\n For the _Hildesheimer Silberfund_, see Wieseler, _Der Hildesheimer\n Silberfund_ (Gottingen, 1869); Holzer, _Der Hildesheimer antike\n Silberfund_ (Hildesheim, 1871); and E. Pernice and F. Winter, _Der\n Hildesheimer Silberfund der koniglichen Museen zu Berlin_ (Berlin,\n 1901).\n\n\n\n\nHILDRETH, RICHARD (1807-1865), American journalist and author, was born\nat Deerfield, Massachusetts, on the 28th of June 1807, the son of Hosea\nHildreth (1782-1835), a teacher of mathematics and later a\nCongregational minister. Richard graduated at Harvard in 1826, and,\nafter studying law at Newburyport, was admitted to the bar at Boston in\n1830. He had already taken to journalism, and in 1832 he became joint\nfounder and editor of a daily newspaper, the Boston Atlas. Having in\n1834 gone to the South for the benefit of his health, he was led by what\nhe witnessed of the evils of slavery (chiefly in Florida) to write the\nanti-slavery novel _The Slave: or Memoir of Archy Moore_ (1836; enlarged\nedition, 1852, _The White Slave_). In 1837 he wrote for the _Atlas_ a\nseries of articles vigorously opposing the annexation of Texas. In the\nsame year he published _Banks, Banking, and Paper Currencies_, a work\nwhich helped to promote the growth of the free banking system in\nAmerica. In 1838 he resumed his editorial duties on the _Atlas_, but in\n1840 removed, on account of his health, to British Guiana, where he\nlived for three years and was editor of two weekly newspapers in\nsuccession at Georgetown. He published in this year (1840) a volume in\nopposition to slavery, _Despotism in America_ (2nd ed., 1854). In 1849\nhe published the first three volumes of his _History of the United\nStates_, two more volumes of which were published in 1851 and the sixth\nand last in 1852. The first three volumes of this history, his most\nimportant work, deal with the period 1492-1789, and the second three\nwith the period 1789-1821. The history is notable for its painstaking\naccuracy and candour, but the later volumes have a strong Federalist\nbias. Hildreth's _Japan as It Was and Is_ (1855) was at the time a\nvaluable digest of the information contained in other works on that\ncountry (new ed., 1906). He also wrote a campaign biography of William\nHenry Harrison (1839); _Theory of Morals_ (1844); and _Theory of\nPolitics_ (1853), as well as _Lives of Atrocious Judges_ (1856),\ncompiled from Lord Campbell's two works. In 1861 he was appointed United\nStates consul at Trieste, but ill-health compelled him to resign and\nremove to Florence, where he died on the 11th of July 1865.\n\n\n\n\nHILGENFELD, ADOLF BERNHARD CHRISTOPH (1823-1907), German Protestant\ndivine, was born at Stappenbeck near Salzwedel in Prussian Saxony on the\n2nd of June 1823. He studied at Berlin and Halle, and in 1890 became\nprofessor ordinarius of theology at Jena. He belonged to the Tubingen\nschool. \"Fond of emphasizing his independence of Baur, he still, in all\nimportant points, followed in the footsteps of his master; his method,\nwhich he is wont to contrast as _Literarkritik_ with Baur's\n_Tendenzkritik_, is nevertheless essentially the same as Baur's\" (Otto\nPfleiderer). On the whole, however, he modified the positions of the\nfounder of the Tubingen school, going beyond him only in his\ninvestigations into the Fourth Gospel. In 1858 he became editor of the\n_Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie_. He died on the 12th of\nJanuary 1907.\n\n His works include: _Die elementarischen Recognitionen und Homilien_\n (1848); _Die Evangelien und die Briefe des Johannes nach ihrem\n Lehrbegriff_ (1849); _Das Markusevangelium_ (1850); _Die Evangelien\n nach ihrer Entstehung und geschichtlichen Bedeutung_ (1854); _Das\n Unchristentum_ (1855); _Jud. Apokalyptik_ (1857); _Novum Testamentum\n extra canonem receptum_ (4 parts, 1866; 2nd ed., 1876-1884);\n _Histor.-kritische Einleitung in das Neue Testament_ (1875); _Acta\n Apostolorum graece et latine secundum antiquissimos testes_ (1899);\n the first complete edition of the _Shepherd of Hermas_ (1887);\n _Ignatii et Polycarpi epistolae_ (1902).\n\n\n\n\nHILL, AARON (1685-1750), English author, was born in London on the 10th\nof February 1685. He was the son of George Hill of Malmesbury Abbey,\nWiltshire, who contrived to sell an estate entailed on his son. In his\nfourteenth year he left Westminster School to go to Constantinople,\nwhere William, Lord Paget de Beaudesert (1637-1713), a relative of his\nmother, was ambassador. Paget sent him, under care of a tutor, to travel\nin Palestine and Egypt, and he returned to England in 1703. He was\nestranged from his patron by the \"envious fears and malice of a certain\nfemale,\" and again went abroad as companion to Sir William Wentworth. On\nhis return home in 1709 he published _A Full and Just Account of the\nPresent State of the Ottoman Empire_, a production of which he was\nafterwards much ashamed, and he addressed his poem of _Camillus_ to\nCharles Mordaunt, earl of Peterborough. In the same year he is said to\nhave been manager of Drury Lane theatre and in 1710 of the Haymarket.\nHis first play, _Elfrid: or The Fair Inconstant_ (afterwards revised as\n_Athelwold_), was produced at Drury Lane in 1709. His connexion with the\ntheatre was of short duration, and the rest of his life was spent in\ningenious commercial enterprises, none of which were successful, and in\nliterary pursuits. He formed a company to extract oil from beechmast,\nanother for the colonization of the district to be known later as\nGeorgia, a third to supply wood for naval construction from Scotland,\nand a fourth for the manufacture of potash. In 1730 he wrote _The\nProgress of Wit, being a caveat for the use of an Eminent Writer_. The\n\"eminent writer\" was Pope, who had introduced him into _The Dunciad_ as\none of the competitors for the prize offered by the goddess of Dullness,\nthough the satire was qualified by an oblique compliment. A note in the\nedition of 1729 on the obnoxious passage, in which, however, the\noriginal initial was replaced by asterisks, gave Hill great offence. He\nwrote to Pope complaining of his treatment, and received a reply in\nwhich Pope denied responsibility for the notes. Hill appears to have\nbeen a persistent correspondent, and inflicted on Pope a series of\nletters, which are printed in Elwin & Courthope's edition (x. 1-78).\nHill died on the 8th of February 1750, and was buried in Westminster\nAbbey. The best of his plays were _Zara_ (acted 1735) and _Merope_\n(1749), both adaptations from Voltaire. He also published two series of\nperiodical essays, _The Prompter_ (1735) and, with William Bond, _The\nPlaindealer_ (1724). He was generous to fellow-men of letters, and his\nletters to Richard Savage, whom he helped considerably, show his\ncharacter in a very amiable light.\n\n _The Works of the late Aaron Hill, consisting of letters ..., original\n poems.... With an essay on the Art of Acting_ appeared in 1753, and\n his _Dramatic Works_ in 1760. His _Poetical Works_ are included in\n Anderson's and other editions of the British poets. A full account of\n his life is provided by an anonymous writer in Theophilus Cibber's\n _Lives of the Poets_, vol. v.\n\n\n\n\nHILL, AMBROSE POWELL (1825-1865), American Confederate soldier, was born\nin Culpeper county, Virginia, on the 9th of November 1825, and graduated\nfrom West Point in 1847, being appointed to the 1st U.S. artillery. He\nserved in the Mexican and Seminole Wars, was promoted first lieutenant\nin September 1851, and in 1855-1860 was employed on the United States'\ncoast survey. In March 1861, just before the outbreak of the Civil War,\nhe resigned his commission, and when his state seceded he was made\ncolonel of a Virginian infantry regiment, winning promotion to the rank\nof brigadier-general on the field of Bull Run. In the Peninsular\ncampaign of 1862 he gained further promotion, and as a major-general\nHill was one of the most prominent and successful divisional commanders\nof Lee's army in the Seven Days', Second Bull Run, Antietam and\nFredericksburg campaigns. His division formed part of \"Stonewall\"\nJackson's corps, and he was severely wounded in the flank attack of\nChancellorsville in May 1863. After Jackson's death Hill was made a\nlieutenant-general and placed in command of the 3rd corps of Lee's army,\nwhich he led in the Gettysburg campaign of 1863, the autumn campaign of\nthe same year, and the Wilderness and Petersburg operations of 1864-65.\nHe was killed in front of the Petersburg lines on the 2nd of April 1865.\nHis reputation as a troop leader in battle was one of the highest\namongst the generals of both sides, and both Lee and Jackson, when on\ntheir death-beds their thoughts wandered in delirium to the battlefield,\ncalled for \"A. P. Hill\" to deliver the decisive blow.\n\n\n\n\nHILL, DANIEL HARVEY (1821-1889), American Confederate soldier, was born\nin York district, South Carolina, on the 12th of July 1821, and\ngraduated at the United States Military Academy in 1842, being appointed\nto the 1st United States artillery. He distinguished himself in the\nMexican War, being breveted captain and major for bravery at Contreras\nand Churubusco and at Chapultepec respectively. In February 1849 he\nresigned his commission and became a professor of mathematics at\nWashington College (now Washington and Lee University), Lexington,\nVirginia. In 1854 he joined the faculty of Davidson College, North\nCarolina, and was in 1859 made superintendent of the North Carolina\nMilitary Institute of Charlotte. At the outbreak of the Civil War, D. H.\nHill was made colonel of a Confederate infantry regiment, at the head of\nwhich he won the action of Big Bethel, near Fortress Monroe, Va., on the\n10th of June 1861. Shortly after this he was made a brigadier-general.\nHe took part in the Yorktown and Williamsburg operations in the spring\nof 1862, and as a major-general led a division with great distinction in\nthe battle of Fair Oaks and the Seven Days. He took part in the Second\nBull Run campaign in August-September 1862, and in the Antietam campaign\nthe stubborn resistance of D. H. Hill's division in the passes of South\nMountain enabled Lee to concentrate for battle. The division bore a\nconspicuous part in the battles of the Antietam and Fredericksburg. On\nthe reorganization of the army of Northern Virginia after Jackson's\ndeath, D. H. Hill was not appointed to a corps command, but somewhat\nlater in 1863 he was sent to the west as a lieutenant-general and\ncommanded one of Bragg's corps in the brilliant victory of Chickamauga.\nD. H. Hill surrendered with Gen. J. E. Johnston on the 26th of April\n1865. In 1866-1869 he edited a magazine, _The Land we Love_, at\nCharlotte, N.C., which dealt with social and historical subjects and had\na great influence in the South. In 1877 he became president of the\nuniversity of Arkansas, a post which he held until 1884, and in 1885\npresident of the Military and Agricultural College of Milledgeville,\nGeorgia. General Hill died at Charlotte, N.C., on the 24th of September\n1889.\n\n\n\n\nHILL, DAVID BENNETT (1843-1910), American politician, was born at\nHavana, New York, on the 29th of August 1843. In 1862 he removed to\nElmira, New York, where in 1864 he was admitted to the bar. He at once\nbecame active in the affairs of the Democratic party, attracting the\nattention of Samuel J. Tilden, one of whose shrewdest and ablest\nlieutenants he became. In 1871 and 1872 he was a member of the New York\nState Assembly, and in 1877 and again in 1881, presided over the\nDemocratic State Convention. In 1882 he was elected mayor of Elmira, and\nin the same year was chosen lieutenant-governor of the state, having\nbeen defeated for nomination as governor by Grover Cleveland. In January\n1885, however, Cleveland having resigned to become president, Hill\nbecame governor, and in November was elected for a three-year term, and\nsubsequently re-elected. In 1891-1897 he was a member of the United\nStates Senate. During these years, and in 1892, when he tried to get the\npresidential nomination, he was prominent in working against Cleveland.\nIn 1896 he opposed the free silver plank in the platform adopted by the\nDemocratic National Convention which nominated W. J. Bryan; in the\nNational Convention of 1900, however, the free-silver issue having been\nsubordinated to anti-imperialism, he seconded Bryan's nomination. After\n1897 he devoted himself to his law practice, and in 1905 retired from\npolitics. He died in Albany on the 30th of October 1910.\n\n\n\n\nHILL, GEORGE BIRKBECK NORMAN (1835-1903), English author, son of Arthur\nHill, head master of Bruce Castle school, was born at Tottenham,\nMiddlesex, on the 7th of June 1835. Arthur Hill, with his brothers\nRowland Hill, the postal reformer, and Matthew Davenport Hill,\nafterwards recorder of Birmingham, had worked out a system of education\nwhich was to exclude compulsion of any kind. The school at Bruce Castle,\nof which Arthur Hill was head master, was founded to carry into\nexecution their theories, known as the Hazelwood system. George Birkbeck\nHill was educated in his father's school and at Pembroke College,\nOxford. In 1858 he began to teach at Bruce Castle school, and from 1868\nto 1877 was head master. In 1869 he became a regular contributor to the\n_Saturday Review_, with which he remained in connexion until 1884. On\nhis retirement from teaching he devoted himself to the study of English\n18th-century literature, and established his reputation as the most\nlearned commentator on the works of Samuel Johnson. He settled at Oxford\nin 1887, but from 1891 onwards his winters were usually spent abroad. He\ndied at Hampstead, London, on the 27th of February 1903. His works\ninclude: _Dr Johnson, his Friends and his Critics_ (1878); an edition of\nBoswell's _Correspondence_ (1879); a laborious edition of _Boswell's\nLife of Johnson, including Boswell's Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides,\nand Johnson's Diary of a Journey into North Wales_ (Clarendon Press, 6\nvols., 1887); _Wit and Wisdom of Samuel Johnson_ (1888); _Select Essays\nof Dr Johnson_ (1889); _Footsteps of Dr Johnson in Scotland_ (1890);\n_Letters of Johnson_ (1892); _Johnsonian Miscellanies_ (2 vols., 1897);\nan edition (1900) of Edward Gibbon's _Autobiography_; Johnson's _Lives\nof the Poets_ (3 vols., 1905), and other works on the 18th-century\ntopics. Dr Birkbeck Hill's elaborate edition of Boswell's _Life_ is a\nmonumental work, invaluable to the student.\n\n See a memoir by his nephew, Harold Spencer Scott, in the edition of\n the _Lives of the English Poets_ (1905), and the _Letters_ edited by\n his daughter, Lucy Crump, in 1903.\n\n\n\n\nHILL, JAMES J. (1838- ), American railway capitalist, was born near\nGuelph, Ontario, Canada, on the 16th of September 1838, and was educated\nat Rockwood (Ont.) Academy, a Quaker institution. In 1856 he settled in\nSt Paul, Minnesota. Abandoning, because of his father's death, his plans\nto study medicine, he became a clerk in the office of a firm of river\nsteamboat agents and shippers, and later the agent for a line of river\npackets; he established about 1870 transportation lines on the\nMississippi and on the Red River (of the North). He effected a traffic\narrangement between the St Paul Pacific Railroad and his steamboat\nlines; and when the railway failed in 1873 for $27,000,000, Hill\ninterested Sir Donald A. Smith (Lord Strathcona), George Stephen (Lord\nMount Stephen), and other Canadian capitalists, in the road and in the\nwheat country of the Red River Valley; he got control of the bonds\n(1878), foreclosed the mortgage, reorganized the road as the St Paul,\nMinneapolis & Manitoba, and began to extend the line, then only 380 m.\nlong, toward the Pacific; and in 1883 he became its president. He was\npresident of the Great Northern Railway (comprehending all his secondary\nlines) from 1893 to April 1907, when he became chairman of its board of\ndirectors. In the extension (1883-1893) of this railway westward to\nPuget Sound (whence it has direct steamship connexions with China and\nJapan), the line was built by the company itself, none of the work being\nhandled by contractors. Subsequently his financial interests in American\nrailways caused constant sensations in the stock-markets. The Hill\ninterests obtained control not only of the Great-Northern system, but of\nthe Northern Pacific and the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, and proposed\nthe construction of another northern line to the Pacific coast. Hill was\nthe president of the Northern Securities Company, which in 1904 was\ndeclared by the United States Supreme Court to be in conflict with the\nSherman Anti-Trust Law. (See Vol. 27, p. 733.) Among Hill's gifts to\npublic institutions was one of $500,000 to the St. Paul Theological\nSeminary (Roman Catholic).\n\n\n\n\nHILL, JOHN (c. 1716-1775), called from his Swedish honours, \"Sir\" John\nHill, English author, son of the Rev. Theophilus Hill, is said to have\nbeen born in Peterborough in 1716. He was apprenticed to an apothecary\nand on the completion of his apprenticeship he set up in a small shop in\nSt Martin's Lane, Westminster. He also travelled over the country in\nsearch of rare herbs, with a view to publishing a _hortus siccus_, but\nthe plan failed. His first publication was a translation of\nTheophrastus's _History of Stones_ (1746). From this time forward he was\nan indefatigable writer. He edited the _British Magazine_ (1746-1750),\nand for two years (1751-1753) he wrote a daily letter, \"The Inspector,\"\nfor the _London Advertiser and Literary Gazette_. He also produced\nnovels, plays and scientific works, and was a large contributor to the\nsupplement of Ephraim Chambers's _Cyclopaedia_. His personal and\nscurrilous writings involved him in many quarrels. Henry Fielding\nattacked him in the _Covent Garden Journal_, Christopher Smart wrote a\nmock-epic, _The Hilliad_, against him, and David Garrick replied to his\nstrictures against him by two epigrams, one of which runs:--\n\n \"For physics and farces, his equal there scarce is;\n His farces are physic, his physic a farce is.\"\n\nHe had other literary passages-at-arms with John Rich, who accused him\nof plagiarizing his _Orpheus_, also with Samuel Foote and Henry\nWoodward. From 1759 to 1775 he was engaged on a huge botanical\nwork--_The Vegetable System_ (26 vols. fol.)--adorned by 1600\ncopperplate engravings. Hill's botanical labours were undertaken at the\nrequest of his patron, Lord Bute, and he was rewarded by the order of\nVasa from the king of Sweden in 1774. He had a medical degree from\nEdinburgh, and he now practised as a quack doctor, making considerable\nsums by the preparation of vegetable medicines. He died in London on the\n21st of November 1775.\n\n Of the seventy-six separate works with which he is credited in the\n _Dictionary of National Biography_, the most valuable are those that\n deal with botany. He is said to have been the author of the second\n part of _The Oeconomy of Human Life_ (1751), the first part of which\n is by Lord Chesterfield, and Hannah Glasse's famous manual of cookery\n was generally ascribed to him (see Boswell, ed. Hill, iii. 285). Dr\n Johnson said of him that he was \"an ingenious man, but had no\n veracity.\"\n\n See a _Short Account of the Life, Writings and Character of the late\n Sir John Hill_ (1779), which is chiefly occupied with a descriptive\n catalogue of his works; also _Temple Bar_ (1872, xxxv. 261-266).\n\n\n\n\nHILL, MATTHEW DAVENPORT (1792-1872), English lawyer and penologist, was\nborn on the 6th of August 1792, at Birmingham, where his father, T. W.\nHill, for long conducted a private school. He was a brother of Sir\nRowland Hill. He early acted as assistant in his father's school, but in\n1819 was called to the bar at Lincoln's Inn. He went the midland\ncircuit. In 1832 he was elected one of the Liberal members for\nKingston-upon-Hull, but he lost his seat at the next election in 1834.\nOn the incorporation of Birmingham in 1839 he was chosen recorder; and\nin 1851 he was appointed commissioner in bankruptcy for the Bristol\ndistrict. Having had his interest excited in questions relating to the\ntreatment of criminal offenders, he ventilated in his charges to the\ngrand juries, as well as in special pamphlets, opinions which were the\nmeans of introducing many important reforms in the methods of dealing\nwith crime. One of his principal coadjutors in these reforms was his\nbrother Frederick Hill (1803-1896), whose _Amount, Causes and Remedies\nof Crime_, the result of his experience as inspector of prisons for\nScotland, marked an era in the methods of prison discipline. Hill was\none of the chief promoters of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful\nKnowledge, and the originator of the _Penny Magazine_. He died at\nStapleton, near Bristol, on the 7th of June 1872.\n\n His principal works are _Practical Suggestions to the Founders of\n Reformatory Schools_ (1855); _Suggestions for the Repression of Crime_\n (1857), consisting of charges addressed to the grand juries of\n Birmingham; _Mettray_ (1855); _Papers on the Penal Servitude Acts_\n (1864); _Journal of a Third Visit to the Convict Gaols, Refuges and\n Reformatories of Dublin_ (1865); _Addresses delivered at the\n Birmingham and Midland Institute_ (1867). See _Memoir of Matthew\n Davenport Hill_, by his daughters Rosamond and Florence Davenport Hill\n (1878).\n\n\n\n\nHILL, OCTAVIA (1838- ) and MIRANDA (1836-1910), English philanthropic\nworkers, were born in London, being daughters of Mr James Hill and\ngranddaughters of Dr Southwood Smith, the pioneer of sanitary reform.\nMiss Octavia Hill's attention was early drawn to the evils of London\nhousing, and the habits of indolence and lethargy induced in many of the\nlower classes by their degrading surroundings. She conceived the idea of\ntrying to free a few poor people from such influences, and Mr Ruskin,\nwho sympathized with her plans, supplied the money for starting the\nwork. For L750 Miss Hill purchased the 56 years' lease of three houses\nin one of the poorest courts of Marylebone. Another L78 was spent in\nbuilding a large room at the back of her own house where she could meet\nthe tenants. The houses were put in repair, and let out in sets of two\nrooms. At the end of eighteen months it was possible to pay 5%\ninterest, to repay L48 of the capital, as well as meet all expenses for\ntaxes, ground rent and insurance. What specially distinguished this\nscheme was that Miss Hill herself collected the rents, thus coming into\ncontact with the tenants and helping to enforce regular and\nself-respecting habits. The success of her first attempt encouraged her\nto continue. Six more houses were bought and treated in a similar\nmanner. A yearly sum was set aside for the repairs of each house, and\nwhatever remained over was spent on such additional appliances as the\ntenants themselves desired. This encouraged them to keep their tenements\nin good repair. By the help of friends Miss Hill was now enabled to\nenlarge the scope of her work. In 1869 eleven more houses were bought.\nThe plan was to set a visitor over a small court or block of buildings\nto do whatever work in the way of rent-collecting, visiting for the\nSchool Board, &c., was required. As years went on Miss Octavia Hill's\nwork was largely increased. Numbers of her friends bought and placed\nunder her care small groups of houses, over which she fulfilled the\nduties of a conscientious landlord. Several large owners of tenement\nhouses, notably the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, entrusted to her the\nmanagement of such property, and consulted her about plans of\nrebuilding; and a number of fellow-workers were trained by her in the\nmanagement of houses for the poor. The results in Southwark (where Red\nCross Hall was established) and elsewhere were very beneficial. Both\nMiss Miranda and Miss Octavia Hill took an interest in the movement for\nbringing beauty into the homes of the poor, and the former was\npractically the founder of the Kyrle Society, the first suggestion of\nwhich was contained in a paper read to a small circle of friends. Both\nsisters worked for the preservation of open spaces, and helped to\npromote the work of the Charity Organization Society, and for several\nyears Miss Miranda Hill (who died on the 31st of May 1910) did admirable\nwork in Marylebone as a member of the Board of Guardians.\n\n\n\n\nHILL, ROWLAND (1744-1833), English preacher, sixth son of Sir Rowland\nHill, Bart. (d. 1783), was born at Hawkstone, Shropshire, on the 23rd of\nAugust 1744. He was educated at Shrewsbury, Eton and St John's College,\nCambridge. Stimulated by George Whitefield's example, he scandalized the\nuniversity authorities and his own friends by preaching and visiting the\nsick before he had taken orders. In 1773 he was appointed to the parish\nof Kingston, Somersetshire, where he soon attracted great crowds to his\nopen-air services. Having inherited considerable property, he built for\nhis own use Surrey Chapel, in the Blackfriars Road, London (1783). Hill\nconducted his services in accordance with the forms of the Church of\nEngland, in whose communion he always remained. Both at Surrey Chapel\nand in his provincial \"gospel tours\" he had great success. His oratory\nwas specially adapted for rude and uncultivated audiences. He possessed\na voice of great power, and according to Southey \"his manner\" was \"that\nof a performer as great in his own line as Kean or Kemble.\" His earnest\nand pure purposes more than made up for his occasional lapses from good\ntaste and the eccentricity of his wit. He helped to found the Religious\nTract Society, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the London\nMissionary Society, and was a stout advocate of vaccination. His\nbest-known work is the _Village Dialogues_, which first appeared in\n1810, and reached a 34th edition in 1839. He died on the 11th of April\n1833.\n\n See _Life_ by E. Sidney (1833); _Memoirs_, by William Jones (1834);\n and _Memorials_, by Jas. Sherman (1857).\n\n\n\n\nHILL, SIR ROWLAND (1795-1879), English administrator, author of the\npenny postal system, a younger brother of Matthew Davenport Hill, and\nthird son of T. W. Hill, who named him after Rowland Hill the preacher,\nwas born on the 3rd of December 1795 at Kidderminster. As a young child\nhe had, on account of an affection of the spine, to maintain a recumbent\nposition, and his principal method of relieving the irksomeness of his\nsituation was to repeat figures aloud consecutively until he had reached\nvery high totals. A similar bent of mind was manifested when he entered\nschool in 1802, his aptitude for mathematics being quite exceptional.\nBut he was indebted for the direction of his abilities in no small\ndegree to the guidance of his father, a man of advanced political and\nsocial views, which were qualified and balanced by the strong practical\ntendency of his mind. At the age of twelve Rowland began to assist in\nteaching mathematics in his father's school at Hilltop, Birmingham, and\nlatterly he had the chief management of the school. On his suggestion\nthe establishment was removed in 1819 to Hazelwood, a more commodious\nbuilding in the Hagley Road, in order to have the advantages of a large\nbody of boys, for the purpose of properly carrying out an improved\nsystem of education. That system, which was devised principally by\nRowland, was expounded in a pamphlet entitled _Plans for the Government\nand Education of Boys in Large Numbers_, the first edition of which\nappeared in 1822, and a second with additions in 1827. The principal\nfeature of the system was \"to leave as much as possible all power in the\nhands of the boys themselves\"; and it was so successful that, in a\ncircular issued six years after the experiment had been in operation, it\nwas announced that \"the head master had never once exercised his right\nof veto on their proceedings.\" It may be said that Rowland Hill, as an\neducationist, is entitled to a place side by side with Arnold of Rugby,\nand was equally successful with him in making moral influence of the\nhighest kind the predominant power in school discipline. After his\nmarriage in 1827 Hill removed to a new school at Bruce Castle,\nTottenham, which he conducted until failing health compelled him to\nretire in 1833. About this time he became secretary of Gibbon\nWakefield's scheme for colonizing South Australia, the objects of which\nhe explained in 1832 in a pamphlet on _Home Colonies_, afterwards partly\nreprinted during the Irish famine under the title _Home Colonies for\nIreland_. It was in 1835 that his zeal as an administrative reformer was\nfirst directed to the postal system. The discovery which resulted from\nthese investigations is when stated so easy of comprehension that there\nis great danger of losing sight of its originality and thoroughness. A\nfact which enhances its merit was that he was not a post-office\nofficial, and possessed no practical experience of the details of the\nold system. After a laborious collection of statistics he succeeded in\ndemonstrating that the principal expense of letter carriage was in\nreceiving and distributing, and that the cost of conveyance differed so\nlittle with the distance that a uniform rate of postage was in reality\nthe fairest to all parties that could be adopted. Trusting also that the\ndeficiency in the postal rate would be made up by the immense increase\nof correspondence, and by the saving which would be obtained from\nprepayment, from improved methods of keeping accounts, and from\nlessening the expense of distribution, he in his famous pamphlet\npublished in 1837 recommended that within the United Kingdom the rate\nfor letters not exceeding half an ounce in weight should be only one\npenny. The employment of postage stamps is mentioned only as a\nsuggestion, and in the following words: \"Perhaps the difficulties might\nbe obviated by using a bit of paper just large enough to bear the stamp,\nand covered at the back with a glutinous wash which by applying a little\nmoisture might be attached to the back of the letter.\" Proposals so\nstriking and novel in regard to a subject in which every one had a\npersonal interest commanded immediate and general attention. So great\nbecame the pressure of public opinion against the opposition offered to\nthe measure by official prepossessions and prejudices that in 1838 the\nHouse of Commons appointed a committee to examine the subject. The\ncommittee having reported favourably, a bill to carry out Hill's\nrecommendations was brought in by the government. The act received the\nroyal assent in 1839, and after an intermediate rate of four-pence had\nbeen in operation from the 5th of December of that year, the penny rate\ncommenced on the 10th of January 1840. Hill received an appointment in\nthe Treasury in order to superintend the introduction of his reforms,\nbut he was compelled to retire when the Liberal government resigned\noffice in 1841. In consideration of the loss he thus sustained, and to\nmark the public appreciation of his services, he was in 1846 presented\nwith the sum of L13,360. On the Liberals returning to office in the\nsame year he was appointed secretary to the postmaster-general and in\n1854 he was made chief secretary. His ability as a practical\nadministrator enabled him to supplement his original discovery by\nmeasures realizing its benefits in a degree commensurate with\ncontinually improving facilities of communication, and in a manner best\ncombining cheapness with efficiency. In 1860 his services were rewarded\nwith the honour of knighthood; and when failing health compelled him to\nresign his office in 1864, he received from parliament a grant of\nL20,000 and was also allowed to retain his full salary of L2000 a year\nas retiring pension. In 1864 the university of Oxford conferred on him\nthe degree of D.C.L., and on the 6th of June 1879 he was presented with\nthe freedom of the city of London. The presentation, on account of his\ninfirm health, took place at his residence at Hampstead, and he died on\nthe 27th of August following. He was buried in Westminster Abbey.\n\n He wrote, in conjunction with his brother, Arthur Hill, a _History of\n Penny Postage_, published in 1880, with an introductory memoir by his\n nephew, G. Birkbeck Hill. See also _Sir Rowland Hill, the Story of a\n Great Reform_, told by his daughter (1907). To commemorate his memory\n the Rowland Hill Memorial and Benevolent Fund was founded shortly\n after his death for the purpose of relieving distressed persons\n connected with the post office who were outside the scope of the\n Superannuation Act. See also POST AND POSTAL SERVICE.\n\n\n\n\nHILL, ROWLAND HILL, 1ST VISCOUNT (1772-1842), British general, was the\nsecond son of (Sir) John Hill, of Hawkstone, Shropshire, and nephew of\nthe Rev. Rowland Hill (1744-1833), was born at Prees Hall near Hawkstone\non the 11th of August 1772. He was gazetted to the 38th regiment in\n1790, obtaining permission at the same time to study in a military\nacademy at Strassburg, where he continued after removing into the 53rd\nregiment with the rank of lieutenant in 1791. In the beginning of 1793\nhe raised a company, and was promoted to the rank of captain. The same\nyear he acted as assistant secretary to the British minister at Genoa,\nand served with distinction as a staff officer in the siege of Toulon.\nHill took part in many minor expeditions in the following years. In\n1800, when only twenty-eight, he was made a brevet colonel, and in 1801\nhe served with distinction in Sir Ralph Abercromby's expedition to\nEgypt, and was wounded at the battle of Alexandria. He continued to\ncommand his regiment, the 90th, until 1803, when he became a\nbrigadier-general. During his regimental command he introduced a\nregimental school and a sergeants' mess. He held various commands as\nbrigadier, and after 1805 as major-general, in Ireland. In 1805 he\ncommanded a brigade in the abortive Hanover expedition. In 1808 he was\nappointed to a brigade in the force sent to Portugal, and from Vimeira\nto Vittoria, in advance or retreat, he proved himself Wellington's\nablest and most indefatigable coadjutor. He led a brigade at Vimeira, at\nCorunna and at Oporto, and a division at Talavera (see PENINSULAR WAR).\nHis capacity for independent command was fully demonstrated in the\ncampaigns of 1810, 1811 and 1812. In 1811 he annihilated a French\ndetachment under Girard at Arroyo-dos-Molinos, and early in 1812, having\nnow attained a rank of lieutenant-general (January 1812) and become a\nK.B. (March), he carried by assault the important works of Almaraz on\nthe Tagus. Hill led the right wing of Wellington's army in the Salamanca\ncampaign in 1812 and at the battle of Vittoria in 1813. Later in this\nyear he conducted the investment of Pampeluna and fought with the\ngreatest distinction at the Nivelle and the Nive. In the invasion of\nFrance in 1814 his corps was victoriously engaged both at Orthez and at\nToulouse. Hill was one of the general officers rewarded for their\nservices by peerages, his title being at first Baron Hill of Almaraz and\nHawkstone, and he received a pension, the thanks of parliament and the\nfreedom of the city of London. For about two years previous to his\nelevation to the peerage, he had been M.P. for Shrewsbury. In 1815 the\nnews of Napoleon's return from Elba was followed by the assembly of an\nAnglo-Allied army (see WATERLOO CAMPAIGN) in the Netherlands, and Hill\nwas appointed to one of the two corps commands in this army. At Waterloo\nhe led the famous charge of Sir Frederick Adams's brigade against the\nImperial Guard, and for some time it was thought that he had fallen in\nthe melee. He escaped, however, without a wound, and continued with the\narmy in France until its withdrawal in 1818. Hill lived in retirement\nfor some years at his estate of Hardwicke Grange. He carried the royal\nstandard at the coronation of George IV. and became general in 1825.\nWhen Wellington became premier in 1828, he received the appointment of\ngeneral commanding-in-chief, and on resigning this office in 1842 he was\ncreated a viscount. He died on the 10th of December of the same year.\nLord Hill was, next to Wellington, the most popular and able soldier of\nhis time in the British service, and was so much beloved by the troops,\nespecially those under his immediate command, that he gained from them\nthe title of \"the soldier's friend.\" He was a G.C.B, and G.C.H., and\nheld the grand crosses of various foreign orders, amongst them the\nRussian St George and the Austrian Maria Theresa.\n\n The _Life of Lord Hill, G.C.B._, by Rev. Edwin Sidney, appeared in\n 1845.\n\n\n\n\nHILL (O. Eng. _hyll_; cf. Low Ger. _hull_, Mid. Dutch _hul_, allied to\nLat. _celsus_, high, _collis_, hill, &c.), a natural elevation of the\nearth's surface. The term is now usually confined to elevations lower\nthan a mountain, but formerly was used for all such elevations, high or\nlow.\n\n\n\n\nHILLAH, a town of Asiatic Turkey, in the pashalik of Bagdad, 60 m. S. of\nthe city of Bagdad, in 32 deg. 2' 35\" N., 44 deg. 48' 40(1/2)\" E.,\nformerly the capital of a sanjak and the residence of a mutasserif, who\nin 1893 was transferred to Diwanieh. It is situated on both banks of the\nEuphrates, the two parts of the town being connected by a floating\nbridge, 450 ft. in length, in the midst of a very fertile district. The\nestimated population, which includes a large number of Jews, varies from\n6000 to 12,000. The town has suffered much from the periodical breaking\nof the Hindieh dam and the consequent deflection of the waters of the\nEuphrates to the westward, as a result of which at times the Euphrates\nat this point has been entirely dry. This deflection of water has also\nseriously interfered with the palm groves, the cultivation of which\nconstitutes a large part of the industry of the surrounding country\nalong the river. The bazaars of Hillah are relatively large and well\nsupplied. Many of the houses in the town are built of brick, not a few\nbearing an inscription of Nebuchadrezzar, obtained from the ruins of\nBabylon, which lie less than an hour away to the north.\n\n Bibliography.--C. J. Rich, _Babylon and Persepolis_ (1839); J. R.\n Peters, _Nippur_ (1857); H. Rassam, _Asshur and the Land of Nimrod_\n (1897); H. V. Geere, _By Nile and Euphrates_ (1904). (J. P. Pe.)\n\n\n\n\nHILLARD, GEORGE STILLMAN (1808-1879), American lawyer and author, was\nborn at Machias, Maine, on the 22nd of September 1808. After graduating\nat Harvard College in 1828, he taught in the Round Hill School at\nNorthampton, Massachusetts. He graduated at the Harvard Law School in\n1832, and in 1833 he was admitted to the bar in Boston, where he entered\ninto partnership with Charles Sumner. He was a member of the state House\nof Representatives in 1836, of the state Senate in 1850, and of the\nstate constitutional convention of 1853, and in 1866-70 was United\nStates district attorney for Massachusetts. He devoted a large portion\nof his time to literature. He became a member of the editorial staff of\nthe _Christian Register_, a Unitarian weekly, in 1833; in 1834 he became\neditor of The _American Jurist_ (1829-1843), a legal journal to which\nSumner, Simon Greenleaf and Theron Metcalf contributed; and from 1856 to\n1861 he was an associate editor of the Boston _Courier_. His\npublications include an edition of Edmund Spenser's works (in 5 vols.,\n1839); _Selections from the Writings of Walter Savage Landor_ (1856);\n_Six Months in Italy_ (2 vols., 1853); _Life and Campaigns of George B.\nMcClellan_ (1864); a part of the _Life, Letters, and Journals of George\nTicknor_ (1876); besides a series of school readers and many articles in\nperiodicals and encyclopaedias. He died in Boston on the 21st of January\n1879.\n\n\n\n\nHILLEBRAND, KARL (1829-1884), German author, was born at Giessen on the\n17th of September 1829, his father Joseph Hillebrand (1788-1871) being a\nliterary historian and writer on philosophic subjects. Karl Hillebrand\nbecame involved, as a student in Heidelberg, in the Baden revolutionary\nmovement, and was imprisoned in Rastatt. He succeeded in escaping and\nlived for a time in Strassburg, Paris--where for several months he was\nHeine's secretary--and Bordeaux. He continued his studies, and after\nobtaining the doctor's degree at the Sorbonne, he was appointed teacher\nof German in the _Ecole militaire_ at St Cyr, and shortly afterwards,\nprofessor of foreign literatures at Douai. On the outbreak of the\nFranco-German War he resigned his professorship and acted for a time as\ncorrespondent to _The Times_ in Italy. He then settled in Florence, where\nhe died on the 19th of October 1884. Hillebrand wrote with facility and\nelegance in French, English and Italian, besides his own language. His\nessays, collected under the title _Zeiten, Volker und Menschen_ (Berlin,\n1874-1885), show clear discernment, a finely balanced cosmopolitan\njudgment and grace of style. He undertook to write the _Geschichte\nFrankreichs von der Thronbesteigung Ludwig Philipps bis zum Fall\nNapoleons III._, but only two volumes were completed (to 1848) (2nd ed.,\n1881-1882). In French he published _Des conditions de la bonne comedie_\n(1863), _La Prusse contemporaine_ (1867), _Etudes italiennes_ (1868), and\na translation of O. Muller's _Griechische Literaturgeschichte_ (3rd ed.,\n1883). In English he published his Royal Institution Lectures on _German\nThought during the Last Two Hundred Years_ (1880). He also edited a\ncollection of essays dealing with Italy, under the title _Italia_ (4\nvols., Leipzig, 1824-1877).\n\n See H. Homberger, _Karl Hillebrand_ (Berlin, 1884).\n\n\n\n\nHILLEL, Jewish rabbi, of Babylonian origin, lived at Jerusalem in the\ntime of King Herod. Though hard pressed by poverty, he applied himself\nto study in the schools of Shemaiah and Abtalion (Sameas and Pollion in\nJosephus). On account of his comprehensive learning and his rare\nqualities he was numbered among the recognized leaders of the Pharisaic\nscribes. Tradition assigns him the highest dignity of the Sanhedrin,\nunder the title of nasi (\"prince\"), about a hundred years before the\ndestruction of Jerusalem, i.e. about 30 B.C. The date at least can be\nrecognized as historic; the fact that Hillel took a leading position in\nthe council can also be established. The epithet _ha-zaken_ (\"the\nelder\"), which usually accompanies his name, proves him to have been a\nmember of the Sanhedrin, and according to a trustworthy authority Hillel\nfilled his leading position for forty years, dying, therefore, about\nA.D. 10. His descendants remained, with few exceptions, at the head of\nJudaism in Palestine until the beginning of the 5th century, two of\nthem, his grandson Gamaliel I. and the latter's son Simon, during the\ntime when the Temple was still standing. The fact that Josephus (_Vita_\n38) ascribes to Simon descent from a very distinguished stock ([Greek:\ngenous sphodra lamprou]), shows in what degree of estimation Hillel's\ndescendants stood. When the dignity of _nasi_ became afterwards\nhereditary among them, Hillel's ancestry, perhaps on the ground of old\nfamily traditions, was traced back to David. Hillel is especially noted\nfor the fact that he gave a definite form to the Jewish traditional\nlearning, as it had been developed and made into the ruling and\nconserving factor of Judaism in the latter days of the second Temple,\nand particularly in the centuries following the destruction of the\nTemple. He laid down seven rules for the interpretation of the\nScriptures, and these became the foundation of rabbinical hermeneutics;\nand the ordering of the traditional doctrines into a whole, effected in\nthe Mishna by his successor Judah I., two hundred years after Hillel's\ndeath, was probably likewise due to his instigation. The tendency of his\ntheory and practice in matters pertaining to the Law is evidenced by the\nfact that in general he advanced milder and more lenient views in\nopposition to his colleague Shammai, a contrast which after the death of\nthe two masters, but not until after the destruction of the Temple, was\nmaintained in the strife kept up between the two schools named the House\nof Hillel and the House of Shammai. The well-known institution of the\nProsbol ([Greek: prosbole]), introduced by Hillel, was intended to avert\nthe evil consequences of the scriptural law of release in the seventh\nyear (Deut. xv. 1). He was led to this, as is expressly set forth (_M.\nGittin_, iv. 3), by a regard for the welfare of the community. Hillel\nlived in the memory of posterity chiefly as the great teacher who\nenjoined and practised the virtues of charity, humility and true piety.\nHis proverbial sayings, in particular, a great number of which were\nwritten down partly in Aramaic, partly in Hebrew, strongly affected the\nspirit both of his contemporaries and of the succeeding generations. In\nhis Maxims (_Aboth,_ i. 12) he recommends the love of peace and the love\nof mankind beyond all else, and his own love of peace sprang from the\ntenderness and deep humility which were essential features in his\ncharacter, as has been illustrated by many anecdotes. Hillel's patience\nhas become proverbial. One of his sayings commends humility in the\nfollowing paradox: \"My abasement is my exaltation.\" His charity towards\nmen is given its finest expression in the answer which he made to a\nproselyte who asked to be taught the commandments of the Torah in the\nshortest possible form: \"What is unpleasant to thyself that do not to\nthy neighbour; this is the whole Law, all else is but its exposition.\"\nThis allusion to the scriptural injunction to love one's neighbour (Lev.\nxix. 18) as the fundamental law of religious morals, became in a certain\nsense a commonplace of Pharisaic scholasticism. For the Pharisee who\naccepts the answer of Jesus regarding that fundamental doctrine which\nranks the love of one's neighbour as the highest duty after the love of\nGod (Mark xii. 33), does so because as a disciple of Hillel the idea is\nfamiliar to him. St Paul also (Gal. v. 14) doubtless learned this in the\nschool of Gamaliel. Hillel emphasized the connexion between duty towards\none's neighbour and duty towards oneself in the epigrammatic saying: \"If\nI am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am for myself alone, what\nthen am I? And if not now, then when?\" (_Aboth_, i. 14). The duty of\nworking both with and for men he teaches in the sentence: \"Separate not\nthyself from the congregation\" (_ib._ ii. 4). The duty of considering\noneself part of common humanity, of not differing from others by any\npeculiarity of behaviour, he sums up in the words: \"Appear neither naked\nnor clothed, neither sitting nor standing, neither laughing nor weeping\"\n(_Tosef. Ber._ c. ii.). The command to love one's neighbour inspired\nalso Hillel's injunction (_Aboth_, ii. 4): \"Judge not thy neighbour\nuntil thou art in his place\" (cf. Matt. vii. 1). The disinterested\npursuit of learning, study for study's sake, is commended in many of\nHillel's sayings as being what is best in life: \"He who wishes to make a\nname for himself loses his name; he who does not increase [his\nknowledge] decreases it; he who does not learn is worthy of death; he\nwho works for the sake of a crown is lost\" (_Aboth_, i. 13). \"He who\noccupies himself much with learning makes his life\" (_ib._ ii. 7). \"He\nwho has acquired the words of doctrine has acquired the life of the\nworld to come\" (_ib._). \"Say not: When I am free from other occupations\nI shall study; for may be thou shalt never at all be free\" (_ib._ 4).\nOne of his strings of proverbs runs as follows: \"The uncultivated man is\nnot innocent; the ignorant man is not devout; the bashful man learns\nnot; the wrathful man teaches not; he who is much absorbed in trade\ncannot become wise; where no men are, there strive thyself to be a man\"\n(_ib._ 5). The almost mystical profundity of Hillel's consciousness of\nGod is shown in the words spoken by him on the occasion of a feast in\nthe Temple--words alluding to the throng of people gathered there which\nhe puts into the mouth of God Himself: \"If I am here every one is here;\nif I am not here no one is here\" (_Sukkah_ 53a). In like manner Hillel\nmakes God say to Israel, referring to Exodus xx. 24: \"Whither I please,\nthither will I go; if thou come into my house I come into thy house; if\nthou come not into my house, I come not into thine\" (_ib._).\n\nIt is noteworthy that no miraculous legends are connected with Hillel's\nlife. A scholastic tradition, however, tells of a voice from heaven\nwhich made itself heard when the wise men had assembled in Jericho,\nsaying: \"Among those here present is one who would have deserved the\nHoly Spirit to rest upon him, if his time had been worthy of it.\" And\nall eyes turned towards Hillel (_Tos. Sotah_, xiii. 3). When he died\nlamentation was made for him as follows: \"Woe for the humble, woe for\nthe pious, woe for the disciple of Ezra!\" (_ib._)\n\n HILLEL II., one of the patriarchs belonging to the family of Hillel\n I., lived in Tiberias about the middle of the 4th century, and\n introduced the arrangement of the calendar through which the Jews of\n the Diaspora became independent of Palestine in the uniform fixation\n of the new moons and feasts.\n\n The Rabbi HILLEL, who in the 4th century made the remarkable\n declaration that Israel need not expect a Messiah, because the promise\n of a Messiah had already been fulfilled in the days of King Hezekiah\n (Babli, _Sanhedrin_, 99a), is probably Hillel, the son of Samuel ben\n Nahman, a well-known expounder of the scriptures. (W. Ba.)\n\n\n\n\nHILLER, FERDINAND (1811-1885), German composer, was born at\nFrankfort-on-Main, on the 24th of October 1811. His first master was\nAloys Schmitt, and when he was ten years of age his compositions and\ntalent led his father, a well-to-do man, to send him to Hummel in\nWeimar. There he devoted himself to composition, among his work being\nthe entr'actes to _Maria Stuart_, through which he made Goethe's\nacquaintance. Under Hummel, Hiller made great strides as a pianist, so\nmuch so that early in 1827 he went on a tour to Vienna, where he met\nBeethoven and produced his first quartet. After a brief visit home\nHiller went to Paris in 1829, where he lived till 1836. His father's\ndeath necessitated his return to Frankfort for a time, but on the 8th of\nJanuary 1839 he produced at Milan his opera _La Romilda_, and began to\nwrite his oratorio _Die Zerstorung Jerusalems_, one of his best works.\nThen he went to Leipzig, to his friend Mendelssohn, where in 1843-1844\nhe conducted a number of the Gewandhaus concerts and produced his\noratorio. After a further visit to Italy to study sacred music, Hiller\nproduced two operas, _Ein Traum_ and _Conradin_, at Dresden in 1845 and\n1847 respectively; he went as conductor to Dusseldorf in 1847 and\nCologne in 1850, and conducted at the Opera Italien in Paris in 1851 and\n1852. At Cologne he became a power as conductor of the Gurzenich\nconcerts and head of the Conservatorium. In 1884 he retired, and died on\nthe 12th of May in the following year. Hiller frequently visited\nEngland. He composed a work for the opening of the Royal Albert Hall,\nhis _Nala and Damayanti_ was performed at Birmingham, and he gave a\nseries of pianoforte recitals of his own compositions at the Hanover\nSquare Rooms in 1871. He had a perfect mastery over technique and form\nin musical composition, but his works are generally dry. He was a sound\npianist and teacher, and occasionally a brilliant writer on musical\nmatters. His compositions, numbering about two hundred, include six\noperas, two oratorios, six or seven cantatas, much chamber music and a\nonce-popular pianoforte concerto.\n\n\n\n\nHILLER, JOHANN ADAM (1728-1804), German musical composer, was born at\nWendisch-Ossig near Gorlitz in Silesia on the 25th of December 1728. By\nthe death of his father in 1734 he was left dependent to a large extent\non the charity of friends. Entering in 1747 the Kreuzschule in Dresden,\nthe school attended many years afterwards by Richard Wagner, he\nsubsequently went to the university of Leipzig, where he studied\njurisprudence, supporting himself by giving music lessons, and also by\nperforming at concerts both on the flute and as a vocalist. Gradually he\nadopted music as his sole profession, and devoted himself more\nespecially to the permanent establishment of a concert institute at\nLeipzig. It was he who in 1781 originated the celebrated Gewandhaus\nconcerts which still flourish at Leipzig. In 1789 he became \"cantor\" of\nthe Thomas school there, a position previously held by John Sebastian\nBach. He died in Leipzig on the 16th of June 1804. Two of his pupils\nplaced a monument to his memory in front of the Thomas school. Hiller's\ncompositions comprise almost every kind of church music, from the\ncantata to the simple chorale. But much more important are his\noperettas, 14 in number, which for a long time retained their place on\nthe boards, and had considerable influence on the development of light\ndramatic music in Germany. The _Jolly Cobbler_, _Love in the Country_\nand the _Village Barber_ were amongst the most popular of his works.\nHiller also excelled in sentimental songs and ballads. With great\nsimplicity of structure his music combines a considerable amount of\ngenuine melodic invention. Although an admirer and imitator of the\nItalian school, Hiller fully appreciated the greatness of Handel, and\ndid much for the appreciation of his music in Germany. It was under his\ndirection that the _Messiah_ was for the first time given at Berlin,\nmore than forty years after the composition of that great work. Hiller\nwas also a writer on music, and for some years (1766-1770) edited a\nmusical weekly periodical named _Wochentliche Nachrichten und\nAnmerkungen die Musik betreffend_.\n\n\n\n\nHILLIARD, LAWRENCE (d. 1640), English miniature painter. The date of his\nbirth is not known, but he died in 1640. He was the son of Nicholas\nHilliard, and evidently derived his Christian name from that of his\ngrandmother. He adopted his father's profession and worked out the\nunexpired time of his licence after Nicholas Hilliard died. It was from\nLawrence Hilliard that Charles I. received the portrait of Queen\nElizabeth now at Montagu House, since van der Dort's catalogue describes\nit as \"done by old Hilliard, and bought by the king of young Hilliard.\"\nIn 1624 he was paid L42 from the treasury for five pictures, but the\nwarrant does not specify whom they represented. His portraits are of\ngreat rarity, two of the most beautiful being those in the collections\nof Earl Beauchamp and Mr J. Pierpont Morgan. They are as a rule signed\nL.H., but are also to be distinguished by the beauty of the calligraphy\nin which the inscriptions round the portraits are written. The writing\nis as a rule very florid, full of exquisite curves and flourishes, and\nmore elaborate than the more formal handwriting of Nicholas Hilliard.\nThe colour scheme adopted by the son is richer and more varied than that\nused by the father, and Lawrence Hilliard's miniatures are not so hard\nas are those of Nicholas, and are marked by more shade and a greater\neffect of atmosphere. (G. C. W.)\n\n\n\n\nHILLIARD, NICHOLAS (c. 1537-1619), the first true English miniature\npainter, is said to have been the son of Richard Hilliard of Exeter,\nhigh sheriff of the city and county in 1560, by Lawrence, daughter of\nJohn Wall, goldsmith, of London, and was born probably about 1537. He\nwas appointed goldsmith, carver and portrait painter to Queen Elizabeth,\nand engraved the Great Seal of England in 1586. He was in high favour\nwith James I. as well as with Elizabeth, and from the king received a\nspecial patent of appointment, dated the 5th of May 1617, and granting\nhim a sole licence for the royal work for twelve years. He is believed\nto have been the author of an important treatise on miniature painting,\nnow preserved in the Bodleian Library, but it seems more probable that\nthe author of that treatise was John de Critz, Serjeant Painter to James\nI. It is probable, however, that the treatise was taken down from the\ninstructions of Hilliard, for the benefit of one of his pupils, perhaps\nIsaac Oliver.\n\nThe esteem of his countrymen for Hilliard is testified to by Dr Donne,\nwho in a poem called \"The Storm\" (1597) praises the work of this artist.\nHe painted a portrait of himself at the age of thirteen, and is said to\nhave executed one of Mary queen of Scots when he was eighteen years old.\nHe died on the 7th of January 1619, and was buried in St\nMartin's-in-the-Fields, Westminster, leaving by his will twenty\nshillings to the poor of the parish, L30 between his two sisters, some\ngoods to his maidservant, and all the rest of his effects to his son,\nLawrence Hilliard, his sole executor.\n\nIt seems to be pretty certain that he visited France, and that he is the\nartist alluded to in the papers of the duc d'Alencon under the name of\n\"Nicholas Belliart, peintre anglois\" who was painter to this prince in\n1577, receiving a stipend of 200 livres. The miniature of Mademoiselle\nde Sourdis, in the collection of Mr J. Pierpont Morgan, is certainly the\nwork of Hilliard, and is dated 1577, in which year she was a maid of\nhonour at the French Court; and other portraits which are his work are\nbelieved to represent Gabrielle d'Estrees, niece of Madame de Sourdis,\nla Princesse de Conde and Madame de Montgomery.\n\n For further information respecting Hilliard's sojourn in France, see\n the privately printed catalogue of the collection of miniatures\n belonging to Mr J. Pierpont Morgan, compiled by Dr G. C. Williamson.\n (G. C. W.)\n\n\n\n\nHILLSDALE, a city and the county-seat of Hillsdale county, Michigan,\nU.S.A., about 87 m. W. by S. of Detroit. Pop. (1900) 4151, of whom 300\nwere foreign-born; (1904) 4809; (1910) 5001. Hillsdale is served by the\nLake Shore & Michigan Southern railway. It has a public library, and is\nthe seat of Hillsdale College (co-educational, Free Baptist), which was\nopened as Michigan Central College, at Spring Arbor, Michigan, in 1844,\nwas removed to Hillsdale and received its present name in 1853 and was\nre-opened here in 1855. The college in 1907-1908 had 22 instructors and\n345 students. The city is a centre for a rich farming region; among its\nmanufactures are gasoline and gas engines, screen doors, wagons,\nbarrels, shoes, fur-coats and flour. Hillsdale was first settled in\n1837, was incorporated as a village in 1847, and was chartered as a city\nin 1869.\n\n\n\n\nHILL TIPPERA, or TRIPURA, a native state of India, adjoining the British\ndistrict of Tippera, in Eastern Bengal and Assam. Area, 4086 sq. m.;\npop, (1901) 173,325; estimated revenue, L55,000. Six parallel ranges of\nhill cross it from north to south, at an average distance of 12 m.\napart. The hills are covered for the most part with bamboo jungle, while\nthe low ground abounds with trees of various kinds, canebrakes and\nswamps. The principal crop and food staple is rice. The other articles\nof produce are cotton, chillies and vegetables. The chief exports are\ncotton, timber, oilseeds, bamboo canes, thatching-grass and firewood, on\nall of which tolls are levied. The chief rivers are the Gumti, Haora,\nKhoyai, Dulai, Manu and Fenny (Pheni). During the heavy rains the people\nin the plains use boats as almost the sole means of conveyance.\n\nThe history of the state includes two distinct periods--the traditional\nperiod described in the _Rajmala_, or \"Chronicles of the Kings of\nTippera,\" and the period since A.D. 1407. The _Rajmala_ is a history in\nBengali verse, compiled by the Brahmans of the court of Tripura. In the\nearly history of the state, the rajas were in a state of chronic feud\nwith all the neighbouring countries. The worship of Siva was here, as\nelsewhere in India, associated with the practice of human sacrifice, and\nin no part of India were more victims offered. It was not until the\nbeginning of the 17th century that the Moguls obtained any footing in\nthis country. When the East India Company obtained the _diwani_ or\nfinancial administration of Bengal in 1765, so much of Tippera as had\nbeen placed on the Mahommedan rent-roll came under British rule. Since\n1808, each successive ruler has received investiture from the British\ngovernment. In October 1905 the state was attached to the new province\nof Eastern Bengal and Assam. It has a chronological era of its own,\nadopted by Raja Birraj, from whom the present raja is 93rd in descent.\nThe year 1875 corresponded with 1285 of the Tippera era.\n\nBesides being the ruler of Hill Tippera, the raja holds an estate in the\nBritish district of Tippera, called _chakla_ Roshnabad, which is far the\nmost valuable of his possessions. The capital is Agartala (pop. 9513),\nwhere there is an Arts College. The raja's palace and other public\nbuildings were seriously damaged by the earthquake of the 12th of June\n1897. The late raja, who died from the result of a motor-car accident in\n1909, succeeded his father in 1896, but he had taken a large share in\nthe administration of the state for some years previously. The principle\nof succession, which had often caused serious disputes, was defined in\n1904, to the effect that the chief may nominate any male descendant\nthrough males from himself or from any male ancestor, but failing such\nnomination, then the rule of primogeniture applies.\n\n\n\n\nHILTON, JOHN (1804-1878), British surgeon, was born at Castle Hedingham,\nin Essex, in 1804. He entered Guy's Hospital in 1824. He was appointed\ndemonstrator of anatomy in 1828, assistant-surgeon in 1845, surgeon\n1849. In 1867 he was president of the Royal College of Surgeons, of\nwhich he became member in 1827 and fellow in 1843, and he also delivered\nthe Hunterian oration in 1867. As Arris and Gale professor (1859-1862)\nhe delivered a course of lectures on \"Rest and Pain,\" which have become\nclassics. He was also surgeon-extraordinary to Queen Victoria. Hilton\nwas the greatest anatomist of his time, and was nick named \"Anatomical\nJohn.\" It was he who, with Joseph Towne the artist, enriched Guy's\nHospital with its unique collection of models. In his grasp of the\nstructure and functions of the brain and spinal cord he was far in\nadvance of his contemporaries. As an operator he was more cautious than\nbrilliant. This was doubtless due partly to his living in the\npre-anaesthetics period, and partly to his own consummate anatomical\nknowledge, as is indicated by the method for opening deep abscesses\nwhich is known by his name. But he could be bold when necessary; he was\nthe first to reduce a case of obturator hernia by abdominal section, and\none of the first to practise lumbar colostomy. He died at Clapham on the\n14th of September 1878.\n\n\n\n\nHILTON, WILLIAM (1786-1839), English painter, was born in Lincoln on the\n3rd of June 1786, son of a portrait-painter. In 1800 he was placed with\nthe engraver J. R. Smith, and about the same time began studying in the\nRoyal Academy school. He first exhibited in this institution in 1803,\nsending a \"Group of Banditti\"; and he soon established a reputation for\nchoice of subject, and qualities of design and colour superior to the\ngreat mass of his contemporaries. He made a tour in Italy with Thomas\nPhillips, the portrait-painter. In 1813, having exhibited \"Miranda and\nFerdinand with the Logs of Wood,\" he was elected an associate of the\nAcademy, and in 1820 a full academician, his diploma-picture\nrepresenting \"Ganymede.\" In 1823 he produced \"Christ crowned with\nThorns,\" a large and important work, subsequently bought out of the\nChantrey Fund; this may be regarded as his masterpiece. In 1827 he\nsucceeded Henry Thomson as keeper of the Academy. He died in London on\nthe 30th of December 1839, Some of his best pictures remained on his\nhands at his decease--such as the \"Angel releasing Peter from Prison\"\n(life-size), painted in 1831, \"Una with the Lion entering Corceca's\nCave\" (1832), the \"Murder of the Innocents,\" his last exhibited work\n(1838), \"Comus,\" and \"Amphitrite.\" The National Gallery now owns \"Edith\nfinding the Body of Harold\" (1834), \"Cupid Disarmed,\" \"Rebecca and\nAbraham's Servant\" (1829), \"Nature blowing Bubbles for her Children\"\n(1821), and \"Sir Calepine rescuing Serena\" (from the _Faerie Queen_)\n(1831). In the National Portrait Gallery is his likeness of John Keats,\nwith whom he was acquainted. In a great school or period Hilton could\nnot count as more than a respectable subordinate; but in the British\nschool of the earlier part of the 19th century he had sufficient\nelevation of aim and width of attainment to stand conspicuous.\n\n\n\n\nHILVERSUM, a town in the province of North Holland, 18 m. by rail S.E.\nof Amsterdam. It is connected with Amsterdam by a steam tramway, passing\nby way of the small fortified towns of Naarden and Muiden on the Zuider\nZee. Pop. (1900) 20,238. It is situated in the middle of the Gooi, a\nstretch of hilly country extending from the Zuider Zee to about 5 m.\nsouth of Hilversum, and composed of pine woods and sandy heaths. A\nconvalescent home, the Trompenberg, was established here in 1874, and\nthere are a town hall, middle-class and technical schools, and various\nplaces of worship, including a synagogue. Hilversum manufactures large\nquantities of floor-cloths and horse-blankets.\n\n\n\n\nHIMALAYA, the name given to the mountains which form the northern\nboundary of India. The word is Sanskrit and literally signifies\n\"snow-abode,\" from _him_, snow, and _alaya_, abode, and might be\ntranslated \"snowy-range,\" although that expression is perhaps more\nnearly the equivalent of _Himachal_, another Sanskrit word derived from\n_him_, snow, and _achal_, mountain, which is practically synonymous with\nHimalaya and is often used by natives of northern India. The name was\nconverted by the Greeks into _Emodos_ and _Imaos_.\n\nModern geographers restrict the term Himalaya to that portion of the\nmountain region between India and Tibet enclosed within the arms of the\nIndus and the Brahmaputra. From the bend of the Indus southwards towards\nthe plains of the Punjab to the bend of the Brahmaputra southwards\ntowards the plains of Assam, through a length of 1500 m., is Himachal or\nHimalaya. Beyond the Indus, to the north-west, the region of mountain\nranges which stretches to a junction with the Hindu Kush south of the\nPamirs, is usually known as Trans-Himalaya. Thus the Himalaya represents\nthe southern face of the great central upheaval--the plateau of\nTibet--the northern face of which is buttressed by the Kuen Lun.\n\n\n Structure of the Himalaya.\n\nThroughout this vast space of elevated plateau and mountain face\ngeologists now trace a system of main chains, or axes, extending from\nthe Hindu Kush to Assam, arranged in approximately parallel lines, and\ntraversed at intervals by main lines of drainage obliquely.\nGodwin-Austen indicates six of these geological axes as follows:\n\n 1. The main Central Asian axis, the Kuen Lun forming the northern edge\n or ridge of the Tibetan plateau.\n\n 2. The Trans-Himalayan chain of Muztagh (or Karakoram), which is lost\n in the Tibetan uplands, passing to the north of the sources of the\n Indus.\n\n 3. The Ladakh chain, partly north and partly south of the Indus--for\n that river breaks across it about 100 m. above Leh. This chain\n continues south of the Tsanpo (or Upper Brahmaputra), and becomes part\n of the Himalayan system.\n\n 4. The Zaskar, or main chain of the Himalaya, i.e. the \"snowy range\"\n _par excellence_ which is indicated by Nanga Parbat (overlooking the\n Indus), and passes in a south-east direction to the southern side of\n the Deosai plains. Thence, bending slightly south, it extends in the\n line of snowy peaks which are seen from Simla to the famous peaks of\n Gangotri and Nanda Devi. This is the best known range of the Himalaya.\n\n 5. The outer Himalaya or Pir Panjal-Dhaoladhar ridge.\n\n 6. The Sub-Himalaya, which is \"easily defined by the fringing line of\n hills, more or less broad, and in places very distinctly marked off\n from the main chain by open valleys (dhuns) or narrow valleys,\n parallel to the main axis of the chain.\" These include the Siwaliks.\n\nInterspersed between these main geological axes are many other minor\nridges, on some of which are peaks of great elevation. In fact, the\ngeological axis seldom coincides with the line of highest elevation, nor\nmust it be confused with the main lines of water-divide of the Himalaya.\n\n\n The great northern watershed of India.\n\nOn the north and north-west of Kashmir the great water-divide which\nseparates the Indus drainage area from that of the Yarkand and other\nrivers of Chinese Turkestan has been explored by Sir F. Younghusband,\nand subsequently by H. H. P. Deasy. The general result of their\ninvestigations has been to prove that the Muztagh range, as it trends\nsouth-eastwards and finally forms a continuous mountain barrier together\nwith the Karakoram, is the true water-divide west of the Tibetan\nplateau. Shutting off the sources of the Indus affluents from those of\nthe Central Asian system of hydrography, this great water-parting is\ndistinguished by a group of peaks of which the altitude is hardly less\nthan that of the Eastern Himalaya. Mount Godwin-Austen (28,250 ft.\nhigh), only 750 ft. lower than Everest, affords an excellent example in\nAsiatic geography of a dominating, peak-crowned water-parting or divide.\nFrom Kailas on the far west to the extreme north-eastern sources of the\nBrahmaputra, the great northern water-parting of the Indo-Tibetan\nhighlands has only been occasionally touched. Littledale, du Rhins and\nBonvalot may have stood on it as they looked southwards towards Lhasa,\nbut for some 500 or 600 m. east of Kailas it appears to be lost in the\nmazes of the minor ranges and ridges of the Tibetan plateau. Nor can it\nbe said to be as yet well defined to the east of Lhasa.\n\n\n Eastern Tibet.\n\nThe Tibetan plateau, or Chang, breaks up about the meridian of 92 deg.\nE., and to the east of this meridian the affluents of the Tsanpo (the\nsame river as the Dihong and subsequently as the Brahmaputra) drain no\nlonger from the elevated plateau, but from the rugged slopes of a wild\nregion of mountains which assumes a systematic conformation where its\nsuccessive ridges are arranged in concentric curves around the great\nbend of the Brahmaputra, wherein are hidden the sources of all the great\nrivers of Burma and China. Neither immediately beyond this great bend,\nnor within it in the Himalayan regions lying north of Assam and east of\nBhutan, have scientific investigations yet been systematically carried\nout; but it is known that the largest of the Himalayan affluents of the\nBrahmaputra west of the bend derive their sources from the Tibetan\nplateau, and break down through the containing bands of hills, carrying\ndeposits of gold from their sources to the plains, as do all the rivers\nof Tibet.\n\n\n Himalaya north of the central chain of snowy peaks.\n\nAlthough the northern limits of the Tsanpo basin are not sufficiently\nwell known to locate the Indo-Tibetan watershed even approximately,\nthere exists some scattered evidence of the nature of that strip of\nNorthern Himalaya on the Tibeto-Nepalese border which lies between the\nline of greatest elevation and the trough of the Tsanpo. Recent\ninvestigations show that all the chief rivers of Nepal flowing\nsouthwards to the Tarai take their rise north of the line of highest\ncrests, the \"main range\" of the Himalaya; and that some of them drain\nlong lateral high-level valleys enclosed between minor ridges whose\nstrike is parallel to the axis of the Himalaya and, occasionally, almost\nat right angles to the course of the main drainage channels breaking\ndown to the plains. This formation brings the southern edge of the\nTsanpo basin to the immediate neighbourhood of the banks of that river,\nwhich runs at its foot like a drain flanking a wall. It also affords\nmaterial evidence of that wrinkling or folding action which accompanied\nthe process of upheaval, when the Central Asian highlands were raised,\nwhich is more or less marked throughout the whole of the north-west\nIndian borderland. North of Bhutan, between the Himalayan crest and\nLhasa, this formation is approximately maintained; farther east,\nalthough the same natural forces first resulted in the same effect of\nsuccessive folds of the earth's crust, forming extensive curves of ridge\nand furrow, the abundant rainfall and the totally distinct climatic\nconditions which govern the processes of denudation subsequently led to\nthe erosion of deeper valleys enclosed between forest-covered ranges\nwhich rise steeply from the river banks.\n\n\n Height of Himalayan peaks.\n\nAlthough suggestions have been made of the existence of higher peaks\nnorth of the Himalaya than that which dominates the Everest group, no\nevidence has been adduced to support such a contention. On the other\nhand the observations of Major Ryder and other surveyors who explored\nfrom Lhasa to the sources of the Brahmaputra and Indus, at the\nconclusion of the Tibetan mission in 1904, conclusively prove that Mount\nEverest, which appears from the Tibetan plateau as a single dominating\npeak, has no rival amongst Himalayan altitudes, whilst the very\nremarkable investigations made by permission of the Nepal durbar from\npeaks near Kathmandu in 1903, by Captain Wood, R.E., not only place the\nEverest group apart from other peaks with which they have been confused\nby scientists, isolating them in the topographical system of Nepal, but\nclearly show that there is no one dominating and continuous range\nindicating a main Himalayan chain which includes both Everest and\nKinchinjunga. The main features of Nepalese topography are now fairly\nwell defined. So much controversy has been aroused on the subject of\nHimalayan altitudes that the present position of scientific analysis in\nrelation to them may be shortly stated. The heights of peaks determined\nby exact processes of trigonometrical observation are bound to be more\nor less in error for three reasons: (1) the extraordinary geoidal\ndeformation of the level surface at the observing stations in submontane\nregions; (2) ignorance of the laws of refraction when rays traverse\nrarefied air in snow-covered regions; (3) ignorance of the variations in\nthe actual height of peaks due to the increase, or decrease, of snow.\nThe value of the heights attached to the three highest mountains in the\nworld are, for these reasons, adjudged by Colonel S. G. Burrard, the\nSupt. Trigonometrical Surveys in India, to be in probable error to the\nfollowing extent:\n\n +-------------------+-----------------+---------------+\n | | Present Survey | Most probable |\n | | Value of Height.| Value. |\n +-------------------+-----------------+---------------+\n | Mount Everest | 29,002 | 29,141 |\n | K2 (Godwin Austen)| 28,250 | 28,191 |\n | Kinchinjunga | 28,146 | 28,225 |\n +-------------------+-----------------+---------------+\n\nThese determinations have the effect of placing Kinchinjunga second and\nK2 third on the list. (T. H. H.*)\n\n _Geology._--The Himalaya have been formed by violent crumpling of the\n earth's crust along the southern margin of the great tableland of\n Central Asia. Outside the arc of the mountain chain no sign of this\n crumpling is to be detected except in the Salt Range, and the\n Peninsula of India has been entirely free from folding of any\n importance since early Palaeozoic times, if not since the Archean\n period itself. But the contrast between the Himalaya and the Peninsula\n is not confined to their structure: the difference in the rocks\n themselves is equally striking. In the Himalaya the geological\n sequence, from the Ordovician to the Eocene, is almost entirely\n marine; there are indeed occasional breaks in the series, but during\n nearly the whole of this long period the Himalayan region, or at least\n its northern part, must have been beneath the sea--the Central\n Mediterranean Sea of Neumayr or Tethys of Suess. In the peninsula,\n however, no marine fossils have yet been found of earlier date than\n Jurassic and Cretaceous, and these are confined to the neighbourhood\n of the coasts; the principal fossiliferous deposits are the\n plant-bearing beds of the Gondwana series, and there can be no doubt\n that, at least since the Carboniferous period, nearly the whole of the\n Peninsula has been land. Between the folded marine beds of the\n Himalaya and the nearly horizontal strata of the peninsula lies the\n Indo-Gangetic plain, covered by an enormous thickness of alluvial and\n wind-blown deposits of recent date. The deep boring at Lucknow passed\n through 1336 ft. of sands--reaching nearly to 1000 ft. below\n sea-level--without any sign of approaching the base of the alluvial\n series. It is clear, then, that in front of the Himalaya there is a\n great depression, but as yet there is no indication that this\n depression was ever beneath the sea.\n\n In the light thrown by recent researches on the structure and origin\n of mountain chains the explanation of these facts is no longer\n difficult. From early Palaeozoic times the peninsula of India has been\n dry land, a part, indeed, of a great continent which in Mesozoic times\n extended across the Indian Ocean towards South Africa. Its northern\n shores were washed by the Sea of Tethys, which, at least in Jurassic\n and Cretaceous times, stretched across the Old World from west to\n east, and in this sea were laid down the marine deposits of the\n Himalaya. The tangential pressures which are known to be set up in the\n earth's crust--either by the contraction of the interior or in some\n other way--caused the deposits of this sea to be crushed up against\n the rigid granites and other old rocks of the peninsula and finally\n led to the whole mass being pushed forward over the edge of the part\n which did not crumple. The Indo-Gangetic depression was formed by the\n weight of the over-riding mass bending down the edge over which it\n rode, or else it is the lower limb of the S-shaped fold which would\n necessarily result if there were no fracture--the Himalaya\n representing the upper limb of the S.\n\n Geologically, the Himalaya may be divided into three zones which\n correspond more or less with orographical divisions. The northern zone\n is the Tibetan, in which fossiliferous beds of Palaeozoic and Mesozoic\n age are largely developed--excepting in the north-west no such rocks\n are known on the southern flanks. The second is the zone of the snowy\n peaks and of the lower Himalaya, and is composed chiefly of\n crystalline and metamorphic rocks together with unfossiliferous\n sedimentary beds supposed to be of Palaeozoic age. The southern zone\n comprises the Sub-Himalaya and consists entirely of Tertiary beds, and\n especially of the upper Tertiaries. The oldest beds which have\n hitherto yielded fossils, belong to the Ordovician system, but it is\n highly probable that the underlying \"Haimantas\" of the central\n Himalaya are of Cambrian age. From these beds up to the top of the\n Carboniferous there appears to be no break; but the Carboniferous beds\n were in some places eroded before the deposition of the _Productus_\n shales, which belong to the Permian period. It is, however, possible\n that this erosion was merely local, for in other places there seems to\n be a complete passage from the Carboniferous to the Permian. From the\n Permian to the Lias the sequence in the central Himalaya shows no sign\n of a break, nor has any unconformity been proved between the Liassic\n beds and the overlying Spiti shales, which contain fossils of Middle\n and Upper Jurassic age. The Spiti shales are succeeded conformably by\n Cretaceous beds (Gieumal sandstone below and Chikkim limestone above),\n and these are followed without a break by Nummulitic beds of Eocene\n age, much disturbed and altered by intrusions of gabbro and syenite.\n Thus, in the Spiti area at least, there appears to have been\n continuous deposition of marine beds from the Permian _Productus_\n shales to the Eocene Nummulitic formation. The next succeeding deposit\n is a sandstone, often highly inclined, which rests unconformably upon\n the Nummulitic beds and resembles the Lower Siwaliks of the\n Sub-Himalaya (Pliocene) but which as yet has yielded no fossils of any\n kind. The whole is overlaid unconformably by the younger Tertiaries of\n Hundes, which are perfectly horizontal and have been quite unaffected\n by any of the folds.\n\n From the absence of any well-marked unconformity it is evident that in\n the northern part of the Himalayan belt, at least in the Spiti area,\n there can have been no post-Archaean folding of any magnitude until\n after the deposition of the Nummulitic beds, and that the folding was\n completed before the later Tertiaries of Hundes were laid down. It\n was, therefore, during the Miocene period that the elevation of this\n part of the chain began, while the disturbance of the Siwalik-like\n sandstone indicates that the folding continued into the Pliocene\n period. Along the southern flanks of the Himalaya the history of the\n chain is still more clearly shown. The sub-Himalaya are formed of\n Tertiary beds, chiefly Siwalik or upper Tertiary, while the lower\n Himalaya proper consist mainly of pre-Tertiary rocks without fossils.\n Throughout the whole length of the chain, wherever the junction of the\n Siwaliks with the pre-Tertiary rocks has been seen, it is a great\n reversed fault. West of the Blas river a similar reversed fault forms\n the boundary between the lower Tertiaries and the pre-Tertiary rocks\n of the Himalaya, while between the Sutlej and the Jumna rivers, where\n the lower Tertiaries help to form the lower Himalaya, the fault lies\n between them and the Siwaliks. The hade of the fault is constantly\n inwards, towards the centre of the chain, and the older rocks which\n form the Himalaya proper, have been pushed forward over the later beds\n of the sub-Himalaya. But the fault is more than an ordinary reversed\n fault: it was, nearly everywhere, the northern boundary of deposition\n of the Siwalik beds, and only in a few instances do any of the Siwalik\n deposits extend even to a short distance beyond it. The fault in fact\n was being formed during the deposition of the Siwalik beds, and as the\n beds were laid down, the Himalaya were pushed forward over them, the\n Siwaliks themselves being folded and upturned during the process.\n Accordingly, in some places the Siwaliks now form a continuous and\n conformable series from base to summit, in other places the middle\n beds are absent and the upper beds of the series rest upon the\n upturned and denuded edges of the lower beds. The Siwaliks are\n fluviatile and torrential deposits similar to those which are now\n being formed at the foot of the mountains, in the Indo-Gangetic plain;\n and their relations to the older rocks of the Himalaya proper were\n very similar to those which now exist between the deposits of the\n plain and the Siwaliks themselves. But the great fault just described\n is not the only one of this character. There is a series of such\n faults, approximately parallel to one another, and although they have\n not been traced throughout the whole chain, yet wherever they occur\n they seem to have formed the northern boundary of deposition of the\n deposits immediately to the south of them. It appears, therefore, that\n the Himalaya grew southwards in a series of stages. A reversed fault\n was formed at the foot of the chain, and upon this fault the\n mountains were pushed forward over the beds deposited at their base,\n crumpling and folding them in the process, and forming a sub-Himalayan\n ridge in front of the main chain. After a time a new fault originated\n at the foot of the sub-Himalayan zone thus raised, which now became\n part of the Himalaya themselves, and a new sub-Himalayan chain was\n formed in front of the previous one. The earthquakes of the present\n day show that the process is still in operation, and in time the\n deposits of the present Indo-Gangetic plain will be involved in the\n folds.\n\n The regular form of the Himalaya, constituting an arc of a true\n circle, appears to indicate that the whole chain has been pushed\n forward as one mass upon a gigantic thrust-plane; but, if so, the dip\n of the plane must be low, for a line drawn along the southern foot of\n the Himalaya would coincide with the outcrop of a plane inclined to\n the surface at an angle of about 14 deg. The thrust-plane, then, does\n not coincide with any of the boundary faults already mentioned, which\n are usually inclined at angles of 50 deg. or 60 deg. The latter are\n due to the fact that, although, perhaps, the whole mass above the\n thrust-plane may move, yet the pressure which pushes it forwards\n necessarily proceeds from behind. The back, accordingly, moves faster\n than the front, and the whole is packed together; as when an ice-floe\n drives against the shore, the ice breaks and the outer fragments ride\n over those within. The great thrust-plane which is thus imagined to\n exist at the base of the Himalaya, corresponds with the \"major\n thrusts\" of the N.W. Highlands of Scotland, and the reversed faults\n which appear at the surface with the \"minor thrusts.\" (P. La.)\n\n\n Topographical results of evolution.\n\n Such is the general outline of Himalayan evolution as now understood,\n and the process of it has led to certain marked features of scenery\n and topography. Within the area of the trans-Indus mountains we have\n beds of hard limestone or sandstone alternating with soft shales,\n which leads to the scooping out by erosion of long narrow valleys\n where the shales occur, and the passage of the streams through deep\n rifts or gorges across the hard limestone anticlinals, which stand in\n irregular series of parallel ridges with the eroded valleys between.\n The great mass of the Himalaya exhibits the same structure, due to the\n same conditions acting for longer periods and on a much larger scale;\n but the structure is varied in the eastern portions of the mountains\n by the effect of different climatic conditions, and especially by the\n greater rainfall. Instead of wide, barren, wind-swept valleys, here\n are found fertile alluvial plains--such as Manipur--but for the most\n part the erosive action of the river has been able to keep pace with\n the rise of the river bed, and we have deep, steep-sided valleys\n arranged between the same parallel system of folds as we see on the\n western frontier, connected by short transverse gaps where the rivers\n cross the folds, frequently to resume a course parallel to that\n originally held. An instance of this occurs where the Indus suddenly\n breaks through the well-defined Ladakh range in the North-west\n Himalaya to resume its north-westerly course after passing from the\n northern to the southern side of the range. The reason assigned for\n these extraordinary diversions of the drainage right across the\n general strike of the ridges is that it is antecedent--i.e. that the\n lines of drainage were formed ere the folds or anticlinals were\n raised; and that the drainage has merely maintained the course\n originally held, by the power of erosion during the gradual process of\n upheaval.\n\n In the outer valleys of the Himalaya the sides are generally steep, so\n steep as to be liable to landslip, whilst the streams are still\n cutting down the river beds and have not yet reached the stage of\n equilibrium. Here and there a valley has become filled with alluvial\n detritus owing to some local impediment in the drainage, and when this\n occurs there is usually to be found a fertile and productive field for\n agriculture. The straits of the Jhelum, below Baramulla, probably\n account for the lovely vale of Kashmir, which is in form (if not in\n principles of construction) a repetition on grand scale of the Maidan\n of the Afridi Tirah, where the drainage from the slopes of a great\n amphitheatre of hills is collected and then arrested by the gorge\n which marks the outlet to the Bara.\n\n\n General Himalayan formation is typical.\n\n Other rivers besides the Indus and the Brahmaputra begin by draining a\n considerable area north of the snowy range--the Sutlej, the Kosi, the\n Gandak and the Subansiri, for example. All these rivers break through\n the main snowy range ere they twist their way through the southern\n hills to the plains of India. Here the \"antecedent\" theory will not\n suffice, for there is no sufficient catchment area north of the snows\n to support it. Their formation is explained by a process of \"cutting\n back,\" by which the heads of these streams are gradually eating their\n way northwards owing to the greater rainfall on the southern than on\n the northern slopes. The result of this process is well exhibited in\n the relative steepness of slope on the Indian and Tibetan sides of the\n passes to the Indus plateau. On the southern or Indian side the routes\n to Tibet and Ladakh follow the levels of Himalayan valleys with no\n remarkably steep gradients till they near the approach to the\n water-divide. The slope then steepens with the ascending curve to the\n summit of the pass, from which point it falls with a comparatively\n gentle gradient to the general level of the plateau. The Zoji La, the\n Kashmir water-divide between the Jhelum and the Indus, is a prominent\n case in point, and all the passes from the Kumaon and Garhwal hills\n into Tibet exhibit this formation in a marked degree. Taking the\n average elevation of the central axial line of snowy peaks as 19,000\n ft., the average height of the passes is not more than 10,000 owing to\n this process of cutting down by erosion and gradual encroachment into\n the northern basin.\n\n [Illustration: Section across the sub-Himalayan zone.]\n\n _Meteorology._--Independently of the enormous variety of topographical\n conformation contained in the Himalayan system, the vast altitude of\n the mountains alone is sufficient to cause modifications of climate in\n ascending over their slopes such as are not surpassed by those\n observed in moving from the equator to the poles. One half of the\n total mass of the atmosphere and three-fourths of the water suspended\n in it in the form of vapour lie below the average altitude of the\n Himalaya; and of the residue, one-half of the air and virtually almost\n all the vapour come within the influence of the highest peaks. The\n regular variations in pressure of the air indicated by the barometer\n and the annual and diurnal oscillations are as well marked in the\n Himalaya as elsewhere, but the amount of vapour held in suspension\n diminishes so rapidly with the altitude that not more than one-sixth\n (sometimes only one-tenth) of that observed at the foot of the\n mountains is found at the greatest heights. This is dependent on the\n temperature of the air which rapidly decreases with altitude. On the\n mountains every altitude has its corresponding temperature, an\n elevation of 1000 ft. producing a fall of 3(1/2) deg., or about 1 deg.\n to each 300 ft. The mean winter temperature at 7000 ft. (which is\n about the average height of Himalayan \"hill stations\") is 44 deg. F.\n and the summer mean about 65 deg. F. At 9000 ft. the mean temperature\n of the coldest month is 32 deg. F. At 12,000 ft. the thermometer never\n falls below freezing-point from the end of May to the middle of\n October, and at 15,000 ft. it is seldom above that point even in the\n height of summer. It should be noted that the thermometrical\n conditions of Tibet vary considerably from those of the Himalaya. At\n 12,000 ft. in Tibet the mean of the hottest month is about 60 deg. F.\n and of the coldest about 10 deg. F. whilst, at 15,000 ft. the frost is\n only permanent from the end of October to the end of April. The\n distribution of vegetation and topographical conformation largely\n influence the question of local temperature. For instance it may be\n found that the difference of temperature between forest-clad ranges\n and the Indian plains is twice as much in April and May as in December\n or January; and the difference between the temperature of a\n well-wooded hill top and the open valley below may vary from 9 deg. to\n 24 deg. within twenty-four hours. The general relations of temperature\n to altitude as determined by Himalayan observations are as follows:\n (1) The decrease of temperature with altitude is most rapid in summer.\n (2) The annual range diminishes with the elevation. (3) The diurnal\n range diminishes with the elevation. Comparisons are, however, apt to\n become anomalous when applied to elevated zones with a dense covering\n of forest and a great quantity of cloud and open and uncloudy regions\n both above and below the forest-clad tracts.\n\n\n Rainfall.\n\n The chief rainfall occurs in the summer months between May and October\n (i.e. the period of the monsoon rains of India), the remainder of the\n year being comparatively dry. The fall of rain over the great plain of\n northern India gradually diminishes in quantity, and begins later, as\n we pass from east to west. At the same time the rain is heavier as we\n approach the Himalaya and the greatest falls are measured in its outer\n ranges; but the quantity again diminishes as we pass onward across the\n chain, and on arriving at the border of Tibet, behind the great line\n of snowy peaks, the rain falls in such small quantities as to be\n hardly susceptible of measurement. Diurnal currents of wind, which are\n established from the plains to the mountains during the day, and from\n the hills to the plains during the night, are important agents in\n distributing the rainfall. The condensation of vapour from the\n ascending currents and their gradual exhaustion as they are\n precipitated on successive ranges is very obvious in the cloud effects\n produced during the monsoon, the southern or windward face of each\n range being clothed day after day with a white crest of cloud whilst\n the northern slopes are often left entirely free. This shows how large\n a proportion of the vapour is arrested and how it is that only by\n drifting through the deeper gorges can any moisture find its way to\n the Tibetan table-land.\n\n The yearly rainfall, which amounts to between 60 and 70 in. in the\n delta of the Ganges, is reduced to about 40 in. when that river issues\n from the mountains, and diminishes to 30 in. at the debouchment of the\n Indus into the plains. At Darjeeling (7000 ft. altitude) on the outer\n ranges of the eastern Himalaya it amounts to about 120 in. At Naini\n Tal north of the United Provinces it is about 90 in.; at Simla about\n 80 in., diminishing still further as one approaches the north-western\n hills. All these stations are about the same altitude.\n\n\n Snowfall.\n\n In the eastern Himalaya the ordinary winter limit of snow is 6000 ft.\n and it never lies for many days even at 7000 ft. In Kumaon, on the\n west, it usually reaches down to the 5000 ft. level and occasionally\n to 2500 ft. Snow has been known to fall at Peshawar. At Leh, in\n western Tibet, hardly 2 ft. of snow are usually registered and the\n fall on the passes between 17,000 and 19,000 ft. is not generally more\n than 3 ft., but on the Himalayan passes farther east the falls are\n much heavier. Even in September these passes may be quite blocked and\n they are not usually open till the middle of June. The snow-line, or\n the level to which snow recedes in the course of the year, ranges from\n 15,000 to 16,000 ft. on the southern exposures of the Himalaya that\n carry perpetual snow, along all that part of the system that lies\n between Sikkim and the Indus. It is not till December that the snow\n begins to descend for the winter, although after September light falls\n occur which cover the mountain sides down to 12,000 ft., but these\n soon disappear. On the snowy range the snow-line is not lower than\n 18,500 ft. and on the summit of the table-land it reaches to 20,000\n ft. On all the passes into Tibet vegetation reaches to about 17,500\n ft., and in August they may be crossed in ordinary years up to 18,400\n ft. without finding any snow upon them; and it is as impossible to\n find snow in the summer in Tibet at 15,500 ft. above the sea as on the\n plains of India.\n\n _Glaciers._--The level to which the Himalayan glaciers extend is\n greatly dependent on local conditions, principally the extent and\n elevation of the snow basins which feed them, and the slope and\n position of the mountain on which they are formed. Glaciers on the\n outer slopes of the Himalaya descend much lower than is commonly the\n case in Tibet, or in the most elevated valleys near the snowy range.\n The glaciers of Sikkim and the eastern mountains are believed not to\n reach a lower level than 13,500 or 14,000 ft. In Kumaon many of them\n descend to between 11,500 and 12,500 ft. In the higher valleys and\n Tibet 15,000 and 16,000 ft. is the ordinary level at which they end,\n but there are exceptions which descend far lower. In Europe the\n glaciers descend between 3000 and 5000 ft. below the snow-line, and in\n the Himalaya and Tibet about the same holds good. The summer\n temperatures of the points where the glaciers end on the Himalaya also\n correspond fairly with those of the corresponding positions in\n European glaciers, viz. for July a little below 60 deg. F., August 58\n deg. and September 55 deg.\n\n Measurements of the movement of Himalayan glaciers give results\n according closely with those obtained under analogous conditions in\n the Alps, viz. rates from 9(1/2) to 14(1/4) in. in twenty-four hours.\n The motion of one glacier from the middle of May to the middle of\n October averaged 8 in. in the twenty-four hours. The dimensions of\n the glaciers on the outer Himalaya, where, as before remarked, the\n valleys descend rapidly to lower levels, are fairly comparable with\n those of Alpine glaciers, though frequently much exceeding them in\n length--8 or 10 m. not being unusual. In the elevated valleys of\n northern Tibet, where the destructive action of the summer heat is far\n less, the development of the glaciers is enormous. At one locality in\n north-western Ladakh there is a continuous mass of snow and ice\n extending across a snowy ridge, measuring 64 m. between the\n extremities of the two glaciers at its opposite ends. Another single\n glacier has been surveyed 36 m. long.\n\n The northern tributaries of the Gilgit river, which joins the Indus\n near its south-westerly bend towards the Punjab, take their rise from\n a glacier system which is probably unequalled in the world for its\n extent and magnificent proportions. Chief amongst them are the\n glaciers which have formed on the southern slopes of the Muztagh\n mountains below the group of gigantic peaks dominated by Mount\n Godwin-Austen (28,250 ft. high). The Biafo glacier system, which lies\n in a long narrow trough extending south-west from Nagar on the Hunza\n to near the base of the Muztagh peaks, may be traced for 90 m. between\n mountain walls which tower to a height of from 20,000 to 25,000 ft.\n above sea-level on either side.\n\n In connexion with almost all the Himalayan glaciers of which precise\n accounts are forthcoming are ancient moraines indicating some previous\n condition in which their extent was much larger than now. In the east\n these moraines are very remarkable, extending 8 or 10 m. In the west\n they seem not to go beyond 2 or 3 m. reach. They have been observed on\n the summit of the table-land as well as on the Himalayan slope. The\n explanation suggested to account for the former great extension of\n glaciers in Norway would seem applicable here. Any modification of the\n coast-line which should submerge the area now occupied by the North\n Indian plain, or any considerable part of it, would be accompanied by\n a much wetter and more equable climate on the Himalaya; more snow\n would fall on the highest ranges, and less summer heat would be\n brought to bear on the destruction of the glaciers, which would\n receive larger supplies and descend lower.\n\n _Botany._--Speaking broadly, the general type of the flora of the\n lower, hotter and wetter regions, which extend along the great plain\n at the foot of the Himalaya, and include the valleys of the larger\n rivers which penetrate far into the mountains, does not differ from\n that of the contiguous peninsula and islands, though the tropical and\n insular character gradually becomes less marked going from east to\n west, where, with a greater elevation and distance from the sea and\n higher latitude, the rainfall and humidity diminish and the winter\n cold increases. The vegetation of the western part of the plain and of\n the hottest zone of the western mountains thus becomes closely allied\n to, or almost identical with, that of the drier parts of the Indian\n peninsula, more especially of its hilly portions; and, while a general\n tropical character is preserved, forms are observed which indicate the\n addition of an Afghan as well as of an African element, of which last\n the gay lily _Gloriosa superba_ is an example, pointing to some\n previous connexion with Africa.\n\n The European flora, which is diffused from the Mediterranean along the\n high lands of Asia, extends to the Himalaya; many European species\n reach the central parts of the chain, though few reach its eastern\n end, while genera common to Europe and the Himalaya are abundant\n throughout and at all elevations. From the opposite quarter an influx\n of Japanese and Chinese forms, such as the rhododendrons, the tea\n plant, _Aucuba_, _Helwingia_, _Skimmia_, _Adamia_, _Goughia_ and\n others, has taken place, these being more numerous in the east and\n gradually disappearing in the west. On the higher and therefore cooler\n and less rainy ranges of the Himalaya the conditions of temperature\n requisite for the preservation of the various species are readily\n found by ascending or descending the mountain slopes, and therefore a\n greater uniformity of character in the vegetation is maintained along\n the whole chain. At the greater elevations the species identical with\n those of Europe become more frequent, and in the alpine regions many\n plants are found identical with species of the Arctic zone. On the\n Tibetan plateau, with the increased dryness, a Siberian type is\n established, with many true Siberian species and more genera; and some\n of the Siberian forms are further disseminated, even to the plains of\n Upper India. The total absence of a few of the more common forms of\n northern Europe and Asia should also be noticed, among which may be\n named _Tilia_, _Fagus_, _Arbutus_, _Erica_, _Azalea_ and _Cistacae_.\n\n In the more humid regions of the east the mountains are almost\n everywhere covered with a dense forest which reaches up to 12,000 or\n 13,000 ft. Many tropical types here ascend to 7000 ft. or more. To the\n west the upper limit of forest is somewhat lower, from 11,500 to\n 12,000 ft. and the tropical forms usually cease at 5000 ft.\n\n In Sikkim the mountains are covered with dense forest of tall\n umbrageous trees, commonly accompanied by a luxuriant growth of under\n shrubs, and adorned with climbing and epiphytal plants in wonderful\n profusion. In the tropical zone large figs abound, _Terminalia_,\n _Shorea_ (sal), laurels, many _Leguminosae_, _Bombax_, _Artocarpus_,\n bamboos and several palms, among which species of Calamus are\n remarkable, climbing over the largest trees; and this is the western\n limit of _Cycas_ and _Myristica_ (nutmeg). Plantains ascend to 7000\n ft. _Pandanus_ and tree-ferns abound. Other ferns, _Scitamineae_,\n orchids and climbing _Aroideae_ are very numerous, the last named\n profusely adorning the forests with their splendid dark-green foliage.\n Various oaks descend within a few hundred feet of the sea-level,\n increasing in numbers at greater altitudes, and becoming very frequent\n at 4000 ft., at which elevation also appear _Aucuba_, _Magnolia_,\n cherries, _Pyrus_, maple, alder and birch, with many _Araliaceae_,\n _Hollbollea_, _Skimmia_, _Daphne_, _Myrsine_, _Symplocos_ and _Rubus_.\n Rhododendrons begin at about 6000 ft. and become abundant at 8000 ft.,\n from 10,000 to 14,000 ft. forming in many places the mass of the\n shrubby vegetation which extends some 2000 ft. above the forest.\n Epiphytal orchids are extremely numerous between 6000 and 8000 ft. Of\n the Coniferae, _Podocarpus_ and _Pinus longifolia_ alone descend to\n the tropical zone; _Abies Brunoniana_ and _Smithiana_ and the larch (a\n genus not seen in the western mountains) are found at 8000, and the\n yew and _Picea Webbiana_ at 10,000 ft. _Pinus excelsa_, which occurs\n in Bhutan, is absent in the wetter climate of Sikkim.\n\n On the drier and higher mountains of the interior of the chain, the\n forests become more open, and are spread less uniformly over the\n hill-sides, a luxuriant herbaceous vegetation appears, and the number\n of shrubby _Leguminosae_, such as _Desmodium_ and _Indigofera_,\n increases, as well as _Ranunculaceae_, _Rosaceae_, _Umbelliferae_,\n _Labiatae_, _Gramineae_, _Cyperaceae_ and other European genera.\n\n Passing to the westward, and viewing the flora of Kumaon, which\n province holds a central position on the chain, on the 80th meridian,\n we find that the gradual decrease of moisture and increase of high\n summer heat are accompanied by a marked change of the vegetation. The\n tropical forest is characterized by the trees of the hotter and drier\n parts of southern India, combined with a few of European type. Ferns\n are more rare, and the tree-ferns have disappeared. The species of\n palm are also reduced to two or three, and bamboos, though abundant,\n are confined to a few species.\n\n The outer ranges of mountains are mainly covered with forests of\n _Pinus longifolia_, rhododendron, oak and _Pieris_. At Naini Tal\n cypress is abundant. The shrubby vegetation comprises _Rosa_, _Rubus_,\n _Indigofera_, _Desmodium_, _Berberis_, _Boehmeria_, _Viburnum_,\n _Clematis_, with an _Arundinaria_. Of herbaceous plants species of\n _Ranunculus_, _Potentilla_, _Geranium_, _Thalictrum_, _Primula_,\n _Gentiana_ and many other European forms are common. In the less\n exposed localities, on northern slopes and sheltered valleys, the\n European forms become more numerous, and we find species of alder,\n birch, ash, elm, maple, holly, hornbeam, _Pyrus_, &c. At greater\n elevations in the interior, besides the above are met _Corylus_, the\n common walnut, found wild throughout the range, horse chestnut, yew,\n also _Picea Webbiana_, _Pinus excelsa_, _Abies Smithiana_, _Cedrus\n Deodara_ (which tree does not grow spontaneously east of Kumaon), and\n several junipers. The denser forests are commonly found on the\n northern faces of the higher ranges, or in the deeper valleys, between\n 8000 and 10,500 ft. The woods on the outer ranges from 3000 up to 7000\n ft. are more open, and consist mainly of evergreen trees.\n\n The herbaceous vegetation does not differ greatly, generically, from\n that of the east, and many species of _Primulaceae_, _Ranunculaceae_,\n _Cruciferae_, _Labiatae_ and _Scrophulariaceae_ occur; balsams abound,\n also beautiful forms of _Campanulaceae_, _Gentiana_, _Meconopsis_,\n _Saxifraga_ and many others.\n\n Cultivation hardly extends above 7000 ft., except in the valleys\n behind the great snowy peaks, where a few fields of buckwheat and\n Tibetan barley are sown up to 11,000 or 12,000 ft. At the lower\n elevations rice, maize and millets are common, wheat and barley at a\n somewhat higher level, and buckwheat and amaranth usually on the\n poorer lands, or those recently reclaimed from forest. Besides these,\n most of the ordinary vegetables of the plains are reared, and potatoes\n have been introduced in the neighbourhood of all the British stations.\n\n As we pass to the west the species of rhododendron, oak and _Magnolia_\n are much reduced in number as compared to the eastern region, and both\n the Malayan and Japanese forms are much less common. The herbaceous\n tropical and semi-tropical vegetation likewise by degrees disappears,\n the _Scitamineae_, epiphytal and terrestrial _Orchideae_, _Araceae_,\n _Cyrtandraceae_ and _Begoniae_ only occur in small numbers in Kumaon,\n and scarcely extend west of the Sutlej. In like manner several of the\n western forms suited to drier climates find their eastern limit in\n Kumaon. In Kashmir the plane and Lombardy poplar flourish, though\n hardly seen farther east, the cherry is cultivated in orchards, and\n the vegetation presents an eminently European cast. The alpine flora\n is slower in changing its character as we pass from east to west, but\n in Kashmir the vegetation of the higher mountains hardly differs from\n that of the mountains of Afghanistan, Persia and Siberia, even in\n species.\n\n The total number of flowering plants inhabiting the range amounts\n probably to 5000 or 6000 species, among which may be reckoned several\n hundred common English plants chiefly from the temperate and alpine\n regions; and the characteristic of the flora as a whole is that it\n contains a general and tolerably complete illustration of almost all\n the chief natural families of all parts of the world, and has\n comparatively few distinctive features of its own.\n\n The timber trees of the Himalaya are very numerous, but few of them\n are known to be of much value. The \"Sal\" is one of the most valuable\n of the trees; with the \"Toon\" and \"Sissoo,\" it grows in the outer\n ranges most accessible from the plains. The \"Deodar\" is also much\n used, but the other pines produce timber that is not durable. Bamboos\n grow everywhere along the outer ranges, and rattans to the eastward,\n and are largely exported for use in the plains of India.\n\n Though one species of coffee is indigenous in the hotter Himalayan\n forests, the climate does not appear suitable for the growth of the\n plant which supplies the coffee of commerce. The cultivation of tea,\n however, is carried on successfully on a large scale, both in the east\n and west of the mountains. In the western Himalaya the cultivated\n variety of the tea plant of China succeeds well; on the east the\n indigenous tea of Assam, which is not specifically different, and is\n perhaps the original parent of the Chinese variety, is now almost\n everywhere preferred. The produce of the Chinese variety in the hot\n and wet climate of the eastern Himalaya, Assam and eastern Bengal is\n neither so abundant nor so highly flavoured as that of the indigenous\n plant.\n\n The cultivation of the cinchona, several species of which have been\n introduced from South America and naturalized in the Sikkim Himalaya,\n promises to yield at a comparatively small cost an ample supply of the\n febrifuge extracted from its bark. At present the manufacture is\n almost wholly in the hands of the Government, and the drug prepared is\n all disposed of in India.\n\n _Zoology._--The general distribution of animal life is determined by\n much the same conditions that have controlled the vegetation. The\n connexion with Europe on the north-west, with China on the north-east,\n with Africa on the south-west, and with the Malayan region on the\n south-east is manifest; and the greater or less prevalence of the\n European and Eastern forms varies according to more western or eastern\n position on the chain. So far as is known these remarks will apply to\n the extinct as well as to the existing fauna. The Palaeozoic forms\n found in the Himalaya are very close to those of Europe, and in some\n cases identical. The Triassic fossils are still more closely allied,\n more than a third of the species being identical. Among the Jurassic\n Mollusca, also, are many species that are common in Europe. The\n Siwalik fossils contain 84 species of mammals of 45 genera, the whole\n bearing a marked resemblance to the Miocene fauna of Europe, but\n containing a larger number of genera still existing, especially of\n ruminants, and now held to be of Pliocene age.\n\n The fauna of the Tibetan Himalaya is essentially European or rather\n that of the northern half of the old continent, which region has by\n zoologists been termed Palaearctic. Among the characteristic animals\n may be named the yak, from which is reared a cross breed with the\n ordinary horned cattle of India, many wild sheep, and two antelopes,\n as well as the musk-deer; several hares and some burrowing animals,\n including pikas (_Lagomys_) and two or three species of marmot;\n certain arctic forms of carnivora--fox, wolf, lynx, ounce, marten and\n ermine; also wild asses. Among birds are found bustard and species of\n sand-grouse and partridge; water-fowl in great variety, which breed on\n the lakes in summer and migrate to the plains of India in winter; the\n raven, hawks, eagles and owls, a magpie, and two kinds of chough; and\n many smaller birds of the passerine order, amongst which are several\n finches. Reptiles, as might be anticipated, are far from numerous, but\n a few lizards are found, belonging for the most part to types, such as\n _Phrynocephalus_, characteristic of the Central-Asiatic area. The\n fishes from the headwaters of the Indus also belong, for the most\n part, to Central-Asiatic types, with a small admixture of purely\n Himalayan forms. Amongst the former are several peculiar small-scaled\n carps, belonging to the genus _Schizothorax_ and its allies.\n\n The ranges of the Himalaya, from the border of Tibet to the plains,\n form a zoological region which is one of the richest of the world,\n particularly in respect to birds, to which the forest-clad mountains\n offer almost every range of temperature.\n\n Only two or three forms of monkey enter the mountains, the langur, a\n species of _Semnopithecus_, ranging up to 12,000 ft. No lemurs occur,\n although a species is found in Assam, and another in southern India.\n Bats are numerous, but the species are for the most part not peculiar\n to the area; several European forms are found at the higher\n elevations. Moles, which are unknown in the Indian peninsula, abound\n in the forest regions of the eastern Himalayas at a moderate altitude,\n and shrews of several species are found almost everywhere; amongst\n them are two very remarkable forms of water-shrew, one of which,\n however, _Nectogale_, is probably Tibetan rather than Himalayan. Bears\n are common, and so are a marten, several weasels and otters, and cats\n of various kinds and sizes, from the little spotted _Felis\n bengalensis_, smaller than a domestic cat, to animals like the clouded\n leopard rivalling a leopard in size. Leopards are common, and the\n tiger wanders to a considerable elevation, but can hardly be\n considered a permanent inhabitant, except in the lower valleys.\n Civets, the mungoose (_Herpestes_), and toddy cats (_Paradoxurus_) are\n only found at the lower elevations. Wild dogs (_Cyon_) are common, but\n neither foxes nor wolves occur in the forest area. Besides these\n carnivora some very peculiar forms are found, the most remarkable of\n which is Aelurus, sometimes called the cat-bear, a type akin to the\n American racoon. Two other genera, _Helictis_, an aberrant badger, and\n linsang, an aberrant civet, are representatives of Malayan types.\n Amongst the rodents squirrels abound, and the so-called flying\n squirrels are represented by several species. Rats and mice swarm,\n both kinds and individuals being numerous, but few present much\n peculiarity, a bamboo rat (_Rhizomys_) from the base of the eastern\n Himalaya being perhaps most worthy of notice. Two or three species of\n vole (_Arvicola_) have been detected, and porcupines are common. The\n elephant is found in the outer forests as far as the Jumna, and the\n rhinoceros as far as the Sarda; the spread of both of these animals as\n far as the Indus and into the plains of India, far beyond their\n present limits, is authenticated by historical records; they have\n probably retreated before the advance of cultivation and fire-arms.\n Wild pigs are common in the lower ranges, and one peculiar species of\n pigmy-hog (_Sus salvanius_) of very small size inhabits the forests at\n the base of the mountains in Nepal and Sikim. Deer of several kinds\n are met with, but do not ascend very high on the hillsides, and belong\n exclusively to Indian forms. The musk deer keeps to the greater\n elevations. The chevrotains of India and the Malay countries are\n unrepresented. The gaur or wild ox is found at the base of the hills.\n Three very characteristic ruminants, having some affinities with\n goats, inhabit the Himalaya; these are the \"serow\" (_Nemorhaedus_),\n \"goral\" (_Cemas_) and \"tahr\" (_Hemitragus_), the last-named ranging to\n rather high elevations. Lastly, the pangolin (_Manis_) is represented\n by two species in the eastern Himalaya. A dolphin (_Platanista_)\n living in the Ganges ascends that river and its affluents to their\n issue from the mountains.\n\n Almost all the orders of birds are well represented, and the\n marvellous variety of forms found in the eastern Himalaya is only\n rivalled in Central and South America. Eagles, vultures and other\n birds of prey are seen soaring high over the highest of the\n forest-clad ranges. Owls are numerous, and a small species,\n _Glaucidium_, is conspicuous, breaking the stillness of the night by\n its monotonous though musical cry of two notes. Several kinds of\n swifts and nightjars are found, and gorgeously-coloured trogons,\n bee-eaters, rollers, and beautiful kingfishers and barbets are common.\n Several large hornbills inhabit the highest trees in the forest. The\n parrots are restricted to parrakeets, of which there are several\n species, and a single small lory. The number of woodpeckers is very\n great and the variety of plumage remarkable, and the voice of the\n cuckoo, of which there are numerous species, resounds in the spring as\n in Europe. The number of passerine birds is immense. Amongst them the\n sun-birds resemble in appearance and almost rival in beauty the\n humming-birds of the New Continent. Creepers, nuthatches, shrikes, and\n their allied forms, flycatchers and swallows, thrushes, dippers and\n babblers (about fifty species), bulbuls and orioles, peculiar types of\n redstart, various sylviads, wrens, tits, crows, jays and magpies,\n weaver-birds, avadavats, sparrows, crossbills and many finches,\n including the exquisitely coloured rose-finches, may also be\n mentioned. The pigeons are represented by several wood-pigeons, doves\n and green pigeons. The gallinaceous birds include the peacock, which\n everywhere adorns the forest bordering on the plains, jungle fowl and\n several pheasants; partridges, of which the chikor may be named as\n most abundant, and snow-pheasants and partridges, found only at the\n greatest elevations. Waders and waterfowl are far less abundant, and\n those occurring are nearly all migratory forms which visit the\n peninsula of India--the only important exception being two kinds of\n solitary snipe and the red-billed curlew.\n\n Of the reptiles found in these mountains many are peculiar. Some of\n the snakes of India are to be seen in the hotter regions, including\n the python and some of the venomous species, the cobra being found as\n high up as 8000 or 9000 ft., though not common. Lizards are numerous,\n and as well as frogs are found at all elevations from the plains to\n the upper Himalayan valleys, and even extend to Tibet.\n\n The fishes found in the rivers of the Himalaya show the same general\n connexion with the three neighbouring regions, the Palaearctic, the\n African and the Malayan. Of the principal families, the\n _Acanthopterygii_, which are abundant in the hotter parts of India,\n hardly enter the mountains, two genera only being found, of which one\n is the peculiar amphibious genus _Ophiocephalus_. None of these fishes\n are found in Tibet. The _Siluridae_, or scaleless fishes, and the\n _Cyprinidae_, or carp and loach, form the bulk of the mountain fish,\n and the genera and species appear to be organized for a\n mountain-torrent life, being almost all furnished with suckers to\n enable them to maintain their positions in the rapid streams which\n they inhabit. A few _Siluridae_ have been found in Tibet, but the\n carps constitute the larger part of the species. Many of the Himalayan\n forms are Indian fish which appear to go up to the higher streams to\n deposit their ova, and the Tibetan species as a rule are confined to\n the rivers on the table-land or to the streams at the greatest\n elevations, the characteristics of which are Tibetan rather than\n Himalayan. The _Salmonidae_ are entirely absent from the waters of the\n Himalaya proper, of Tibet and of Turkestan east of the Terektag.\n\n The Himalayan butterflies are very numerous and brilliant, for the\n most part belonging to groups that extend both into the Malayan and\n European regions, while African forms also appear. There are large and\n gorgeous species of _Papilio_, _Nymphalidae_, _Morphidae_ and\n _Danaidae_, and the more favoured localities are described as being\n only second to South America in the display of this form of beauty and\n variety in insect life. Moths, also, of strange forms and of great\n size are common. The cicada's song resounds among the woods in the\n autumn; flights of locusts frequently appear after the summer, and\n they are carried by the prevailing winds even among the glaciers and\n eternal snows. Ants, bees and wasps of many species, and flies and\n gnats abound, particularly during the summer rainy season, and at all\n elevations.\n\n _Mountain Scenery._--Much has been written about the impressiveness\n of Himalayan scenery. It is but lately, however, that any adequate\n conception of the magnitude and majesty of the most stupendous of the\n mountain groups which mass themselves about the upper tributaries and\n reaches of the Indus has been presented to us in the works of Sir F.\n Younghusband, Sir W. M. Conway, H. C. B. Tanner and D. Freshfield. It\n is not in comparison with the picturesque beauty of European Alpine\n scenery that the Himalaya appeals to the imagination, for amongst the\n hills of the outer Himalaya--the hills which are known to the majority\n of European residents and visitors--there is often a striking absence\n of those varied incidents and sharp contrasts which are essential to\n picturesqueness in mountain landscape. Too often the brown, barren,\n sun-scorched ridges are obscured in the yellow dust haze which drifts\n upwards from the plains; too often the whole perspective of hill and\n vale is blotted out in the grey mists that sweep in soft, resistless\n columns against these southern slopes, to be condensed and\n precipitated in ceaseless, monotonous rainfall. Few Europeans really\n see the Himalaya; fewer still are capable of translating their\n impressions into language which is neither exaggerated nor inadequate.\n\n Some idea of the magnitude of Himalayan mountain construction--a\n magnitude which the eye totally fails to appreciate--may, however, be\n gathered from the following table of comparison of the absolute height\n of some peaks above sea-level with the actual amount of their slopes\n exposed to view:--\n\n _Relative Extent of Snow Slopes Visible._\n\n +---------------------+----------------------+--------+----------+\n | | | Height | Amount |\n | Name of Mountain. | Place of Observation.| above | of Slope |\n | | | sea. | exposed. |\n +---------------------+----------------------+--------+----------+\n | Everest | Dewanganj | 29,002 | 8,000 |\n | \" | Sandakphu | \" | 12,000 |\n | K2 or Godwin-Austen | Between Gilgit and | | |\n | | Gor, 16,000 ft. | 28,250 | |\n | Pk. XIII. or Makalu | Purnea, 200 ft | 27,800 | 8,000 |\n | | Sandakphu, 12,000 ft.| \" | 9,000 |\n | Nanga Parbat | Gor, 16,000 ft. | 26,656 | 23,000 |\n | Tirach Mir | Between Gilgit and | | |\n | | Chitral, 8000 ft. | 25,400 |17-18,000 |\n | Rakapushi | Chaprot (Gilgit), | | |\n | | 13,000 ft. | 25,560 | 18,000 |\n | Kinchinjunga | Darjeeling, 7000 ft. | 28,146 | 16,000 |\n | Mont Blanc | Above Chamonix, 7000 | | |\n | | ft. | 15,781 | 11,500 |\n +---------------------+----------------------+--------+----------+\n\n It will be observed from this table that it is not often that a\n greater slope of snow-covered mountain side is observable in the\n Himalaya than that which is afforded by the familiar view of Mont\n Blanc from Chamonix. (T. H. H.*)\n\n AUTHORITIES.--Drew, _Jammu and Kashmir_ (London, 1875); G. W. Leitner,\n _Dardistan_ (1887); J. Biddulph, _Tribes of the Hindu Kush_ (Calcutta,\n 1880); H. H. Godwin-Austen, \"Mountain Systems of the Himalaya,\" vols.\n v. and vi. _Proc. R. G. S._ (1883-1884); C. Ujfalvy, _Aus dem\n westlichen Himalaya_ (Leipzig, 1884); H. C. B. Tanner, \"Our Present\n Knowledge of the Himalaya,\" vol. xiii. _Proc. R. G. S._ (1891); R. D.\n Oldham, \"The Evolution of Indian Geography,\" vol. iii. _Jour. R. G.\n S._; W. Lawrence, _Kashmir_ (Oxford, 1895); Sir W. M. Conway,\n _Climbing and Exploring in the Karakoram_ (London, 1898); F. Bullock\n Workman, _In the Ice World of Himalaya_ (1900); F. B. and W. H.\n Workman, _Ice-bound Heights of the Mustagh_ (1908); D. W. Freshfield,\n _Round Kangchenjunga_ (1903).\n\n For geology see R. Lydekker, \"The Geology of Kashmir,\" &c., _Mem.\n Geol. Surv. India_, vol. xxii. (1883); C. S. Middlemiss, \"Physical\n Geology of the Sub-Himalaya of Gahrwal and Kumaon,\" ibid., vol. xxiv.\n pt. 2 (1890); C. L. Griesbach, _Geology of the Central Himalayas_,\n vol. xxiii. (1891); R. D. Oldham, _Manual of the Geology of India_,\n chap. xviii. (2nd ed., 1893). Descriptions of the fossils, with some\n notes on stratigraphical questions, will be found in several of the\n volumes of the _Palaeontologia Indica_, published by the Geological\n Survey of India, Calcutta.\n\n\n\n\nHIMERA, a city on the north coast of Sicily, on a hill above the east\nbank of the Himeras Septentrionalis. It was founded in 648 B.C. by the\nChalcidian inhabitants of Zancle, in company with many Syracusan exiles.\nEarly in the 5th century the tyrant Terillas, son-in-law of Anaxilas of\nRhegium and Zancle, appealed to the Carthaginians, who came to his\nassistance, but were utterly defeated by Gelon of Syracuse in 480\nB.C.--on the same day, it is said, as the battle of Salamis.\nThrasydaeus, son of Theron of Agrigentum, seems to have ruled the city\noppressively, but an appeal made to Hiero of Syracuse, Gelon's brother,\nwas betrayed by him to Theron; the latter massacred all his enemies and\nin the following year resettled the town. In 415 it refused to admit the\nAthenian fleet and remained an ally of Syracuse. In 408 the Carthaginian\ninvading army under Hannibal, after capturing Selinus, invested and took\nHimera and razed the city to the ground, founding a new town close to\nthe hot springs (Thermae Himeraeae), 8 m. to the west. The only relic of\nthe ancient town now visible above ground is a small portion (four\ncolumns, lower diameter 7 ft.) of a Doric temple, the date of which\n(whether before or after 480 B.C.) is uncertain.\n\n\n\n\nHIMERIUS (c. A.D. 315-386), Greek sophist and rhetorician, was born at\nPrusa in Bithynia. He completed his education at Athens, whence he was\nsummoned to Antioch in 362 by the emperor Julian to act as his private\nsecretary. After the death of Julian in the following year Himerius\nreturned to Athens, where he established a school of rhetoric, which he\ncompared with that of Isocrates and the Delphic oracle, owing to the\nnumber of those who flocked from all parts of the world to hear him.\nAmongst his pupils were Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil the Great, bishop\nof Caesarea. In recognition of his merits, civic rights and the\nmembership of the Areopagus were conferred upon him. The death of his\nson Rufinus (his lament for whom, called [Greek: monodia], is extant)\nand that of a favourite daughter greatly affected his health; in his\nlater years he became blind and he died of epilepsy. Although a heathen,\nwho had been initiated into the mysteries of Mithra by Julian, he shows\nno prejudice against the Christians. Himerius is a typical\nrepresentative of the later rhetorical schools. Photius (cod. 165, 243\nBekker) had read 71 speeches by him, of 36 of which he has given an\nepitome; 24 have come down to us complete and fragments of 10 or 12\nothers. They consist of epideictic or \"display\" speeches after the style\nof Aristides, the majority of them having been delivered on special\noccasions, such as the arrival of a new governor, visits to different\ncities (Thessalonica, Constantinople), or the death of friends or\nwell-known personages. The _Polemarchicus_, like the _Menexenus_ of\nPlato and the _Epitaphios Logos_ of Hypereides, is a panegyric of\nthose who had given their lives for their country; it is so called\nbecause it was originally the duty of the polemarch to arrange the\nfuneral games in honour of those who had fallen in battle. Other\ndeclamations, only known from the excerpts in Photius, were imaginary\norations put into the mouth of famous persons--Demosthenes advocating\nthe recall of Aeschines from banishment, Hypereides supporting the\npolicy of Demosthenes, Themistocles inveighing against the king of\nPersia, an orator unnamed attacking Epicurus for atheism before Julian\nat Constantinople. Himerius is more of a poet than a rhetorician, and\nhis declamations are valuable as giving prose versions or even the\nactual words of lost poems by Greek lyric writers. The prose poem on the\nmarriage of Severus and his greeting to Basil at the beginning of spring\nare quite in the spirit of the old lyric. Himerius possesses vigour of\nlanguage and descriptive powers, though his productions are spoilt by\ntoo frequent use of imagery, allegorical and metaphorical obscurities,\nmannerism and ostentatious learning. But they are valuable for the\nhistory and social conditions of the time, although lacking the\nsincerity characteristic of Libanius.\n\n See Eunapius, _Vitae sophistarum_; Suidas, _s.v._; editions by G.\n Wernsdorf (1790), with valuable introduction and commentaries, and by\n F. Dubner (1849) in the Didot series; C. Teuber, _Quaestiones\n Himerianae_ (Breslau, 1882); on the style, E. Norden, _Die antike\n Kunstprosa_ (1898).\n\n\n\n\nHIMLY (LOUIS), AUGUSTE (1823-1906), French historian and geographer, was\nborn at Strassburg on the 28th of March 1823. After studying in his\nnative town and taking the university course in Berlin (1842-1843) he\nwent to Paris, and passed first in the examination for fellowship\n(_agregation_) of the _lycees_ (1845), first in the examinations on\nleaving the Ecole des Chartes, and first in the examination for\nfellowship of the faculties (1849). In 1849 he took the degree of doctor\nof letters with two theses, one of which, _Wala et Louis le Debonnaire_\n(published in Paris in 1849), placed him in the front rank of French\nscholars in the province of Carolingian history. Soon, however, he\nturned his attention to the study of geography. In 1858 he obtained an\nappointment as teacher of geography at the Sorbonne, and henceforth\ndevoted himself to that subject. It was not till 1876 that he published,\nin two volumes, his remarkable _Histoire de la formation territoriale\ndes etats de l'Europe centrale_, in which he showed with a firm, but\nsometimes slightly heavy touch, the reciprocal influence exerted by\ngeography and history. While the work gives evidence throughout of wide\nand well-directed research, he preferred to write it in the form of a\nstudent's manual; but it was a manual so original that it gained him\nadmission to the Institute in 1881. In that year he was appointed dean\nof the faculty of letters, and for ten years he directed the\nintellectual life of that great educational centre during its\ndevelopment into a great scientific body. He died at Sevres on the 6th\nof October 1906.\n\n\n\n\nHIMMEL, FREDERICK HENRY (1765-1814), German composer, was born on the\n20th of November 1765 at Treuenbrietzen in Brandenburg, Prussia, and\noriginally studied theology at Halle. During a temporary stay at Potsdam\nhe had an opportunity of showing his self-acquired skill as a pianist\nbefore King Frederick William II., who thereupon made him a yearly\nallowance to enable him to complete his musical studies. This he did\nunder Naumann, a German composer of the Italian school, and the style of\nthat school Himmel himself adopted in his serious operas. The first of\nthese, a pastoral opera, _Il Primo Navigatore_, was produced at Venice\nin 1794 with great success. In 1792 he went to Berlin, where his\noratorio _Isaaco_ was produced, in consequence of which he was made\ncourt Kapellmeister to the king of Prussia, and in that capacity wrote a\ngreat deal of official music, including cantatas, and a coronation Te\nDeum. His Italian operas, successively composed for Stockholm, St\nPetersburg and Berlin, were all received with great favour in their day.\nOf much greater importance than these is an operetta to German words by\nKotzebue, called _Fanchon_, an admirable specimen of the primitive form\nof the musical drama known in Germany as the _Singspiel_. Himmel's gift\nof writing genuine simple melody is also observable in his songs,\namongst which one called \"To Alexis\" is the best. He died in Berlin on\nthe 8th of June 1814.\n\n\n\n\nHINCKLEY, a market town in the Bosworth parliamentary division of\nLeicestershire, England, 14(1/2) m. S.W. from Leicester on the\nNuneaton-Leicester branch of the London & North-Western railway, and\nnear the Ashby-de-la-Zouch canal. Pop. of urban district (1901), 11,304.\nThe town is well situated on a considerable eminence. Among the\nprincipal buildings are the church of St Mary, a Decorated and\nPerpendicular structure, with lofty tower and spire; the Roman Catholic\nacademy named St Peter's Priory, and a grammar school. The ditch of a\ncastle erected by Hugh de Grentismenil in the time of William Rufus is\nstill to be traced. Hinckley is the centre of a stocking-weaving\ndistrict, and its speciality is circular hose. It also possesses a\nboot-making industry, brick and tile works, and lime works. There are\nmineral springs in the neighbourhood.\n\n\n\n\nHINCKS, EDWARD (1792-1866), British assyriologist, was born at Cork,\nIreland, and educated at Trinity College, Dublin. He took orders in the\nProtestant Church of Ireland, and was rector of Killyleagh, Down, from\n1825 till his death on the 3rd of December 1866. Hincks devoted his\nspare time to the study of hieroglyphics, and to the deciphering of the\ncuneiform script (see CUNEIFORM), in which he was a pioneer, working out\ncontemporaneously with Sir H. Rawlinson, and independently of him, the\nancient Persian vowel system. He published a number of original and\nscholarly papers on assyriological questions of the highest value,\nchiefly in the _Transactions_ of the Royal Irish Academy.\n\n\n\n\nHINCKS, SIR FRANCIS (1807-1885), Canadian statesman, was born at Cork,\nIreland, the son of an Irish Presbyterian minister. In 1832 he engaged\nin business in Toronto, became a friend of Robert Baldwin, and in 1835\nwas chosen to examine the accounts of the Welland Canal, the management\nof which was being attacked by W. L. Mackenzie. This turned his\nattention to political life and in 1838 he founded the _Examiner_, a\nweekly paper in the Liberal interest. In 1841 he was elected M.P. for\nthe county of Oxford, and in the following year was appointed\ninspector-general, the title then borne by the finance minister, but in\n1843 resigned with Baldwin and the other ministers on the question of\nresponsible government. In 1848 he again became inspector-general in the\nBaldwin-Lafontaine ministry, and on their retirement in 1851 became\npremier of Canada, his chief colleague being A. N. Morin (1803-1865).\nWhile premier he was prominent in the negotiations which led to the\nconstruction of the Grand Trunk railway, and in co-operation with Lord\nElgin negotiated with the United States the reciprocity treaty of 1854.\nIn the same year the bitter hostility of the \"Clear Grits\" under George\nBrown compelled his resignation, and he was prominent in the formation\nof the Liberal-Conservative Party. In 1855 he was chosen governor of\nBarbados and the Windward Islands, and subsequently governor of British\nGuiana. In 1869 he was created K.C.M.G. and returned to Canada, becoming\ntill 1873 finance minister in the cabinet of Sir John Macdonald. In\nFebruary of that year he resigned, but continued to take an active part\nin public life. In 1879 the failure of the Consolidated Bank of Canada,\nof which he was president, led to his being tried for issuing false\nstatements. Though found guilty on a technicality (see _Journal_ of the\nCanadian Bankers' Association, April 1906) judgment was suspended, his\npersonal credit remained unimpaired, and he continued to take part in\nthe discussion of public questions till his death on the 18th of August\n1885.\n\n His writings include: _The Political History of Canada between 1840\n and 1855_ (1877); _The Political Destiny of Canada_ (1878), and his\n _Reminiscences_ (1884).\n\n\n\n\nHINCMAR (c. 805-882), archbishop of Reims, one of the most remarkable\nfigures in the ecclesiastical history of France, belonged to a noble\nfamily of the north or north-east of Gaul. Destined, doubtless, to the\nmonastic life, he was brought up at St Denis under the direction of the\nabbot Hilduin (d. 844), who brought him in 822 to the court of the\nemperor Louis the Pious. When Hilduin was disgraced in 830 for having\njoined the party of Lothair, Hincmar accompanied him into exile at\nCorvey in Saxony, but returned with him to St Denis when the abbot was\nreconciled with the emperor, and remained faithful to the emperor during\nhis struggle with his sons. After the death of Louis the Pious (840)\nHincmar supported Charles the Bald, and received from him the abbacies\nof Notre-Dame at Compiegne and St Germer de Fly. In 845 he obtained\nthrough the king's support the archbishopric of Reims, and this choice\nwas confirmed at the synod of Beauvais (April 845). Archbishop Ebbo,\nwhom he replaced, had been deposed in 835 at the synod of Thionville\n(Diedenhofen) for having broken his oath of fidelity to the emperor\nLouis, whom he had deserted to join the party of Lothair. After the\ndeath of Louis, Ebbo succeeded in regaining possession of his see for\nsome years (840-844), but in 844 Pope Sergius II. confirmed his\ndeposition. It was in these circumstances that Hincmar succeeded, and in\n847 Pope Leo IV. sent him the pallium.\n\nOne of the first cares of the new prelate was the restitution to his\nmetropolitan see of the domains that had been alienated under Ebbo and\ngiven as benefices to laymen. From the beginning of his episcopate\nHincmar was in constant conflict with the clerks who had been ordained\nby Ebbo during his reappearance. These clerks, whose ordination was\nregarded as invalid by Hincmar and his adherents, were condemned in 853\nat the council of Soissons, and the decisions of that council were\nconfirmed in 855 by Pope Benedict III. This conflict, however, bred an\nantagonism of which Hincmar was later to feel the effects. During the\nnext thirty years the archbishop of Reims played a very prominent part\nin church and state. His authoritative and energetic will inspired, and\nin great measure directed, the policy of the west Frankish kingdom until\nhis death. He took an active part in all the great political and\nreligious affairs of his time, and was especially energetic in defending\nand extending the rights of the church and of the metropolitans in\ngeneral, and of the metropolitan of the church of Reims in particular.\nIn the resulting conflicts, in which his personal interest was in\nquestion, he displayed great activity and a wide knowledge of canon law,\nbut did not scruple to resort to disingenuous interpretation of texts.\nHis first encounter was with the heresiarch Gottschalk, whose\npredestinarian doctrines claimed to be modelled on those of St\nAugustine. Hincmar placed himself at the head of the party that\nregarded Gottschalk's doctrines as heretical, and succeeded in procuring\nthe arrest and imprisonment of his adversary (849). For a part at least\nof his doctrines Gottschalk found ardent defenders, such as Lupus of\nFerrieres, the deacon Florus and Amolo of Lyons. Through the energy and\nactivity of Hincmar the theories of Gottschalk were condemned at Quierzy\n(853) and Valence (855), and the decisions of these two synods were\nconfirmed at the synods of Langres and Savonnieres, near Toul (859). To\nrefute the predestinarian heresy Hincmar composed his _De\npraedestinatione Dei et libero arbitrio_, and against certain\npropositions advanced by Gottschalk on the Trinity he wrote a treatise\ncalled _De una et non trina deitate_. Gottschalk died in prison in 868.\nThe question of the divorce of Lothair II., king of Lorraine, who had\nrepudiated his wife Theutberga to marry his concubine Waldrada, engaged\nHincmar's literary activities in another direction. At the request of a\nnumber of great personages in Lorraine he composed in 860 his _De\ndivortio Lotharii et Teutbergae_, in which he vigorously attacked, both\nfrom the moral and the legal standpoints, the condemnation pronounced\nagainst the queen by the synod of Aix-la-Chapelle (February 860).\nHincmar energetically supported the policy of Charles the Bald in\nLorraine, less perhaps from devotion to the king's interests than from a\ndesire to see the whole of the ecclesiastical province of Reims united\nunder the authority of a single sovereign, and in 869 it was he who\nconsecrated Charles at Metz as king of Lorraine.\n\nIn the middle of the 9th century there appeared in Gaul the collection\nof false decretals commonly known as the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. The\nexact date and the circumstances of the composition of the collection\nare still an open question, but it is certain that Hincmar was one of\nthe first to know of their existence, and apparently he was not aware\nthat the documents were forged. The importance assigned by these\ndecretals to the bishops and the provincial councils, as well as to the\ndirect intervention of the Holy See, tended to curtail the rights of the\nmetropolitans, of which Hincmar was so jealous. Rothad, bishop of\nSoissons, one of the most active members of the party in favour of the\npseudo-Isidorian theories, immediately came into collision with his\narchbishop. Deposed in 863 at the council of Soissons, presided over by\nHincmar, Rothad appealed to Rome. Pope Nicholas I. supported him\nzealously, and in 865, in spite of the protests of the archbishop of\nReims, Arsenius, bishop of Orta and legate of the Holy See, was\ninstructed to restore Rothad to his episcopal see. Hincmar experienced\nanother check when he endeavoured to prevent Wulfad, one of the clerks\ndeposed by Ebbo, from obtaining the archbishopric of Bourges with the\nsupport of Charles the Bald. After a synod held at Soissons, Nicholas I.\npronounced himself in favour of the deposed clerks, and Hincmar was\nconstrained to make submission (866). He was more successful in his\ncontest with his nephew Hincmar, bishop of Laon, who was at first\nsupported both by the king and by his uncle, the archbishop of Reims,\nbut soon quarrelled with both. Hincmar of Laon refused to recognize the\nauthority of his metropolitan, and entered into an open struggle with\nhis uncle, who exposed his errors in a treatise called _Opusculum LV.\ncapitulorum_, and procured his condemnation and deposition at the synod\nof Douzy (871). The bishop of Laon was sent into exile, probably to\nAquitaine, where his eyes were put out by order of Count Boso. Pope\nAdrian protested against his deposition, but it was confirmed in 876 by\nPope John VIII., and it was not until 878, at the council of Troyes,\nthat the unfortunate prelate was reconciled with the Church. A serious\nconflict arose between Hincmar on the one side and Charles and the pope\non the other in 876, when Pope John VIII., at the king's request,\nentrusted Ansegisus, archbishop of Sens, with the primacy of the Gauls\nand of Germany, and created him vicar apostolic. In Hincmar's eyes this\nwas an encroachment on the jurisdiction of the archbishops, and it was\nagainst this primacy that he directed his treatise _De jure\nmetropolitanorum_. At the same time he wrote a life of St Remigius, in\nwhich he endeavoured by audacious falsifications to prove the supremacy\nof the church of Reims over the other churches. Charles the Bald,\nhowever, upheld the rights of Ansegisus at the synod of Ponthion.\nAlthough Hincmar had been very hostile to Charles's expedition into\nItaly, he figured among his testamentary executors and helped to secure\nthe submission of the nobles to Louis the Stammerer, whom he crowned at\nCompiegne (8th of December 877).\n\nDuring the reign of Louis, Hincmar played an obscure part. He supported\nthe accession of Louis III. and Carloman, but had a dispute with Louis,\nwho wished to instal a candidate in the episcopal see of Beauvais\nwithout the archbishop's assent. To Carloman, on his accession in 882,\nHincmar addressed his _De ordine palatii_, partly based on a treatise\n(now lost) by Adalard, abbot of Corbie (c. 814), in which he set forth\nhis system of government and his opinion of the duties of a sovereign, a\nsubject he had already touched in his _De regis persona et regio\nministerio_, dedicated to Charles the Bald at an unknown date, and in\nhis _Instructio ad Ludovicum regem_, addressed to Louis the Stammerer on\nhis accession in 877. In the autumn of 832 an irruption of the Normans\nforced the old archbishop to take refuge at Epernay, where he died on\nthe 21st of December 882. Hincmar was a prolific writer. Besides the\nworks already mentioned, he was the author of several theological\ntracts; of the _De villa Noviliaco_, concerning the claiming of a domain\nof his church; and he continued from 861 the _Annales Bertiniani_, of\nwhich the first part was written by Prudentius, bishop of Troyes, the\nbest source for the history of Charles the Bald. He also wrote a great\nnumber of letters, some of which are extant, and others embodied in the\nchronicles of Flodoard.\n\n Hincmar's works, which are the principal source for the history of his\n life, were collected by Jacques Sirmond (Paris, 1645), and reprinted\n by Migne, _Patrol. Latina_, vol. cxxv. and cxxvi. See also C. von\n Noorden, _Hinkmar, Erzbischof von Reims_ (Bonn, 1863), and,\n especially, H. Schrors, _Hinkmar, Erzbischof von Reims_\n (Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1884). For Hincmar's political and\n ecclesiastical theories see preface to Maurice Prou's edition of the\n _De ordine palatii_ (Paris, 1885), and the abbe Lesne, _La Hierarchie\n episcopale en Gaule et en Germanie_ (Paris, 1905). (R. Po.)\n\n\n\n\nHIND, the female of the red-deer, usually taken as being three years old\nand over, the male being known as a \"hart.\" It is sometimes also applied\nto the female of other species of deer. The word appears in several\nTeutonic languages, cf. Dutch and Ger. _Hinde_, and has been connected\nwith the Goth. _hinthan_ (_hinthan_), to seize, which may be connected\nultimately with \"hand\" and \"hunt.\" \"Hart,\" from the O.E. _heort_, may be\nin origin connected with the root of Gr. [Greek: keras], horn. \"Hind\"\n(O.E. _hine_, probably from the O.E. _hinan_, members of a family or\nhousehold), meaning a servant, especially a labourer on a farm, is\nanother word. In Scotland the \"hind\" is a farm servant, with a cottage\non the farm, and duties and responsibilities that make him superior to\nthe rest of the labourers. Similarly \"hind\" is used in certain parts of\nnorthern England as equivalent to \"bailiff.\"\n\n\n\n\nHINDERSIN, GUSTAV EDUARD VON (1804-1872), Prussian general, was born at\nWernigerode near Halberstadt on the 18th of July 1804. He was the son of\na priest and received a good education. His earlier life was spent in\ngreat poverty, and the struggle for existence developed in him an iron\nstrength of character. Entering the Prussian artillery in 1820 he became\nan officer in 1825. From 1830 to 1837 he attended the Allgemeine\nKriegsakademie at Berlin, and in 1841, while still a subaltern, he was\nposted to the great General Staff, in which he afterwards directed the\ntopographical section. In 1849 he served with the rank of major on the\nstaff of General Peucker, who commanded a federal corps in the\nsuppression of the Baden insurrection. He fell into the hands of the\ninsurgents at the action of Ladenburg, but was released just before the\nfall of Rastadt. In the Danish war of 1864 Hindersin, now\nlieutenant-general, directed the artillery operations against the lines\nof Duppel, and for his services was ennobled by the king of Prussia.\nSoon afterwards he became inspector-general of artillery. His experience\nat Duppel had convinced him that the days of the smooth-bore gun were\npast, and he now devoted himself with unremitting zeal to the rearmament\nand reorganization of the Prussian artillery. The available funds were\nsmall, and grudgingly voted by the parliament. There was a strong\nfeeling moreover that the smooth-bore was still tactically superior to\nits rival (see ARTILLERY, S 19). There was no practical training for war\nin either the field or the fortress artillery units. The latter had made\nscarcely any progress since the days of Frederick the Great, and before\nvon Hindersin's appointment had practised with the same guns in the same\nbastion year after year. All this was altered, the whole\n\"foot-artillery\" was reorganized, manoeuvres were instituted, and the\nsmooth-bores were, except for ditch defence, eliminated from the\narmament of the Prussian fortresses. But far more important was his work\nin connexion with the field and horse batteries. In 1864 only one\nbattery in four had rifled guns, but by the unrelenting energy of von\nHindersin the outbreak of war with Austria one and a half years later\nfound the Prussians with ten in every sixteen batteries armed with the\nnew weapon. But the battles of 1866 showed, besides the superiority of\nthe rifled gun, a very marked absence of tactical efficiency in the\nPrussian artillery, which was almost always outmatched by that of the\nenemy. Von Hindersin had pleaded, in season and out of season, for the\nestablishment of a school of gunnery; and in spite of want of funds,\nsuch a school had already been established. After 1866, however, more\nsupport was obtained, and the improvement in the Prussian field\nartillery between 1866 and 1870 was extraordinary, even though there had\nnot been time for the work of the school to leaven the whole arm.\nIndeed, the German artillery played by far the most important part in\nthe victories of the Franco-German war. Von Hindersin accompanied the\nking's headquarters as chief of artillery, as he had done in 1866, and\nwas present at Gravelotte, Sedan and the siege of Paris. But his work,\nwhich was now accomplished, had worn out his physical powers, and he\ndied on the 23rd of January 1872 at Berlin.\n\n See Bartholomaus, _Der General der Infanterie von Hindersin_ (Berlin,\n 1895), and Prince Kraft zu Hohenlohe-Ingelfingen, _Letters on\n Artillery_ (translated by Major Walford, R.A.), No. xi.\n\n\n\n\nHINDI, EASTERN, one of the \"intermediate\" Indo-Aryan languages (see\nHINDOSTANI). It is spoken in Oudh, Baghelkhand and Chhattisgarh by over\n22,000,000 people. It is derived from the Apabhramsa form of\nArdhamagadhi Prakrit (see PRAKRIT), and possesses a large and important\nliterature. Its most famous writer was Tulsi Das, the poet and reformer,\nwho died early in the 17th century, and since his time it has been the\nNorth-Indian language employed for epic poetry.\n\n\n\n\nHINDI, WESTERN, the Indo-Aryan language of the middle and upper Gangetic\nDoab, and of the country to the north and south. It is the vernacular of\nover 40,000,000 people. Its standard dialect is Braj Bhasha, spoken near\nMuttra, which has a considerable literature mainly devoted to the\nreligion founded on devotion to Krishna. Another dialect spoken near\nDelhi and in the upper Gangetic Doab is the original from which\nHindostani, the great _lingua franca_ of India, has developed (see\nHINDOSTANI). Western Hindi, like Punjabi, its neighbour to the west, is\ndescended from the Apabhramsa form of Sauraseni Prakrit (see PRAKRIT),\nand represents the language of the Madhyadesa or Midland, as distinct\nfrom the intermediate and outer Indo-Aryan languages.\n\n\n\n\nHINDKI, the name given to the Hindus who inhabit Afghanistan. They are\nof the Khatri class, and are found all over the country even amongst the\nwildest tribes. Bellew in his _Races of Afghanistan_ estimates their\nnumber at about 300,000. The name Hindki is also loosely used on the\nupper Indus, in Dir, Bajour, &c., to denote the speakers of Punjabi or\nany of its dialects. It is sometimes applied in a historical sense to\nthe Buddhist inhabitants of the Peshawar Valley north of the Kabul\nriver, who were driven thence about the 5th or 6th century and settled\nin the neighbourhood of Kandahar.\n\n\n\n\nHINDLEY, an urban district in the Ince parliamentary division of\nLancashire, England, 2 m. E.S.E. of Wigan, on the Lancashire & Yorkshire\nand Great Central railways. Pop. (1901) 23,504. Cotton spinning and the\nmanufacture of cotton goods are the principal industries, and there are\nextensive coal-mines in the neighbourhood. It is recorded that in the\ntime of the Puritan revolution Hindley church was entered by the\nCavaliers, who played at cards in the pews, pulled down the pulpit and\ntore the Bible in pieces.\n\n\n\n\nHINDOSTANI (properly _Hindostani_, of or belonging to Hindostan[1]), the\nname given by Europeans to an Indo-Aryan dialect (whose home is in the\nupper Gangetic Doab and near the city of Delhi), which, owing to\npolitical causes, has become the great _lingua franca_ of modern India.\nThe name is not employed by natives of India, except as an imitation of\nthe English nomenclature. Hindostani is by origin a dialect of Western\nHindi, and it is first of all necessary to explain what we mean by the\nterm \"Hindi\" as applied to language. Modern Indo-Aryan languages fall\ninto three groups,--an outer band, the language of the Midland and an\nintermediate band. The Midland consists of the Gangetic Doab and of the\ncountry to its immediate north and south, extending, roughly speaking,\nfrom the Eastern Punjab on the west, to Cawnpore on its east. The\nlanguage of this tract is called \"Western Hindi\"; to its west we have\nPanjabi (of the Central Punjab), and to the east, reaching as far as\nBenares, Eastern Hindi, both Intermediate languages. These three will\nall be dealt with in the present article. Panjabi and Western Hindi are\nderived from Sauraseni, and Eastern Hindi from Ardham gadha Prakrit,\nthrough the corresponding Apabhramsas (see PRAKRIT). Eastern Hindi\ndiffers in many respects from the two others, but it is customary to\nconsider it together with the language of the Midland, and this will be\nfollowed on the present occasion. In 1901 the speakers of these three\nlanguages numbered: Panjabi, 17,070,961; Western Hindi, 40,714,925;\nEastern Hindi, 22,136,358.\n\n_Linguistic Boundaries._--Taking the tract covered by these three forms\nof speech, it has to its west, in the western Punjab, Lannda (see\nSINDHI), a language of the Outer band. The parent of Lahnda once no\ndoubt covered the whole of the Punjab, but, in the process of expansion\nof the tribes of the Midland described in the article INDO-ARYAN\nLANGUAGES, it was gradually driven back, leaving traces of its former\nexistence which grow stronger as we proceed westwards, until at about\nthe 74th degree of east longitude there is a mixed, transition dialect.\nTo the west of that degree Lahnda may be said to be established, the\ndeserts of the west-central Punjab forming a barrier and protecting it,\njust as, farther south, a continuation of the same desert has protected\nSindhi from Rajasthani. It is the old traces of Lahnda which mainly\ndifferentiate Panjabi from Hindostani. To the south of Panjabi and\nWestern Hindi lies Rajasthani. This language arose in much the same way\nas Panjabi. The expanding Midland language was stopped by the desert\nfrom reaching Sindhi, but to the south-west it found an unobstructed way\ninto Gujarat, where, under the form of Gujarati, it broke the\ncontinuity of the Outer band. Eastern Hindi, as an Intermediate form of\nspeech, is of much older lineage. It has been an Intermediate language\nsince, at least, the institution of Jainism (say, 500 B.C.), and is much\nless subject to the influence of the Midland than is Panjabi. To its\neast it has Bihari, and, stretching far to the south, it has Marathi as\nits neighbour in that direction, both of these being Outer languages.\n\n_Dialects._--The only important dialect of Eastern Hindi is Awadhi,\nspoken in Oudh, and possessing a large literature of great excellence.\nChhattisgarhi and Bagheli, the other dialects, have scanty literatures\nof small value. Western Hindi has four main dialects, Bundeli of\nBundelkhand, Braj Bhasha (properly \"Braj Bhasa\") of the country round\nMathura (Muttra), Kanauji of the central Doab and the country to its\nnorth, and vernacular Hindostani of Delhi and the Upper Doab. West of\nthe Upper Doab, across the Jumna, another dialect, Bangaru, is also\nfound. It possesses no literature. Kanauji is very closely allied to\nBraj Bhasha, and these two share with Awadhi the honour of being the\ngreat literary speeches of northern India. Nearly all the classical\nliterature of India is religious in character, and we may say that, as a\nbroad rule, Awadhi literature is devoted to the Ramaite religion and the\nepic poetry connected with it, while that of Braj Bhasha is concerned\nwith the religion of Krishna. Vernacular Hindostani has no literature of\nits own, but as the _lingua franca_ now to be described it has a large\none. Panjabi has one dialect, Dogri, spoken in the Himalayas.\n\n_Hindostani as a Lingua Franca._--It has often been said that Hindostani\nis a mongrel \"pigeon\" form of speech made up of contributions from the\nvarious languages which met in Delhi bazaar, but this theory has now\nbeen proved to be unfounded, owing to the discovery of the fact that it\nis an actual living dialect of Western Hindi, existing for centuries in\nits present habitat, and the direct descendant of Sauraseni Prakrit. It\nis not a typical dialect of that language, for, situated where it is, it\nrepresents Western Hindi merging into Panjabi (Braj Bhasha being\nadmittedly the standard of the language), but to say that it is a\nmongrel tongue thrown together in the market is to reverse the order of\nevents. It was the natural language of the people in the neighbourhood\nof Delhi, who formed the bulk of those who resorted to the bazaar, and\nhence it became the bazaar language. From here it became the _lingua\nfranca_ of the Mogul camp and was carried everywhere in India by the\nlieutenants of the empire. It has several recognized varieties, amongst\nwhich we may mention Dakhini, Urdu, Rekhta and Hindi. Dakhini or\n\"southern,\" is the form current in the south of India, and was the first\nto be employed for literature. It contains many archaic expressions now\nextinct in the standard dialect. Urdu, or _Urdu zaban_, \"the language of\nthe camp,\" is the name usually employed for Hindostani by natives, and\nis now the standard form of speech used by Mussulmans. All the early\nHindostani literature was in poetry, and this literary form of speech\nwas named \"Rekhta,\" or \"scattered,\" from the way in which words borrowed\nfrom Persian were \"scattered\" through it. The name is now reserved for\nthe dialect used in poetry, Urdu being the dialect of prose and of\nconversation. The introduction of these borrowed words, which has been\ncarried to even a greater extent in Urdu, was facilitated by the facts\nthat the latter was by origin a \"camp\" language, and that Persian was\nthe official language of the Mogul court. In this way Persian (and, with\nPersian, Arabic) words came into current use, and, though the language\nremained Indo-Aryan in its grammar and essential characteristics, it\nsoon became unintelligible to any one who had not at least a moderate\nacquaintance with the vocabulary of Iran. This extreme Persianization of\nUrdu was due rather to Hindu than to Persian influence. Although Urdu\nliterature was Mussulman in its origin, the Persian element was first\nintroduced in excess by the pliant Hindu officials employed in the Mogul\nadministration, and acquainted with Persian, rather than by Persians and\nPersianized Moguls, who for many centuries used only their own languages\nfor literary purposes.[2] Prose Urdu literature took its origin in the\nEnglish occupation of India and the need for text-books for the college\nof Fort William. It has had a prosperous career since the commencement\nof the 19th century, but some writers, especially those of Lucknow, have\nso overloaded it with Persian and Arabic that little of the original\nIndo-Aryan character remains, except, perhaps, an occasional pronoun or\nauxiliary verb. The Hindi form of Hindostani was invented simultaneously\nwith Urdu prose by the teachers at Fort William. It was intended to be a\nHindostani for the use of Hindus, and was derived from Urdu by ejecting\nall words of Persian or Arabic birth, and substituting for them words\neither borrowed from Sanskrit (_tatsamas_) or derived from the old\nprimary Prakrit (_tadbhavas_) (see INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGES). Owing to the\npopularity of the first book written in it, and to its supplying the\nneed for a _lingua franca_ which could be used by the most patriotic\nHindus without offending their religious prejudices, it became widely\nadopted, and is now the recognized vehicle for writing prose by those\ninhabitants of northern India who do not employ Urdu. This Hindi, which\nis an altogether artificial product of the English, is hardly ever used\nfor poetry. For this the indigenous dialects (usually Awadhi or Braj\nBhasha) are nearly always employed by Hindus. Urdu, on the other hand,\nhaving had a natural growth, has a vigorous poetical literature. Modern\nHindi prose is often disfigured by that too free borrowing of Sanskrit\nwords instead of using home-born _tadbhavas_, which has been the ruin of\nBengali, and it is rapidly becoming a Hindu counterpart of the\nPersianized Urdu, neither of which is intelligible except to persons of\nhigh education.\n\nNot only has Urdu adopted a Persian vocabulary, but even a few\npeculiarities of Persian construction, such as reversing the positions\nof the governing and the governed word (e.g. _bap mera_ for _mera bap_),\nor of the adjective and the substantive it qualifies, or such as the use\nof Persian phrases with the preposition _ba_ instead of the native\npostposition of the ablative case (e.g. _ba-khushi_ for _khushi-se_, or\n_ba-hukm sarkar-ke_ instead of _sarkar-ke hukm-se_) are to be met with\nin many writings; and these, perhaps, combined with the too free\nindulgence on the part of some authors in the use of high-flown and\npedantic Persian and Arabic words in place of common and yet chaste\nIndian words, and the general use of the Persian instead of the Nagari\ncharacter, have induced some to regard Hindostani or Urdu as a language\ndistinct from Hindi. But such a view betrays a radical misunderstanding\nof the whole question. We must define Urdu as the Persianized Hindostani\nof educated Mussulmans, while Hindi is the Sanskritized Hindostani of\neducated Hindus. As for the written character, Urdu, from the number of\nPersian words which it contains, can only be written conveniently in the\nPersian character, while Hindi, for a parallel reason, can only be\nwritten in the Nagari or one of its related alphabets (see SANSKRIT). On\nthe other hand, \"Hindostani\" implies the great _lingua franca_ of India,\ncapable of being written in either character, and, without purism,\navoiding the excessive use of either Persian or Sanskrit words when\nemployed for literature. It is easy to write this Hindostani, for it has\nan opulent vocabulary of _tadbhava_ words understood everywhere by both\nMussulmans and Hindus. While \"Hindostani,\" \"Urdu\" and \"Hindi\" are thus\nnames of dialects, it should be remembered that the terms \"Western\nHindi\" and \"Eastern Hindi\" connote, not dialects, but languages.\n\nThe epoch of Akbar, which first saw a regular revenue system\nestablished, with toleration and the free use of their religion to the\nHindus, was, there can be little doubt, the period of the formation of\nthe language. But its final consolidation did not take place till the\nreign of Shah Jahan. After the date of this monarch the changes are\ncomparatively immaterial until we come to the time when European sources\nbegan to mingle with those of the East. Of the contributions from these\nsources there is little to say. Like the greater part of those from\nArabic and Persian, they are chiefly nouns, and may be regarded rather\nas excrescences which have sprung up casually and have attached\nthemselves to the original trunk than as ingredients duly incorporated\nin the body. In the case of the Persian and Arabic element, indeed, we\ndo find not a few instances in which nouns have been furnished with a\nHindi termination, e.g. _kharidna_, _badalna_, _guzarna_, _daghna_,\n_bakhshnaa_, _kaminapan_, &c.; but the European element cannot be said\nto have at all woven itself into the grammar of the language. It\nconsists, as has been observed, solely of nouns, principally substantive\nnouns, which on their admission into the language are spelt\nphonetically, or according to the corrupt pronunciation they receive in\nthe mouths of the natives, and are declined like the indigenous nouns by\nmeans of the usual postpositions or case-affixes. A few examples will\nsuffice. The Portuguese, the first in order of seniority, contributes a\nfew words, as _kamara_ or _kamra_ (_camera_), a room; _martol_\n(_martello_), a hammer; _nilam_ (_leilao_), an auction, &c. &c. Of\nFrench and Dutch influence scarcely a trace exists. English has\ncontributed a number of words, some of which have even found a place in\nthe literature of the language; e.g. _kamishanar_ (commissioner); _jaj_\n(judge); _daktar_ (doctor); _daktari_, \"the science of medicine\" or \"the\nprofession of physicians\"; _inspektar_ (inspector); _istant_\n(assistant); _sosayati_ (society); _apil_ (appeal); _apil karna_, \"to\nappeal\"; _dikri_ or _digri_ (decree); _digri_ (degree); _inc_ (inch);\n_fut_ (foot); and many more, are now words commonly used. Some borrowed\nwords are distorted into the shape of genuine Hindostani words familiar\nto the speakers; e.g. the English railway term \"signal\" has become\n_sikandar_, the native name for Alexander the Great, and \"signal-man\" is\n_sikandar-man_, or \"the pride of Alexander.\" How far the free use of\nAnglicisms will be adopted as the language progresses is a question upon\nwhich it would be hazardous to pronounce an opinion, but of late years\nit has greatly increased in the language of the educated, especially in\nthe case of technical terms. A native veterinary surgeon once said to\nthe present writer, \"_kutte-ka saliva bahut antiseptic hai_\" for \"a\ndog's saliva is very antiseptic,\" and this is not an extravagant\nexample.[3]\n\nThe vocabulary of Panjabi and Eastern Hindi is very similar to that of\nWestern Hindi. Panjabi has no literature to speak of and is free from\nthe burden of words borrowed from Persian or Sanskrit, only the\ncommonest and simplest of such being found in it. Its vocabulary is thus\nalmost entirely _tadbhava_, and, while capable of expressing all ideas,\nit has a charming rustic flavour, like the Lowland Scotch of Burns,\nindicative of the national character of the sturdy peasantry that\nemploys it. Eastern Hindi is very like Panjabi in this respect, but for\na different reason. In it were written the works of Tulsi Das, one of\nthe greatest writers that India has produced, and his influence on the\nlanguage has been as great as that of Shakespeare on English. The\npeasantry are continually quoting him without knowing it, and his style,\nsimple and yet vigorous, thoroughly Indian and yet free from purism, has\nset a model which is everywhere followed except in the large towns where\nUrdu or Sanskritized Hindi prevails. Eastern Hindi is written in the\nNagari alphabet, or in the current character related to it called\n\"Kaithi\" (see BIHARI). The indigenous alphabet of the Punjab is called\n_Landa_ or \"clipped.\" It is related to Nagari, but is hardly legible to\nany one except the original writer, and sometimes not even to him. To\nremedy this defect an improved form of the alphabet was devised in the\n16th century by Angad, the fifth Sikh Guru, for the purpose of recording\nthe Sikh scriptures. It was named _Gurmukhi_, \"proceeding from the mouth\nof the Guru,\" and is now generally used for writing the language.\n\n _Grammar._--In the following account we use these contractions: Skr. =\n Sanskrit; Pr. = Prakrit; Ap. = Apabhramsa; W.H. = Western Hindi; E.H.\n = Eastern Hindi; H. = Hindostani; Br. = Braj Bhasha; P. = Panjabi.\n\n (A) _Phonetics._--The phonetic system of all three languages is nearly\n the same as that of the Apabhramsas from which they are derived. With\n a few exceptions, to be noted below, the letters of the alphabets of\n the three languages are the same as in Sanskrit. Panjabi, and the\n western dialects of Western Hindi, have preserved the old Vedic\n cerebral l. There is a tendency for concurrent vowels to run into each\n other, and for the semi-vowels y and v to become vowels. Thus, Skr.\n _carmakaras_, Ap. _cammaaru_, a leather-worker, becomes H. _camar_;\n Skr. _rajani_, Ap. _ra(y)ani_, H. _rain_, night; Skr. _dhavalakas_,\n Ap. _dhavalau_, H. _dhaula_, white. Sometimes the semi-vowel is\n retained, as in Skr. _kataras_, Ap. _ka(y)aru_, H. _kayar_, a coward.\n Almost the only compound consonants which survived in the Pr. stage\n were double letters, and in W.H. and E.H. these are usually\n simplified, the preceding vowel being lengthened and sometimes\n nasalized, in compensation. P., on the other hand, prefers to retain\n the double consonant. Thus, Skr. _karma_, Ap. _kammu_, W.H. and E.H.\n _kam_, but P. _kamm_, a work; Skr. _satyas_, Ap. _saccu_, W.H. and\n E.H. _sac_, but P. _sacc_, true (H., being the W.H. dialect which lies\n nearest to P., often follows that language, and in this instance has\n _sacc_, usually written _sac_); Skr. _hastas_, Ap. _hatthu_, W.H. and\n E.H. _hath_, but P. _hatth_, a hand. The nasalization of vowels is\n very frequent in all three languages, and is here represented by the\n sign ~ over the vowel. Sometimes it is compensatory, as in _sac_, but\n it often represents an original _m_, as in _kawal_ from Skr.\n _kamalas_, a lotus. Final short vowels quiesce in prose pronunciation,\n and are usually not written in transliteration; thus the final _a_,\n _i_ or _u_ has been lost in all the examples given above, and other\n _tatsama_ examples are Skr. _mati_-which becomes _mat_, mind, and Skr.\n _vastu_-, which becomes _bast_, a thing. In all poetry, however\n (except in the Urdu poetry formed on Persian models, and under the\n rules of Persian prosody), they reappear and are necessary for the\n scansion.\n\n In _tadbhava_ words an original long vowel in any syllable earlier\n than the penultimate is shortened. In P. and H. when the long vowel is\n _e_ or _o_ it is shortened to _i_ or _u_ respectively, but in other\n W.H. dialects and in E.H. it is shortened to _e_ or _o_; thus, _beti_,\n daughter, long form H. _bitiya_, E.H. _betiya_; _ghori_, mare, long\n form H. _ghuriya_, E.H. _ghoriya_. The short vowels _e_ and _o_ are\n very rare in P. and H., but are not uncommon (though ignored by most\n grammars) in E.H. and the other W.H. dialects. A medial _d_ is\n pronounced as a strongly burred cerebral _r_, and is then written as\n shown, with a supposited dot. All these changes and various\n contractions of Prakrit syllables have caused considerable variations\n in the forms of words, but generally not so as to obscure the origin.\n\n (B) _Declension._--The nominative form of a _tadbhava_ word is derived\n from the nominative form in Sanskrit and Prakrit, but _tatsama_ words\n are usually borrowed in the form of the Skr. crude base; thus, Skr.\n _hastin_-, nom. _hasti_, Ap. nom. _hatthi_, H. _hathi_, an elephant;\n Skr. base _mati_-, nom. _matis_, H. (_tatsama_) _mati_, or, with\n elision of the final short vowel, _mat_. Some _tatsamas_ are, however,\n borrowed in the nominative form, as in Skr. _dhanin_-, nom. _dhani_,\n H. _dhani_, a rich man. As another example of a _tadbhava_ word, we\n may take the Skr. nom. _ghotas_, Ap. _ghodu_, H. _ghor_, a horse. Here\n again the final short vowel has been elided, but in old poetry we\n should find _ghoru_, and corresponding forms in u are occasionally met\n with at the present day.\n\n In the article PRAKRIT attention is drawn to the frequent use of\n pleonastic suffixes, especially -_ka_- (fem.-(i)_ka_). With such a\n suffix we have the Skr. _ghota-kas_, Ap. _ghoda-u_, Western Hindi\n _ghorau_, or in P. and H. (which is the W.H. dialect nearest in\n locality to P.) _ghora_, a horse; Skr. _ghoti-ka_, Ap. _ghodi-a_, W.H.\n and P. _ghodi_, a mare. Such modern forms made with one pleonastic\n suffix are called \"strong forms,\" while those made without it are\n called \"weak forms.\" All strong forms end in _au_ (or _a_) in the\n masculine, and in _i_ in the feminine, whereas, in Skr., and hence in\n _tatsamas_, both _a_ and _i_ are generally typical of feminine words,\n though sometimes employed for the masculine. It is shown in the\n article PRAKRIT that these pleonastic suffixes can be doubled, or even\n trebled, and in this way we have a new series of _tadbhava_ forms. Let\n us take the imaginary Skr. *_ghota-ka-kas_ with a double suffix. From\n this we have the Ap. _ghoda-a-u_, and modern _ghorawa_ (with euphonic\n _w_ inserted), a horse. Similarly for the feminine we have Skr.\n *_ghoti-ka-ka_, Ap. _ghodi-a-a_, modern _ghoriya_ (with euphonic _y_\n inserted), a mare. Such forms, made with two suffixes, are called\n \"long forms,\" and are heard in familiar conversation, the feminine\n also serving as diminutives. There is a further stage, built upon\n three suffixes, and called the \"redundant form,\" which is mainly used\n by the vulgar. As a rule masculine long forms end in -_awa_, -_iya_ or\n -_ua_, and feminines in -_iya_, although the matter is complicated by\n the occasional use of pleonastic suffixes other than the -_ka_- which\n we have taken for our example, and is the most common. Strong forms\n are rarely met with in E.H., but on the other hand long forms are more\n common in that language.\n\n There are a few feminine terminations of weak nouns which may be\n noted. These are -_ini_, -_in_, -_an_, -_ni_ (Skr. -_ini_, Pr.\n _-ini_); and -_ani_, -_ani_, -_ain_ (Skr. -_ani_, Pr. -_ani_). These\n are found not only in words derived from Prakrit, but are added to\n Persian and even Arabic words; thus, _hathini_, _hathni_, _hathin_\n (Skr. _hastini_, Pr. _hatthini_), a she-elephant; _sunarin_,\n _sunaran_, a female goldsmith (_sonar_); _sherni_, a tigress (Persian\n _sher_, a tiger); _Nasiban_, a proper name (Arabic _nasib_);\n _panditani_, the wife of a _pandit_; _caudhrain_, the wife of a\n _caudhri_ or head man; _mehtrani_, the wife of a sweeper (Pres.\n _mehtar_, a sweeper). With these exceptions weak forms rarely have any\n terminations distinctive of gender.[4]\n\n The synthetic declension of Sanskrit and Prakrit has disappeared. We\n see it in the actual stage of disappearance in Apabhramsa (see\n PRAKRIT), in which the case terminations had become worn down to\n -_hu_, -_ho_, -_hi_, -_hi_ and -_ha_, of which -_hi_ and -_hi_ were\n employed for several cases, both singular and plural. There was also a\n marked tendency for these terminations to be confused, and in the\n earliest stages of the modern vernaculars we find -_hi_ freely\n employed for any oblique case of the singular, and -_hi_ for any\n oblique case of the plural, but more especially for the genitive and\n the locative. In the case of modern weak nouns these terminations have\n disappeared altogether in W.H. and P. except in sporadic forms of the\n locative such as _gawe_ (for _gawahi_), in the village. In E.H. they\n are still heard as the termination of a form which can stand for any\n oblique case, and is called the \"oblique form\" or the \"oblique case.\"\n Thus, from _ghar_, a house (a weak noun), we have W.H. and P. oblique\n form _ghar_, E.H. _gharahi_, _ghare_ or _ghar_. In the plural, the\n oblique form is sometimes founded on the Ap. terminations -_ha_ and\n -_hu_, and sometimes on the Skr. termination of the genitive plural\n -_anam_ (Pr. -_ana_, -_anham_), as in P. _ghara_, W.H. _gharau_,\n _gharo_, _gharani_, E.H. _gharan_. In the case of masculine weak\n forms, the plural nominative has dropped the old termination, except\n in E.H., where it has adopted the oblique plural form for this case\n also, thus _gharan_. The nominative plural of feminine weak forms\n follows the example of the masculine in E.H. In P. it also takes the\n oblique plural form, while in W.H. it takes the old singular oblique\n form in -_ahi_, which it weakens to _ai_ or (H.) _e_; thus _bat_\n (fem.), a word, nom. plur. E.H. _bat-an_, P. _bat-a_, W.H. _batai_ or\n (H.) _bate_.\n\n Strong masculine bases in Ap. ended in -_a-a_ (nom. -_a-u_); thus\n _ghoda-a_- (nom. _ghoda-u_), and adding -_hi_ we get _ghoda-a-hi_,\n which becomes contracted _ghodahi_ and finally to _ghore_. The\n nominative plural is the same as the oblique singular, except in E.H.\n where it follows the oblique plural. The oblique plural of all closely\n follows in principle the weak forms. Feminine strong forms in Ap.\n ended in -_i-a_, contracted to _i_ in the modern languages. Except in\n E.H. the -_hi_ of the original oblique form singular disappears, so\n that we have E.H. _ghorihi_ or _ghori_, others only _ghori_. The\n nominative plural of feminine strong forms exhibits some\n irregularities. In E.H., as usual, it follows the plural oblique\n forms. In W.H. (except Hindostani) it simply nasalizes the oblique\n form singular (i.e. adds -_hi_ instead of -_hi_), as in _ghori_, but\n first on line looks like -hi]. P. and H. adopt the oblique long form\n for the plural and nasalize it, thus, P. _ghoria_, H. _ghoriya_. The\n oblique plurals call for no further remarks. We thus get the following\n summary, illustrating the way in which these nominative and oblique\n forms are made.\n\n +-------------------+----------+------------+--------------------+---------------+\n | | Panjabi. | Hindostani.| Braj Bhasha. | Eastern Hindi.|\n +-------------------+----------+------------+--------------------+---------------+\n |Weak Noun Masc.-- | | | | |\n | Nom. Sing. | ghar | ghar | ghar | ghar |\n | Obl. Sing. | ghar | ghar | ghar | ghar, gharahi |\n | Nom. Plur. | ghar | ghar | ghar | gharan |\n | Obl. Plur. | ghara | gharo | gharau, gharani | gharan |\n |Strong Noun Masc.--| | | | |\n | Nom. Sing. | ghora | ghora | ghorau | ghora |\n | Obl. Sing. | ghore | ghore | ghore, ghorai | ghora, ghore |\n | Nom. Plur. | ghore | ghore | ghore | ghoran |\n | Obl. Plur. | ghoria | ghoro | ghorau, ghorani | ghoran |\n |Weak Noun Fem.-- | | | | |\n | Nom. Sing. | bat | bat | bat | bat |\n | Obl. Sing. | bat | bat | bat | bat |\n | Nom. Plur. | bata | bate | batai | batan |\n | Obl. Plur. | bata | bato | batau, batani | batan |\n |Strong Noun Fem.-- | | | | |\n | Nom. Sing. | ghori | ghori | ghori | ghori |\n | Obl. Sing. | ghori | ghori | ghori | ghori, ghorihi|\n | Nom. Plur. | ghoria | ghoriya | ghori | ghorin |\n | Obl. Plur. | ghoria | ghoriyo | ghoriyau, ghoriyani| ghorin |\n +-------------------+----------+------------+--------------------+---------------+\n\n We have seen that the oblique form is the resultant of a general\n melting down of all the oblique cases of Sanskrit and Prakrit, and\n that in consequence it can be used for any oblique case. It is obvious\n that if it were so employed it would often give rise to great\n confusion. Hence, when it is necessary to show clearly what particular\n case is intended, it is usual to add defining particles corresponding\n to the English prepositions \"of,\" \"to,\" \"from,\" \"by,\" &c., which, as\n in all Indo-Aryan languages they follow the main word, are here called\n \"postpositions.\" The following are the postpositions commonly employed\n to form cases in our three languages:--\n\n +--------------+-------+----------+--------+----------+-----------+\n | | Agent.| Genitive.| Dative.| Ablative.| Locative. |\n +--------------+-------+----------+--------+----------+-----------+\n | Panjabi | nai | da | nu | te | vicc |\n | Hindostani | ne | ka | ko | se | me |\n | Braj Bhasha | ne | kau | kau | te, sau | mai |\n | Eastern Hindi| None | ker, k | ka | se | me, bikhe |\n +--------------+-------+----------+--------+----------+-----------+\n\n The agent case is the case which a noun takes when it is the subject\n of a transitive verb in a tense formed from the past participle. This\n participle is passive in origin, and must be construed passively. In\n the Prakrit stage the subject was in such cases put into the\n instrumental case (see PRAKRIT), as in the phrase _aham tena mario_, I\n by-him (was) struck, i.e. he struck me. In Eastern Hindi this is still\n the case, the old instrumental being represented by the oblique form\n without any suffix. The other two languages define the fact that the\n subject is in the instrumental (or agent) case by the addition of the\n postposition _ne_, &c., an old form employed elsewhere to define the\n dative. It is really the oblique form (by origin a locative) of _na_\n or _no_, which is employed in Gujarati (q.v.) for the genitive. As\n this suffix is never employed to indicate a material instrument but\n here only to indicate the agent or subject of a verb, it is called the\n postposition of the \"agent\" case.\n\n The genitive postpositions have an interesting origin. In Buddhist\n Sanskrit the words _krtas_, done, and _krtyas_, to be done, were added\n to a noun to form a kind of genitive. A synonym of _krtyas_ was\n _karyas_. These three words were all adjectives, and agreed with the\n thing possessed in gender, number, and case; thus, _mala-krte_\n _karande_, in the basket of the garland, literally, in the\n garland-made basket. In the various dialects of Apabhramsa Prakrit\n _krtas_ became (strong form) _kida-u_ or _kia-u_, _krtyas_ became\n _kicca-u_, and _karyas_ became _kera-u_ or _kajja-u_, the initial _k_\n of which is liable to elision after a vowel. With the exception of\n Gujarati (and perhaps Marathi, q.v.) every Indo-Aryan language has\n genitive postpositions derived from one or other of these forms. Thus\n from _(ki)da-u_ we have Panjabi _da_; from _kia-u_ we have H. _ka_,\n Br. kau, E.H. and Bihari _k_ and Naipali _ko_; from _(ki)cca-u_ we\n have perhaps Marathi _ca_; from _kera-u_, E.H. and Bihari _ker_,\n _kar_, Bengali Oriya and Assamese -_r_, and Rajasthani -_ro_; while\n from _(ka)jja-u_ we have the Sindhi _jo_. It will be observed that\n while _k_, _ker_, _kar_, and _r_ are weak forms, the rest are strong.\n As already stated, the genitive is an adjective. _Bap_ means \"father,\"\n and _bap-ka ghora_ is literally \"the paternal horse.\" Hence (while\n the weak forms as usual do not change) these genitives agree with the\n thing possessed in gender, number, and case. Thus, _bap-ka ghora_, the\n horse of the father, but _bap-ki ghori_, the mare of the father, and\n _bap-ke ghore-ko_, to the horse of the father, the _ka_ being put into\n the oblique case masculine _ke_, to agree with _ghore_, which is\n itself in an oblique case. The details of the agreement vary slightly\n in P. and W.H., and must be learnt from the grammars. The E.H. weak\n forms do not change in the modern language. Finally, in Prakrit it was\n customary to add these postpositions (_kera-u_, &c.) to the genitive,\n as in _mama_ or _mama kera-u_, of me. Similarly these postpositions\n are, in the modern languages, added to the oblique form.\n\n The locative of the Sanskrit _krtas_, _krte_, was used in that\n language as a dative postposition, and it can be shown that all the\n dative postpositions given above are by origin old oblique forms of\n some genitive postposition. Thus H. _ko_, Br. _kau_, is a contraction\n of _kahu_, an old oblique form of _kia-u_. Similarly for the others.\n The origin of the ablative postpositions is obscure. To the present\n writer they all seem (like the Bengal _haite_) to be connected with\n the verb substantive, but their derivation has not been definitely\n fixed. The locative postpositions _me_ and _mai_ are derived from the\n Skr. _madhye_, in, through _majjhi_, _mahi_, and so on. The derivation\n of _vicc_ and _bikhe_ is obscure.\n\n +-------------+------------+---------+------------+--------+---------+\n | | Apabhramsa.| Panjabi.| Hindostani.| Braj | Eastern |\n | | | | | Bhasha.| Hindi. |\n +-------------+------------+---------+------------+--------+---------+\n | I, Nom. | hau | mai | mai | hau | mai |\n | Obl. | mai, mahu, | mai | mujh | mohi | mo |\n | | majjhu | | | | |\n | WE, Nom. | amhe | asi | ham | ham | ham |\n | Obl. | amaha | asa | hamo | hamau, | ham |\n | | | | | hamani| |\n | THOU, Nom. | tuhu | tu | tu | tu | tai |\n | Obl. | tai, tuha, | tai | tujh | tohi | to |\n | | tujjhu | | | | |\n | YOU, Nom. | tumhe | tusi | tum | tum | tum |\n | Obl. | tumhaha | tusa | tumho | tumhau | tum |\n +-------------+------------+---------+------------+--------+---------+\n\n The pronouns closely follow the Prakrit originals. This will be\n evident from the preceding table of the first two personal pronouns\n compared with Apabhramsa.\n\n It will be observed that in most of the nominatives of the first\n person, and in the E.H. nominative of the second person, the old\n nominative has disappeared, and its place has been supplied by an\n oblique form, exactly as we have observed in the nominative plural of\n nouns substantive. The P. _asi_, _tusi_, &c., are survivals from the\n old Lahnda (see _Linguistic Boundaries_, above). The genitives of\n these two pronouns are rarely used, possessive pronouns (in H. _mera_,\n my; _hamara_, our; _tera_, thy; _tumhara_, your) being employed\n instead. They can all (except P. _asada_, our; _tusada_, your, which\n are Lahnda) be referred to corresponding Ap. forms.\n\n There is no pronoun of the third person, the demonstrative pronouns\n being used instead. The following table shows the principal remaining\n pronominal forms, with their derivation from Ap.:--\n\n +--------------------+--------------+----------+------------+--------+---------+\n | | Apabhramsa. | Panjabi. | Hindostani.| Braj | Eastern |\n | | | | | Bhasha.| Hindi. |\n +--------------------+--------------+----------+------------+--------+---------+\n | THAT, HE, Nom. | ? | uh | woh | wo | u |\n | Obl. | ? | uh | us | wa | o |\n | THOSE, THEY, Nom. | oi | oh | we | wai | unh |\n | Obl. | ? | unha | unh | uni | unh |\n | THIS, HE, Nom. | ehu | ih | yeh | yah | i |\n | Obl. | ehasu, ehaho| ih | is | ya | e |\n | THESE, THEY, Nom. | ei | eh | ye | yai | inh |\n | Obl. | ehana | inha | inh | ini | inh |\n | THAT, Nom. | so | so | so | so | se |\n | Obl. | tasu, taho | tih | tis | ta | te |\n | THOSE, Nom. | se | so | so | so | se |\n | Obl. | tana | tinha | tinh | tini | tenh |\n | WHO, Nom. | jo | jo | jo | jo | je |\n | Obl. | jasu, jaho | jih | jis | ja | je |\n | WHO (pl.), Nom. | je | jo | jo | jo | je |\n | Obl. | jana | jinha | jinh | jini | jenh |\n | WHO? Nom. | ko, kawanu | kaun | kaun | ko | ke |\n | Obl. | kasu, kaho | kih | kis | ka | ke |\n | WHO? (pl.), Nom. | ke | kaun | kaun | ko | ke |\n | Obl. | kana | kinha | kinh | kini | kenh |\n | WHAT?(Neut.), Nom. | kim | kia | kya | kaha | ka |\n | Obl. | kaha, kasu | kah, kas| kahe | kahe | kahe |\n +--------------------+--------------+----------+------------+--------+---------+\n\n The origin of the first pronoun given above (that, he; those, they)\n cannot be referred to Sanskrit. It is derived from an Indo-Aryan base\n which was not admitted to the classical literary language, but of\n which we find sporadic traces in Apabhramsa. The existence of this\n base is further vouched for by its occurrence in the Iranian language\n of the Avesta under the form _ava-_. The base of the second pronoun is\n the same as the base of the first syllable in the Skr. _e-sas_, this,\n and other connected pronouns, and also occurs in the Avesta. Ap. _ehu_\n is directly derived from _e-sas_.\n\n There are other pronominal forms upon which, except perhaps _koi_ (Pr.\n _ko-vi_, Skr. _ko-'pi_), any one, it is unnecessary to dwell. The\n phrase _koi hai_? \"Is any one (there)?\" is the usual formula for\n calling a servant in upper India, and is the origin of the\n Anglo-Indian word \"Qui-hi.\" The reflexive pronoun is _ap_ (Ap. _appu_,\n Skr. _atma_), self, which, something like the Latin _suus_ (Skr.\n _svas_), always refers to the subject of the sentence, but to all\n persons, not only to the third. Thus _mai apne_ (not _mere_) _bap-ko\n dekhta-hu_, \"I see my father.\"\n\n C. _Conjugation_.--The synthetic conjugation was already commencing to\n disappear in Prakrit, and in the modern languages the only original\n tenses which remain are the present, the imperative, and here and\n there the future. The first is now generally employed as a present\n subjunctive. In the accompanying table we have the conjugation of this\n tense, and also the three participles, present active, and past and\n future passive, compared with Apabhramsa, the verb selected being the\n intransitive root _call_ or _cal_, go. In Ap. the word may be spelt\n with one or with two _ls_, which accounts for the variations of\n spelling in the modern languages.\n\n The imperative closely resembles the old present, except that it drops\n all terminations in the 2nd person singular; thus, _cal_, go thou.\n\n In P. and H. a future is formed by adding the syllable _ga_ (fem.\n _gi_) to the simple present. Thus, H. _calu-ga_, I shall go. The _ga_\n is commonly said to be derived from the Skr. _gatas_ (Pr. _gao_),\n gone, but this suggestion is not altogether acceptable to the present\n writer, although he is not now able to propose a better. Under the\n form of _-gau_ the same termination is used in Br., but in that\n dialect the old future has also survived, as in _calihau_ (Ap.\n _calihau_, Skr. _calisyami_), I shall go, which is conjugated like the\n simple present. The E.H. formation of the future is closely analogous\n to what we find in Bihari (q.v.). The third person is formed as in\n Braj Bhasha, but the first and second persons are formed by adding\n pronominal suffixes, meaning \"by me,\" \"by thee,\" &c., to the future\n passive participle.\n\n +---------------------+------------+---------+------------+--------+---------+\n | | Apabhramsa.| Panjabi.| Hindostani.| Braj | Eastern |\n | | | | | Bjasja.| Hindi. |\n +---------------------+------------+---------+------------+--------+---------+\n | Old Present-- | | | | | |\n | Singular 1. | callau | calla | calu | calau | calau |\n | \" 2. | callasi, | calle | cale | calai | calas |\n | | callahi | | | | |\n | \" 3. | callai | calle | cale | calai | calai |\n | Plural 1. | callahu | calliye | cale | calai | calai |\n | \" 2. | callahu | callo | calo | calau | calau |\n | \" 3. | callanti, | callan | cale | calai | calai |\n | | callahi | | | | |\n | Present Participle | callanta-u | callda | calta | calatu | calat |\n | Past Part. Passive | callia-u | callia | cala | calyau | cala |\n | Future Part. Passive| callania-u | callna | calna | calnau | |\n | | calliavva-u| .. | .. | caliwau| calab |\n +---------------------+------------+---------+------------+--------+---------+\n\n Thus, _calab-u_, it-is-to-be-gone by-me, I shall go. We thus get the\n following forms. It will be observed that, as in many other Indo-Aryan\n languages, the first person plural has no suffix:--\n\n Sing. Plur.\n 1. alabu calab\n 2. calabe calabo\n 3. calihai calihai\n\n In old E.H. the future participle passive, _calab_, takes no suffix\n for any person, and is used for all persons.\n\n The last remark leads us to a class of tenses in P. and W.H., in which\n a participle, by itself, can be employed for any person of a finite\n tense. A few examples of the use of the present and past participles\n will show the construction. They are all taken from Hindostani. _Woh\n calta_, he goes; _woh calti_, she goes; _mai cala_, I went; _woh\n cali_, she went; _we cale_, they went. The present participle in this\n construction, though it may be used to signify the present, is more\n commonly employed to signify a past conditional \"(if) he had gone.\" It\n will have been observed that in the above examples, in all of which\n the verb is intransitive, the past as well as the present participle\n agrees with the subject in gender and number; but, if the verb be\n transitive, the passive meaning of the past participle comes into\n force. The subject must be put into the case of the agent, and the\n participle inflects to agree with the object. If the object be not\n expressed, or, as sometimes happens, be expressed in the dative case,\n the participle is construed impersonally, and takes the masculine (for\n want of a neuter) form. Thus, _mai-ne kaha_, by-me it-was-said, i.e. I\n said; _us-ne citthi likhi_, by-him a-letter (fem.) was-written, he\n wrote a letter; _raja-ne sherni-ko mara_, the king killed the tigress,\n lit., by-the-king, with-reference-to-the-tigress, it (impersonal)\n -was-killed. In the article PRAKRIT it is shown that the same\n construction is obtained in that language.\n\n In E.H. the construction is the same, but is obscured by the fact that\n (as in the future) pronominal suffixes are added to the participle to\n indicate the person of the subject or of the agent, as in _calat-eu_,\n (if) I had gone; _cal-eu_, I went; _mar-eu_ (transitive), I struck,\n lit., struck-by-me; _mar-es_, struck-by-him, he struck. If the\n participle has to be feminine, it (although a weak form) takes the\n feminine termination _i_, as in _mari-u_, I struck her; _calati-u_,\n (if) I (fem.) had gone; _cali-u_, I (fem.) went.\n\n Further tenses are formed by adding the verb substantive to these\n participles, as in H. _mai calta-hu_, I am going; _mai calta-tha_, I\n was going; _mai cala-hu_, I have gone; _mai cala-tha_, I had gone.\n These and other auxiliary verbs need not detain us long. They differ\n in the various languages. For \"I am\" we have P. _ha_, H. _hu_, Br.\n _hau_, E.H. _batyeu_ or _aheu_. For \"I was\" we have P. _si_ or _sa_,\n H. _tha_, Br. _hau_ or _hutau_, E.H. _raheu_. The H. _hu_ is thus\n conjugated:--\n\n Sing. Plur.\n 1. hu hai\n 2. hai ho\n 3. hai hai\n\n The derivation of _ha_, _hu_, _hau_, and _aheu_ is uncertain. They are\n usually derived from the Skr. _asmi_, I am; but this presents many\n difficulties. An old form of the third person singular is _hwai_, and\n this points to the Pr. _havai_, he is, equivalent to the Skr.\n _bhavati_, he becomes. On the other hand this does not account for the\n initial _a_ of _aheu_. This last word is in the _form_ of a past\n tense, and it may be a secondary formation from _asmi_. The P. _si_ is\n not a feminine of _sa_, as usually stated, but is a survival of the\n Skr. _asit_, Pr. _asi_, was. As in the Prakrit form, _si_ is employed\n for both genders, both numbers and all persons. _Sa_ is a secondary\n formation from this, on the analogy of the H. _tha_, which is from the\n Skr. _sthitas_, Pr. _thio_, stood, and is a participial form like\n _cal_a; thus, _woh tha_, he was; _woh thi_, she was. The Br. _hau_ is\n a modern past of _hau_, while _hutau_ is probably by origin a present\n participle of the Skr. _bhu_, become, Pr. _huntao_. The E.H. _bateu_,\n is the Skr. _varte_, Ap. _vattau_. _Raheu_ is the past tense of the\n root _rah_, remain.\n\n The future participle passive is everywhere freely used as an\n infinitive or verbal noun; thus, H. _calna_, E.H. _calab_, the act of\n going, to go. There is a whole series of derivative verbal forms,\n making potential passives and transitives from intransitives, and\n causals (and even double causals) from transitives. Thus _dikhna_, to\n be seen; potential passive, _dikhana_, to be visible; transitive,\n _dekhna_, to see; causal, _dikhlana_, to show.\n\n D. _Literature._--The literatures of Western and Eastern Hindi form\n the subject of a separate article (see HINDOSTANI LITERATURE). Panjabi\n has no formal literature. Even the _Granth_, the sacred book of the\n Sikhs, is mainly in archaic Western Hindi, only a small portion being\n in Panjabi. On the other hand, the language is peculiarly rich in\n folksongs and ballads, some of considerable length and great poetic\n beauty. The most famous is the ballad of _Hir_ and _Ranjha_ by Waris\n Shah, which is considered to be a model of pure Panjabi. Colonel Sir\n Richard Temple has published an important collection of these songs\n under the title of _The Legends of the Punjab_ (3 vols., Bombay and\n London, 1884-1900), in which both texts and translations of nearly all\n the favourite ones are to be found.\n\n AUTHORITIES.--(a) General: The two standard authorities are the\n comparative grammars of J. Beames (1872-1879) and A. F. R. Hoernle\n (1880), mentioned in the article INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGES. To these may be\n added G. A. Grierson, \"On the Radical and Participial Tenses of the\n Modern Indo-Aryan Languages\" in the _Journal of the Asiatic Society of\n Bengal_, vol. lxiv. (1895), part i. pp. 352 et seq.; and \"On Certain\n Suffixes in the Modern Indo-Aryan Vernaculars\" in the _Zeitschrift fur\n vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen\n Sprachen_ for 1903, pp. 473 et seq.\n\n (b) For the separate languages, see C. J. Lyall, _A Sketch of the\n Hindustani Language_ (Edinburgh, 1880); S. H. Kellogg, _A Grammar of\n the Hindi Language_ (for both Western and Eastern Hindi), (2nd ed.,\n London, 1893); J. T. Platts, _A Grammar of the Hindustani or Urdu\n Language_ (London, 1874); and _A Dictionary of Urdu, Classical Hindi\n and English_ (London, 1884); E. P. Newton, _Panjabi Grammar: with\n Exercises and Vocabulary_ (Ludhiana, 1898); and Bhai Maya Singh, _The\n Panjabi Dictionary_ (Lahore, 1895). _The Linguistic Survey of India_,\n vol. vi., describes Eastern Hindi, and vol. ix., Hindostani and\n Panjabi, in each instance in great detail. (G. A. Gr.)\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [1] \"Hindostan\" is a Persian word, and in modern Persian is\n pronounced \"Hindustan.\" It means the country of the Hindus. In\n medieval Persian the word was \"Hindostan,\" with an _o_, but in the\n modern language the distinctions between _e_ and _i_ and between _o_\n and _u_ have been lost. Indian languages have borrowed Persian words\n in their medieval form. Thus in India we have _sher_, a tiger, as\n compared with modern Persian _shir_; _go_, but modern Pers. _gu_;\n _bostan_, but modern Pers. _bustan_. The word \"Hindu\" is in medieval\n Persian \"Hindo\" representing the ancient Avesta _hendava_ (Sanskrit,\n _saindhava_), a dweller on the _Sindhu_ or Indus. Owing to the\n influence of scholars in modern Persian the word \"Hindu\" is now\n established in English and, through English, in the Indian literary\n languages; but \"Hindo\" is also often heard in India. \"Hindostan\" with\n _o_ is much more common both in English and in Indian languages,\n although \"Hindustan\" is also employed. Up to the days of Persian\n supremacy inaugurated in Calcutta by Gilchrist and his friends, every\n traveller in India spoke of \"Indostan\" or some such word, thus\n bearing testimony to the current pronunciation. Gilchrist introduced\n \"Hindoostan,\" which became \"Hindustan\" in modern spelling. The word\n is not an Indian one, and both pronunciations, with _o_ and with _u_,\n are current in India at the present day, but that with _o_ is\n unquestionably the one demanded by the history of the word and of the\n form which other Persian words take on Indian soil. On the other hand\n \"Hindu\" is too firmly established in English for us to suggest the\n spelling \"Hindo.\". The word \"Hindi\" has another derivation, being\n formed from the Persian _Hind_, India (Avesta _hindu_, Sanskrit\n _sindhu_, the Indus). \"Hindi\" means \"of or belonging to India,\" while\n \"Hindu\" now means \"a person of the Hindu religion.\" (Cf. Sir C. J.\n Lyall, _A Sketch of the Hindustani Language_, p. 1).\n\n [2] Sir C. J. Lyall, _op. cit._ p. 9.\n\n [3] This and the preceding paragraph are partly taken from Mr\n Platts's article in vol. xi. of the 9th edition of this\n encyclopaedia.\n\n [4] In some dialects of W.H. weak forms have masculines ending in u\n and corresponding feminines in _i_, but these are nowadays rarely met\n in the literary forms of speech. In old poetry they are common. In\n Braj Bhasha they have survived in the present participle.\n\n\n\n\nHINDOSTANI LITERATURE. The writings dealt with in this article are those\ncomposed in the vernacular of that part of India which is properly\ncalled Hindostan,--that is, the valleys of the Jumna and Ganges rivers\nas far east as the river Kos, and the tract to the south including\nRajputana, Central India (Bundelkhand and Baghelkhand), the Narmada\n(Nerbudda) valley as far west as Khandwa, and the northern half of the\nCentral Provinces. It does not include the Punjab proper (though the\ntown population there speak Hindostani), nor does it extend to Lower\nBengal.\n\nIn this region several different dialects prevail. The people of the\ntowns everywhere use chiefly the form of the language called _Urdu_ or\n_Rekhta_,[1] stocked with Persian words and phrases, and ordinarily\nwritten in a modification of the Persian character. The country folk\n(who form the immense majority) speak different varieties of _Hindi_, of\nwhich the word-stock derives from the Prakrits and literary Sanskrit,\nand which are written in the Devanagari or Kaithi character. Of these\nthe most important from a literary point of view, proceeding from west\nto east, are _Marwari_ and _Jaipuri_ (the languages of Rajputana),\n_Brajbhasha_ (the language of the country about Mathura and Agra),\n_Kanauji_ (the language of the lower Ganges-Jumna Doab and western\nRohilkhand), _Eastern Hindi_, also called _Awadhi_ and _Baiswari_ (the\nlanguage of Eastern Rohilkhand, Oudh and the Benares division of the\nUnited Provinces) and _Bihari_ (the language of Bihar or Mithila,\ncomprising several distinct dialects). What is called _High Hindi_ is a\nmodern development, for literary purposes, of the dialect of Western\nHindi spoken in the neighbourhood of Delhi and thence northwards to the\nHimalaya, which has formed the vernacular basis of Urdu; the Persian\nwords in the latter have been eliminated and replaced by words of\nSanskritic origin, and the order of words in the sentence which is\nproper to the indigenous speech is more strictly adhered to than in\nUrdu, which under the influence of Persian constructions has admitted\nmany inversions.\n\nAs in many other countries, nearly all the early vernacular literature\nof Hindostan is in verse, and works in prose are a modern growth.[2]\nBoth Hindi and Urdu are, in their application to literary purposes, at\nfirst intruders upon the ground already occupied by the learned\nlanguages Sanskrit and Persian, the former representing Hindu and the\nlatter Musalman culture. But there is this difference between them,\nthat, whereas Hindi has been raised to the dignity of a literary speech\nchiefly by impulses of revolt against the monopoly of the Brahmans, Urdu\nhas been cultivated with goodwill by authors who have themselves highly\nvalued and dexterously used the polished Persian. Both Sanskrit and\nPersian continue to be employed occasionally for composition by Indian\nwriters, though much fallen from their former estate; but for popular\npurposes it may be said that their vernacular rivals are now almost in\nsole possession of the field.\n\nThe subject may be conveniently divided as follows:--\n\n 1. Early Hindi, of the period during which the language was being\n fashioned as a literary medium out of the ancient Prakrits,\n represented by the old heroic poems of Rajputana and the literature of\n the early _Bhagats_ or Vaishnava reformers, and extending from about\n A.D. 1100 to 1550;\n\n 2. Middle Hindi, representing the best age of Hindi poetry, and\n reaching from about 1550 to the end of the 18th century;\n\n 3. The rise and development of literary Urdu, beginning about the end\n of the 16th century, and reaching its height during the 18th;\n\n 4. The modern period, marked by the growth of a prose literature in\n both dialects, and dating from the beginning of the 19th century.\n\n1. _Early Hindi._--Our knowledge of the ancient metrical chronicles of\nRajputana is still very imperfect, and is chiefly derived from the\nmonumental work of Colonel James Tod, called _The Annals and Antiquities\nof Rajasthan_ (published in 1829-1832), which is founded on them. It is\nin the nature of compositions of this character to be subjected to\nperpetual revision and recasting; they are the production of the family\nbards of the dynasties whose fortunes they record, and from generation\nto generation they are added to, and their language constantly modified\nto make it intelligible to the people of the time. Round an original\nnucleus of historical fact a rich growth of legend accumulates; later\nredactors endeavour to systematize and to assign dates, but the result\nis not often such as to inspire confidence; and the mass has more the\ncharacter of ballad literature than of serious history. The materials\nused by Tod are nearly all still unprinted; his manuscripts are now\ndeposited in the library of the Royal Asiatic Society in London; and one\nof the tasks which, on linguistic and historical grounds, should first\nbe undertaken by the investigator of early Hindi literature is the\nexamination and sifting, and the publication in their original form, of\nthese important texts.\n\nOmitting a few fragments of more ancient bards given by compilers of\naccounts of Hindi literature, the earliest author of whom any portion\nhas as yet been published in the original text is Chand Bardai, the\ncourt bard of Prithwi-Raj, the last Hindu sovereign of Delhi. His poem,\nentitled _Prithi-Raj Rasau_ (or _Raysa_), is a vast chronicle in 69\nbooks or cantos, comprising a general history of the period when he\nwrote. Of this a small portion has been printed, partly under the\neditorship of the late Mr John Beames and partly under that of Dr Rudolf\nHoernle, by the Asiatic Society of Bengal; but the excessively difficult\nnature of the task prevented both scholars from making much progress.[3]\nChand, who came of a family of bards, was a native of Lahore, which had\nfor nearly 170 years (since 1023) been under Muslim rule when he\nflourished, and the language of the poem exhibits a considerable leaven\nof Persian words. In its present form the work is a redaction made by\nAmar Singh of Mewar, about the beginning of the 17th century, and\ntherefore more than 400 years after Chand's death, with his patron\nPrithwi-Raj, in 1193. There is, therefore, considerable reason to doubt\nwhether we have in it much of Chand's composition in its original shape;\nand the nature of the incidents described enhances this doubt. The\ndetailed dates contained in the Chronicle have been shown by Kabiraj\nSyamal Das[4] to be in every case about ninety years astray. It tells of\nrepeated conflicts between the hero Prithwi-Raj and Sultan Shihabuddin,\nof Ghor (Muhammad Ghori), in which the latter always, except in the last\ngreat battle, comes off the worst, is taken prisoner and is released on\npayment of a ransom; these seem to be entirely unhistorical, our\ncontemporary Persian authorities knowing of only one encounter (that of\nTirauri (Tirawari) near Thenesar, fought in 1191) in which the Sultan\nwas defeated, and even then he escaped uncaptured to Lahore. The Mongols\n(Book XV.) are brought on the stage more than thirty years before they\nactually set foot in India, and are related to have been vanquished by\nthe redoubtable Prithwi-Raj. It is evident that such a record cannot\npossibly be, in its entirety, a contemporary chronicle; but nevertheless\nit appears to contain a considerable element which, from its language,\nmay belong to Chand's own age, and represents the earliest surviving\ndocument in Hindi. \"Though we may not possess the actual text of Chand,\nwe have certainly in his writings some of the oldest known specimens of\nGaudian literature, abounding in pure Apabhramsa Sauraseni Prakrit\nforms\" (Grierson).\n\n It is very difficult now to form a just estimate of the poem as\n literature. The language, essentially transitional in character,\n consists largely of words which have long since died out of the\n vernacular speech. Even the most learned Hindus of the present day are\n unable to interpret it with confidence; and the meaning of the verses\n must be sought by investigating the processes by which Sanskrit and\n Prakrit forms have been transfigured in their progress into Hindi.\n Chand appears, on the whole, to exhibit the merits and defects of\n ballad chroniclers in general. There is much that is lively and\n spirited in his descriptions of fight or council; and the characters\n of the Rajput warriors who surround his hero are often sketched in\n their utterances with skill and animation. The sound, however,\n frequently predominates over the sense; the narrative is carried on\n with the wearisome iteration and tedious unfolding of familiar themes\n and images which characterize all such poetry in India; and his value,\n for us at least, is linguistic rather than literary.\n\nChand may be taken as the representative of a long line of successors,\ncontinued even to the present day in the Rajput states. Many of their\ncompositions are still widely popular as ballad literature, but are known\nonly in oral versions sung in Hindostan by professional singers. One of\nthe most famous of these is the _Alha-khand_, reputed to be the work of a\ncontemporary of Chand called Jagnik or Jagnayak, of Mahoba in Bundelkhand,\nwho sang the praises of Raja-Parmal, a ruler whose wars with Prithwi-Raj\nare recorded in the Mahoba-Khand of Chand's work. Alha and Udal, the\nheroes of the poem, are famous warriors in popular legend, and the stories\nconnected with them exist in an eastern recension, current in Bihar, as\nwell as in the Bundelkhandi or western form which is best known. Two\nversions of the latter have been printed, having been taken down as\nrecited by illiterate professional rhapsodists. Another celebrated bard\nwas Sarangdhar of Rantambhor, who flourished in 1363, and sang the praises\nof Hammir Deo (Hamir Deo), the Chauhan chief of Rantambhor who fell in a\nheroic struggle against Sultan 'Ala'uddin Khilji in 1300. He wrote the\n_Hammir Kavya_ and _Hammir Rasau_, of which an account is given by Tod;[5]\nhe was also a poet in Sanskrit, in which language he compiled, in 1363,\nthe anthology called _Sarngadhara-Paddhati_. Another work which may be\nmentioned (though much more modern) is the long chronicle entitled\n_Chhattra-Prakas_, or the history of Raja Chhatarsal, the Bundela raja of\nPanna, who was killed, fighting on behalf of Prince Dara-Shukoh, in the\nbattle of Dholpur won by Aurangzeb in 1658. The author, Lal Kabi, has\ngiven in this work a history of the valiant Bundela nation which was\nrendered into English by Captain W. R. Pogson in 1828, and printed at\nCalcutta.\n\nBefore passing on to the more important branch of early Hindi\nliterature, the works of the _Bhagats_, mention may be made here of a\nremarkable composition, a poem entitled the _Padmawat_, the materials of\nwhich are derived from the heroic legends of Rajputana, but which is not\nthe work of a bard nor even of a Hindu. The author, Malik Muhammad of\nJa'is, in Oudh, was a venerated Muslim devotee, to whom the Hindu raja\nof Amethi was greatly attached. Malik Muhammad wrote the Padmawat in\n1540, the year in which Sher Shah Sur ousted Humayan from the throne of\nDelhi. The poem is composed in the purest vernacular Awadhi, with no\nadmixture of traditional Hindu learning, and is generally to be found\nwritten in the Persian character, though the metres and language are\nthoroughly Indian. It professes to tell the tale of Padmawati or\nPadmini, a princess celebrated for her beauty who was the wife of the\nChauhan raja of Chitor in Mewar. The historical Padmini's husband was\nnamed Bhim Singh, but Malik Muhammad calls him Ratan Sen; and the story\nturns upon the attempts of 'Ala'uddin Khilji, the sovereign of Delhi, to\ngain possession of her person. The tale of the siege of Chitor in 1303\nby 'Ala'uddin, the heroic stand made by its defenders, who perished to\nthe last man in fight with the Sultan's army, and the self-immolation of\nPadmini and the other women, the wives and daughters of the warriors, by\nthe fiery death called _johar_, will be found related in Tod's\n_Rajasthan_, i. 262 sqq. Malik Muhammad takes great liberties with the\nhistory, and explains at the end of the poem that all is an allegory,\nand that the personages represent the human soul, Divine wisdom, Satan,\ndelusion and other mystical characters.\n\n Both on account of its interest as a true vernacular work, and as the\n composition of a Musalman who has taken the incidents of his morality\n from the legends of his country and not from an exotic source, the\n poem is memorable. It has often been lithographed, and is very\n popular; a translation has even been made into Sanskrit. A critical\n edition has been prepared by Dr G. A. Grierson and Pandit Sudhakar\n Dwivedi.\n\nThe other class of composition which is characteristic of the period of\nearly Hindi, the literature of the _Bhagats_, or Vaishnava saints, who\npropagated the doctrine of _bhakti_, or faith in Vishnu, as the popular\nreligion of Hindostan, has exercised a much more powerful influence both\nupon the national speech and upon the themes chosen for poetic\ntreatment. It is also, as a body of literature, of high intrinsic\ninterest for its form and content. Nearly the whole of subsequent\npoetical composition in Hindi is impressed with one or other type of\nVaishnava doctrine, which, like Buddhism many centuries before, was\nessentially a reaction against Brahmanical influence and the chains of\ncaste, a claim for the rights of humanity in face of the monopoly which\nthe \"twice-born\" asserted of learning, of worship, of righteousness. A\nlarge proportion of the writers were non-Brahmans, and many of them of\nthe lowest castes. As Siva was the popular deity of the Brahmans, so was\nVishnu of the people; and while the literature of the Saivas and\nSaktas[6] is almost entirely in Sanskrit, and exercised little or no\ninfluence on the popular mind in northern India, that of the Vaishnavas\nis largely in Hindi, and in itself constitutes the great bulk of what\nhas been written in that language.\n\nThe Vaishnava doctrine is commonly carried back to Ramanuja, a Brahman\nwho was born about the end of the 11th century, at Perambur in the\nneighbourhood of the modern Madras, and spent his life in southern\nIndia. His works, which are in Sanskrit and consist of commentaries on\nthe Vedanta Sutras, are devoted to establishing \"the personal existence\nof a Supreme Deity, possessing every gracious attribute, full of love\nand pity for the sinful beings who adore him, and granting the released\nsoul a home of eternal bliss near him--a home where each soul never\nloses its identity, and whose state is one of perfect peace.\"[7] In the\nDeity's infinite love and pity he has on several occasions become\nincarnate for the salvation of mankind, and of these incarnations two,\nRamachandra, the prince of Ayodhya, and Krishna, the chief of the Yadava\nclan and son of Vasudeva, are pre-eminently those in which it is most\nfitting that he should be worshipped. Both of these incarnations had for\nmany centuries[8] attracted popular veneration, and their histories had\nbeen celebrated by poets in epics and by weavers of religious myths in\n_Puranas_ or \"old stories\"; but it was apparently Ramanuja's teaching\nwhich secured for them, and especially for Ramachandra, their exclusive\nplace as the objects of _bhakti_--ardent faith and personal devotion\naddressed to the Supreme. The adherents of Ramanuja were, however, all\nBrahmans, and observed very strict rules in respect of food, bathing and\ndress; the new doctrine had not yet penetrated to the people.\n\nWhether Ramanuja himself gave the preference to Rama against Krishna as\nthe form of Vishnu most worthy of worship is uncertain. He dealt mainly\nwith philosophic conceptions of the Divine Nature, and probably busied\nhimself little with mythological legend. His _mantra_, or formula of\ninitiation, if Wilson[9] was correctly informed, implies devotion to\nRama; but Vasudeva (Krishna) is also mentioned as a principal object of\nadoration, and Ramanuja himself dwelt for several years in Mysore, at a\ntemple erected by the raja, at Yadavagiri in honour of Krishna in his\nform Ranchhor.[10] It is stated that in his worship of Krishna he joined\nwith that god as his _Sakti_, or Energy, his wife Rukmini; while the\nlater varieties of Krishna-worship prefer to honour his mistress Radha.\nThe great difference, in temper and influence upon life, between these\ntwo forms of Vaishnava faith appears to be a development subsequent to\nRamanuja; but by the time of Jaideo (about 1250) it is clear that the\ntheme of Krishna and Radha, and the use of passionate language drawn\nfrom the relations of the sexes to express the longings of the soul for\nGod, had become fully established; and from that time onwards the two\ntypes of Vaishnava religious emotion diverged more and more from one\nanother.\n\nThe cult of Rama is founded on family life, and the relation of the\nworshipper to the Deity is that of a child to a father. The morality it\ninculcates springs from the sacred sources of human piety which in all\nreligions have wrought most in favour of pureness of life, of fraternal\nhelpfulness and of humble devotion to a loving and tender Parent, who\ndesires the good of mankind, His children, and hates violence and wrong.\nThat of Krishna, on the other hand, had for its basis the legendary\ncareer of a less estimable human hero, whose exploits are marked by a\nkind of elvish and fantastic wantonness; it has more and more spent its\nenergy in developing that side of devotion which is perilously near to\nsensual thought, and has allowed the imagination and ingenuity of poets\nto dwell on things unmeet for verse or even for speech. It is claimed\nfor those who first opened this way to faith that their hearts were pure\nand their thoughts innocent, and that the language of erotic passion\nwhich they use as the vehicle of their religious emotion is merely\nmystical and allegorical. This is probable; but that these beginnings\nwere followed by corruption in the multitude, and that the fervent\nimpulses of adoration made way in later times for those of lust and\nlasciviousness, seems beyond dispute.\n\nThe worship of Krishna, especially in his infant and youthful form\n(which appeals chiefly to women), is widely popular in the neighbourhood\nof Mathura, the capital of that land of Braj where as a boy he lived.\nIts literature is mainly composed in the dialect of this region, called\nBrajbhasha. That of Rama, though general throughout Hindostan, has\nsince the time of Tulsi Das adopted for poetic use the language of Oudh,\ncalled Awadhi or Baiswari, a form of Eastern Hindi easily understood\nthroughout the whole of the Gangetic valley. Thus these two dialects\ncame to be, what they are to this day, the standard vehicles of poetic\nexpression.\n\nSubsequently to Ramanuja his doctrine appears to have been set forth,\nabout 1250, in the vernacular of the people by Jaideo, a Brahman born at\nKinduvilva, the modern Kenduli, in the Birbhum district of Bengal,\nauthor of the Sanskrit _Gita Govinda_, and by Namdeo or Nama, a\ntailor[11] of Maharashtra, of both of whom verses in the popular speech\nare preserved in the _Adi Granth_ of the Sikhs. But it was not until the\nbeginning of the 15th century that the Brahman Ramanand, a prominent\n_Gosain_ of the sect of Ramanuja, having had a dispute with the members\nof his order in regard to the stringent rules observed by them, left the\ncommunity, migrated to northern India (where he is said to have made his\nheadquarters Galta in Rajputana), and addressed himself to those outside\nthe Brahman caste, thus initiating the teaching of Vaishnavism as the\npopular faith of Hindostan. Among his twelve disciples or apostles were\na Rajput, a Jat, a leather-worker, a barber and a Musalman weaver; the\nlast-mentioned was the celebrated KABIR (see separate article). One\nshort Hindi poem by Ramanand is contained in the _Adi Granth_, and Dr\nGrierson has collected hymns (_bhajans_) attributed to him and still\ncurrent in Mithila or Tirhut. Both Ramanand and Kabir were adherents of\nthe form of Vaishnavism where devotion is specially addressed to Raama,\nwho is regarded not only as an incarnation, but as himself identical\nwith the Deity. A contemporary of Ramanand, Bidyapati Thakur, is\ncelebrated as the author of numerous lyrics in the Maithili dialect of\nBihar, expressive of the other side of Vaishnavism, the passionate\nadoration of the Deity in the person of Krishna, the aspirations of the\nworshipper being mystically conveyed in the character of Radha, the\ncowherdess of Braj and the beloved of the son of Vasudeva. These stanzas\nof Bidyapati (who was a Brahman and author of several works in Sanskrit)\nafterwards inspired the Vaishnava literature of Bengal, whose most\ncelebrated exponent was Chaitanya (b. 1484). Another famous adherent of\nthe same cult was Mira Bai, \"the one great poetess of northern India\"\n(Grierson). This lady, daughter of Raja Ratiya Rana, Rathor, of Merta in\nRajputana, must have been born about the beginning of the 15th century;\nshe was married in 1413 to Raja Kumbhkaran of Mewar, who was killed by\nhis son Uday Rana in 1469. She was devoted to Krishna in the form of\nRanchhor, and her songs have a wide currency in northern India.\n\n An important compilation of the utterances of the early Vaishnava\n saints or _Bhagats_ is contained in the sacred book, or _Adi Granth_,\n of the Sikh _Gurus_. Nanak, the founder of this sect (1469-1538),\n though a native of the Punjab (born at Talvandi on the Ravi near\n Lahore), took his doctrine from the _Bhagats_ (see KABIR); and each of\n the thirty-one _rags_, forming the body of the _Granth_, is followed\n by a compilation of texts from the utterances of Vaishnava saints,\n chiefly of Kabir, in confirmation of the teaching of the _Gurus_,\n while the whole book is closed by a _bhog_ or conclusion, containing\n more verses by the same authors, as well as by a celebrated Indian\n Sufi, Shekh Farid of Pakpattan. The body of the _Granth_ (q.v.), being\n in old Panjabi, falls outside the scope of this article; but the\n extracts included in it from the early writers of old Hindi are a\n precious store of specimens of authors some of whom have left no other\n record in the surviving literature. The _Adi Granth_, which was put\n together about 1600 by Arjun, the fifth _Guru_ of the Sikhs, sets\n forth the creed of the sect in its original pietistic form, before it\n assumed the militant character which afterwards distinguished it under\n the five _Gurus_ who succeeded him.\n\n2. _Middle Hindi._--The second period, that of middle Hindi, begins with\nthe reign of the Emperor Akbar (1556-1605); and it is not improbable\nthat the broad and liberal views of this great monarch, his active\nsympathy with his Hindu subjects, the interest which he took in their\nreligion and literature, and the peace which his organization of the\nempire secured for Hindostan, had an important effect on the great\ndevelopment of Hindi poetry which now set in.[12] Akbar's court was\nitself a centre of poetical composition. The court musician Tan Sen (who\nwas also a poet) is still renowned, and many verses composed by him in\nthe Emperor's name live to this day in the memory of the people. Akbar's\nfavourite minister and companion, Raja Birbal (who fell in battle on the\nnorth-western frontier in 1583), was a musician and a poet as well as a\npolitician, and held the title, conferred by the Emperor, of _Kabi-Ray_,\nor poet laureate; his verses and witty sayings are still extremely\npopular in northern India, though no complete work by him is known to\nexist. Other nobles of the court were also poets, among them the\n_Khan-khanan_ 'Abdur-Rahim, son of Bairam Khan, whose Hindi _dohas_ and\n_kabittas_ are still held in high estimation, and Faizi, brother of the\ncelebrated Abul-Fazl, the Emperor's annalist.\n\nBy this time the worship of Krishna as the lover of Radha\n_(Radha-ballabh)_ had been systematized, and a local habitation found\nfor it at Gokul, opposite Mathura on the Jumna, some 30 m. upstream from\nAgra, Akbar's capital, by Vallabhacharya, a Tailinga Brahman from\nMadras. Born in 1478, in 1497 he chose the land of Braj as his\nheadquarters, thence making missionary tours throughout India. He wrote\nchiefly, if not entirely, in Sanskrit; but among his immediate\nfollowers, and those of his son Bitthalnath (who succeeded his father on\nthe latter's death in 1530), were some of the most eminent poets in\nHindi. Four disciples of Vallabhacharya and four of Bitthalnath, who\nflourished between 1550 and 1570, are known as the _Asht Chhap_, or\n\"Eight Seals,\" and are the acknowledged masters of the literature of\nBraj-bhasha, in which dialect they all wrote. Their names are\nKrishna-Das Pay-ahari, Sur Das (the Bhat), Parmanand Das, Kumbhan Das,\nChaturbhuj Das, Chhit Swami, Nand Das and Gobind Das. Of these much the\nmost celebrated, and the only one whose verses are still popular, is Sur\nDas. The son of Baba Ram Das, who was a singer at Akbar's court, Sur Das\nwas descended, according to his own statement, from the bard of\nPrithwi-Raj, Chand Bardai. A tradition gives the date of his birth as\n1483, and that of his death as 1573; but both seem to be placed too\nearly, and in Abul-Fazl's _Ain-i Akbari_ he is mentioned as living when\nthat work was completed (1596/7). He was blind, and entirely devoted to\nthe worship of Krishna, to whose address he composed a great number of\nhymns (_bhajans_), which have been collected in a compilation entitled\nthe _Sur Sagar_, said to contain 60,000 verses; this work is very highly\nesteemed as the high-water mark of Braj devotional poetry, and has been\nrepeatedly printed in India. Other compositions by him were a\ntranslation in verse of the _Bhagavata Purana_, and a poem dealing with\nthe famous story of Nala and Damayanti; of the latter no copies are now\nknown to exist.\n\nThe great glory of this age is Tulsi Das (q.v.). He and Sur Das between\nthem are held to have exhausted the possibilities of the poetic art. It\nis somewhat remarkable that the time of their appearance coincided with\nthe Elizabethan age of English literature.\n\nTo these great masters succeeded a period of artifice and reflection,\nwhen many works were composed dealing with the rules of poetry and the\nanalysis and the appropriate language of sentiment. Of their writers the\nmost famous is Kesab Das, a Brahman of Bundelkhand, who flourished\nduring the latter part of Akbar's reign and the beginning of that of\nJahangir. His works are the _Rasik-priya_, on composition (1591), the\n_Kavi-priya_, on the laws of poetry (1601), a highly esteemed poem\ndedicated to Parbin Rai Paturi, a celebrated courtesan of Orchha in\nBundelkhand, the _Ramachandrika_, dealing with the history of Rama,\n(1610), and the _Vigyan-gita_ (1610). The fruit of this elaboration of\nthe poetic art reached its highest perfection in BIHARI LAL, whose\n_Sat-sai_, or \"seven centuries\" (1662), is the most remarkable example\nin Hindi of the rhetorical style in poetry (see separate article).\n\nSide by side with this cultivation of the literary use of the themes of\nRama and Krishna, there grew up a class of compositions dealing, in a\ndevotional spirit, with the lives and doings of the holy men from whose\nutterances and example the development of the popular religion\nproceeded. The most famous of these is the _Bhakta-mala_, or \"Roll of\nthe _Bhagats_,\" by Narayan Das, otherwise called Nabha Das, or Nabhaji.\nThis author, who belonged to the despised caste of Doms and was a native\nof the Deccan, had in his youth seen Tulsi Das at Mathura, and himself\nflourished in the first half of the 17th century. His work consists of\n108 stanzas in _chhappai_ metre, each setting forth the characteristics\nof some holy personage, and expressed in a style which is extremely\nbrief and obscure. Its exact date is unknown, but it falls between 1585\nand 1623. The book was furnished with a _ika_ (supplement or gloss) in\nthe _kabitta_ metre, by Priya Das in 1713, gathering up, in an allusive\nand disjointed fashion, all the legendary stories related of each saint.\nThis again was expanded about a century later by a modern author named\nLachhman into a detailed work of biography, called the _Bhakta-sindhu_.\nFrom these nearly all our knowledge (such as it is) of the lives of the\nVaishnava authors, both of the Rama and the Krishna cults, is derived,\nand much of it is of a very legendary and untrustworthy character.\nAnother work, somewhat earlier in date than the _Bhakta-mala_, named the\n_Chaurasi Varta_, is devoted exclusively to stories of the followers of\nVallabhacharya. It is reputed to have been written by Gokulnath, son of\nBitthalnath, son of Vallabhacharya, and is dated in 1551.\n\n The matter of these tales is justly characterized by Professor\n Wilson[13] (who gives some translated specimens) as \"marvellous and\n insipid anecdotes\"; but the book is remarkable for being in very\n artless prose, and, though written more than 300 years ago, shows that\n the current language of Braj was then almost precisely identical with\n that now spoken in that region. A specimen of the text will be found\n at p. 296 of Mr F. S. Growse's _Mathura, a District Memoir_ (3rd ed.,\n 1883).\n\nIt would be tedious to enumerate the many authors who succeeded the\ngreat period of Hind poetical composition which extended through the\nreigns of Akbar, Jahangir and Shahjahan. None of them attained to the\nfame of Sur Das, Tuls Das or Bihari Lal. Their themes exhibit no\nnovelty, and they repeat with a wearisome monotony the sentiments of\ntheir predecessors. The list of Hindi authors drawn up by Dr G. A.\nGrierson, and printed in the _Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal_\nin 1889, may be consulted for the names and works of these _epigoni_.\nThe courts of Chhatarsal, raja of Panna in Bundelkhand, who was killed\nin battle with Aurangzeb in 1658, and of several rajas of Bandho (now\ncalled Riwan or Rewah) in Baghelkhand, were famous for their patronage\nof poets; and the Mogul court itself kept up the office of _Kabi-Ray_ or\npoet laureate even during the fanatical reign of Aurangzeb.\n\nSuch, in the briefest outline, is the character of Hind literature\nduring the period when it grew and flourished through its own original\nforces. Founded by a popular and religious impulse in many respects\ncomparable to that which, nearly 1600 years before, had produced the\ndoctrine and literature, in the vernacular tongue, of Jainism and\nBuddhism, and cultivated largely (though by no means exclusively) by\nauthors not belonging to the Brahmanical order, it was the legitimate\ndescendant in spirit, as Hindi is the legitimate descendant in speech,\nof the Prakrit literature which preceded it. Entirely in verse, it\nadopted and elaborated the Prakrit metrical forms, and carried them to a\npitch of perfection too often overlooked by those who concern themselves\nrather with the substance than the form of the works they read. It\ncovers a wide range of style, and expresses, in the works of its\ngreatest masters, a rich variety of human feeling. Little studied by\nEuropeans in the past, it deserves much more attention than it has\nreceived. The few who have explored it speak of it as an \"enchanted\ngarden\" (Grierson), abounding in beauties of thought and phrase. Above\nall it is to be remembered that it is genuinely popular, and has reached\nstrata of society scarcely touched by literature in Europe. The ballads\nof Rajput prowess, the aphorisms of Kabir, Tulsi Das's _Ramayan_, and\nthe _bhajans_ of Sur Das are to this day carried about everywhere by\nwandering minstrels, and have found their way, throughout the great\nplains of northern India and the uplands of the Vindhya plateau, to the\nhearts of the people. There is no surer key to unlock the confidence of\nthe villager than an apt quotation from one of these inspired singers.\n\n3. _Literary Urdu._--The _origines_ of Urdu as a literary language are\nsomewhat obscure. The popular account refers its rise to the time of\nTimur's invasion (1398). Some authors even claim for it a higher\nantiquity, asserting that a _diwan_, or collection of poems, was\ncomposed in _Rekhta_ by Mas'ud, son of Sa'd, in the last half of the\n11th or beginning of the 12th century, and that Sa'di of Shiraz and his\nfriend Amir Khusrau[14] of Delhi likewise made verses in that dialect\nbefore the end of the 13th century. This, however, is very improbable.\nIt has already been seen that during the early centuries of Muslim rule\nin India adherents of that faith used the language and metrical forms of\nthe country for their compositions. Persian words early made their way\ninto the popular speech; they are common in Chand, and in Kabir's verses\n(which are nevertheless unquestionable Hindi) they are in many places\nused as freely as in the modern dialect. Much of the confusion which\nbesets the subject is due to the want of a clear understanding of what\nUrdu, as opposed to Hindi, really is.\n\nUrdu, as a literary language, differs from Hindi rather in its form than\nin its substance. The grammar, and to a large extent the vocabulary, of\nboth are the same. The really vital point of difference, that in which\nHindi and Urdu are incommensurable, is the _prosody_. Hardly one of the\nmetres taken over by Urdu poets from Persian agrees with those used in\nHindi. In the latter language it is the rule to give the short _a_\ninherent in every consonant or _nexus_ of consonants its full value in\nscansion (though in prose it is no longer heard), except occasionally at\nthe metrical pause; in Urdu this is never done, the words being scanned\ngenerally as pronounced in prose, with a few exceptions which need not\nbe mentioned here. The great majority of Hindi metres are scanned by the\nnumber of _matras_ or syllabic instants--the value in time of a short\nsyllable--of which the lines consist; in Urdu, as in Persian, the metre\nfollows a special order of long and short syllables.\n\nThe question, then, is not When did Persian first become intermixed with\nHindi in the literary speech?--for this process began with the first\nentry of Muslim conquerors into India, and continued for centuries\nbefore a line of Urdu verse was composed; nor When was the Persian\ncharacter first employed to write Hindi?--for the written form is but a\nsubordinate matter; as already mentioned, the MSS. of Malik Muhammad's\npurely Hindi poem, the _Padmawat_, are ordinarily found to be written in\nthe Persian character; and copies lithographed in Devanagari of the\npopular compositions of the Urdu poet Nazir are commonly procurable in\nthe bazars. We must ask When was the first verse composed in Hindi,\nwhether with or without foreign admixture, according to the forms of\nPersian prosody, and not in those of the indigenous metrical system?\nThen, and not till then, did Urdu poetry come into being. This appears\nto have happened, as already mentioned, about the end of the 16th\ncentury. Meantime the vernacular speech had been gradually permeated\nwith Persian words and phrases. The impulse which Akbar's interest in\nhis Hindu subjects had given to the translation of Sanskrit works into\nPersian had brought the indigenous and the foreign literatures into\ncontact. The current language of the neighbourhood of the capital, the\nHindi spoken about Delhi and thence northwards to the Himalaya, was\nnaturally the form of the vernacular which was most subject to foreign\ninfluences; and with the extension of Mogul territory by the conquests\nin the south of Akbar and his successors, this idiom was carried abroad\nby their armies, and was adopted by the Musalman kingdoms of the Deccan\nas their court language some time before their overthrow by the\ncampaigns of Aurangzeb.\n\nIt is not a little remarkable that, as happened with the Vaishnava\nreformation initiated by Ramanuja and Ramanand, and with the\nVallabhacharya cult of Krishna established at Mathura, the first impulse\nto literary composition in Urdu should have been given, not at the\nheadquarters of the empire in the north, but at the Muhammadan courts of\nGolkonda and Bijapur in the south, the former situated amid an\nindigenous population speaking Telugu, and the latter among one whose\nspeech was Kanarese, both Dravidian languages having nothing in common\nwith the Aryan tongues of the north. This fact of itself defines the\nnature of the literature thus inaugurated. It had nothing to do with the\nidiom or ideas of the people among whom it was born, but was from the\nbeginning an imitation of Persian models. It adopted the standards of\nform and content current among the poets of Eran. The _qasida_ or\nlaudatory ode, the _ghazal_ or love-sonnet, usually of mystical import,\nthe _marsiya_ or dirge, the _masnavi_ or narrative poem with coupled\nrhymes, the _hija_ or satire, the _ruba'i_ or epigram--these were the\ntypes which Urdu took over ready-made. And with the forms were\nappropriated also all the conventions of poetic diction. The Persians,\nhaving for centuries treated the same themes with a fecundity which most\nEuropeans find extremely wearisome, had elaborated a system of rhetoric\nand a stock of poetic images which, in the exhaustion of original\nmatter, made the success of the poet depend chiefly upon dexterity of\nartifice and cleverness of conceit. Pleasing hyperbole, ingenious\ncomparison, antithesis, alliteration, carefully arranged gradation of\nnoun and epithet, are the means employed to obtain variety; and few of\nthe most eloquent passages of later Persian verse admit of translation\ninto any other language without losing that which in the original makes\ntheir whole charm. What is true of Persian is likewise true of Urdu\npoetry. Until quite modern times, there is scarcely anything in it which\ncan be called original.[15] Differences of school, which are made much\nof by native critics, are to us hardly perceptible; they consist in the\nuse of one or other range of metaphor or comparison, classed, according\nas they repeat the well-worn poetical stock-in-trade of the Persians, or\nseek a slightly fresher and more Indian field of sentiment, as the old\nor the new style of composition.\n\n Shuja'uddin Nuri, a native of Gujarat, a friend of Faizi and\n contemporary of Akbar, is mentioned by the native biographers as the\n most ancient Urdu poet after Amir Khusrau. He was tutor of the son of\n the _wazir_ of Sultan Abu-l-Hasan Kutb Shah of Golkonda, and several\n _ghazals_ by him are said to survive. Kuli Kutb Shah of Golkonda, who\n reigned from 1581, and his successor 'Abdullah Kutb Shah, who came to\n the throne in 1611, have both left collections of verse, including\n _ghazals_, _ruba'is_, _masnavis_ and _qasidas_. And during the reign\n of the latter Ibn Nishati wrote two works which are still famous as\n models of composition in Dakhni; they are _masnavis_ entitled the\n _Tuti-nama_, or \"Tales of a Parrot,\" and the _Phul-ban_. The first,\n written in 1639, is an adaptation of a Persian work by Nakhshabi, but\n derives ultimately from a Sanskrit original entitled the\n _Suka-saptati_; this collection has been frequently rehandled in Urdu,\n both in verse and prose, and is the original of the _Tota-Kahani_, one\n of the first works in Urdu prose, composed in 1801 by Muhammad\n Haidar-bakhsh Haidari of the Fort William College. The _Phul-ban_ is a\n love tale named from its heroine, said to be translated from a Persian\n work entitled the _Basatin_. Another famous work which probably\n belongs to the same place and time is the _Story of Kamrup and Kala_\n by Tahsinuddin, a _masnavi_ which has been published (1836) by M.\n Garcin de Tassy; what makes this poem remarkable is that, though the\n work of a Musalman, its personages are Hindu. Kamrup, the hero, is son\n of the king of Oudh, and the heroine, Kala, daughter of the king of\n Ceylon; the incidents somewhat resemble those of the tale of\n as-Sindibad in the _Thousand and One Nights_; the hero and heroine\n dream one of the other, and the former sets forth to find his beloved;\n his wanderings take him to many strange countries and through many\n wonderful adventures, ending in a happy marriage.\n\n The court of Bijapur was no less distinguished in literature. Ibrahim\n 'Adil Shah (1579-1626) was the author of a work in verse on music\n entitled the _Nau-ras_ or \"Nine Savours,\" which, however, appears to\n have been in Hindi rather than Urdu; the three prefaces (_dibajas_) to\n this poem were rendered into Persian prose by Maula Zuhuri, and, under\n the name of the _Sih nasr-i Zuhuri_, are well-known models of style. A\n successor of this prince, 'Ali 'Adil Shah, had as his court poet a\n Brahman known poetically as Nusrati, who in 1657 composed a _masnavi_\n of some repute entitled the _Gulshan-i 'Ishq_, or \"Rose-garden of\n Love,\" a romance relating the history of Prince Manohar and\n Madmalati,--like the _Kamrup_, an Indian theme. The same poet is\n author of an extremely long _masnavi_ entitled the _'Ali-nama_,\n celebrating the monarch under whom he lived.\n\n These early authors, however, were but pioneers; the first generally\n accepted standard of form, a standard which suffered little change in\n two centuries, was established by Wali of Aurangabad (about 1680-1720)\n and his contemporary and fellow-townsman Siraj. The former of these is\n commonly called \"the Father of Rekhtah\"--_Baba-e Rekhta_; and all\n accounts agree that the immense development attained by Urdu poetry in\n northern India during the 18th century was due to his example and\n initiative. Very little is known of Wali's life; he is believed to\n have visited Delhi towards the end of the reign of Aurangzeb, and is\n said to have there received instruction from Shah Gulshan in the art\n of clothing in a vernacular dress the ideas of the Persian poets. His\n _Kulliyat_ or complete works have been published by M. Garcin de\n Tassy, with notes and a translation of selected passages (Paris,\n 1834-1836), and may be commended to readers desirous of consulting in\n the original a favourable specimen of Urdu poetical composition.\n\n The first of the Delhi school of poets was Zuhuruddin Hatim, who was\n born in 1699 and died in 1792. In the second year of Muhammad Shah\n (1719), the _diwan_ of Wali reached Delhi, and excited the emulation\n of scholars there. Hatim was the first to imitate it in the Urdu of\n the north, and was followed by his friends Naji, Mazmun and Abru. Two\n _diwans_ by him survive. He became the founder of a school, and one of\n his pupils was Rafi us-Sauda, the most distinguished poet of northern\n India. Khan Arzu (1689-1756) was another of the fathers of Urdu poetry\n in the north. This author is chiefly renowned as a Persian scholar, in\n which language he not only composed much poetry, but one of the best\n of Persian lexicons, the _Siraju-l-lughat_; but his compositions in\n Urdu are also highly esteemed. He was the master of Mir Taqi, who\n ranks next to Sauda as the most eminent Urdu poet. Arzu died at\n Lucknow, whither he betook himself after the devastation of Delhi by\n Nadir Shah (1739). Another of the early Delhi poets who is considered\n to have surpassed his fellows was In'amullah Khan Yaqin, who died\n during the reign of Ahmad Shah (1748-1754), aged only twenty-five.\n Another was Mir Dard, pupil of the same Shah Gulshan who is said to\n have instructed Wali; his _diwan_ is not long, but extremely popular,\n and especially esteemed for the skill with which it develops the\n themes of spiritualism. In his old age he became a _darwesh_ of the\n _Naqshbandi_ following, and died in 1793.\n\n Sauda and Mir Taqi are beyond question the most distinguished Urdu\n poets. The former was born at Delhi about the beginning of the 18th\n century, and studied under Hatim. He left Delhi after its devastation,\n and settled at Lucknow, where the Nawab Asafuddaulah gave him a\n _jagir_ of Rs. 6000 a year, and where he died in 1780. His poems are\n very numerous, and cover all the styles of Urdu poetry; but it is to\n his satires that his fame is chiefly due, and in these he is\n considered to have surpassed all other Indian poets. Mir Taqi was born\n at Agra, but early removed to Delhi, where he studied under Arzu; he\n was still living there at the time of Sauda's death, but in 1782\n repaired to Lucknow, where he likewise received a pension; he died at\n a very advanced age in 1810. His works are very voluminous, including\n no less than six _diwans_. Mir is counted the superior of Sauda in the\n _ghazal_ and _masnavi_, while the latter excelled him in the satire\n and _qasida_. Sayyid Ahmad, an excellent authority, and himself one of\n the best of modern authors in Urdu, says of him in his\n _Asaru-s-Sanadid_: \"Mir's language is so pure, and the expressions\n which he employs so suitable and natural, that to this day all are\n unanimous in his praise. Although the language of Sauda is also\n excellent, and he is superior to Mir in the point of his allusions, he\n is nevertheless inferior to him in style.\"\n\n The tremendous misfortunes which befell Delhi at the hands of Nadir\n Shah (1739), Ahmad Shah Durrani (1756), and the Marathas (1759), and\n the rapid decay of the Mogul empire under these repeated shocks,\n transferred the centre of the cultivation of literature from that city\n to Lucknow, the capital of the newly founded and flourishing state of\n Oudh. It has been mentioned how Arzu, Sauda and Mir betook themselves\n to this refuge and ended their days there; they were followed in their\n new residence by a school of poets hardly inferior to those who had\n made Delhi illustrious in the first half of the century. Here they\n were joined by Mir Hasan (d. 1786), Mir Soz (d. 1800) and\n Qalandar-bakhsh Jur'at (d. 1810), also like themselves refugees from\n Delhi, and illustrious poets. Mir Hasan was a friend and collaborator\n of Mir Dard, and first established himself at Faizabad and\n subsequently at Lucknow; he excelled in the _ghazal_, _ruba'i_,\n _masnavi_ and _marsiya_, and is counted the third, with Sauda and Mir\n Taqi, among the most eminent of Urdu poets. His fame chiefly rests\n upon a much admired _masnavi_ entitled the _Sihru-l-bayan_, or \"Magic\n of Eloquence,\" a romance relating the loves of Prince Be-nazir and the\n Princess Badr-i Munir; his _masnavi_ called the _Gulzar-i Iram_\n (\"Rose-garden of Iram,\" the legendary 'Adite paradise in southern\n Arabia), in praise of Faizabad, is likewise highly esteemed. Mir\n Muhammadi Soz was an elegant poet, remarkable for the success with\n which he composed in the dialect of the harem called _Rekhti_, but\n somewhat licentious in his verse; he became a _darwesh_ and renounced\n the world in his later years. Jur'at was also a prolific poet, but,\n like Soz, his _ghazals_ and _masnavis_ are licentious and full of\n double meanings. He imitated Sauda in satire with much success; he\n also cultivated Hindi poetry, and composed _dohas_ and _kabittas_.\n Miskin was another Lucknow poet of the same period, whose _marsiyas_\n are especially admired; one of them, that on the death of Muslim and\n his two sons, is considered a masterpiece of this style of\n composition. The school of Lucknow, so founded and maintained during\n the early years of the century, continued to flourish till the\n dethronement of the last king, Wajid 'Ali, in 1856. Atash and Nasikh\n (who died respectively in 1847 and 1841) are the best among the modern\n poets of the school in the _ghazal_; Mir Anis, a grandson of Mir\n Hasan, and his contemporary Dabir, the former of whom died in December\n 1875 and the latter a few months later, excelled in the _marsiyah_.\n Rajab Ali Beg Surur, who died in 1869, was the author of a\n much-admired romance in rhyming prose entitled the _Fisanah-e 'Ajaib_\n or \"Tale of Marvels,\" besides a _diwan_. The dethroned prince Wajid\n 'Ali himself, poetically styled Akhtar, was also a poet; he published\n three diwans, among them a quantity of poetry in the rustic dialect of\n Oudh which is philologically of much interest.\n\n Though Delhi was thus deserted by its brightest lights of literature,\n it did not altogether cease to cultivate the poetic art. Among the\n last Moguls several princes were themselves creditable poets. Shah\n Alam II. (1761-1806) wrote under the name of Aftab, and was the author\n of a romance entitled Manzum-i Aqdas, besides a _diwan_. His son\n Sulaiman-shukoh, brother of Akbar Shah II., who had at first, like his\n brother authors, repaired to Lucknow, returned to Delhi in 1815, and\n died in 1838; he also has left a _diwan_. Lastly, his nephew Bahadur\n Shah II., the last titular emperor of Delhi (d. 1862), wrote under the\n name of Zafar, and was a pupil in poetry of Shaikh Ibrahim Zauq, a\n distinguished writer; he has left a voluminous _diwan_, which has been\n printed at Delhi. Mashafi (Ghulam-i Hamdani), who died about 1814, was\n one of the most distinguished of the revived poetic school of Delhi,\n and was himself one of its founders. Originally of Lucknow, he left\n that city for Delhi in 1777, and held conferences of poets, at which\n several authors who afterwards acquired repute formed their style; he\n has left five _diwans_, a _Tazkira_ or biography of Urdu poets, and a\n _Shah-nama_ or account of the kings of Delhi down to Shah 'Alam. Qaim\n (Qiyamuddin 'Ali) was one of his society, and died in 1792; he has\n left several works of merit. Ghalib, otherwise Mirza Asadullah Khan\n Naushah, laureate of the last Mogul, who died in 1869, was undoubtedly\n the most eminent of the modern Delhi poets. He wrote chiefly in\n Persian, of which language, especially in the form cultivated by\n Firdausi, free from intermixture of Arabic words, he was a master; but\n his Urdu _diwan_, though short, is excellent in its way, and his\n reputation spread far and wide. To this school, though he lived and\n died at Agra, may be attached Mir Wali Muhammad Nazir (who died in the\n year 1832); his _masnavis_ entitled _Jogi-nama_, _Kauri-nama_,\n _Banjare-nama_, and _Burhape-nama_, as well as his _diwan_, have been\n frequently reprinted, and are extremely popular. His language is less\n artificial than that of the generality of Urdu poets, and some of his\n poems have been printed in Nagari, and are as well known and as much\n esteemed by Hindus as by Mahommedans. His verse is defaced by much\n obscenity.\n\n4. _Modern Period._--While such, in outline, is the history of the\nliterary schools of the Deccan, Delhi and Lucknow, a fourth, that of the\nFort William College at Calcutta, was being formed, and was destined to\ngive no less an impulse to the cultivation of Urdu prose than had a\nhundred years before been given to that of poetry by Wali. At the\ncommencement of the 19th century Dr John Gilchrist was the head of this\ninstitution, and his efforts were directed towards getting together a\nbody of literature suitable as text-books for the study of the Urdu\nlanguage by the European officers of the administration. To his\nexertions we owe the elaboration of the vernacular as an official\nspeech, and the possibility of substituting it for the previously\ncurrent Persian as the language of the courts and the government. He\ngathered together at Calcutta the most eminent vernacular scholars of\nthe time, and their works, due to his initiative, are still notable as\nspecimens of elegant and serviceable prose composition, not only in\nUrdu, but also in Hindi. The chief authors of this school are Haidari\n(Sayyid Muhammad Haidar-bakhsh), Husaini (Mir Bahadur 'Ali), Mir Amman\nLutf, Hafizuddin Ahmad, Sher 'Ali Afsos, Nihal Chand of Lahore, Kazim\n'Ali Jawan, Lallu Lal Kavi, Mazhar 'Ali Wila and Ikram 'Ali.\n\n Haidari died in 1828. He composed the _Tota-Kahani_ (1801), a prose\n redaction of the _Tuti-namah_ which has been already mentioned; a\n romance named _Araish-i Mahfil_ (\"Ornament of the Assembly\"),\n detailing the adventures of the famous Arab chief Hatim-i Tai; the\n _Gul-i Maghfirat_ or _Dah Majlis_, an account of the holy persons of\n the Muhammadan faith; the _Gulzar-i Danish_, a translation of the\n _Bahar-i Danish_, a Persian work containing stories descriptive of the\n craft and faithlessness of women; and the _Tarikh-i Nadiri_, a\n translation of a Persian history of Nadir Shah. Husaini is the author\n of an imitation in prose of Mir Hasan's _Sihru-l-bayan_, under the\n name of _Nasr-i Benazir_ (\"the Incomparable Prose,\" or \"the Prose of\n Benazir,\" the latter being the name of the hero), and of a work named\n _Akhlaq-i Hindi_, or \"Indian Morals,\" both composed in 1802. The\n _Akhlaq-i Hindi_ is an adaptation of a Persian work called the\n _Mufarrihu-l-qulub_ (\"the Delighter of Hearts\"), itself a version of\n the _Hitopadesa_. Mir Amman was a native of Delhi, which he left in\n the time of Ahmad Shah Durrani for Patna, and in 1801 repaired to\n Calcutta. To him we owe the _Bagh o Bahar_ (1801-1802), an adaptation\n of Amir Khusrau's famous Persian romance entitled the _Chahar\n Darwesh_, or \"Story of the Four Dervishes.\" Amman's work is not itself\n directly modelled on the Persian, but is a rehandling of an almost\n contemporary rendering by Tahsin of Etawa, called the _Nau-tarz-i\n Murassa'_. The style of this composition is much admired by natives of\n India, and editions of it are very numerous. Amman also composed an\n imitation of Husain Wa'iz Kashifi's _Akhlaq-i Muhsini_ under the name\n of the _Ganj-i Khubi_ (\"Treasure of Virtue\"), produced in 1802.\n Hafizuddin Ahmad was a professor at the Fort William College; in 1803\n he completed a translation of Abu-l-Fazl's _'Iyar-i Danish_, under the\n name of the _Khirad-afroz_ (\"Enlightener of the Understanding\"). The\n _'Iyar-i Danish_ (\"Touchstone of Wisdom\") is one of the numerous\n imitations of the originally Sanskrit collection of apologues known in\n Persian as the _Fables of Bidpai_, or _Kalilah and Dimna_. Afsos was\n one of the most illustrious of the Fort William school; originally of\n Delhi, he left that city at the age of eleven, and entered the service\n of Qasim 'Ali Khan, Nawab of Bengal; he afterwards repaired to\n Hyderabad in the Deccan, and thence to Lucknow, where he was the pupil\n of Mir Hasan, Mir Soz and Mir Haidar 'Ali Hairan. He joined the Fort\n William College in 1800, and died in 1809. He is the author of a much\n esteemed diwan; but his chief reputation is founded on two prose works\n of great excellence, the _Araish-i Mahfil_ (1805), an account of India\n adapted from the introduction of the Persian _Khulasatu-t-tawarikh_ of\n Sujan Rae, and the _Bagh-i Urdu_ (1808), a translation of Sa'di's\n _Gulistan_. Nihal Chand translated into Urdu a _masnavi_, entitled the\n _Gul-i Bakawali_, under the name of _Mazhab-i 'Ishq_ (\"Religion of\n Love\"); this work is in prose intermingled with verse, was composed in\n 1804, and has been frequently reproduced. Jawan, like most of his\n collaborators, was originally of Delhi and afterwards of Lucknow; he\n joined the College in 1800. He is the author of a version in Urdu of\n the well-known story of Sakuntala, under the name of _Sakuntala\n Natak_; the Urdu was rendered from a previous Braj-bhasha version by\n Nawaz Kabishwar made in 1716, and was printed in 1802. He also\n composed a _Barah-masa_, or poetical description of the twelve months\n (a very popular and often-handled form of composition), with accounts\n of the various Hindu and Muhammadan festivals, entitled the _Dastur-i\n Hind_ (\"Usages of India\"), printed in 1812. Ikram 'Ali translated,\n under the name of the _Ikhwanu-s-safa_, or \"Brothers of Purity\"\n (1810), a chapter of a famous Arabian collection of treatises on\n science and philosophy entitled _Rasailu Ikhwani-s-safa_, and composed\n in the 10th century. The complete collection, due to different writers\n who dwelt at Basra, has recently been made known to European readers\n by the translation of Dr F. Dieterici (1858-1879); the chapter\n selected by Ikram 'Ali is the third, which records an allegorical\n strife for the mastery between men and animals before the king of the\n _Jinn_. The translation is written in excellent Urdu, and is one of\n the best of the Fort William productions.\n\n Sri Lallu Lal was a Brahman, whose family, originally of Gujarat, had\n long been settled in northern India. What was done by the other Fort\n William authors for Urdu prose was done by Lallu Lal almost alone for\n Hindi. He may indeed without exaggeration be said to have created\n \"High Hindi\" as a literary language. His _Prem Sagar_ and _Rajniti_,\n the former a version in pure Hindi of the 10th chapter of the\n _Bhagavata Purana_, detailing the history of Krishna, and founded on a\n previous Braj-bhasha version by Chaturbhuj Misr, and the latter an\n adaptation in Braj-bhasha prose of the _Hitopadesa_ and part of the\n _Pancha-tantra_, are unquestionably the most important works in Hindi\n prose. The _Prem Sagar_ was begun in 1804 and ended in 1810; it enjoys\n immense popularity in northern India, has been frequently reproduced\n in a lithographed form, and has several times been printed. The\n _Rajniti_ was composed in 1809; it is much admired for its sententious\n brevity and the purity of its language. Besides these two works, Lallu\n Lal was the author of a collection of a hundred anecdotes in Hindi and\n Urdu entitled _Lataif-i Hindi_, an anthology of Hindi verse called the\n _Sabha-bilas_, a _Sat-sai_ in the style of Bihari-Lal called\n _Sapta-satika_ and several other works. He and Jawan worked together\n at the _Singhasan Battisi_ (1801), a redaction in mixed Urdu and Hindi\n (Devanagari character) of a famous collection of legends relating the\n prowess of King Vikramaditya; and he also aided the latter author in\n the production of the _Sakuntala Natak_. Mazhar 'Ali Wila was his\n collaborator in the _Baital Pachisi_, a collection of stories similar\n in many respects to the _Singhasan Battisi_, and also in mixed\n Urdu-Hindi; and he aided Wila in the preparation in Urdu of the _Story\n of Madhonal_, a romance originally composed in Braj-bhasha by Moti\n Ram.\n\n The works of these authors, though compiled and published under the\n superintendence of Dr Gilchrist, Captain Abraham Lockett, Professor J.\n W. Taylor, Dr W. Hunter and other European officers of the college of\n Fort William, and originally intended for the instruction of the\n Company's officers in the vernacular, are essentially Indian in taste\n and style, and, until superseded by the more recent developments of\n literature noticed below, enjoyed a very wide reputation and\n popularity. They may, indeed, be said to have set the standard of\n prose composition in Urdu and Hindi, and for the first half of the\n 19th century their influence in this respect continued almost\n unchallenged. Side by side with them, among the Musalman population of\n northern India, another almost contemporaneous impulse did much for\n the expansion of the Urdu language, and, like the work of the\n Vaishnava reformers in moulding literary Hindi, gave an impetus to\n composition which might otherwise have been lacking. This was the\n reform in Islam led by Sayyid Ahmad[16] and his followers. In all\n Eastern countries religion is the first and chief subject of literary\n production; and the controversies which the new preaching aroused in\n India at once afforded abundant material for authorship in Urdu, and\n interested deeply the people to whom the works were addressed.\n\n Sayyid Ahmad was born in 1782, and received his early education at\n Delhi; his instructors were two learned Muslims, Shah 'Abdul-'Aziz,\n author of a celebrated commentary on the Qur'an (the _Tafsir-i\n 'Aziziyyah_), and his brother 'Abdu-l-Qadir, the writer of the first\n translation of the holy volume into Urdu. Under their guidance Sayyid\n Ahmad embraced the doctrines of the Wahhabis, a sect whose preaching\n appears at this time to have first reached India. He gathered round\n him a large number of fervent disciples, among others Isma'il Haji,\n nephew of 'Abdu-l'Aziz and 'Abdu-l-Qadir, the chief author of the\n sect. After a course of preaching and apostleship at Delhi, Sayyid\n Ahmad set out in 1820 for Calcutta, attended by numerous adherents.\n Thence in 1822 he started on a pilgrimage to Mecca, whence he went to\n Constantinople, and was there received with distinction and gained\n many disciples. He travelled for nearly six years in Turkey and\n Arabia, and then returned to Delhi. The religious degradation and\n coldness which he found in his native country strongly impressed him\n after his sojourn in lands where the life of Islam is stronger, and he\n and his disciples established a propaganda throughout northern India,\n reprobating the superstitions which had crept into the faith from\n contact with Hindus, and preaching a _jihad_ or holy war against the\n Sikhs. In 1828 he started for Peshawar, attended by, it is said,\n upwards of 100,000 Indians, and accompanied by his chief followers,\n Haji Isma'il and 'Abdu-l-Hayy. He was furnished with means by a\n general subscription in northern India, and by several Muhammadan\n princes who had embraced his doctrines. At the beginning of 1829 he\n declared war against the Sikhs, and in the course of time made himself\n master of Peshawar. The Afghans, however, with whom he had allied\n himself in the contest, were soon disgusted by the rigour of his\n creed, and deserted him and his cause. He fled across the Indus and\n took refuge in the mountains of Pakhli and Dhamtor, where in 1831 he\n encountered a detachment of Sikhs under the command of Sher Singh, and\n in the combat he and Haji Isma'il were slain. His sect is, however, by\n no means extinct; the Wahhabi doctrines have continued to gain ground\n in India, and to give rise to much controversial writing, down to our\n own day.\n\n The translation of the Quran by 'Abdu-l-Qadir was finished in 1803,\n and first published by Sayyid 'Abdullah, a fervent disciple of Sayyid\n Ahmad, at Hughli in 1829. The _Tambihu-l-ghafilin_, or \"Awakener of\n the Heedless,\" a work in Persian by Sayyid Ahmad, was rendered into\n Urdu by 'Abdullah, and published at the same press in 1830. Haji\n Isma'il was the author of a treatise in Urdu entitled\n _Taqwiyatu-l-Iman_ (\"Confirmation of the Faith\"), which had great\n vogue among the following of the Sayyid. Other works by the disciples\n of the _Tariqah-e Muhammadiyyah_ (as the new preaching was called) are\n the _Targhib-i Jihad_ (\"Incitation to Holy War\"), _Hidayatu-l-Muminin_\n (\"Guide of the Believers\"), _Muzihu-l-Kabair_ wa-l-Bid'ah (\"Exposition\n of Mortal Sins and Heresy\"), _Naslhatu-l-Muslimin_ (\"Admonition to\n Muslims\"), and the _Mi'at Masail_, or \"Hundred Questions.\"\n\n Printing was first used for vernacular works by the College Press at\n Fort William, at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th\n century, and all the compositions prepared for Dr Gilchrist and his\n successors which have been mentioned were thus given to the public.\n But the expense of this method of reproduction long precluded its\n extensive use in India, and movable types, though well suited for\n alphabets derived from the Sanskrit, were not equally applicable to\n the flowing and graceful characters of Persian. Lithography was\n introduced about 1837, when the first press was set up at Delhi, and\n immediately gave a powerful stimulus to the multiplication of\n literature, both original and editions of older works. In 1832 the\n vernaculars were substituted for Persian as the official language of\n the courts and the acts of the legislature, and this at once led to\n the transfer to the former of a mass of technical and forensic terms\n which had previously been only to a limited extent in popular use.\n Thirdly, the spread of education in subjects of Western learning, for\n which text-books (many of them translations from English) were\n required, not only greatly enlarged the vocabulary of the common\n speech, but led by degrees to the use of a simpler and more direct\n style, and the abandonment wholesale of the florid and artificial\n ornament which was the legacy of the Persian literature upon which\n Urdu prose had at first modelled itself. Lastly, the establishment of\n a vernacular newspaper press, which lithography had rendered possible,\n placed within the reach of a continually widening public the means of\n becoming acquainted with new ideas in every department of culture, and\n practised the writers who contributed to it in the art of wielding\n their mother-tongue with effect in its application to European themes.\n\n All these revolutionary agencies were at work, though in a tentative\n and limited fashion, when the great change, following on the Mutiny of\n 1857, of the transfer of the government of India from the Company to\n the Crown inaugurated a new era. Since 1860 their operation has become\n extremely rapid and far-reaching. The use of lithography both for Urdu\n and Hindi annually gives birth to hundreds of works. The extension of\n education through both public and private agency has created an\n immense mass of school-books, and the spread of instruction in English\n and the activity of translators have filled the vernaculars with a\n multitude of new words drawn from that language. The newspaper press,\n in Urdu and Hindi, now counts over two hundred journals, the majority\n issued in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh and in the Punjab, but\n a few at Madras, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Bombay and Calcutta. Of this\n great body of literary production it is possible to speak only in\n general terms. Style and vocabulary are still in a somewhat fluid and\n unsettled condition, and the subjects treated are almost as various as\n they are in European literatures. Much, indeed, of the work produced\n has scarcely any claim to literary excellence, and in the crowd of\n writers we may content ourselves with mentioning only a few whose\n influence and authority make it probable that they will hereafter be\n known as leaders in the new culture.\n\n One of the first effects of the new literary inspiration seemed to be\n the extinction of poetical composition as previously practised. With\n the deaths of Zauq (1854) and Ghalib (1869) of the Delhi school, and\n those of Anis (1875) and Dabir (1876) of Lucknow, the end of Urdu\n poetry appeared to have come. The new age was intensely practical and\n eager to engage in the race for material and political advancement,\n and had no time for sentiment, or taste for mystical conceits.\n Moreover, poetical composition in India, as in other Eastern\n countries, has always owed much to the patronage of courts and\n princes. The thrones of Delhi and Lucknow had passed away, and the new\n rulers showed little interest in this form of achievement. Only at\n Hyderabad in the Deccan, under the patronage of the Nizam, were\n laureates still honoured; the last of these, Mirza Khan Dagh\n (1831-1905), enjoyed a wide reputation as a graceful and eloquent\n master of the poetic art.\n\n But prose and material prosperity did not succeed in monopolizing the\n genius of the people. The great movement of reform and liberalism in\n Islam led by Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan (1817-1898) found its bard in\n Sayyid Altaf Husain of Panipat, poetically styled Hali--an ambiguous\n _nom-de-plume_ now generally taken in the sense of \"modern,\" or\n \"up-to-date.\" Hali in his youth was a pupil of the famous Ghalib,\n whose life he has written and of whose writings he has published an\n able criticism. At the age of forty he came under the influence of Sir\n Sayyid Ahmad Khan, and from that time devoted his great poetic gifts\n to the service of his co-religionists. He has published much verse, of\n which an interesting specimen will be found in the edition of his\n _Ruba'is_ or quatrains (101 in number), with an English translation,\n by Mr G. E. Ward (Oxford, 1904); in this is included a famous poem\n addressed to his muse, setting forth his ideals in poetry--simplicity,\n avoidance of exaggeration and unreality, direct and emotional appeal\n to the heart, and above all sincerity. There can be no doubt that he\n has succeeded in becoming the leader of a new poetic school, which\n shows much vigour and promise.\n\n Perhaps the most memorable of all Hali's compositions is his long poem\n in six-line stanzas (called _musaddas_) on \"the flow and ebb of Islam\"\n (1879), which has had an extraordinary influence in stimulating\n enthusiasm in the cause of progress among the Musalmans of the north\n of India. In it he draws, in simple and direct but searching and\n eloquent language, a rapid sketch of the glories of Islam in the past,\n its principles and precepts, and the sources of its strength; and then\n turns to contrast with this picture the degradation and decay into\n which it had, when he wrote, fallen in Hindostan. Never have the vices\n and shortcomings of a people been lashed by one of themselves with\n more vigorous denunciation, or with more earnestness of moral purpose.\n In his preface he explains how the poem came to be written--after a\n youth spent in heedlessness and unsettlement, at the instigation of\n Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, and in the cause of that great reformer. The\n poem is still recited and imitated by Muslims in the Punjab and United\n Provinces, though the picture which it presents of Indian Musalmans is\n no longer wholly applicable to the community. Hali has recently\n completed a life of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan in two volumes, entitled\n _Hayat-i Javid_ (\"eternal life\"), a work of great merit.\n\n Another writer whose work, though chiefly in prose, deals with poetry\n and poetic style, is Maulavi Muhammad Husain Azad, lately professor of\n Arabic at the Government College, Lahore. He has not himself composed\n much verse; but his biographies of Urdu poets, with criticisms of\n their works, entitled _Ab-i Hayat_ (\"Water of Life,\" Lahore, 1883), is\n by far the best book dealing with the subject. His prose style is much\n admired. As Hali was the pupil of Ghalib, so was Azad that of Zauq, of\n whose poems he has published a revised and annotated edition. His\n other works in prose are _Qisas-i Hind_, episodes of Indian history\n arranged for schools; _Nairang-i Khayal_, an allegory dealing with\n human life; and _Darbar-i Akbari_, an account of the reign of Akbar.\n\n Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan's life and work are dealt with elsewhere. Among\n his literary achievements may be mentioned the _Asarus-Sanadid_\n (\"Vestiges of Princes\"), an excellent account of Delhi and its\n monuments, which has passed through several editions since it was\n first lithographed in 1847. His essays and occasional papers,\n published in the _Aligarh Institute Gazette_ (started in 1864), and\n afterwards (from 1870 onwards) in a periodical entitled\n _Tahzibul-Akhlaq_ (or \"Muhammadan Social Reformer\"), handle all the\n problems of religious, social and educational advancement among Indian\n Musalmans--the cause with which his life was identified. His great\n _Commentary on the Qur'an_, in seven volumes, the last finished only a\n few days before his death in 1898, is carried to the end of Surah xx.,\n a little more than half the book. In him Urdu prose found its most\n powerful wielder for the diffusion of modern ideas, and the movement\n which he set on foot has been the spring of the best literature in the\n language during recent years.\n\n Another excellent writer of Urdu is Shamsul-'Ulama Maulavi Nazir Ahmad\n of Delhi, who is the author of a series of novels describing domestic\n life, of a somewhat didactic character, which have had a wide\n popularity, and from their admirable moral tone have been specially\n serviceable in the education of Indian women. These are entitled the\n _Mir'atul-'Arus_ (or \"Brides' Mirror\"); _Taubatun-Nasuh_ (\"the\n Repentance of Nasuh\"), _Banatun-Na'sh_ (\"the Seven Stars of the Great\n Bear\"), _Ibnul-Waqt_ (\"Son of the Age\"), and _Ayama_ (\"Widows\"). But\n Nazir Ahmad is a man of many sides; before he took to novel-writing he\n was the principal translator into Urdu of the _Indian Penal Code_\n (1861), which is reckoned a masterpiece in the exact rendering of\n European legal ideas; and more lately he gave to the world the best\n Urdu version of the Quran. He has been a popular lecturer on social\n subjects, displaying a rich vein of humour, and in his old age even\n ventured upon verse. During the latter portion of his life he was most\n closely associated with Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan.\n\n The novel is one of the most noteworthy features of recent literary\n composition in Urdu. India has from time immemorial been rich in\n stories and romances of adventure; but the description of actual life\n and character in action, as the modern novel is understood in Europe,\n is quite a new development. The most admired production of this kind\n in Urdu is a work entitled _Fisana-e Azad_, by Pandit Ratan-nath\n Sarshar of Lucknow. The story, which is very long, is remarkable for\n the faithful and vivid pictures of Lucknow society which it presents,\n and its exact and lifelike delineation of character; it appeared\n originally as a _feuilleton_ of the _Awadh Akhbar_, of which paper the\n author was at the time editor. Another good writer in the same branch\n of literature is Maulavi 'Abdul-Halim Sharar, also a native of the\n neighbourhood of Lucknow, but settled at Hyderabad. He was editor of a\n monthly periodical called the _Dil-gudaz_ (\"melter of hearts\"), which\n contained essays and papers in European style, and in it his novels,\n which are all of an historical character, in the style of Sir Walter\n Scott, originally appeared. The best are _'Aziz and Virgina_, a tale\n of the Crusades, and _Mansur and Mohina_, a story of which the scene\n is laid in India at the time of the invasions of Sultan Mahmud of\n Ghazni.\n\n Although Urdu chiefly represents Musalman culture, its use is by no\n means confined to adherents of that faith. It has just been mentioned\n that the most popular Urdu novelist is a Hindu (a Brahman from\n Kashmir); and the statistics of the vernacular press show that this\n form of the language is widely used by Hindus as well as Musalmans.\n Thus, of eighty periodicals in Urdu published in the United Provinces,\n twenty-nine are conducted by Hindus; similarly, in the Punjab, of\n forty-eight Urdu journals, twenty are edited by Hindus.\n\n \"High Hindi\" has scarcely adapted itself to modern requirements with\n the thoroughness displayed by Urdu. It is taught in the schools where\n the population is mainly Hindu, and books of science have been written\n in it with a terminology borrowed from Sanskrit, in place of the\n Persian terms used in the other dialect. But Sanskrit is far removed\n from the daily life of the people, and the majority of works in this\n style are read only by Pandits, the great bulk of them dealing with\n religion, philosophy and the ancient literature. There are\n thirty-seven Hindi and four Hindi-Urdu journals in the United\n Provinces; but many of them are exclusively religious in their\n character, and several, though written in Devanagari, employ a mixed\n language which admits Persian words freely. The old dialects of\n literature, Awadhi and Braj-bhasha, are now only used for poetry; High\n Hindi has been a complete failure for this purpose.\n\n The most noticeable authors in Hindi since the middle of the 19th\n century have been Babu Harishchandra and Raja Siva Prasad, both of\n Benares. The former, during his short life (1850-1885), was an\n enthusiastic cultivator of the old poetic art, using the dialects just\n mentioned. He published in the _Sundari Tilak_ an anthology of the\n best Hindi poetry, and in the _Kabi-bachan-Sudha_ (\"ambrosia of the\n words of poets\") and the magazine called _Harishchandrika_ a quantity\n of old texts, with much added matter. He also wrote a volume of\n biographies of famous men, European and Indian, and many critical\n studies, historical and literary. In history especially he cleared up\n many problems, and traced the lines for further investigation. In his\n _Kashmir Kusum_, or history of Kashmir, a list is given of about a\n hundred works by him. He was also the real founder of the modern Hindi\n drama; he wrote plays himself, and inspired others. Raja Siva Prasad\n (1823-1895) served for many years in the educational department, and\n published a number of works intended for use in schools, which have\n greatly contributed to the formation of a sound vernacular form of\n Hindi, not excessively Sanskritized, and not rejecting current Persian\n forms. The society at Benares called the _Nagari Pracharini Sabha_\n (\"Society for promoting the use of the Nagari character\") has, since\n the death of Harishchandra, been active in procuring the publication\n of works in Hindi, and has issued many useful books, besides\n conducting a systematic search for old MSS.\n\n BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The best account in English of Hindi literature is Dr\n G. A. Grierson's _Modern Vernacular Literature of Hindostan_, issued\n by the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1889; the dates in this work,\n which is founded on indigenous compilations, have, however, in many\n cases to be received with caution. Before it appeared, Garcin de\n Tassy's _Histoire de la litterature Hindouie et Hindoustanie_, and his\n annual summaries of the progress made from 1850 to 1877, were our\n chief authority, and may still be consulted with advantage. For the\n religious literature of the Vaishnava sects, Professor H. H. Wilson's\n _Essay on the Religious Sects of the Hindus_ (vol. i. of his collected\n works) has not yet been superseded.\n\n For Urdu poets, Professor Azad's _Ab-i Hayat_ (in Urdu) is the most\n trustworthy record. For the new school of Urdu literature reference\n may be made to a series of lectures (in English) by Shaikh\n 'Abdul-Qadir of Lahore, printed in 1898. The catalogues by Professor\n Blumhardt of Hindostani and Hindi books in the libraries of the\n British Museum and the India Office will give a good idea of the\n volume of the recent productions of the press in those languages.\n (C. J. L.)\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [1] _Urdu_ is a Turkish word meaning a camp or army with its\n followers, and is the origin of the European word _horde_. _Rekhta_\n means \"scattered, strewn,\" referring to the way in which Persian\n words are intermixed with those of Indian origin; it is used chiefly\n for the literary form of Urdu.\n\n [2] The only known exceptions are a work in Hindi called the\n _Chaurasi Varta_ (mentioned below) and a few commentaries on poems;\n the latter can scarcely be called literature.\n\n [3] A fresh critical edition of the text by Pandit Mohan Lal Vishnu\n Lal Pandia at Benares, under the auspices of the _Nagari Pracharini\n Sabha_, had reached canto xxiv. in 1907.\n\n [4] See _J.A.S.B._ (1886), pp. 6 sqq.\n\n [5] _Annals and Antiquities_, ii. 452 n. and 472 n.\n\n [6] Worshippers of the energic power--_Sakti_--of Siva, represented\n by his consort Parvati or Bhawani.\n\n [7] Quoted from G. A. Grierson, chapter on \"Literature,\" in the\n _India Gazetteer_ (ed. 1907).\n\n [8] The worship of Krishna is as old as Megasthenes (about 300 B.C.),\n who calls him Herakles, and was then, as now, located at Mathura on\n the Jumna river. That of Rama is probably still more ancient; the\n name occurs in stories of the Buddha.\n\n [9] _Religious Sects of the Hindus_, p. 40.\n\n [10] This name of Krishna, which means \"He who quits the battle,\" is\n connected with the story of the transfer of the Yadava clan from\n Mathura to the new capital on the coast of the peninsula of\n Kathiawar, the city of Dwaraka. This migration was the result of an\n invasion of Braj by Jarasandha, king of Magadha, before whom Krishna\n resolved to retreat. As his path southwards took him through\n Rajputana and Gujarat, it is in these regions that his form Ranchhor\n is most generally venerated as a symbol of the shifting of the centre\n of divine life from Gangetic to southern India.\n\n [11] In the _Granth_ Namdeo is called a calico-printer, _Chhipi_. The\n Marathi tradition is that he was a tailor, _Shimpi_; it is probable\n that the latter word, being unknown in northern India, has been\n wrongly rendered by the former.\n\n [12] It will be remembered that Akbar's reign was remarkable for the\n translation into Persian of a large number of Sanskrit works of\n religion and philosophy, most of the versions being made by, or in\n the names of, members of his court.\n\n [13] _Religious Sects_, p. 132.\n\n [14] Amir Khusrau is credited with the authorship of many still\n popular rhymes, riddles or punning verses (called _pahelis_ and\n _mukuris_); but these, though often containing Persian words, are in\n Hindi and scanned according to the prosody of that language; they\n are, therefore, like Malik Muhammad's _Padmawat_, not Urdu or Rekhta\n verse (see Professor Azad's _Abi-Hayat_, pp. 72-76). A late Dakkhani\n poet who used the _takkallus_ of Sa'di is said by Azad (p. 79) to\n have been confused by Mirza Rafi'us-Sauda in his _Tazkira_ with Sa'di\n of Shiraz.\n\n [15] An exception may be made to this general statement in favour of\n the _genre_ pictures of city and country life contained in the\n _masnavis_ of Sauda and Nazir. These are often satires (in the vein\n of Horace rather than Juvenal), and are full of interest as pictures\n of society. In Sauda, however, the conventional language used in\n description is often Persian rather than Indian.\n\n [16] To be carefully distinguished from the reformer of the same name\n who flourished half a century later.\n\n\n\n\nHINDU CHRONOLOGY. The subject of Hindu chronology divides naturally into\nthree parts: the calendar, the eras, and other reckonings.\n\n\nI. THE CALENDAR\n\nThe Hindus have had from very ancient times the system of lunisolar\ncycles, made by the combination of solar years, regulated by the course\nof the sun, and lunar years, regulated by the course of the moon, but\ntreated in such a manner as to keep the beginning of the lunar year near\nthe beginning of the solar year. The exact manner in which they arranged\nthe details of their earliest calendar is still a subject of research.\nWe deal here with their calendar as it now stands, in a form which was\ndeveloped from about A.D. 400 under the influence of the Greek astronomy\nwhich had been introduced into India at no very long time previously.\n\nThe Hindu calendar, then, is determined by years of two kinds, solar and\nlunar. For civil purposes, solar years are used in Bengal, including\nOrissa, and in the Tamil and Malayalam districts of Madras, and lunar\nyears throughout the rest of India. But the lunar year regulates\neverywhere the general religious rites and festivals, and the details of\nprivate and domestic life, such as the selection of auspicious occasions\nfor marriages and for starting on journeys, the choice of lucky moments\nfor shaving, and so on. Consequently, the details of the lunar year are\nshown even in the almanacs which follow the solar year. On the other\nhand, certain details of the solar year, such as the course of the sun\nthrough the signs and other divisions of the zodiac, are shown in the\nalmanacs which follow the lunar year. We will treat the solar year\nfirst, because it governs the lunisolar system, and the explanation of\nit will greatly simplify the process of explaining the lunar calendar.\n\n\n The astronomical solar year.\n\nThe civil solar year is determined by the astronomical solar year. The\nlatter professes to begin at the vernal equinox, but the actual position\nis as follows. In our Western astronomy the signs of the zodiac have, in\nconsequence of the precession of the equinoxes, drawn away to a large\nextent from the constellations from which they derived their names; with\nthe result that the sun now comes to the vernal equinox, at the first\npoint of the sign Aries, not in the constellation Aries, but at a point\nin Pisces, about 28 degrees before the beginning of Aries. The Hindus,\nhowever, have disregarded precession in connexion with their calendar\nfrom the time (A.D. 499, 522, or 527, according to different schools)\nwhen, by their system, the signs coincided with the constellations; and\ntheir sign Aries, called Mesha by them, is still their constellation\nAries, beginning, according to them, at or near the star [zeta] Piscium.\nTheir astronomical solar year is, in fact, not the tropical year, in the\ncourse of which the sun really passes from one vernal equinox to the\nnext, but a sidereal year, the period during which the earth makes one\nrevolution in its orbit round the sun with reference to the first point\nof Mesha; its beginning is the moment of the Mesha-samkranti, the\nentrance of the sun into the sidereal sign Mesha, instead of the\ntropical sign Aries; and it begins, not with the true equinox, but with\nan artificial or nominal equinox.\n\nThe length of this sidereal solar year was determined in the following\nmanner. The astronomer selected what the Greeks termed an _exeligmos_,\nthe Romans an _annus magnus_ or _mundanus_, a period in the course of\nwhich a given order of things is completed by the sun, moon, and planets\nreturning to a state of conjunction from which they have started. The\nusual Hindu _exeligmos_ has been the Great Age of 4,320,000 sidereal\nsolar years, the aggregate of the Krita or golden age, the Treta or\nsilver age, the Dvapara or brazen age, and the Kali or iron age, in\nwhich we now are; but it has sometimes been the Kalpa or aeon,\nconsisting according to one view of 1000, according to another view of\n1008, Great Ages. He then laid down the number of revolutions, in the\nperiod of his _exeligmos_, of the _nakshatras_, certain stars and groups\nof stars which will be noticed more definitely in our account of the\nlunar year; that is, the number of rotations of the earth on its axis,\nor, in other words, the number of sidereal days. A deduction of the\nnumber of the years from the number of the sidereal days gave, as\nremainder, the number of civil days in the _exeligmos_. And, this\nremainder being divided by the number of the years, the quotient gave\nthe length of the sidereal solar year: refinements, suggested by\nexperience, inference, or extraneous information, were made by\nincreasing or decreasing the number of sidereal days assigned to the\n_exeligmos_. The Hindus now recognize three standard sidereal solar\nyears determined in that manner. (1) A year of 365 days 6 hrs. 12 min.\n30 sec. according to the _Aryabhatiya_, otherwise called the _First\nArya-Siddhanta_, which was written by the astronomer Aryabhata (b. A.D.\n476): this year is used in the Tamil and Malayalam districts, and, we\nmay add, in Ceylon. (2) A year of 365 days 6 hrs. 12 min. 30.915 sec.\naccording to the _Rajamriga ka_, a treatise based on the\n_Brahma-Siddhanta_ of Brahmagupta (b. A.D. 598) and attributed to king\nBhoja, of which the epoch, the point of time used in it for\ncalculations, falls in A.D. 1042: this year is used in parts of Gujarat\n(Bombay) and in Rajputana and other western parts of Northern India. (3)\nA year of 365 days 6 hrs. 12 min. 36.56 sec. according to the present\n_Surya-Siddhanta_, a work of unknown authorship which dates from\nprobably about A.D. 1000: this year is used in almost all the other\nparts of India. It may be remarked that, according to modern science,\nthe true mean sidereal solar year measures 365 days 6 hrs. 9 min. 9.6\nsec., and the mean tropical year measures 365 days 5 hrs. 48 min.\n46.054440 sec.\n\nThe result of the use of this sidereal solar year is that the beginning\nof the Hindu astronomical solar year, and with it the civil solar year\nand the lunar year and the nominal incidence of the seasons, has always\nbeen, and still is, travelling slowly forward in our calendar year by an\namount which varies according to the particular authority.[1] For\ninstance, Aryabhata's year exceeds the Julian year by 12 min. 30 sec.\nThis amounts to exactly one day in 115(1/5) years, and five days in 576\nyears. Thus, if we take the longer period and confine ourselves to a\ntime when the Julian calendar (old style) was in use, according to\nAryabhata the Mesha-samkranti began to occur in A.D. 603 on 20th March,\nand in A.D. 1179 on 25th March. The intermediate advances arrange\nthemselves into four steps of one day each in 116 years, followed by one\nstep of one day in 112 years: thus, the Mesha-samkranti began to occur\non 21st March in A.D. 719, on 22nd March in A.D. 835, on 23rd March in\nA.D. 951, and on 24th March in A.D. 1067 (whence 112 years take us to\n25th March in A.D. 1179). It is now occurring sometimes on 11th April,\nsometimes on the 12th; having first come to the 12th in A.D. 1871.\n\n\n The civil solar year.\n\nThe civil solar year exists in more varieties than one. The principal\nvariety, conveniently called the Meshadi year, i.e. \"the year beginning\nat the Mesha-samkranti,\" is the only one that we need notice at this\npoint. The beginning of it is determined directly by the astronomical\nsolar year; and for religious purposes it begins, with that year, at the\nmoment of the Mesha-samkranti. Its first civil day, however, may be\neither the day on which the _samkranti_ occurs, or the next day, or even\nthe day after that: this is determined partly by the time of day or\nnight at which the _samkranti_ occurs, which, moreover, of course varies\nin accordance with the locality as well as the particular authority that\nis followed; partly by differing details of practice in different parts\nof the country. In these circumstances an exact equivalent of the\nMeshadi civil solar year cannot be stated; but it may be taken as now\nbeginning on or closely about the 12th of April.\n\n\n The solar month.\n\n The solar year is divided into twelve months, in accordance with the\n successive _samkrantis_ or entrances of the sun into the (sidereal)\n signs of the zodiac, which, as with us, are twelve in number. The\n names of the signs in Sanskrit are as follows: Mesha, the ram (Aries);\n Vrishabha, the bull (Taurus); Mithuna, the pair, the twins (Gemini);\n Karka, Karkata, Karkataka, the crab (Cancer); Simha, the lion (Leo);\n Kanya, the maiden (Virgo); Tula, the scales (Libra); Vrischika, the\n scorpion (Scorpio); Dhanus, the bow (Sagittarius); Makara, the\n sea-monster (Capricornus); Kumbha, the water-pot (Aquarius); and Mina,\n the fishes (Pisces). The solar months are known in some parts by the\n names of the signs or by corrupted forms of them; and these are the\n best names for them for general use, because they lead to no\n confusion. But they have elsewhere another set of names, preserving\n the connexion of them with the lunar months: the Sanskrit forms of\n these names are Chaitra, Vaisakha, Jyaishtha, Ashadha, Sravana,\n Bhadrapada, Asvina or Asvayuja, Karttika, Margasira or Margasirsha\n (also known as Agrahayana), Pausha, Magha, and Phalguna: in some\n localities these names are used in corrupted forms, and in others\n vernacular names are substituted for some of them; and, while in some\n parts the name Chaitra is attached to the month Mesha, in other parts\n it is attached to the month Mina, and so on throughout the series in\n each case. The astronomical solar month runs from the moment of one\n _samkranti_ of the sun to the moment of the next _samkranti_; and, as\n the signs of the Hindu zodiac are all of equal length, 30 degrees, as\n with us, while the speed of the sun (the motion of the earth in its\n orbit round the sun) varies according to the time of the year, the\n length of the month is variable: the shortest month is Dhanus; the\n longest is Mithuna. The civil solar month begins with its first civil\n day, which is determined, in different localities, in the same manner\n with the first civil day of the Meshadi year, as indicated above. The\n civil month is of variable length; partly for that reason, partly\n because of the variation in the length of the astronomical month. No\n exact equivalents of the civil months, therefore, can be stated; but,\n speaking approximately, we may say that, while the month Mesha now\n begins on or closely about 12th April, the beginning of a subsequent\n month may come as late as the 16th day of the English month in which\n it falls.\n\n\n The seasons.\n\n The solar year is also divided into six seasons, the Sanskrit names of\n which are Vasanta, spring; Grishma, the hot weather; Varsha, the rainy\n season; Sarad, autumn; Hemanta, the cold weather; and Sisira, the dewy\n season. Vasanta begins at the Mina-samkranti; the other seasons begin\n at each successive second _samkranti_ from that. Originally, this\n scheme was laid out with reference to the true course of the sun, and\n the starting-point of it was the real winter solstice, with Sisira, as\n the first season, beginning then; now, owing partly to the disregard\n of precession, partly to our introduction of New Style, each season\n comes about three weeks too late; Vasanta begins on or about 12th\n March, instead of 19th or 20th February, and so on with the rest. It\n may be added that in early times the year was also divided into three\n or four, and even into five or seven, seasons; and there appears to\n have been also a practice of reckoning the seasons according to the\n lunar months, which, however, would only give a very varying\n arrangement, in addition to neglecting the point that the seasons are\n naturally determined by the course of the sun, not of the moon. But\n there is now recognized only the division into six seasons, determined\n as stated above.\n\n\n The solstitial divisions of the year.\n\n The solar year is also divided into two parts called Uttarayana, the\n period during which the sun is moving to the north, and Dakshinayana,\n the period during which it is moving to the south. The Uttarayana\n begins at the nominal winter solstice, as marked by the\n Makara-samkranti; and the day on which this solstice occurs, usually\n 12th January at present, is still a special occasion of festivity and\n rejoicing; the Dakshinayana begins at the nominal summer solstice, as\n marked by the Karka-samkranti. It may be added here that, while the\n Hindus disregard precession in the actual computation of their years\n and the regulation of their calendar, they pay attention to it in\n certain other respects, and notably as regards the solstices: the\n precessional solstices are looked upon as auspicious occasions, as\n well as the non-precessional solstices, and are customarily shown in\n the almanacs; and some of the almanacs show also the other\n precessional _samkrantis_ of the sun.\n\n\n The civil day.\n\n The civil days of the solar month begin at sunrise. They are numbered\n 1, 2, 3, &c., in unbroken succession to the end of the month. And, the\n length of the month being variable for the reasons stated above, the\n number of the civil days may range from twenty-nine to thirty-two.\n\n\n The weekday.\n\n The civil days are named after the weekdays, of which the usual\n appellations (there are various synonyms in each case, and some of the\n names are used in corrupted forms) are in Sanskrit Adityavara or\n Ravivara, the day of the sun, sometimes called Adivara, the\n beginning-day (Sunday); Somavara, the day of the moon (Monday);\n Mangalavara, the day of Mars (Tuesday); Budhavara, the day of Mercury\n (Wednesday); Brihas-pativara or Guruvara, the day of Jupiter\n (Thursday); Sukravara, the day of Venus (Friday); and Sanivara, the\n day of Saturn (Saturday). It may be mentioned, as a matter of\n archaeological interest, that, while some of the astronomical books\n perhaps postulate an earlier knowledge of the \"lords of the days,\" and\n other writings indicate a still earlier use of the period of seven\n days, the first proved instance of the use of the name of a weekday is\n of the year A.D. 484, and is furnished by an inscription in the Saugor\n district, Central India.\n\n\n Divisions of the day.\n\n The divisions of the civil day, as far as we need note them, are 60\n _vipalas_ = 1 _pala_ = 24 seconds; 60 _palas_ = 1 _ghatika_ = 24\n minutes; 60 _ghatikas_ = 24 hours = 1 day. There is also the _muhurta_\n = 2 _ghatikas_ = 48 minutes: this is the nearest approach to the\n \"hour.\" The comparative value of these measures of time may perhaps be\n best illustrated thus: 2(1/2) _muhurtas_ = 2 hours; 2(1/2) _ghatikas_\n = 1 hour; 2(1/2) _palas_ = 1 minute; 2(1/2) _vipalas_ = 1 second.\n\n\n Civil time.\n\n As their civil day begins at sunrise, the Hindus naturally count all\n their times, in _ghatikas_ and _palas_, from that moment. But the\n moment is a varying one, though not in India to anything like the\n extent to which it is so in European latitudes; and under the British\n Government the Hindus have recognized the advantage, and in fact the\n necessity, especially in connexion with their lunar calendar, of\n having a convenient means of referring their own times to the time\n which prevails officially. Consequently, some of the almanacs have\n adopted the European practice of showing the time of sunrise, in hours\n and minutes, from midnight; and some of them add the time of sunset\n from noon.\n\n\n The lunar year.\n\nThe lunar year consists primarily of twelve lunations or lunar months,\nof which the present Sanskrit names, generally used in more or less\ncorrupted forms, are Chaitra, Vaisakha, &c., to Phalguna, as given above\nin connexion with the solar months. It is of two principal varieties,\naccording as it begins with a certain day in the month Chaitra, or with\nthe corresponding day in Karttika: the former variety is conveniently\nknown as the Chaitradi year; the latter as the Karttikadi year. For\nreligious purposes the lunar year begins with its first lunar day: for\ncivil purposes it begins with its first civil day, the relation of which\nto the lunar day will be explained below. Owing to the manner in which,\nas we shall explain, the beginning of the lunar year is always shifting\nbackwards and forwards, it is not practicable to lay down any close\nequivalents for comparison: but an indication may be given as follows.\nThe first civil day of the Chaitradi year is the day after the new-moon\nconjunction which occurs next after the entrance of the sun into Mina,\nand it now falls from about 13th March to about 11th April: the first\ncivil day of the Karttikadi year is the first day after the new-moon\nconjunction which occurs next after the entrance of the sun into Tula,\nand it now falls from about 17th October to about 15th November.\n\n\n The lunar month.\n\n The present names of the lunar months, indicated above, were derived\n from the _nakshatras_, which are certain conspicuous stars and groups\n of stars lying more or less along the neighbourhood of the ecliptic.\n The _nakshatras_ are regarded sometimes as twenty-seven in number,\n sometimes as twenty-eight, and are grouped in twelve sets of two or\n three each, beginning, according to the earlier arrangement of the\n list, with the pair Krittika and Rohini, and including in the sixth\n place Chitra and Svati, and ending with the triplet Revati, Asvini and\n Bharani. They are sometimes styled lunar mansions, and are sometimes\n spoken of as the signs of the lunar zodiac; and it is, no doubt,\n chiefly in connexion with the moon that they are now taken into\n consideration. But they mark divisions of the ecliptic: according to\n one system, twenty-seven divisions, each of 13 degrees 20 minutes;\n according to two other systems, twenty-seven or twenty-eight unequal\n divisions, which we need not explain here. The almanacs show the\n course of the sun through them, as well as the course of the moon; and\n the course of the sun was marked by them only, before the time when\n the Hindus began to use the twelve signs of the solar zodiac. So there\n is nothing exclusively lunar about them. The present names of the\n lunar months were derived from the _nakshatras_ in the following\n manner: the full-moon which occurred when the moon was in conjunction\n with Chitra (the star [alpha] Virginis) was named Chaitri, and the\n lunar month, which contained the Chaitri full-moon, was named Chaitra;\n and so on with the others. The present names have superseded another\n set of names which were at one time in use concurrently with them;\n these other names are Madhu (= Chaitra), Madhava, Sukra, Suchi,\n Nabhas, Nabhasya, Isha, Urja (= Karttika), Sahas, Sahasya, Tapas, and\n Tapasya (= Phalguna): they seem to have marked originally solar\n season-months of the solar year, rather than lunar months of the lunar\n year.\n\n A lunar month may be regarded as ending either with the new-moon,\n which is called _amavasya_, or with the full-moon, which is called\n _purnamasi_, _purnima_: a month of the former kind is termed _amanta_,\n \"ending with the new-moon,\" or _sukladi_, \"beginning with the bright\n fortnight;\" a month of the latter kind is termed purnimanta, \"ending\n with the full-moon,\" or _krishnadi_, \"beginning with the dark\n fortnight.\" For all purposes of the calendar, the _amanta_ month is\n used in Southern India, and the _purnimanta_ month in Northern India.\n But only the _amanta_ month, the period of the synodic revolution of\n the moon, is recognized in Hindu astronomy, and for the purpose of\n naming the lunations and adjusting the lunar to the solar year by the\n intercalation and suppression of lunar months; and the rule is that\n the lunar Chaitra is the _amanta_ or synodic month at the first moment\n of which the sun is in the sign Mina, and in the course of which the\n sun enters Mesha: the other months follow in the same way; and the\n lunar Karttika is the _amanta_ month at the first moment of which the\n sun is in Tula, and in the course of which the sun enters Vrischika.\n The connexion between the lunar and the solar months is maintained by\n the point that the name Chaitra is applied according to one practice\n to the solar Mina, in which the lunar Chaitra begins, and according to\n another practice to the solar Mesha, in which the lunar Chaitra ends.\n Like the lunar year, the lunar month begins for religious purposes\n with its first lunar day, and for civil purposes with its first civil\n day.\n\n\n Intercalation and suppression of lunar months.\n\n One mean lunar year of twelve lunations measures very nearly 354 days\n 8 hrs. 48 min. 34 sec.; and one Hindu solar year measures 365 days 6\n hrs. 12 min. 30 sec. according to Aryabhata, or slightly more\n according to the other two authorities. Consequently, the beginning of\n a lunar year pure and simple would be always travelling backwards\n through the solar year, by about eleven days on each occasion, and\n would in course of time recede entirely through the solar year, as it\n does in the Mahommedan calendar. The Hindus prevent that in the\n following manner. The length of the Hindu astronomical solar month,\n measured by the _samkrantis_ of the sun, its successive entrances into\n the signs of the zodiac, ranges, in accordance with periodical\n variations in the speed of the sun, from about 29 days 7 hrs. 38 min.\n up to about 31 days 15 hrs. 28 min. The length of the _amanta_ or\n synodic lunar month ranges, in accordance with periodical variations\n in the speed of the moon and the sun, from about 29 days 19 hrs. 30\n min. down to about 29 days 7 hrs. 20 min. Consequently, it happens\n from time to time that there are two new-moon conjunctions, so that\n two lunations begin, in one astronomical solar month, between two\n _samkrantis_ of the sun, while the sun is in one and the same sign of\n the zodiac, and there is no _samkranti_ in the lunation ending with\n the second new-moon: when this is the case, there are two lunations to\n which the same name is applicable, and so there is an additional or\n intercalated month, in the sense that a name is repeated: thus, when\n two new-moons occur while the sun is in Mesha, the lunation ending\n with the first of them, during which the sun has entered Mesha, is\n Chaitra; the next lunation, in which there is no _samkranti_, is\n Vaisakha, because it begins when the sun is in Mesha; and the next\n lunation after that is again Vaisakha, for the same reason, and also\n because the sun enters Vrishabha in the course of it: in these\n circumstances, the first of the two Vaisakhas is called\n Adhika-Vaisakha, \"the additional or intercalated Vaisakha,\" and the\n second is called simply Vaisakha, or sometimes Nija-Vaisakha, \"the\n natural Vaisakha.\" On the other hand, it occasionally happens, in an\n autumn or winter month, that there are two _samkrantis_ of the sun in\n one and the same _amanta_ or synodic lunar month, between two new-moon\n conjunctions, so that no lunation begins between the two _samkrantis_:\n when this is the case, there is one lunation to which two names are\n applicable, and there is a suppressed month, in the sense that a name\n is omitted: thus, if the sun enters both Dhanus and Makara during one\n synodic lunation, that lunation is Margasira, because the sun was in\n Vrischika at the first moment of it and enters Dhanus in the course of\n it;[2] the next lunation is Magha, because the sun is in Makara by the\n time when it begins and will enter Kumbha in the course of it; and the\n name Pausha, between Margasira and Magha, is omitted. When a month is\n thus suppressed, there is always one intercalated month, and sometimes\n two, in the same Chaitradi lunar year, so that the lunar year never\n contains less than twelve months, and from time to time consists of\n thirteen months. There are normally seven intercalated months, rising\n to eight when a month is suppressed, in 19 solar years, which equal\n very nearly 235 lunations;[3] and there is never less than one year\n without an intercalated month between two years with intercalated\n months, except when there is only one such month in a year in which a\n month is suppressed; then there is always an intercalated month in the\n next year also. The suppression of a month takes place at intervals of\n 19 years and upwards, regarding which no definite statement can\n conveniently be made here. It may be added that an intercalated\n Chaitra or Karttika takes the place of the ordinary month as the first\n month of the year; an intercalated month is not rejected for that\n purpose, though it is tabooed from the religious and auspicious points\n of view.\n\n The manner in which this arrangement of intercalated and suppressed\n months works out, so as to prevent the beginning of the Chaitradi\n lunar year departing far from the beginning of the Meshadi solar\n year, may be illustrated as follows. In A.D. 1815 the Mesha-samkranti\n occurred on 11th April; and the first civil day of the Chaitradi year\n was 10th April. In A.D. 1816 and 1817 the first civil day of the\n Chaitradi year fell back to 29th March and 18th March. In A.D. 1817,\n however, there was an intercalated month, Sravana; with the result\n that in A.D. 1818 the first civil day of the Chaitradi year advanced\n to 6th April. And, after various shiftings of the same kind--including\n in A.D. 1822 an intercalation of Asvina and a suppression of Pausha,\n followed in A.D. 1823, when the first civil day of the Chaitradi year\n had fallen back to 13th March, by an intercalation of Chaitra\n itself--in A.D. 1834, when the Mesha-samkranti occurred again on 11th\n April, the first civil day of the Chaitradi year was again 10th April.\n\n\n The lunar fortnight.\n\n The lunar month is divided into two fortnights (_paksha_), called\n bright and dark, or, in Indian terms, _sukla_ or _suddha_, _sudi_,\n _sudi_, and _krishna_ or _bahula_, _badi_, _vadi_: the bright\n fortnight, _sukla-paksha_, is the period of the waxing moon, ending at\n the full-moon; the dark fortnight, _krishna-paksha_, is the period of\n the waning moon, ending at the new-moon. In the _amanta_ or _sukladi_\n month, the bright fortnight precedes the dark; in the _purnimanta_ or\n _krishnadi_ month, the dark fortnight comes first; and the result is\n that, whereas, for instance, the bright fortnight of Chaitra is the\n same period of time throughout India, the preceding dark fortnight is\n known in Northern India as the dark fortnight of Chaitra, but in\n Southern India as the dark fortnight of Phalguna. This, however, does\n not affect the period covered by the lunar year; the Chaitradi and\n Karttikadi years begin everywhere with the bright fortnight of Chaitra\n and Karttika respectively; simply, by the _amanta_ system the dark\n fortnights of Chaitra and Karttika are the second fortnights, and by\n the _purnimanta_ system they are the last fortnights, of the years.\n Like the month, the fortnight begins for religious purposes with its\n first lunar day, and for civil purposes with its first civil day.\n\n\n The lunar day.\n\n The lunar fortnights are divided each into fifteen tithis or lunar\n days.[4] The _tithi_ is the time in which the moon increases her\n distance from the sun round the circle by twelve degrees; and the\n almanacs show each _tithi_ by its ending-time; that is, by the moment,\n expressed in _ghatikas_ and _palas_, after sunrise, at which the moon\n completes that distance. In accordance with that, the _tithi_ is\n usually used and cited with the weekday on which it ends; but there\n are special rules regarding certain rites, festivals, &c., which\n sometimes require the _tithi_ to be used and cited with the weekday on\n which it begins or is current at a particular time. The first _tithi_\n of each fortnight begins immediately after the moment of new-moon and\n full-moon respectively; the last _tithi_ ends at the moment of\n full-moon and new-moon. The _tithis_ are primarily denoted by the\n numbers 1, 2, 3, &c., for each fortnight; but, while the full-moon\n _tithi_ is always numbered 15, the new-moon _tithi_ is generally\n numbered 30, even where the _purnimanta_ month is used. The _tithis_\n may be cited either by their figures or by the Sanskrit ordinal words\n _prathama_, \"first,\" _dvitiya_, \"second,\" &c., or corruptions of them.\n But usually the first _tithi_ of either fortnight is cited by the term\n _pratipad_, _pratipada_, and the new-moon and full-moon _tithis_ are\n cited by the terms _amavasya_ and _purnima_; or here, again,\n corruptions of the Sanskrit terms are used. And special names are\n sometimes prefixed to the numbers of the _tithis_, according to the\n rites, festivals, &c., prescribed for them, or events or merits\n assigned to them: for instance, Vaisakha sukla 3 is Akshaya or\n Akshayya-tritiya, the third _tithi_ which ensures permanence to acts\n performed on it; Bhadrapada sukla 4 is Ganesa-chaturthi, the fourth\n _tithi_ dedicated to the worship of the god Ganesa, Ganapati, and the\n _amanta_ Bhadrapada or _purnimanta_ Asvina krishna 13 is\n Kaliyugadi-trayodasi, as being regarded (for some reason which is not\n apparent) as the anniversary of the beginning of the Kaliyuga, the\n present Age. The first _tithi_ of the year is styled\n Samvatsara-pratipada, which term answers closely to our \"New Year's\n Day.\"\n\n\n The civil day.\n\n The civil days of the lunar month begin, like those of the solar\n month, at sunrise, and bear in the same way the names of the weekdays.\n But they are numbered in a different manner; fortnight by fortnight\n and according to the _tithis_. The general rule is that the civil day\n takes the number of the _tithi_ which is current at its sunrise. And\n the results are as follows. As the motions of the sun and the moon\n vary periodically, a tithi is of variable length, ranging, according\n to the Hindu calculations, from 21 hrs. 34 min. 24 sec. to 26 hrs. 6\n min. 24 sec.: it may, therefore, be either shorter or longer than a\n civil day, the duration of which is practically 24 hours (one minute,\n roughly, more or less, according to the time of the year). A _tithi_\n may end at any moment during the civil day; and ordinarily it ends on\n the civil day after that on which it begins, and covers only one\n sunrise and gives its number to the day on which it ends. It may,\n however, begin on one civil day and end on the next but one, and so\n cover two sunrises; and it is then treated as a repeated _tithi_, in\n the sense that its number is repeated: for instance, if the seventh\n _tithi_ so begins and ends, the civil day on which it begins is\n numbered 6, from the _tithi_ which is current at the sunrise of that\n day and ends on it; the day covered entirely by the seventh _tithi_ is\n numbered 7, because that _tithi_ is current at its sunrise; the next\n day, at the sunrise of which the seventh _tithi_ is still current and\n during which it ends, is again numbered 7; and the number 8 falls to\n the next day after that, when the eighth tithi is current at\n sunrise.[5] On the other hand, a _tithi_ may begin and end during one\n and the same civil day, so as not to touch a sunrise at all: in this\n case, it exists for any practical purposes for which it may be wanted\n (it is, however, to be avoided if possible, as being an unlucky\n occasion), but it is suppressed or expunged for the numbering of the\n civil day, in the sense that its number is omitted; for instance, if\n the seventh _tithi_ begins and ends during one civil day, that day is\n numbered 6 from, as before, the _tithi_ which is current at its\n sunrise and ends when the seventh _tithi_ begins; the next day is\n numbered 8, because the eighth _tithi_ is current at its sunrise; and\n there is, in this case, no civil day bearing the number seven. In\n consequence of this method of numbering, it sometimes happens, as the\n result of the suppression of a _tithi_, that the day of a full-moon is\n numbered 14 instead of 15; that the day of a new-moon is numbered 14\n instead of 30; and that the first day of a fortnight, and even the\n first day of a lunar year, is numbered 2 instead of 1.\n\n There are, on an average, thirteen suppressed _tithis_ and seven\n repeated _tithis_ in twelve lunar months; and so the lunar year\n averages 354 days, rising to about 384 when a month is intercalated.\n It occasionally happens that there are two suppressions of _tithis_ in\n one and the same fortnight; and the almanacs show such a case in the\n bright fortnight of Jyaishtha, A.D. 1878: but this occurs only after\n very long intervals.\n\n\n The Karana.\n\n The _tithi_ is divided into two _karanas_; each _karana_ being the\n time in which the moon increases her distance from the sun by six\n degrees. But this is a detail of astrological rather than\n chronological interest. So, also, are two other details to which a\n prominent place is given in the lunar calendars; to yoga, or time in\n which the joint motion in longitude, the sum of the motions of the sun\n and the moon, is increased by 13 degrees 20 minutes; and the\n _nakshatra_, the position of the moon as referred to the ecliptic by\n means of the stars and groups of stars which have been mentioned above\n under the lunar month.\n\n In the Indian calendar everything depends upon exact times, which\n differ, of course, on every different meridian; and (to cite what is\n perhaps the most frequent and generally important occurrence)\n suppression and repetition may affect one _tithi_ and civil day in one\n locality, and another _tithi_ and civil day in another locality not\n very far distant. Consequently, neither for the lunar nor for the\n solar calendar is there any almanac which is applicable to even the\n whole area in which any particular length of the astronomical solar\n year prevails; much less, for the whole of India. Different almanacs\n are prepared and published for places of leading importance; details\n for minor places, when wanted, have to be worked out by the local\n astrologer, the modern representative of an ancient official known as\n Sammvatsara, the \"clerk of the year.\"\n\n\nII. ERAS\n\nAs far as the available evidence goes (and we have no reason to expect\nto discover anything opposed to it), any use of eras, in the sense of\ncontinuous reckonings which originated in historical occurrences or\nastronomical epochs and were employed for official and other public\nchronological purposes, did not prevail in India before the 1st century\nB.C. Prior to that time, there existed, indeed, in connexion with the\nsacrificial calendar, a five-years lunisolar cycle, and possibly some\nextended cycles of the same nature; and there was in Buddhist circles a\nrecord of the years elapsed since the death of Buddha, which we shall\nmention again further on. But, as is gathered from books and is well\nillustrated by the edicts of Asoka (reigned 264-227 B.C.) and the\ninscriptions of other rulers, the years of the reign of each successive\nking were found sufficient for the public dating of proclamations and\nthe record of events. There is no known case in which any Indian king,\nof really ancient times, deliberately applied himself to the foundation\nof an era: and we have no reason for thinking that such a thing was ever\ndone, or that any Hindu reckoning at all owes its existence to a\nrecognition of historical requirements. The eras which came into\nexistence from the 1st century B.C. onwards mostly had their origin in\nthe fortuitous extension of regnal reckonings. The usual course has been\nthat, under the influence of filial piety, pride in ancestry, loyalty to\na paramount sovereign, or some other such motive, the successor of some\nking continued the regnal reckoning of his predecessor, who was not\nnecessarily the first king in the dynasty, and perhaps did not even\nreign for any long time, instead of starting a new reckoning, beginning\nagain with the year 1, according to the years of his own reign. Having\nthus run for two reigns, the reckoning was sufficiently well established\nto continue in the same form, and to eventually develop into a generally\naccepted local era, which might or might not be taken over by subsequent\ndynasties ruling afterwards over the same territory. In these\ncircumstances, we find the establisher of any particular era in that\nking who first continued his predecessor's regnal reckoning, instead of\nreplacing it by his own; but we regard as the founder of the era that\nking whose regnal reckoning was so continued. We may add here that it\nwas only in advanced stages that any of the Hindu eras assumed specific\nnames: during the earlier period of each of them, the years were simply\ncited by the term _samvatsara_ or _varsha_, \"the year (bearing\nsuch-and-such a number),\" or by the abbreviations _samvat_ and _sam_,\nwithout any appellative designation.\n\n\n The Buddhist and Jain religious reckonings.\n\nThe Hindus have had two religious reckonings, which it will be\nconvenient to notice first. Certain, statements in the Ceylonese\nchronicles, the _Dipavamsa_ and _Mahavamsa_, endorsed by an entry in a\nrecord of Asoka, show that in the 3rd century B.C. there existed among\nthe Buddhists a record of the time elapsed since the death of Buddha in\n483 B.C., from which it was known that Asoka was anointed to the\nsovereignty 218 years after the death. The reckoning, however, was\nconfined to esoteric Buddhist circles, and did not commend itself for\nany public use; and the only known inscriptional use of it, which also\nfurnishes the latest known date recorded in it, is found in the Last\nEdict of Asoka, which presents his dying speech delivered in 226 B.C.,\n256 years after the death of Buddha. In Ceylon, where, also the original\nreckoning was not maintained, there was devised in the 12th century A.D.\na reckoning styled Buddhavarsha, \"the years of Buddha,\" which still\nexists, and which purports to run from the death of Buddha, but has set\nup an erroneous date for that event in 544 B.C. This later reckoning\nspread from Ceylon to Burma and Siam, where, also, it is still used. It\ndid not obtain any general recognition in India, because, when it was\ndevised, Buddhism had practically died out there, except at Bodh-Gaya.\nBut, as there seems to have been constant intercourse between Bodh-Gaya\nand Ceylon as well as other foreign Buddhist countries, we should not be\nsurprised to find an occasional instance of its use at Bodh-Gaya: and it\nis believed that one such instance, belonging to A.D. 1270, has been\nobtained.\n\nThe Jains have had, and still maintain, a reckoning from the death of\nthe founder of their faith, Vira, Mahavira, Vardhamana, which event is\nplaced by them in 528 B.C. This reckoning figures largely in the Jain\nbooks, which put forward dates in it for very early times. But the\nearliest known synchronous date in it--by which we mean a date given by\na writer who recorded the year in which he himself was writing--is one\nof the year 980, or, according to a different view mentioned in the\npassage itself, of the year 993. This reckoning, again, did not commend\nitself for any official or other public use. And the only known\ninscriptional instances of the use of it are modern ones, of the 19th\ncentury. While it is certain that the Jain reckoning, as it exists, has\nits initial point in 528 B.C. it has not yet been determined whether\nthat is actually the year in which Vira died. All that can be said on\nthis point is that the date is not inconsistent with certain statements\nin Buddhist books, which mention, by a Prakrit name of which the\nSanskrit form is Nirgrantha-Jnata-putra, a contemporary of Buddha, in\nwhom there is recognized the original of the Jain Vira, Mahavira, or\nVardhamana, and who, the same books say, died while Buddha was still\nalive. But there are some indications that Nirgrantha-Jnataputra may\nhave died only a short time before Buddha himself; and the event may\neasily have been set back to 528 B.C. in circumstances, attending a\ndetermination of the reckoning long after the occurrence, analogous to\nthose in which the Ceylonese Buddhavarsha set up the erroneous date of\n544 B.C. for the death of Buddha.\n\n\n Bygone Eras of royal origin.\n\n In the class of eras of royal origin, brought into existence in the\n manner indicated above, the Hindus have had various reckonings which\n have now mostly fallen into disuse. We may mention them, without\n giving them the detailed treatment which the more important of the\n still existing reckonings demand.\n\n The Kalachuri or Chedi era, commencing in A.D. 248 or 249, is known\n best from inscriptional records, bearing dates which range from the\n 10th to the 13th century A.D., of the Kalachuri kings of the Chedi\n country in Central India; and it is from them that it derived the name\n under which it passes. In earlier times, however, we find this era\n well established, without any appellation, in Western India, in\n Gujarat and the Thana district of Bombay, where it was used by kings\n and princes of the Chalukya, Gurjara, Sendraka, Katachchuri and\n Traikutaka families. It is traced back there to A.D. 457, at which\n time there was reigning a Traikutaka king named Dahrasena. Beyond that\n point, we have at present no certain knowledge about it. But it seems\n probable that the founder of it may be recognized in an Abhira king\n Isvarasena, or else in his father Sivadatta, who was reigning at Nasik\n in or closely about A.D. 248-49.\n\n The Gupta era, commencing in A.D. 320, was founded by Chandragupta I.,\n the first paramount king in the great Gupta dynasty of Northern India.\n When the Guptas passed away, their reckoning was taken over by the\n Maitraka kings of Valabhi, who succeeded them in Kathiawar and some of\n the neighbouring territories; and so it became also known as the\n Valabhi era.\n\n From Halsi in the Belgaum district, Bombay, we have a record of the\n Kadamba king Kakusthavarman, which was framed during the time when he\n was the Yuvaraja or anointed successor to the sovereignty, and may be\n referred to about A.D. 500. It is dated in \"the eightieth victorious\n year,\" and thus indicates the preservation of a reckoning running from\n the foundation of the Kadamba dynasty by Mayuravarman, the\n great-grandfather of Kakusthavarman. But no other evidence of the\n existence of this era has been obtained.\n\n The records of the Ganga kings of Kalinganagara, which is the modern\n Mukhalingam-Nagarikatakam in the Ganjam district, Madras, show the\n existence of a Ganga era which ran for at any rate 254 years. And\n various details in the inscriptions enable us to trace the origin of\n the Ganga kings to Western India, and to place the initial point of\n their reckoning in A.D. 590, when a certain\n Satyasraya-Dhruvaraja-Indravarman, an ancestor and probably the\n grandfather of the first Ganga king Rajasimha-Indravarman I.,\n commenced to govern a large province in the Konkan under the Chalukya\n king Kirtivarman I.\n\n An era commencing in A.D. 605 or 606 was founded in Northern India by\n the great king Harshavardhana, who reigned first at Thanesar and then\n at Kanauj, and who was the third sovereign in a dynasty which traced\n its origin to a prince named Naravardhana. A peculiarity about this\n era is that it continued in use for apparently four centuries after\n Harshavardhana, in spite of the fact that his line ended with him.\n\n The inscriptions assert that the Western Chalukya king Vikrama or\n Vikramaditya VI. of Kalyani in the Nizam's dominions, who reigned from\n A.D. 1076 to 1126, abolished the use of the Saka era in his dominions\n in favour of an era named after himself. What he or his ministers did\n was to adopt, for the first time in that dynasty, the system of regnal\n years, according to which, while the Saka era also remained in use,\n most of the records of his time are dated, not in that era, but in the\n year so-and-so of the Chalukya-Vikrama-kala or\n Chalukya-Vikrama-varsha, \"the time or years of the Chalukya Vikrama.\"\n There is some evidence that this reckoning survived Vikramaditya VI.\n for a short time. But his successors introduced their own regnal\n reckonings; and that prevented it from acquiring permanence.\n\n In Tirhut, there is still used a reckoning which is known as the\n Lakshmanasena era from the name of the king of Bengal by whom it was\n founded. There is a difference of opinion as to the exact initial\n point of this reckoning; but the best conclusion appears to be that\n which places it in A.D. 1119. This era prevailed at one time\n throughout Bengal: we know this from a passage in the _Akbarnama_,\n written in A.D. 1584, which specifies the Saka era as the reckoning of\n Gujarat and the Dekkan, the Vikrama era as the reckoning of Malwa,\n Delhi, and those parts, and the Lakshmanasena era as the reckoning of\n Bengal.\n\n The last reckoning that we have to mention here is one known as the\n Rajyabhisheka-Saka, \"the era of the anointment to the sovereignty,\"\n which was in use for a time in Western India. It dated from the day\n Jyaishtha sukla 13 of the Saka year 1597 current, = 6 June, A.D. 1674,\n when Sivaji, the founder of the Maratha kingdom, had himself\n enthroned.\n\n\n Miscellaneous Eras.\n\n There are four reckonings which it is difficult at present to class\n exactly. Two inscriptions of the 15th and 17th centuries, recently\n brought to notice from Jesalmer in Rajputana, present a reckoning\n which postulates an initial point in A.D. 624 or in the preceding or\n the following year, and bears an appellation, Bhatika, which seems to\n be based on the name of the Bhatti tribe, to which the rulers of\n Jesalmer belong. No historical event is known, referable to that time,\n which can have given rise to an era. It is possible that the apparent\n initial date represents an epoch, at the end of the Saka year 546 or\n thereabouts, laid down in some astronomical work composed then or soon\n afterwards and used in the Jesalmer territory. But it seems more\n probable that it is a purely fictitious date, set up by an attempt to\n evolve an early history Of the ruling family.\n\n In the Tinnevelly district of Madras, and in the territories of the\n same presidency in which the Malayalam language prevails, namely,\n South Kanara below Mangalore, the Malabar district, and the Cochin and\n Travancore states, there is used a reckoning which is known sometimes\n as the Kollam or Kolamba reckoning, sometimes as the era of\n Parasurama. The years of it are solar: in the southern parts of the\n territory in which it is current, they begin with the month Simha; in\n the northern parts, they begin with the next month, Kanya. The initial\n point of the reckoning is in A.D. 825; and the year 1076 commenced in\n A.D. 1900. The popular view about this reckoning is that it consists\n of cycles of 1000 years; that we are now in the fourth cycle; and that\n the reckoning originated in 1176 B.C. with the mythical Parasurama,\n who exterminated the Kshatriya or warrior caste, and reclaimed the\n Konkan countries, Western India below the Ghauts, from the ocean. But\n the earliest known date in it, of the year 149, falls in A.D. 973; and\n the reckoning has run on in continuation of the thousand, instead of\n beginning afresh in A.D. 1825. It seems probable, therefore, that the\n reckoning had no existence before A.D. 825. The years are cited\n sometimes as \"the Kollam year (of such-and-such a number),\" sometimes\n as \"the year (so-and-so) after Kollam appeared;\" and this suggests\n that the reckoning may possibly owe its origin to some event,\n occurring in A.D. 825, connected with one or other of the towns and\n ports named Kollam, on the Malabar coast; perhaps Northern Kollam in\n the Malabar district, perhaps Southern Kollam, better known as Quilon,\n in Travancore. But the introduction of Parasurama into the matter,\n which would carry back (let us say) the foundation of Kollam to\n legendary times, may indicate, rather, a purely imaginative origin.\n Or, again, since each century of the Kollam reckoning begins in the\n same year A.D. with a century of the Saptarshi reckoning (see below\n under III. Other Reckonings), it is not impossible that this reckoning\n may be a southern offshoot of the Saptarshi reckoning, or at least may\n have had the same astrological origin.\n\n In Nepal there is a reckoning, known as the Newar era and commencing\n in A.D. 879, which superseded the Gupta and Harsha eras there. One\n tradition attributes the foundation of it to a king Raghavadeva;\n another says that, in the time and with the permission of a king\n Jayadevamalla, a merchant named Sakhwal paid off, by means of wealth\n acquired from sand which turned into gold, all the debts then existing\n in the country, and introduced the new era in commemoration of the\n occurrence. It is possible that the era may have been founded by some\n ruler of Nepal: but nothing authentic is known about the particular\n names mentioned in connexion with it. This era appears to have been\n discarded for state and official purposes, in favour of the Saka era,\n in A.D. 1768, when the Gurkhas became masters of Nepal; but\n manuscripts show that in literary circles it has remained in use up to\n at any rate A.D. 1875.\n\n Inscriptions disclose the use in Kathiawar and Gujarat, in the 12th\n and 13th centuries, of a reckoning, commencing in A.D. 1114, which is\n known as the Simha-samvat. No historical occurrence is known, on which\n it can have been based; and the origin of it is obscure.\n\n\n Three great Eras in general use.\n\nThe eras mentioned above have for the most part served their purposes\nand died out. But there are three great reckonings, dating from a very\nrespectable antiquity, which have held their own and survived to the\npresent day. These are the Kaliyuga, Vikrama, and Saka eras. It will be\nconvenient to treat the Kaliyuga first, though, in spite of having the\ngreatest apparent antiquity, it is the latest of the three in respect of\nactual date of origin.\n\n\n The Kaliyuga Era of 3102 B.C.\n\nThe Kaliyuga era is the principal astronomical reckoning of the Hindus.\nIt is frequently, if not generally, shown in the almanacs: but it can\nhardly be looked upon as being now in practical use for civil purposes;\nand, as regards the custom of previous times as far as we can judge it\nfrom the inscriptional use, which furnishes a good guide, the position\nis as follows: from Southern India we have one such instance of A.D.\n634, one of A.D. 770, three of the 10th century, and then, from the 12th\ncentury onwards, but more particularly from the 14th, a certain number\nof instances, not exactly very small in itself, but extremely so in\ncomparison with the number of cases of the use of the Vikrama and Saka\neras and other reckonings: from Northern India the earliest known\ninstance of is A.D. 1169 or 1170, and the later ones number only four.\nIts years are by nature sidereal solar years, commencing with the\nMesha-samkranti, the entrance of the sun into the Hindu constellation\nand sign Mesha, i.e. Aries (for this and other technical details, see\nabove, under the Calendar);[6] but they were probably cited as lunar\nyears in the inscriptional records which present the reckoning; and the\nalmanacs appear to treat them either as Meshadi civil solar years with\nsolar months, or as Chaitradi lunar years with lunar months _amanta_\n(ending with the new-moon) or _purnimanta_ (ending with the full-moon)\nas the case may be, according to the locality. Its initial point lies in\n3102 B.C.; and the year 5002 began in A.D. 1900.[7]\n\n This reckoning is not an historical era, actually running from 3102\n B.C. It was devised for astronomical purposes at some time about A.D.\n 400, when the Hindu astronomers, having taken over the principles of\n the Greek astronomy, recognized that they required for purposes of\n computation a specific reckoning with a definite initial occasion.\n They found that occasion in a conjunction of the sun, the moon, and\n the five planets which were then known, at the first point of their\n sign Mesha. There was not really such a conjunction; nor, apparently,\n is it even the case that the sun was actually at the first point of\n Mesha at the moment arrived at. But there was an approach to such a\n conjunction, which was turned into an actual conjunction by taking the\n mean instead of the true positions of the sun, the moon, and the\n planets. And, partly from the reckoning which has come down to us,\n partly from the astronomical books, we know that the moment assigned\n to the assumed conjunction was according to one school the midnight\n between Thursday the 17th, and Friday the 18th, February, 3102 B.C.,\n and according to another school the sunrise on the Friday.\n\n The reckoning thus devised was subsequently identified with the\n Kaliyuga as the iron age, the last and shortest, with a duration of\n 432,000 years, of the four ages in each cycle of ages in the Hindu\n system of cosmical periods. Also, traditional history was fitted to it\n by one school, represented notably by the Puranas, which, referring\n the great war between the Pandavas and the Kurus, which is the topic\n of the Mahabharata, to the close of the preceding age, the Dvapara,\n placed on the last day of that age the culminating event which ushered\n in the Kali age; namely, the death of Krishna (the return to heaven of\n Vishnu on the termination of his incarnation as Krishna), which was\n followed by the abdication of the Pandava king Yudhishthira, who,\n having installed his grand-nephew Parikshit as his successor, then set\n out on his own journey to heaven. Another school, however, placed the\n Pandavas and the Kurus 653 years later, in 2449 B.C. A third school\n places in 3102 B.C. the anointment of Yudhishthira to the sovereignty,\n and treats that event as inaugurating the Kali age; from this point of\n view, the first 3044 years of the Kaliyuga--the period from its\n commencement in 3102 B.C. to the commencement of the first historical\n era, the so-called Vikrama era, in 58 B.C.--are also known as \"the era\n of Yudhishthira.\"\n\n\n The Vikrama Era of 58 B.C.\n\nThe Vikrama era, which is the earliest of all the Hindu eras in respect\nof order of foundation, is the dominant era and the great historical\nreckoning of Northern India--that is, of the territory on the north of\nthe rivers Narbada and Mahanadi--to which part of the country its use\nhas always been practically confined. Like, indeed, the Kaliyuga and\nSaka eras, it is freely cited in almanacs in any part of India; and it\nis sometimes used in the south by immigrants from the north: but it is,\nby nature, so essentially foreign to the south that the earliest known\ninscriptional instance of the use of it in Southern India only dates\nfrom A.D. 1218, and the very few later instances that have been\nobtained, prior to the 15th century A.D., come, along with the instance\nof A.D. 1218, from the close neighbourhood of the dividing-line between\nthe north and the south. The Vikrama era has never been used for\nastronomical purposes. Its years are lunar, with lunar months, but seem\nliable to be sometimes regarded as solar, with solar months, when they\nare cited in almanacs of Southern India which present the solar\ncalendar. Originally they were Kartti-kadi, with _purnimanta_ months\n(ending with the full-moon). They now exist in the following three\nvarieties: in Kathiawar and Gujarat, they are chiefly Karttikadi, with\n_amanta_ months (ending with the new-moon); and they are shown in this\nform in almanacs for the other parts of the Bombay Presidency; but there\nis also found in Kathiawar and that neighbourhood an Ashadhadi variety,\ncommencing with Ashadha sukla I, similarly with _amanta_ months; in the\nrest of Northern India, they are Chaitradi, with _purnimanta_ months.\nThe era has its initial point in 58 B.C., and its first civil day,\nKarttika sukla I, is 19th September in that year if we determine it with\nreference to the Hindu Tula-samkranti, or 18th October if we determine\nit with reference to the tropical equinox. The years of the three\nvarieties, Chaitradi, Ashadhadi, and Karttikadi, all commence in the\nsame year A.D.; and the year 1958 began in A.D. 1900.\n\n Hindu legend connects the foundation of this era with a king Vikrama\n or Vikramaditya of Ujjain in Malwa, Central India: one version is that\n he began to reign in 58 B.C.; another is that he died in that year,\n and that the reckoning commemorates his death. Modern research,\n however, based largely on the inscriptional records, has shown that\n there was no such king, and that the real facts are very different.\n The era owes its existence to the Kushan king Kanishka, a foreign\n invader, who established himself in Northern India and commenced to\n reign there in B.C. 58.[8] He was the founder of it, in the sense that\n the opening years of it were the years of his reign. It was\n established and set going as an era by his successor, who continued\n the reckoning so started, instead of breaking it by introducing\n another according to his own regnal years. And it was perpetuated as\n an era, and transmitted as such to posterity by the Malavas, the\n people from whom the modern territory Malwa derived its name, who were\n an important section of the subjects of Kanishka and his successors.\n In consonance with that, records ranging in date from A.D. 473 to 879\n style it \"the reckoning of the Malavas, the years of the Malava lords,\n the Malava time or era.\" Prior to that, it had no specific name; the\n years of it were simply cited, in ordinary Hindu fashion, by the term\n _samvatsara_, \"the year (of such-and-such a number),\" or by its\n abbreviations _samvat_ and _sam_: and the same was frequently done in\n later times also, and is habitually done in the present day; and so,\n in modern times, this era has often been loosely styled \"the Samvat\n era.\" The idea of a king Vikrama in connexion with it appears to date\n from only the 9th or 10th century A.D.\n\n\n The Saka Era of A.D. 78.\n\nThe Saka era, though it actually had its origin in the south-west corner\nof Northern India, is the dominant era and the great historical\nreckoning of Southern India; that is, of the territory below the rivers\nNarbada and Mahanadi. It is also the subsidiary astronomical reckoning,\nlargely used, from the 6th century A.D. onwards, in the _Karanas_, the\nworks dealing with practical details of the calendar, for laying down\nepochs or points of time furnishing convenient bases for computation. As\na result of that, it came to be used in past times for general purposes\nalso, to a limited extent, in parts of Northern India where it was not\nindigenous. And it is now used more or less freely, and is cited in\nalmanacs everywhere. Its years are usually lunar, Chaitradi, and its\nmonths are _purnimanta_ (ending with the full-moon) in Northern India,\nand _amanta_ (ending with the new-moon) in Southern India; but in times\ngone by it was sometimes treated for purposes of calculation as having\nastronomical solar years, and it is now treated as having Mesh di civil\nsolar years and solar months in those parts of India where that form of\nthe solar calendar prevails. It has its initial point in A.D. 78; and\nits first civil day, Chaitra sukla I, is 3rd March in that year, as\ndetermined with reference either to the Hindu M'na-samkranti or to the\nentrance of the sun into the tropical Pisces. The year 1823 began in\nA.D. 1900.\n\nRegarding the origin of the Saka era, there was current in the 10th and\n11th centuries A.D. a belief which, ignoring the difference of a hundred\nand thirty-five years between the two reckonings, connected the\nlegendary king Vikramaditya of Ujjain, mentioned above under the Vikrama\nera, with the foundation of this era also. The story runs, from this\npoint of view, that the Sakas were a barbarous people who established\nthemselves in the western and north-western dominions of that king, but\nwere met in battle and destroyed by him, and that the era was\nestablished in celebration of that event. The modern belief, however,\nascribes the foundation of this era to a king Salivahana of\nPratishthana, which is the modern Paithan, on the Godavari, in the\nNizam's dominions. But in this case, again, research has shown that the\nfacts are very different. Like the Vikrama era, the Saka era owes its\nexistence to foreign invaders. It was founded by the Chhaharata or\nKshaharata king Nahapana, who appears to have been a Pahlava or Palhava,\ni.e. of Parthian extraction, and who reigned from A.D. 78 to about\n125.[9] He established himself first in Kathiawar, but subsequently\nbrought under his sway northern Gujarat (Bombay) and Ujjain, and, below\nthe Narbada, southern Gujarat, Nasik and probably Khandesh. His capital\nseems to have been Dohad, in the Panch Mahals. And he had two viceroys:\none, named Bhumaka, of the same family with himself, in Kathiawar; and\nanother, Chashtana, son of Ghsamotika, at Ujjain. Soon after A.D. 125,\nNahapana was overthrown, and his family was wiped out, by the\nSatavahana-Satakarni king Gautamiputra-Sri-Satakarni, who thereby\nrecovered the territories on the south of the Narbada, and perhaps\nsecured for a time Kathiawar and some other parts on the north of that\nriver. Very soon, however, Chashtana, or else his son Jayadaman,\nestablished his sway over all the territory which had belonged to\nNahapana on the north of the Narbada; founded a line of Hinduized\nforeign kings, who ruled there for more than three centuries; and,\ncontinuing Nahapana's regnal reckoning, established the era to which the\nname Saka eventually became attached. Inscriptions and coins show that,\nup to at least the second decade of its fourth century, this reckoning\nhad no specific appellation; its years were simply cited, in the usual\nfashion, as _varsha_, \"the year (of such-and-such a number).\" The\nreckoning was then taken up by the astronomers. And we find it first\ncalled Sakakala, \"the time or era of the Sakas,\" in an epochal date, the\nend of the year 427, falling in A.D. 505, which was used by the\nastronomer Varahamihira (d. A.D. 587) in his Panchasiddhantika. That\nthis name came to be attached to it appears to be due to the points\nthat, along with some of the Pahlavas or Palhavas and the Yavanas or\ndescendants of the Asiatic Greeks, some of the Sakas, the Scythians, had\nmade their way into Kathiawar and neighbouring parts by about A.D. 100,\nand that the Sakas incidentally came to acquire prominence in the memory\nof the Hindus regarding these occurrences, in such a manner that their\nname was selected when the occasion arose to devise an appellation for\nan era the exact origin of which had been forgotten. The name of the\nimaginary king Salivahana first figures in connexion with the era in a\nrecord of A.D. 1272, and seems plainly to have been introduced in\nimitation of the coupling of the name Vikrama, Vikramaditya, with the\nera of B.C. 58.\n\n That the Saka era, though it had its origin in the south-west corner\n of Northern India, is essentially an era of Southern India, is proved\n by its inscriptional and numismatic history. During the period before\n the time when it was taken up by the astronomers, it is found only in\n the inscriptions of Nahapana, and in the similar records and on the\n coins of the descendants of Chashtana. After that same time, it\n figures first in a record of the Chalukya king Kirtivarman I., at\n Badami in the Bijapur district, Bombay, which is dated on the\n full-moon day of the month Karttika, falling in A.D. 578, \"when there\n had elapsed five centuries of the years of the anointment of the Saka\n king to the sovereignty.\" And from this date onwards the records of a\n large part of Southern India are mostly dated in this era, by various\n expressions all of which include the term Saka or Saka. In Northern\n India the case is very different. We have a record dated in the month\n Karttika, the Saka year 631 (expired), falling in A.D. 709: it comes\n from Multai in the Betul district, Central Provinces, that is, from\n the south of the Narbada; but it belongs to Gujarat (Bombay), and\n perhaps to the north, though more probably to the south, of that\n province. But, setting that aside, the earliest inscriptional instance\n of the use of this era in Northern India, outside Kathiawar and\n Gujarat, is found in a record of A.D. 862 at Deogarh near Lalitpur,\n the headquarters town of the Lalitpur district, United Provinces of\n Agra and Oude; here, however, the record is primarily dated, with the\n full details of the month, &c., in \"Samvat 919,\" that is, in the\n Vikrama year 919; it is only as a subsidiary detail that the Saka year\n 784 is given in a separate passage at the end of the record, a sort of\n postscript. From this date onwards the era is found in other records\n of Northern India, but to any appreciable extent only from A.D. 1137,\n and to only a very small extent in comparison with the Vikrama and\n other northern eras; and the cases in which it was used exclusively\n there, without being coupled with one or other of the northern\n reckonings, are still more conspicuously few. In short, the general\n position is that the Saka era has been essentially foreign to Northern\n India until recent times; it was used there quite exceptionally and\n sporadically, and in very few cases indeed at any appreciable distance\n from the dividing-line between the north and the south. That it found\n its way into Northern India, outside Kathiawar and northern Gujarat at\n all, is unquestionably due to its use by the astronomers. It also\n travelled, across the sea, by the 7th century A.D. to Cambodia, and\n somewhat later to Java; to which parts it was doubtless taken in\n almanacs, or in invoices, statements of account, &c., by the persons\n engaged in the trade between Broach and the far east via Tagara (Ter)\n and the east coast. It also found its way in subsequent times to Assam\n and Ceylon, and more recently still to Nepal.\n\n\nIII. OTHER RECKONINGS\n\n The Cycles of Jupiter.\n\nWe come now to certain reckonings consisting of cycles, and will take\nfirst the cycles of Guru or Brihaspati, Jupiter. This planet, a very\nconspicuous object in eastern skies, requires a period of 4332.6 days, =\n50.4 days less than twelve Julian years, to make a circuit of the\nheavens, and has provided the Hindus with two reckonings, each in more\nthan one variety; a cycle of twelve years, and a cycle of sixty years.\nThe years of Jupiter, in all their varieties, are usually styled\n_samvatsara_; and it is convenient to use this term here, in order to\npreserve clearly the distinction between them and the solar and lunar\nyears. The _samvatsaras_ have no divisions of their own; the months,\ndays, &c., cited with them are those of the ordinary solar or lunar\ncalendar, as the case may be.\n\n\n The 12-years Cycle.\n\nThe older reckoning of Jupiter appears to be that of the 12-years cycle,\nwhich is found in two varieties; in both of them the _samvatsaras_ bear,\naccording to certain rules which need not be explained here, the same\nnames with the lunar months, Chaitra, Vaisakha, &c. In one variety, each\n_samvatsara_ runs from one of the planet's heliacal risings--that is,\nfrom the day on which it becomes visible as a morning star on the\neastern horizon--to the next such rising; and the length of such a\n_samvatsara_, according to the Hindu data, is from 392 to 405 days, with\nan average of 399 days. Inscriptional instances of the use of this cycle\nare found in six of the Gupta records of Northern India, ranging from\nA.D. 475 to 528.\n\nIn the other variety of the 12-years cycle, which is mentioned in\nastronomical works from the time of Aryabhata onwards (b. A.D. 476), the\n_samvatsaras_ are regulated by Jupiter's course with reference to his\nmean motion and mean longitude: a _samvatsara_ of this variety commences\nwhen Jupiter thus enters a sign of the zodiac, and lasts for the time\noccupied by him in traversing that sign from the same point of view; and\nthe period taken by him to do that--that is, the duration of such a\n_samvatsara_--is slightly in excess, according to the Hindu data, of\n361.02 days, which amount is very close to the actual fact, 361.05 days.\nInscriptional instances of the use of this cycle are perhaps found in\ntwo records of Southern India of the Kadamba series, belonging to about\nA.D. 575.\n\nThe 12-years mean-sign cycle seems to be still used in some parts. And\nthe heliacal risings of Jupiter, as also, indeed, those of the other\nplanets, are shown in almanacs for astrological purposes. In either\nvariety, however, the 12-years cycle is now chiefly of antiquarian\ninterest.\n\n\n The 60-years cycle.\n\nThe cycle of Jupiter now in general use is a cycle of sixty years, the\n_samvatsaras_ of which bear certain special names, Prabhava, Vibhava,\nSukla, Pramoda, &c., again in accordance with certain rules which we\nneed not explain here. This cycle exists in three varieties.\n\nAccording to the original constitution of this cycle, the _samvatsaras_\nare determined as in the second or mean-sign variety of the 12-years\ncycle: each _samvatsara_ commences when Jupiter enters a sign of the\nzodiac with reference to his mean motion and longitude; and it lasts for\nslightly more than 361.02 days. This variety is traced back in\ninscriptional records to A.D. 602, and is still used in Northern India.\n\nNow, the _samvatsaras_ are calculated by means of the astronomical solar\nyear commencing with the Mesha-samkranti, the entrance of the sun into\nthe sign Mesha (Aries). The process gives the number of the _samvatsara_\nlast expired before any particular Mesha-samkranti, with a remainder\ndenoting the portion of the current _samvatsara_ elapsed up to the same\ntime; and the remainder, reduced to months, &c., gives the moment of the\ncommencement of the current _samvatsara_, by reckoning back from the\nMesha-samkranti. As the result, apparently, of unwillingness to take the\ntrouble to work out the full details, at some time about A.D. 800 a\npractice arose, in some quarters, according to which that _samvatsara_\nof the 60-years cycle which was current at any particular\nMesha-samkranti was taken as coinciding with the astronomical solar year\nbeginning at that _samkranti_, and with the Chaitradi lunar year\nbelonging to that same solar year. And this practice set up a lunisolar\nvariety of the cycle, in connexion with which we have to notice the\nfollowing point. While the duration of a mean-sign _samvatsara_ is\nclosely about 361.02 days, the length of the Hindu astronomical solar\nyear is closely about 365.258 days. It consequently happens, after every\n85 or 86 years, that a mean-sign _samvatsara_ begins and ends between\ntwo successive Mesha-samkrantis. In the mean-sign cycle, such a\n_samvatsara_ retains its existence unaffected; and the names Prabhava,\nVibhava, &c., run on without any interruption. According to the\nlunisolar system, however, the position is different; the _samvatsara_\nbeginning and ending between the two Mesha-samkrantis is expunged or\nsuppressed, in the sense that its name is omitted and is replaced by the\nnext name on the list. The second variety of the 60-years cycle, thus\nstarted, ran on alongside of the mean-sign variety, and, being\neventually transferred, with that variety, to Northern India, is now\nknown as the northern lunisolar variety. It preserves a connexion\nbetween the _samvatsaras_ and the movements of Jupiter: but the\nconnexion is an imperfect one; and both in this variety, and still more\nmarkedly in the remaining one still to be described, the _samvatsaras_\npractically became mere appellations for the solar and lunar years.\n\nMeanwhile, just after A.D. 900, another development occurred, and there\nwas started a third variety, which is now known as the southern\nlunisolar variety. The precise year in which this happened depends on\nthe particular authority that we follow. If we take the elements adopted\nin the Surya-Siddhanta as the proper data for that time and for the\nlocality--Western India below the Narbada--to which the early history of\nthe cycle belongs, the position was as follows. At the Mesha-samkranti\nin A.D. 908 there was current, by the mean-sign system, the _samvatsara_\nNo. 2, Vibhava: but No. 4, Pramoda, was current by the same system at\nthe Mesha-samkranti in A.D. 909; and No. 3, Sukla, began and ended\nbetween the two Mesha-samkrantis. Accordingly, No. 2, Vibhava, was the\nlunisolar _samvatsara_ for the Meshadi solar year and the Chaitradi\nlunar year commencing in A.D. 908; and by the strict lunisolar system,\nwhich was adhered to by some people and is now known as the northern\nlunisolar system, it was followed in A.D. 909 by No. 4, Pramoda, the\nname of the intermediate _samvatsara_, No. 3, Sukla, being passed over.\nOn the other hand, whether through oversight, or whatever the reason may\nhave been, by other people the name of No. 3, Sukla, was not passed\nover, but that _samvatsara_ was taken as the lunisolar _samvatsara_ for\nthe Meshadi solar year and the Chaitradi lunar year beginning in A.D.\n909, and No. 4, Pramoda, followed it in A.D. 910. On subsequent similar\noccasions, also, there was, in the same quarters, no passing over of\nthe name of any _samvatsara_. And this practice established itself in\nSouthern India, to the exclusion there of the mean-sign and the northern\nlunisolar varieties; the discrepancy between the last-mentioned variety\nand the variety thus set up continuing, of course, to increase by one\n_samvatsara_ after every 85 or 86 years. In this variety, the southern\nlunisolar variety, all connexion between the _samvatsaras_ and the\nmovements of Jupiter has now been lost.\n\n The present position of the 60-years cycle in its three varieties may\n be illustrated thus. In Northern India, by the mean-sign system the\n _samvatsara_ No. 46, Paridhavin, began, according to different\n authorities, in August, September or October, A.D. 1899. Consequently,\n by the northern or expunging lunisolar system, that same _samvatsara_,\n No. 46, Paridhavin, coincided with the Meshadi civil solar year\n beginning with or just after 12th April, and with the Chaitradi lunar\n year beginning with 31st March, A.D. 1900. But by the southern or\n non-expunging lunisolar system those same solar and lunar years were\n No. 34, Sarvarin.\n\n The treatment of the cycles of Jupiter in the Sanskrit books shows\n that it was primarily from the astrological point of view that they\n appealed to the Hindus; it was only as a secondary consideration that\n they acquired anything of a chronological nature. For the practical\n application of any of them to historical purposes, it is, of course,\n necessary that, along with the mention of a _samvatsara_, there should\n always be given the year of some known era, or some other specific\n guide to the exact period to which that _samvatsara_ is to be\n referred. But it is fortunately the case that the _samvatsaras_ have\n been but rarely cited in the inscriptional records without such a\n guide, of some kind or another.\n\n\n The Saptarshi reckoning.\n\nThe Saptarshi reckoning is used in Kashmir, and in the Kangra district\nand some of the Hill states on the south-east of Kashmir; some nine\ncenturies ago it was also in use in the Punjab, and apparently in Sind.\nIn addition to being cited by such expressions as Saptarshi-samvat, \"the\nyear (so-and-so) of the Saptarshis,\" and Sastra-samvatsara, \"the year\n(so-and-so) of the scriptures,\" it is found mentioned as Lokakala, \"the\ntime or era of the people,\" and by other terms which mark it as a vulgar\nreckoning. And it appears that modern popular names for it are\nPahari-samvat and Kachcha-samvat, which we may render by \"the Hill era\"\nand \"the crude era.\" The years of this reckoning are lunar, Chaitradi;\nand the months are _purnimanta_ (ending with the full-moon). As matters\nstand now, the reckoning has a theoretical initial point in 3077 B.C.;\nand the year 4976, more usually called simply 76, began in A.D. 1900;\nbut there are some indications that the initial point was originally\nplaced one year earlier.\n\n The idea at the bottom of this reckoning is a belief that the\n Saptarshis, \"the Seven Rishis or Saints,\" Marichi and others, were\n translated to heaven, and became the stars of the constellation Ursa\n Major, in 3076 B.C. (or 3077); and that these stars possess an\n independent movement of their own, which, referred to the ecliptic,\n carries them round at the rate of 100 years for each _nakshatra_ or\n twenty-seventh division of the circle. Theoretically, therefore, the\n Saptarshi reckoning consists of cycles of 2700 years; and the\n numbering of the years should run from 1 to 2700, and then commence\n afresh. In practice, however, it has been treated quite differently.\n According to the general custom, which has distinctly prevailed in\n Kashmir from the earliest use of the reckoning for chronological\n purposes, and is illustrated by Kalhana in his history of Kashmir, the\n _Rajataramgini_, written in A.D. 1148-1150, the numeration of the\n years has been centennial; whenever a century has been completed, the\n numbering has not run on 101, 102, 103, &c., but has begun again with\n 1, 2, 3, &c. Almanacs, indeed, show both the figures of the century\n and the full figures of the entire reckoning, which is treated as\n running from 3076 B. C., not from 376 B.C. as the commencement of a\n new cycle, the second; thus, an almanac for the year beginning in A.D.\n 1793 describes that year as \"the year 4869 according to the course of\n the Seven Rishis, and similarly the year 69.\" And elsewhere sometimes\n the full. figures are found, sometimes the abbreviated ones; thus,\n while a manuscript written in A.D. 1648 is dated in \"the year 24\" (for\n 4724), another, written in A.D. 1224 is dated in \"the year 4300.\" But,\n as in the _Rajataramgini_, so also in inscriptions, which range from\n A.D. 1204 onwards, only the abbreviated figures have hitherto been\n found. Essentially, therefore, the Saptarshi reckoning is a centennial\n reckoning, by suppressed or omitted hundreds, with its earlier\n centuries commencing in 3076, 2976 B.C., and so on, and its later\n centuries commencing in A.D. 25, 125, 225, &c.; on precisely the same\n lines with those according to which we may use, e.g. 98 to mean A.D.\n 1798, and 57 to mean A.D. 1857, and 9 to mean A.D. 1909. And the\n practical difficulties attending the use of such a system for\n chronological purposes are obvious; isolated dates recorded in such a\n fashion cannot be allocated without some explicit clue to the\n centuries to which they belong. Fortunately, however, as regards\n Kashmir, we have the necessary guide in the facts that Kalhana\n recorded his own date in the Saka era as well as in this reckoning,\n and gave full historical details which enable us to determine\n unmistakably the equivalent of the first date in this reckoning cited\n by him, and to arrange with certainty the chronology presented by him\n from that time.\n\n The belief underlying this reckoning according to the course of the\n Seven Rishis is traced back in India, as an astrological detail, to at\n least the 6th century A.D. But the reckoning was first adopted for\n chronological purposes in Kashmir and at some time about A.D. 800; the\n first recorded date in it is one of \"the year 89,\" meaning 3889, =\n A.D. 813-814, given by Kalhana. It was introduced into India between\n A.D. 925 and 1025.\n\n\n The Grahaparivritti cycle.\n\nThe Grahaparivritti is a reckoning which is used in the southernmost\nparts of Madras, particularly in the Madura district. It consists of\ncycles of 90 Meshadi solar years, and is said, in conformity with its\nname, which means \"the revolution of planets,\" to be made up by the sum\nof the days in 1 revolution of the sun, 22 of Mercury, 5 of Venus, 15 of\nMars, 11 of Jupiter, and 29 of Saturn. The first cycle is held to have\ncommenced in 24 B.C., the second in A.D. 67, and so on; and, in\naccordance with that view, the year 34, which began in A.D. 1900, was\nthe 34th year of the 22nd cycle.\n\n No inscriptional use of this cycle has come to notice. There seems no\n substantial reason for believing that the reckoning was really started\n in 24 B.C. The alleged constitution of the cycle, which appears to be\n correct within about twelve days, and might possibly be made\n apparently exact, suggests an astrological origin. And, if a guess may\n be hazarded, we would conjecture that the reckoning is an offshoot of\n the southern lunisolar variety of the 60-years cycle of Jupiter, and\n had its real origin in some year in which a Prabhava _samvatsara_ of\n that variety commenced, and to which the first year of a\n Grahaparivritti cycle can be referred: that was the case in A.D. 967\n and at each subsequent 180th year.\n\n\n The Onko cycle.\n\nIn part of the Ganjam district, Madras, there is a reckoning, known as\nthe Onko or Anka, i.e. literally \"the number or numbers,\" consisting of\nlunar years, each commencing with Bhadrapada sukla 12, which run\ntheoretically in cycles of 59 years. But the reckoning has the\npeculiarity that, whether the explanation is to be found in a\nsuperstition about certain numbers or in some other reason, the year 6,\nand any year the number of which ends with 6 or 0 (except the year 10),\nis omitted from the numbering; so that, for instance, the year 7 follows\nnext after the year 5. The origin of the reckoning is not known. But the\nuse of it seems to be traceable in records of the Ganga kings who\nreigned in that part of the country and in Orissa in the 12th and\nfollowing centuries. And the initial day, Bhadrapada sukla 12, which\nfigures again in the Vilayati and Amli reckoning of Orissa (see farther\non), is perhaps to be accounted for on the view that this day was the\nday of the anointment, in the 7th century, of the first Ganga king,\nRajasimha-Indravarman I.\n\n\n The Maghi reckoning.\n\nIn the Chittagong district, Bengal, there is a solar reckoning, known by\nthe name Maghi, of which the year 1262 either began or ended in A.D.\n1900; so that it has an initial point in A.D. 639 or 638. It appears\nthat Chittagong was conquered by the king of Arakan in the 9th century,\nand remained usually in the possession of the Maghs--the Arakanese or a\nclass of them--till A.D. 1666, when it was finally annexed to the Mogul\nempire. In these circumstances it is plain that the Magh reckoning took\nits name from the Maghs; its year, which is Meshadi, from Bengal; and\nits numbering from the Sakkaraj, the ordinary era of Arakan and Burma,\nwhich has its initial point in A.D. 638.\n\n\n Hinduized offshoots of the Hijra era.\n\nThe Hijra (Hegira) era, the reckoning from the flight of Mahomet, which\ndates from the 16th of July, A.D. 662, is, of course, used by the\nMahommedans in India, and is customarily shown, with the details of its\ncalendar, in the Hindu almanacs. An account of it does not fall within\nthe scope of this article. But we have to mention it because we come now\nto certain Hinduized reckonings which are hybrid offshoots of it. We\nneed only say, however, in explanation of some of the following figures,\nthat the years of the Hijra era are purely lunar, consisting of twelve\nlunar months and no more; with the result that the initial day of the\nyear is always travelling backwards through the Julian year, and makes a\ncomplete circuit in thirty-four years. The reckonings derived from it,\nwhich we have to describe, have apparent initial points in A.D. 591,\n593, 594, and 600. They had their real origin, however, in the 14th,\n16th, and 17th centuries.\n\nThe emperor Akbar succeeded to the throne in February, A.D. 1556, in the\nHijra year 963, which ran from 16th November 1555 to 3rd November 1556.\nAmongst the reforms aimed at by him and his officials, one was to\nabolish, or at least minimize, by introducing uniformity of numbering,\nthe confusion due to the existence of various reckonings, both\nMahommedan and Hindu. And one step taken in that direction was to assign\nto the Hindu year the same number with the Hijra year. It is believed\nthat this was first done by the Persian clerks of the revenue and\nfinancial offices at an early time in Akbar's reign, and that it\nreceived authoritative sanction in the Hijra year 971 (21st August 1563\nto 8th August 1564). At any rate, the innovation was certainly first\nmade in Upper India; and the numbering started there was introduced into\nBengal and those parts as Akbar extended his dominions, but without\ninterfering with local customs as to the commencement of the Hindu year.\nThe result is that we now have the following reckonings, the years of\nwhich are used as revenue years:--\n\n\n The Fasli reckoning of Upper India.\n\n In the United Provinces and the Punjab, there is an Asvinadi lunar\n reckoning, known as the Fasli, according to which the year 1308 began\n in A.D. 1900; so that the reckoning has an apparent initial point in\n A.D. 593. The name of this reckoning is derived from _fasl_, \"a\n harvest,\" of which there are two; the _fasl-i-rabi_ or \"spring\n harvest,\" commencing in February, and the _fasl-i-kharif_, or \"autumn\n harvest\" commencing in October. The years of this reckoning begin with\n the _purnimanta_ Asvina krishna 1, which now falls in September. A\n peculiar feature of it is that, though the months are lunar, they are\n not divided into fortnights, and the numbering of the days runs on, as\n in the Mahommedan month, from the first to the end of the month\n without being affected by any expunction and repetition of _tithis_;\n and, for this and other reasons, it seems that in this case a new form\n of Hindu year was devised, of such a kind as to enable the\n agriculturists to realize their produce and pay their assessments\n comfortably within the year. The Hijra era has, of course, now drawn\n somewhat widely away from this and the other reckonings derived from\n it; the Hijra year commencing in A.D. 1900 was 1318, ten years in\n advance of the Fasli year.\n\n\n The Vilayati-san and Amli-san of Orissa.\n\n In Orissa and some other parts of Bengal, there is a reckoning, or two\n almost identical reckonings, the facts of which are not quite clear.\n According to one account, the term Amli-san, \"the official year,\" is\n only another name of the Vilayati-san, \"the year received from the\n _vilayat_ or province of Hindustan.\" But we are also told that the\n Vilayati-san is a Kanyadi solar year, whereas the Amli-san, though it\n too has solar months, changes its number on the lunar day Bhadrapada\n sukla 12 (mentioned above in connexion with the Onko cycle of Orissa),\n which comes sometimes in Kanya, but sometimes in the preceding month,\n Simha. Elsewhere, again, it is the Vilayati-san which is shown as\n changing its number on Bhadrapada sukla 12. In either case, the year\n 1308 of this reckoning, also, began in A.D. 1900; and so, like the\n Fasli of Upper India, this reckoning, too, has an apparent initial\n point in A.D. 593. The day Bhadrapada sukla 12 now usually falls in\n September, but may come during the last three days of August. The\n first day of the solar month Kanya now falls on 15th or 16th\n September.\n\n\n The Bengali-san.\n\n In Bengal there is in more general use a Meshadi solar reckoning,\n known as the Bengali-san or \"Bengal year,\" according to which the year\n 1307 began in A.D. 1900; so that this reckoning has an apparent\n initial point in A.D. 594. The initial day of the year is the first\n day of the solar month Mesha, now falling on 12th or 13th April.\n\n\n The Fasli of Bombay and Madras.\n\n The system of Fasli reckonings was introduced into Southern India\n under the emperor Shah Jahan, at some time in the Hijra year 1046,\n which ran from 26th May, A.D. 1636, to 15th May, A.D. 1637. But the\n numbering which was current in Northern India was not taken over. A\n new start was made; and, as the year of the Hijra had gone back,\n during the intervening seventy-three Julian years, by two years and a\n quarter (less by only five days) from the date of its commencement in\n the year 971, the Fasli reckoning of Southern India began with a\n nominal year 1046 (instead of 971 + 73 = 1044), commencing in A.D.\n 1636. The Fasli reckoning of Southern India exists in two varieties.\n The years of the Bombay Fasli are popularly known as Mrigasal years,\n because they commence when the sun enters the _nakshatra_ Mrigasiras,\n which occurs now on 6th or 7th June: the reckoning seems to have taken\n over this initial day from the Maratha Sur-san (see below). The Fasli\n years of Madras originally began at the Karka-samkranti, the nominal\n summer solstice: under the British government, the commencement of\n them was first fixed to 12th July, on which day the _samkranti_ was\n then usually occurring; but it was afterwards changed to 1st July as a\n more convenient date. The years of the Bombay and Madras Fasli have no\n division of their own into months, fortnights, &c.; the year is always\n used along with one or other of the real Hindu reckonings, and the\n details are cited according to that reckoning.\n\n\n The Maratha Sur-san or Arabi-san.\n\n Another offshoot of the Hijra era, but one of earlier date and not\n belonging to the class of Fasli reckonings, is found, in the Maratha\n country, in the Sur-san or Shahur-san, \"the year of months,\" also\n known as Arabi-san, \"the Arab year.\" This reckoning, which is met with\n chiefly in old _sanads_ or charters, appears to have branched off in\n or closely about the Hijra year 745, which ran from 15th May, A.D.\n 1344, to 3rd May, A.D. 1345; but the exact circumstance in which it\n originated is not known. The years of this reckoning begin, like those\n of the Bombay Fasli, with the entrance of the sun into the _nakshatra_\n Mrigasiras, which now occurs on 6th or 7th June; but the months and\n days are those of the Hijra year. The Sur-san year 1301 began in A.D.\n 1900; and so the reckoning has an apparent initial point in A.D. 600.\n A peculiarity attending this reckoning is that, whatever may be the\n vernacular of a clerk, he uses the Arabic numeral words in reading out\n the year; and the same words are given alongside of the figures in the\n Hindu almanacs.\n\n AUTHORITIES.--The Hindu astronomy had already begun to attract\n attention before the close of the 18th century. The investigation,\n however, of the calendar and the eras, along with the verification of\n dates, was started by Warren, whose _Kala Sankalita_ was published in\n 1825. The inquiry was carried on by Prinsep in his _Useful Tables_\n (1834-1836), by Cowasjee Patell in his _Chronology_ (1866), and by\n Cunningham in his _Book of Indian Eras_ (1883). But Warren's\n processes, though mostly giving accurate results, were lengthy and\n troublesome; and calculations made on the lines laid down by his\n successors gave results which might or might not be correct, and could\n only be cited as approximate results. The exact calculation of Hindu\n dates by easy processes was started by Shankar Balkrishna Dikshit, in\n an article published in the _Indian Antiquary_, vol. 16 (1887). This\n was succeeded by methods and tables devised by Jacobi, which were\n published in the next volume of the same journal. There then followed\n several contributions in the same line by other scholars, some for\n exact, others for closely approximate, results, and some valuable\n articles by Kielhorn on some of the principal Hindu eras and other\n reckonings, which were published in the same journal, vols. 17 (1888)\n to 26 (1897). And the treatment of the matter culminated for the time\n being in the publication, in 1896, of Sewell and Dikshit's _Indian\n Calendar_, which contains an appendix by Schram on eclipses of the sun\n in India, and was supplemented in 1898 by Sewell's _Eclipses of the\n Moon in India_. The present article is based on the above-mentioned\n and various detached writings, supplemented by original research. For\n the exact calculation of Hindu dates and the determination of the\n European equivalents of them, use may be made either of Sewell and\n Dikshit's works mentioned above, or of the improved tables by Jacobi\n which were published in the _Epigraphia Indica_, vols. 1 and 2\n (1892-1894). (J. F. F.)\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [1] The disregard of precession, and the consequent travelling\n forward of the year through the natural seasons, is, of course, a\n serious defect in the Hindu calendar, the principles of which are\n otherwise good. Accordingly, an attempt was made by a small band of\n reformers to rectify this state of things by introducing a\n precessional calendar, taking as the first lunar month the synodic\n lunation in which the sun enters the tropical Aries, instead of the\n sidereal Mesha; and the publication was started, in or about 1886, of\n the Sayana-Panchang or \"Precessional Almanac.\"\n\n Further, the Hindu sidereal solar year is in excess of the true mean\n sidereal year by (if we use Aryabhata's value) 3 min. 20.4 sec. If we\n take this, for convenience, at 3 min. 20 sec., the excess amounts to\n exactly one day in 432 years. And so even the sidereal\n Mesha-samkranti is now found to occur three or four days later than\n the day on which it should occur. Accordingly, another reformer had\n begun, in or about 1865, to publish the Navin athava Patwardhani\n Panchang, the \"New or Patwardhani Almanac,\" in which he determined\n the details of the year according to the proper Mesha-samkranti.\n\n [2] It might also be called Pausha, because the sun enters Makara in\n the course of it; and it may be observed that, in accordance with a\n second rule which formerly existed, it would have been named Pausha\n because it ends while the sun is in Makara, and the omitted name\n would have been Margasira. But the more important condition of the\n present rule, that Pausha begins while the sun is in Dhanus, is not\n satisfied.\n\n [3] The well-known Metonic cycle, whence we have by rearrangement our\n system of Golden Numbers, naturally suggests itself; and we have been\n told sometimes that that cycle was adopted by the Hindus, and\n elsewhere that the intercalation of a month by them generally takes\n place in the years 3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, and 19 of each cycle,\n differing only in respect of the 14th year, instead of the 13th, from\n the arrangement which is said to have been fixed by Meton. As regards\n the first point, however, there is no evidence that a special period\n of 19 years was ever actually used by the Hindus during the period\n with which we are dealing, beyond the extent to which it figures as a\n component of the number of years, 19 X 150 = 2850, forming the\n lunisolar cycle of an early work entitled _Romaka-Siddhanta_; and, as\n was recognized by Kalippos not long after the time of Meton himself,\n the Metonic cycle has not, for any length of time, the closeness of\n results which has been sometimes supposed to attach to it; it\n requires to be readjusted periodically. As regards the second point,\n the precise years of the intercalated months depend upon, and vary\n with, the year that we may select as the apparent first year of a set\n of 19 years, and it is not easy to arrange the Hindu years in sets\n answering to a direct continuation of the Metonic cycle.\n\n [4] It is customary to render the term _tithi_ by \"lunar day:\" it is,\n in fact, explained as such in Sanskrit works; and, as the _tithis_ do\n mark the age of the moon by periods approximating to 24 hours, they\n are, in a sense, lunar days. But the _tithi_ must not be confused\n with the lunar day of western astronomy, which is the interval, with\n a mean duration of about 24 hrs. 54 min., between two successive\n meridian passages of the moon.\n\n [5] We illustrate the ordinary occurrences. But there are others.\n Thus, a repeated _tithi_ may occasionally be followed by a suppressed\n one: in this case the numbering of the civil days would be 6, 7, 7,\n 9, &c., instead of 6, 7, 7, 8, 9, &c. Or it may occasionally be\n preceded by a suppressed one: in this case the numbering would be 5,\n 7, 7, 8, &c., instead of 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, &c.\n\n [6] It is always to be borne in mind that, as already explained,\n while the Hindu Mesha answers to our Aries, it does not coincide with\n either the sign or the constellation Aries.\n\n [7] We select A.D. 1900 as a gauge-year, in preference to the year in\n which we are writing, because its figures are more convenient for\n comparative purposes. In accordance with the general tendency of the\n Hindus to cite expired years, the almanacs would mostly show 5001\n (instead of 5002) as the number for the Kaliyuga year answering to\n A.D. 1900-1901. And, for the same reason, this reckoning has often\n been called the Kaliyuga era of 3101 B.C. There is, perhaps, no\n particular objection to that, provided that we then deal with the\n Vikrama and Saka eras on the same lines, and bear in mind that in\n each case the initial point of the reckoning really lies in the\n preceding year. But we prefer to treat these reckonings with exact\n correctness.\n\n [8] It may be remarked that there are about twelve different views\n regarding the date of Kanishka and the origin of the Vikrama era.\n Some writers hold that Kanishka began to reign in A.D. 78, and\n founded the so-called Saka era beginning in that year; one writer\n would place his initial date about A.D. 123, others would place it in\n A.D. 278. The view maintained by the present writer was held at one\n time by Sir A. Cunningham: and, as some others have already begun to\n recognize, evidence is now steadily accumulating in support of the\n correctness of it.\n\n [9] See the preceding note.","title":"Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, \"Hero\" to \"Hindu Chronology\": Volume 13, Slice 4","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":189859}