THE ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE AND GENERAL INFORMATION

ELEVENTH EDITION

VOLUME XIII SLICE IV
Hero to Hindu Chronology

Articles in This Slice

HERO (Gr. ἥρως), a term specially applied to warriors of extraordinary strength and courage, and generally to all who were distinguished from their fellows by superior moral, physical or intellectual qualities. No satisfactory derivation of the word has been suggested.

Ancient Greek Heroes.

In ancient Greece, the heroes were the object of a special cult, and as such were intimately connected with its religious life. Various theories have been put forward as to the nature of these heroes. According to some authorities, they were idealized historical personages; according to others, symbolical representations of the forces of nature. The view most commonly held is that they were degraded or “depotentiated” gods, occupying a position intermediate between gods and men. According to E. Rohde (in Psyche) they are souls of the dead, which after separation from the body enter upon a higher, eternal existence. But it is only a select minority who attain to the rank of heroes after death, only the distinguished men of the past. The worship of these heroes is in reality an ancestor worship, which existed in pre-Homeric times, and was preserved in local cults. Instances no doubt occur of gods being degraded to the ranks of heroes, but these are not the real heroes, the heroes who are the object of a cult. The cult-heroes were all persons who had lived the life of man on earth, and it was necessary for the degraded gods to pass through this stage. They did not at once become cult-heroes, but only after they had undergone death like other mortals. Only one who has been a man can become a hero. The heroes are spirits of the dead, not demi-gods; their position is not intermediate between gods and men, but by the side of these they exist as a separate class.

In Homer the term is applied especially to warrior princes, to kings and kings’ sons, even to distinguished persons of lower rank, and free men generally. In Hesiod it is chiefly confined to those who fought before Troy and Thebes; in view of their supposed divine origin, he calls them demi-gods (ἡμίθεοι). This name is also given them in an interpolated passage in the Iliad (xii. 23), which is quite at variance with the general Homeric idea of the heroes, who are no more than men, even if of divine origin and of superior strength and prowess. But neither in Homer nor in Hesiod is there any trace of the idea that the heroes after death had any power for good or evil over the lives of those who survived them; and consequently, no cult. Nevertheless, traces of an earlier ancestor worship appear, e.g. in funeral games in honour of Patroclus and other heroes, while the Hesiodic account of the five ages of man is a reminiscence of the belief in the continued existence of souls in a higher life. This pre-historic worship and belief, for a time obscured, were subsequently revived. According to Porphyry (De abstinentia, iv. 22), Draco ordered the inhabitants of Attica to honour the gods and heroes of their country “in accordance with the usage of their fathers” with offerings of first fruits and sacrificial cakes every year, thereby clearly pointing to a custom of high antiquity. Solon also ordered that the tombs of the heroes should be treated with the greatest respect, and Cleisthenes (q.v.) sought to create a pan-Athenian enthusiasm by calling his new tribes after Attic heroes and setting up their statues in the Agora. Heroic honours were at first bestowed upon the founders of a colony or city, and the ancestors of families; if their name was not known, one was adopted from legend. In many cases these heroes were purely fictitious; such were the supposed ancestors of the noble and priestly families of Attica and elsewhere (Butadae at Athens, Branchidae at Miletus Ceryces at Eleusis), of the eponymi of the tribes and demes. Again, side by side with gods of superior rank, certain heroes were worshipped as protecting spirits of the country or state; such were the Aeacidae amongst the Aeginetans, Ajax son of Oïleus amongst the Epizephyrian Locrians and Hector at Thebes. Neglect of the worship of these heroes was held to be responsible for pestilence, bad crops and other misfortunes, while, on the other hand, if duly honoured, their influence was equally beneficent. This belief was supported by the Delphic oracle, which was largely instrumental in promoting hero-worship and keeping alive its due observance. Special importance was attached to the grave of the hero and to his bodily remains, with which the spirit of the departed was inseparably connected. The grave was regarded as his place of abode, from which he could only be absent for a brief period; hence his bones were fetched from abroad (e.g. Cimon brought those of Theseus from Scyros), or if they could not be procured, at least a cenotaph was erected in his honour. Their relics also were carefully preserved: the house of Cadmus at Thebes, the hut of Orestes at Tegea, the stone on which Telamon had sat at Salamis (in Cyprus). Special shrines (ἡρῷα) were also erected in their honour, usually over their graves. In these shrines a complete set of armour was kept, in accordance with the idea that the hero was essentially a warrior, who on occasion came forth from his grave and fought at the head of his countrymen, putting the enemy to flight as during his lifetime. Like the gods, the cult heroes were supposed to exercise an influence on human affairs, though not to the same extent, their sphere of action being confined to their own localities. Amongst the earliest known historical examples of the elevation of the dead to the rank of heroes are Timesius the founder of Abdera, Miltiades, son of Cypselus, Harmodius and Aristogiton and Brasidas, the victor of Amphipolis, who ousted the local Athenian hero Hagnon. In course of time admission to the rank of a hero became far more common, and was even accorded to the living, such as Lysimachus in Samothrace and the tyrant Nicias of Cos. Antiochus of Commagene instituted an order of priests to celebrate the anniversary of his birth and coronation in a special sanctuary, and the kings of Pergamum claimed divine honours for themselves and their wives during their lifetime. The birthday of Eumenes was regularly kept, and every month sacrifice was offered to him and games held in his honour. In addition to persons of high rank, poets, legendary and others (Linus, Orpheus, Homer, Aeschylus and Sophocles), legislators and physicians (Lycurgus, Hippocrates), the patrons of various trades or handicrafts (artists, cooks, bakers, potters), the heads of philosophical schools (Plato, Democritus, Epicurus) received the honours of a cult. At Teos incense was offered before the statue of a flute-player during his lifetime. In some countries the honour became so general that every man after death was described as a hero in his epitaph—in Thessaly even slaves.

The cult of the heroes exhibits points of resemblance with that of the chthonian divinities and of the dead, but differs from that of the ordinary gods, a further indication that they were not “depotentiated” gods. Thus, sacrifice was offered to them at night or in the evening; not on a high, but on a low altar (ἐσχάρα), surrounded by a trench to receive the blood of the victim, which was supposed to make its way through the ground to the occupant of the grave; the victims were black male animals, whose heads were turned downwards, not upwards; their blood was allowed to trickle on the ground to appease the departed (αἱμακουρία); the body was entirely consumed by fire and no mortal was allowed to eat of it; the technical expression for the sacrifice was not θύειν but ἐναγίζειν (less commonly ἐντέμνειν). The chthonian aspect of the hero is further shown by his attribute the snake, and in many cases he appears under that form himself. On special occasions a sacrificial meal of cooked food was set out for the heroes, of which they were solemnly invited to partake. The fullest description of such a festival is the account given by Plutarch (Aristides, 21) of the festival celebrated by the Plataeans in honour of their countrymen who had fallen at the battle of Plataea. On the 16th of the month Maimacterion, a long procession, headed by a trumpeter playing a warlike air, set out for the graves; wagons decked with myrtle and garlands of flowers followed, young men (who must be of free birth) carried jars of wine, milk, oil and perfumes; next came the black bull destined for the sacrifice, the rear being brought up by the archon, who wore the purple robe of the general, a naked sword in one hand, in the other an urn. When he came near the tombs, he drew some water with which he washed the gravestones, afterwards anointing them with perfume; he then sacrificed the bull on the altar calling upon Zeus Chthonios and Hermes Psychopompos, and inviting them in company with the heroes to the festival of blood. Finally, he poured a libation of wine with the words: “I drink to those who died for the freedom of the Hellenes.”

See especially E. Rohde, Psyche (1905) and in Rheinisches Museum, li. (1895), 28; P. Stengel, Die griechischen Kultusaltertümer (Munich, 1898), p. 124; G. F. Schömann, Griechische Altertümer, ii. (1897), 159; J. Wassner, De heroum apud Graecos cultu (Kiel, 1883); article by F. Deneken in Roscher’s Lexikon der Mythologie, in which a large amount of material is accumulated; J. A. Hild, Étude sur les démons (1881) and article in Daremberg and Saglio’s Dictionnaire des antiquités.

Teutonic Legend.

Many of the chief characteristics of the ancient Greek heroes are reproduced in those of the Teutonic North, the parallel being in some cases very striking; Siegfried, for instance, like Achilles, is vulnerable only in one spot, and Wayland Smith, like Hephaestus, is lame. Superhuman qualities and powers, too, are commonly ascribed to both, an important difference, however, being that whatever worship may have been paid to the Teutonic heroes never crystallized into a cult. This applies equally to those who have a recognized historical origin and to those who are regarded as purely mythical. Of the latter the number has tended to diminish in the light of modern scholarship. The fashion during the 19th century set strongly in the other direction, and the “degraded gods” theory was applied not only to such conspicuous heroes as Siegfried, Dietrich and Beowulf, but to a host of minor characters, such as the good marquis Rüdeger of the Nibelungenlied and our own Robin Hood (both identified with Woden Hruodperaht). The reaction from one extreme has, indeed, tended to lead to another, until not only the heroes, but the very gods themselves, are being traced to very human, not to say commonplace, origins. Thus M. Henri de Tourville, in his Histoire de la formation particulariste (1903), basing his argument on the Ynglinga Saga, interpreted in the light of “Social Science,” reveals Odin, “the traveller,” as a great “caravan-leader” and warrior, who, driven from Asgard—a trading city on the borders of the steppes east of the Don—by “the blows that Pompey aimed at Mithridates,” brought to the north the arts and industries of the East. The argument is developed with convincing ingenuity, but it may be doubted whether it has permanently “rescued Odin from the misty dreamland of mythology and restored him to history.” It is now, however, admitted that, whatever influence the one may have from time to time exercised on the other, Teutonic myth and Teutonic heroic legend were developed on independent lines. The Teutonic heroes are, in the main, historical personages, never gods; though, like the Greek heroes, they are sometimes endowed with semi-divine attributes or interpreted as symbolical representations of natural forces.

The origin of Teutonic heroic saga, which may be regarded as including that of the Germans, Goths, Anglo-Saxons and Scandinavians, is to be looked for in the period of the so-called migration of nations (A.D. 350-650). It consequently rests upon a distinct basis of fact, the saga (in the older and wider sense of any story said or sung) being indeed the oldest form of historical tradition; though this of course does not exclude the probability of the accretion of mythical elements round persons and episodes from the very first. As to the origin of the heroic sagas as we now have them, Tacitus tells us that the deeds of Arminius were still celebrated in song a hundred years after his death (Annals, ii. 88) and in the Germania he speaks of “old songs” as the only kind of “annals” which the ancient Germans possessed; but, whatever relics of the old songs may be embedded in the Teutonic sagas, they have left no recognizable mark on the heroic poetry of the German peoples. The attempt to identify Arminius with Siegfried is now generally abandoned. Teutonic heroic saga, properly so-called, consists of the traditions connected with the migration period, the earliest traces of which are found in the works of historical writers such as Ammianus Marcellinus and Cassiodorus. According to Jordanes (the epitomator of Cassiodorus’s History of the Goths) at the funeral of Attila his vassals, as they rode round the corpse, sang of his glorious deeds. The next step in the development of epic narrative was the single lay of an episodic character, sung by a single individual, who was frequently a member of a distinguished family, not merely a professional minstrel. Then, as different stories grew up round the person of a particular hero, they formed a connected cycle of legend, the centre of which was the person of the hero (e.g. Dietrich of Bern). The most important figures of these cycles are the following.

(1) Beowulf, king of the Geatas (Jutland), whose story in its present form was probably brought from the continent by the Angles. It is an amalgamation of the myth of Beowa, the slayer of the water-demon and the dragon, with the historical legend of Beowulf, nephew and successor of Hygelac (Chochilaicus), king of the Geatas, who was defeated and slain (c. 520) while ravaging the Frisian coast. The water-demon Grendel and the dragon (probably), by whom Beowulf is mortally wounded, have been supposed to represent the powers of autumn and darkness, the floods which at certain seasons overflow the low-lying countries on the coast of the North Sea and sweep away all human habitations; Beowulf is the hero of spring and light who, after overcoming the spirit of the raging waters, finally succumbs to the dragon of approaching winter. Others regard him as a wind-hero, who disperses the pestilential vapours of the fens. Beowulf is also a culture-hero. His father Sceaf-Scyld (i.e. Scyld Scefing, “the protector with the sheaf”) lands on the Anglian or Scandinavian coast when a child, in a rudderless ship, asleep on a sheaf of grain, symbolical of the means whereby his kingdom shall become great; the son indicates the blessings of a fixed habitation, secured against the attacks of the sea. (2) Hildebrand, the hero of the oldest German epic. A loyal supporter of Theodoric, he follows his master, when threatened by Odoacer, to the court of Attila. After thirty years’ absence, he returns to his home In Italy; his son Hadubrand, believing his father to be dead, suspects treachery and refuses to accept presents offered by the father in token of good-will. A fight takes place, in which the son is slain by the father. In a later version, recognition and reconciliation take place. Well-known parallels are Odysseus and Telegonis, Rustem and Sohrab. (3) Ermanaric, the king of the East Goths, who according to Ammianus Marcellinus slew himself (c. 375) in terror at the invasion of the Huns. With him is connected the old German Dioscuri myth of the Harlungen. (4) Dietrich of Bern (Verona), the legendary name of Theodoric the Great. Contrary to historical tradition, Italy is supposed to have been his ancestral inheritance, of which he has been deprived by Odoacer, or by Ermanaric, who in his altered character of a typical tyrant appears as his uncle and contemporary. He takes refuge in Hungary with Etzel (Attila), by whose aid he finally recovers his kingdom. In the later middle ages he is represented as fighting with giants, dragons and dwarfs, and finally disappears on a black horse. Some attempts have been made to identify him as a kind of Donar or god of thunder. (5) Siegfried (M.H. Ger. Sîvrit), the hero of the Niebelungenlied, the Sigurd of the related northern sagas, is usually regarded as a purely mythical figure, a hero of light who is ultimately overcome by the powers of darkness, the mist-people (Niebelungen). He is, however, closely associated with historical characters and events, e.g. with the Burgundian king Gundahari (Gunther, Gunnar) and the overthrow of his house and nation by the Huns; the scholars have exercised considerable ingenuity in attempting to identify him with various historical figures. Theodor Abeling (Das Nibelungenlied, Leipzig, 1907) traces the Nibelung sagas to three groups of Burgundian legends, each based on fact: the Frankish-Burgundian tradition of the murder of Segeric, son of the Burgundian king Sigimund, who was slain by his father at the instigation of his stepmother; the Frankish-Burgundian story, as told by Gregory of Tours (iii. 11), of the defeat of the Burgundian kings Sigimund and Godomar, and the captivity and murder of Sigimund, by the sons of Clovis, at the instigation of their mother Chrothildis, in revenge for the murder of her father Chilperich and of her mother, by Godomar; the Rhenish-Burgundian story of the ruin of Gundahari’s kingdom by Attila’s Huns. Herr Abeling identifies Siegfried (Sigurd) with Segeric, while—according to him—the heroine of the Nibelung sagas, Kriemhild (Gudrun), represents a confusion of two historical persons: Chrothildis, the wife of Clovis, and Ildico (Hilde), the wife of Attila. (See also the articles [Kriemhild], [Nibelungenlied]).

(6) Hugdietrich, Wolfdietrich and Ortnit, whose legend, like that of Siegfried, is of Frankish origin. It is preserved in four versions, the best of which is the oldest, and has an historical foundation. Hugdietrich is the “Frankish Dietrich” (= Hugo Theodoric), king of Austrasia (d. 534), who like his son and successor Theodebert, was illegitimate; both had to fight for their inheritance with relatives. The transference of the scene to Constantinople is a reminiscence of the events of the Crusades and Theodebert’s projected campaign against that city. The version in which Hugdietrich gains access to his future wife by disguising himself as a woman has also a foundation in fact. As the myth of the Harlungen is connected with Ermanaric, so another Dioscuri myth (of the Hartungen) is combined with the Ortnit-Wolfdietrich legend. The Hartungen are probably identical with the divine youths (mentioned in Tacitus as worshipped by the Vandal Naharvali or Nahanarvali), from whom the Vandal royal family, the Asdingi, claimed descent. Asdingi (Ἄστιγγοι) would be represented in Gothic by Hazdiggos, “men with women’s hair” (cf. muliebri ornatu in Tacitus), and in middle high German by Hartungen. (7) Rother, king of Lombardy. Desiring to wed the daughter of Constantine, king of Constantinople, he sends twelve envoys to ask her in marriage. They are arrested and thrown into prison by the king. Rother, who appears under the name of Dietrich, sets out with an army, liberates the envoys and carries off the princess. One version places the scene in the land of the Huns. The character of Constantine in many respects resembles that of Alexius Comnenus; the slaying of a tame lion by one of the gigantic followers of Rother is founded on an incident which actually took place at the court of Alexius during the crusade of 1101 under duke Welf of Bavaria, when King Rother was composed about 1160 by a Rhenish minstrel. Rother may be the Lombard king Rothari (636-650), transferred to the period of the Crusades. (8) Walther of Aquitaine, chiefly known from the Latin poem Waltharius, written by Ekkehard of St Gall at the beginning of the 10th century, and fragments of an 8th-century Anglo-Saxon Epic Waldere. Walther is not an historical figure, although the legend undoubtedly represents typical occurrences of the migration period, such as the detention and flight of hostages of noble family from the court of the Huns, and the rescue of captive maidens by abduction. (9) Wieland (Volundr), Wayland the Smith, the only Teutonic hero (his original home was lower Saxony) who firmly established himself in England. There is absolutely no historical background for his legend. He is a fire-spirit, who is pressed into man’s service, and typifies the advance from the stone age to a higher stage of civilization (working in metals). As the lame smith he reminds us of Hephaestus, and in his flight with wings of Daedalus escaping from Minos. (10) Högni (Hagen) and Hedin (Hetel), whose personalities are overshadowed by the heroines Hilde and Gudrun (Kudrun, Kutrun). In one version occurs the incident of the never-ending battle between the forces of Hagen and Hedin. Every night Hilde revives the fallen, and “so will it continue till the twilight of the gods.” The battle represents the eternal conflict between light and darkness, the alternation of day and night. Hilde here figures as a typical Valkyr delighting in battle and bloodshed, who frustrates a reconciliation. Hedin had sent a necklace as a peace-offering to Hagen, but Hilde persuades her father that it is only a ruse. This necklace occurs in the story of the goddess Freya (Frigg), who is said to have caused the battle to conciliate the wrath of Odin at her infidelity, the price paid by her for the possession of the necklace Brisnigamen; again, the light god Heimdal is said to have fought with Loki for the necklace (the sun) stolen by the latter. Hence the battle has been explained as the necklace myth in epic form. The historical background is the raids of the Teutonic maritime tribes on the coasts of England and Ireland.

Famous heroes who are specially connected with England are Alfred the Great, Richard Cœur-de-Lion, King Horn, Havelok the Dane, Guy of Warwick, Sir Bevis of Hampton (or Southampton), Robin Hood and his companions.

Celtic Heroes.

The Celtic heroic saga in the British islands may be divided into the two principal groups of Gaelic (Irish) and Brython (Welsh), the first, excluding the purely mythological, into the Ultonian (connected with Ulster) and the Ossianic. The Ultonianis grouped round the names of King Conchobar and the hero Cuchulainn, “the Irish Achilles,” the defender of Ulster against all Ireland, regarded by some as a solar hero. The second cycle contains the epics of Finn (Fionn, Fingal) mac Cumhail, and his son Oisin (Ossian), the bard and warrior, chiefly known from the supposed Ossianic poems of Macpherson. (See [Celt], sec. Celtic Literature.)

Of Brython origin is the cycle of King Arthur (Artus), the adopted national hero of the mixed nationalities of whom the “English” people was composed. Here he appears as a chiefly mythical personality, who slays monsters, such as the giant of St Michel, the boar Troit, the demon cat, and goes down to the underworld. The original Welsh legend was spread by British refugees in Brittany, and was thus celebrated by both English and French Celts. From a literary point of view, however, it is chiefly French and forms “the matter of Brittany.” Arthur, the leader (comes Britanniae, dux bellorum) of the Siluri or Dumnonii against the Saxons, flourished at the beginning of the 6th century. He is first spoken of in Nennius’s History of the Britons (9th century), and at greater length in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain (12th century), at the end of which the French Breton cycle attained its fullest development in the poems of Chrétien de Troyes and others.

Speaking generally, the Celtic heroes are differentiated from the Teutonic by the extreme exaggeration of their superhuman, or rather extra-human, qualities. Teutonic legend does not lightly exaggerate, and what to us seems incredible in it may be easily conceived as credible to those by whom and for whom the tales were told; that Sigmund and his son Sinfiotli turned themselves into wolves would be but a sign of exceptional powers to those who believed in werewolves; Fafnir assuming the form of a serpent would be no more incredible to the barbarous Teuton than the similar transformation of Proteus to the Greek. But in the characterization of their heroes the Celtic imagination runs riot, and the quality of their persons and their acts becomes exaggerated beyond the bounds of any conceivable probability. Take, for instance, the description of some of Arthur’s knights in the Welsh tale of Kilhwch and Olwen (in the Mabinogion). Along with Kai and Bedwyr (Bedivere), Peredur (Perceval), Gwalchmai (Gawain), and many others, we have such figures as Sgilti Yscandroed, whose way through the wood lay along the tops of the trees, and whose tread was so light that no blade of grass bent beneath his weight; Sol, who could stand all day upon one leg; Sugyn the son of Sugnedydd, who was “broad-chested” to such a degree that he could suck up the sea on which were three hundred ships and leave nothing but dry land; Gweyyl, the son of Gwestad, who when he was sad would let one of his lips drop beneath his waist and turn up the other like a cap over his head; and Uchtry Varyf Draws, who spread his red untrimmed beard over the eight-and-forty rafters of Arthur’s hall. Such figures as these make no human impression, and criticism has busied itself in tracing them to one or other of the shadowy divinities of the Celtic pantheon. However this may be, remnants of their primitive superhuman qualities cling to the Celtic heroes long after they have been transfigured, under the influence of Christianity and chivalry, into the heroes of the medieval Arthurian romance, types—for the most part—of the knightly virtues as these were conceived by the middle ages; while shadowy memories of early myths live on, strangely disguised, in certain of the episodes repeated uncritically by the medieval poets. So Merlin preserves his diabolic origin; Arthur his mystic coming and his mystic passing; while Gawain, and after him Lancelot, journey across the river, as the Irish hero Bran had done before them to the island of fair women—the Celtic vision of the realm of death.

The chief heroes of the medieval Arthurian romances are the following. Arthur himself, who tends however to become completely overshadowed by his knights, who make his court the starting-point of their adventures. Merlin (Myrddin), the famous wizard, bard and warrior, perhaps an historical figure, first introduced by Geoffrey of Monmouth, originally called Ambrose from the British leader Ambrosius Aurelianus, under whom he is said to have first served. Perceval (Parzival, Parsifal), the Welsh Peredur, “the seeker of the basin,” the most intimately connected with the quest of the Grail (q.v.). Tristan (Tristram), the ideal lover of the middle ages, whose name is inseparably associated with that of Iseult. Lancelot, son of Ban king of Brittany, a creation of chivalrous romance, who only appears in Arthurian literature under French influence, known chiefly from his amour with Guinevere, perhaps in imitation of the story of Tristan and Iseult. Gawain (Welwain, Welsh Gwalchmai), Arthur’s nephew, who in medieval romance remains the type of knightly courage and chivalry, until his character is degraded in order to exalt that of Lancelot. Among less important, but still conspicuous, figures may be mentioned Kay (the Kai of the Mabinogion), Arthur’s foster-brother and seneschal, the type of the bluff and boastful warrior, and Bedivere (Bedwyr), the type of brave knight and faithful retainer, who alone is with Arthur at his passing, and afterwards becomes “a hermit and a holy man.” (See [Arthur], [Merlin], [Perceval], [Tristan], [Lancelot], [Gawain].)

Heroes of Romance.

Another series of heroes, forming the central figures of stories variously derived but developed in Europe by the Latin-speaking peoples, may be conveniently grouped under the heading of “romance.” Of these the most important are Alexander of Macedon and Charlemagne, while alongside of them Priam and other heroes of the Trojan war appear during the middle ages in strangely altered guise. Of all heroes of romance Alexander has been the most widely celebrated. His name, in the form of Iskander, is familiar in legend and story all over the East to this day; to the West he was introduced through a Latin translation of the original Greek romance (by the pseudo-Callisthenes) to which the innumerable Oriental versions are likewise traceable (see [Alexander III., King of Macedon]; sec. The Romance of Alexander). More important in the West, however, was the cycle of legends gathering round the figure of Charlemagne, forming what was known as “the matter of France.” The romances of this cycle, of Germanic (Frankish) origin and developed probably in the north of France by the French (probably in the north of France) contain reminiscences of the heroes of the Merovingian period, and in their later development were influenced by the Arthurian cycle. Just as Arthur was eclipsed by his companions, so Charlemagne’s vassal nobles, except in the Chanson de Roland, are exalted at the expense of the emperor, probably the result of the changed relations between the later emperors and their barons. The character of Charlemagne himself undergoes a change; in the Chanson de Roland he is a venerable figure, mild and dignified, while later he appears as a cruel and typical tyrant (as is also the case with Ermanaric). The basis of his legend is mainly historical, although the story of his journey to Constantinople and the East is mythical, and incidents have been transferred from the reign of Charles Martel to his. Charlemagne is chiefly venerated as the champion of Christianity against the heathen and the Saracens. (See [Charlemagne], ad fin. “The Charlemagne Legends.”)

The most famous heroes who are associated with him are Roland, praefect of the marches of Brittany, the Orlando of Ariosto, slain at Roncevaux (Roncevalles) in the Pyrenees, and his friend and rival Oliver (Olivier); Ogier the Dane, the Holger Danske of Hans Andersen, and Huon of Bordeaux, probably both introduced from the Arthurian cycle; Renaud (Rinaldo) of Montauban, one of the four sons of Aymon, to whom the wonderful horse Bayard was presented by Charlemagne; the traitor Doon of Mayence; Ganelon, responsible for the treachery that led to the death of Roland; Archbishop Turpin, a typical specimen of muscular Christianity; William Fierabras, William au court nez, William of Toulouse, and William of Orange (all probably identical), and Vivien, the nephew of the latter and the hero of Aliscans. The late Charlemagne romances originated the legends, in English form, of Sowdone of Babylone, Sir Otnel, Sir Firumbras and Huon of Bordeaux (in which Oberon, the king of the fairies, the son of Julius Caesar and Morgan the Fay, was first made known to England).

The chief remains of the Spanish heroic epic are some poems on the Cid, on the seven Infantes of Lara, and on Fernán Gonzalez, count of Castile. The legend of Charlemagne as told in the Crónica general of Alfonso X. created the desire for a national hero distinguished for his exploits against the Moors, and Roland was thus supplanted by Bernardo del Carpio. Another famous hero and centre of a 14th-century cycle of romance was Amadis of Gaul; its earliest form is Spanish, although the Portuguese have claimed it as a translation from their own language. There is no trace of a French original.

Slavonic Heroes.—The Slavonic heroic saga of Russia centres round Vladimir of Kiev (980-1015), the first Christian ruler of that country, whose personality is eclipsed by that of Ilya (Elias) of Mourom, the son of a peasant, who was said to have saved the empire from the Tatars at the urgent request of his emperor. It is not known whether he was an historical personage; many of the achievements attributed to him border on the miraculous. A much-discussed work is the Tale of Igor, the oldest of the Russian medieval epics. Igor was the leader of a raid against the heathen Polovtsi in 1185; at first successful, he was afterwards defeated and taken prisoner, but finally managed to escape. Although the Finns are not Slavs, on topographical grounds mention may here be made of Wainamoinen, the great magician and hero of the Finnish epic Kalevala (“land of heroes”). The popular hero of the Servians and Bulgarians is Marko Kralyevich (q.v.), son of Vukashin, characterized by Goethe as a counterpart of the Greek Heracles and the Persian Rustem. For the Persian, Indian, &c., heroes see the articles on the literature and religions of the various countries.

Authorities.—On the subject generally, see J. G. T. Grässe, Die grossen Sagenkreise des Mittelalters (Dresden, 1842), forming part of his Lehrbuch einer Literärgeschichte der berühmtesten Völker des Mittelalters; W. P. Ker, Epic and Romance (2nd ed., 1908). Teutonic.—B. Symons, “Germanische Heldensage” in H. Paul’s Grundris der germanischen Philologie, iii. (Strassburg, 1900), 2nd revised edition, separately printed (ib., 1905); W. Grimm, Die deutsche Heldensage (1829, 3rd ed., 1889), still one of the most important works; W. Müller, Mythologie der deutschen Heldensage (Heilbronn, 1886) and supplement, Zur Mythologie der griechischen und deutschen Heldensage (ib., 1889); O. L. Jiriczek, Deutsche Heldensagen, i. (Strassburg, 1898) and Die deutsche Heldensage (3rd revised edition, Leipzig, 1906); Chantepie de la Saussaye, The Religion of the Teutons (Eng. tr., Boston, U.S.A., 1902); J. G. Robertson, History of German Literature (1902). See also [Heldenbuch].

Celtic.—M. H. d’Arbois de Jubainville, Cours de littérature celtique (12 vols., 1883-1902), one vol. trans. into English by R. I. Best, The Irish Mythological Cycle and Celtic Mythology (1903); L. Petit de Julleville, Hist. de la langue et de la litt. française, i. Moyen âge (1896); C. Squire, The Mythology of the British Isles: an Introduction to Celtic Myth and Romance (1905); J. Rhys, Celtic Britain (3rd ed., 1904). Slavonic.—A. N. Rambaud, La Russie épique (1876); W. Wollner, Untersuchungen über die Volksepik der Grossrussen (1879); W. R. Morfill, Slavonic Literature (1883).

HERO AND LEANDER, two lovers celebrated in antiquity. Hero, the beautiful priestess of Aphrodite at Sestos, was seen by Leander, a youth of Abydos, at the celebration of the festival of Aphrodite and Adonis. He became deeply enamoured of her; but, as her position as priestess and the opposition of her parents rendered their marriage impossible they agreed to carry on a clandestine intercourse. Every night Hero placed a lamp in the top of the tower where she dwelt by the sea, and Leander, guided by it, swam across the dangerous Hellespont. One stormy night the lamp was blown out and Leander perished. On finding his body next morning on the shore, Hero flung herself into the waves. The story is referred to by Virgil (Georg. iii. 258), Statius (Theb. vi. 535) and Ovid (Her. xviii. and xix.). The beautiful little epic of Musaeus has been frequently translated, and is expanded in the Hero and Leander of C. Marlowe and G. Chapman. It is also the subject of a ballad by Schiller and a drama by F. Grillparzer.

See M. H. Jellinek, Die Sage von Hero und Leander in der Dichtung (1890), and G. Knaack “Hero und Leander” in Festgabe für Franz Susemihl (1898). A careful collection of materials will be found in F. Köppner, Die Sage von Hero und Leander in der Literatur und Kunst des Altertums (1894).

HERO OF ALEXANDRIA, Greek geometer and writer on mechanical and physical subjects, probably flourished in the second half of the 1st century. This is the more modern view, in contrast to the earlier theory most generally accepted, according to which he flourished about 100 B.C. The earlier theory started from the superscription of one of his works, Ἥρωνος Κτησιβίου βελοποιϊκά, from which it was inferred that Hero was a pupil of Ctesibius. Martin, Hultsch and Cantor took this Ctesibius to be a barber of that name who lived in the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes II. (d. 117 B.C.) and is credited with having invented an improved water-organ. But this identification is far from certain, as a Ctesibius mechanicus is mentioned by Athenaeus as having lived under Ptolemy II. Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.). Nor can the relation of master and pupil be certainly inferred from the superscription quoted (observe the omission of any article), which really asserts no more than that Hero re-edited an earlier treatise by Ctesibius, and implies nothing about his being an immediate predecessor. Further, it is certain that Hero used physical and mathematical writings by Posidonius, the Stoic, of Apamea, Cicero’s teacher, who lived until about the middle of the 1st century B.C. The positive arguments for the more modern view of Hero’s date are (1) the use by him of Latinisms from which Diels concluded that the 1st century A.D. was the earliest possible date, (2) the description in Hero’s Mechanics iii. of a small olive-press with one screw which is alluded to by Pliny (Nat. Hist. viii.) as having been introduced since A.D. 55, (3) an allusion by Plutarch (who died A.D. 120) to the proposition that light is reflected from a surface at an angle equal to the angle of incidence, which Hero proved in his Catoptrica, the words used by Plutarch fitting well with the corresponding passage of that work (as to which see below). Thus we arrive at the latter half of the 1st century A.D. as the approximate date of Hero’s activity.

The geometrical treatises which have survived (though not interpolated) in Greek are entitled respectively Definitiones, Geometria, Geodaesia, Stereometrica (i. and ii.), Mensurae, Liber Geoponicus, to which must now be added the Metrica recently discovered by R. Schöne in a MS. at Constantinople. These books, except the Definitiones, mostly consist of directions for obtaining, from given parts, the areas or volumes, and other parts, of plane or solid figures. A remarkable feature is the bare statement of a number of very close approximations to the square roots of numbers which are not complete squares. Others occur in the Metrica where also a method of finding such approximate square, and even approximate cube, roots is shown. Hero’s expressions for the areas of regular polygons of from 5 to 12 sides in terms of the squares of the sides show interesting approximations to the values of trigonometrical ratios. Akin to the geometrical works is that On the Dioptra, a remarkable book on land-surveying, so called from the instrument described in it, which was used for the same purposes as the modern theodolite. It is in this book that Hero proves the expression for the area of a triangle in terms of its sides. The Pneumatica in two books is also extant in Greek as is also the Automatopoietica. In the former will be found such things as siphons, “Hero’s fountain,” “penny-in-the-slot” machines, a fire-engine, a water-organ, and arrangements employing the force of steam. Pappus quotes from three books of Mechanics and from a work called Barulcus, both by Hero. The three books on Mechanics survive in an Arabic translation which, however, bears a title “On the lifting of heavy objects.” This corresponds exactly to Barulcus, and it is probable that Barulcus and Mechanics were only alternative titles for one and the same work. It is indeed not credible that Hero wrote two separate treatises on the subject of the mechanical powers, which are fully discussed in the Mechanics, ii., iii. The Belopoiica (on engines of war) is extant in Greek, and both this and the Mechanics contain Hero’s solution of the problem of the two mean proportionals. Hero also wrote Catoptrica (on reflecting surfaces), and it seems certain that we possess this in a Latin work, probably translated from the Greek by Wilhelm van Moerbeek, which was long thought to be a fragment of Ptolemy’s Optics, because it bore the title Ptolemaei de speculis in the MS. But the attribution to Ptolemy was shown to be wrong as soon as it was made clear (especially by Martin) that another translation by an Admiral Eugenius Siculus (12th century) of an optical work from the Arabic was Ptolemy’s Optics. Of other treatises by Hero only fragments remain. One was four books on Water Clocks (Περὶ ὑδρίων ὡροσκοπείων), of which Proclus (Hypotyp. astron., ed. Halma) has preserved a fragment, and to which Pappus also refers. Another work was a commentary on Euclid (referred to by the Arabs as “the book of the resolution of doubts in Euclid”) from which quotations have survived in an-Nairīzī’s commentary.

The Pneumatica, Automatopoietica, Belopoiica and Cheiroballistra of Hero were published in Greek and Latin in Thévenot’s Veterum mathematicorum opera graece et latine pleraque nunc primum edita (Paris, 1693); the first important critical researches on Hero were G. B. Venturi’s Commentari sopra la storia e la teoria dell’ottica (Bologna, 1814) and H. Martin’s “Recherches sur la vie et les ouvrages d’Héron d’Alexandrie disciple de Ctésibius et sur tous les ouvrages mathématiques grecs conservés ou perdus, publiés ou inédits, qui ont été attribués à un auteur nommé Héron” (Mém. presentés à l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, i. série, iv., 1854). The geometrical works (except of course the Metrica) were edited (Greek only) by F. Hultsch (Heronis Alexandrini geometricorum et stereometricorum reliquiae, 1864), the Dioptra by Vincent (Extraits des manuscrits relatifs à la géométrie pratique des Grecs, Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Impériale, xix. 2, 1858), the treatises on Engines of War by C. Wescher (Poliorcétique des Grecs, Paris, 1867). The Mechanics was first published by Carra de Vaux in the Journal asiatique (ix. série, ii., 1893). In 1899 began the publication in Teubner’s series of Heronis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt omnia. Vol. i. and Supplement (by W. Schmidt) contains the Pneumatica and Automata, the fragment on Water Clocks, the De ingeniis spiritualibus of Philon of Byzantium and extracts on Pneumatics by Vitruvius. Vol. ii. pt. i., by L. Nix and W. Schmidt, contains the Mechanics in Arabic, Greek fragments of the same, the Catoptrica in Latin with appendices of extracts from Olympiodorus, Vitruvius, Pliny, &c. Vol. iii. (by Hermann Schöne) contains the Metrica (in three books) and the Dioptra. A German translation is added throughout. The approximation to square roots in Hero has been the subject of papers too numerous to mention. But reference should be made to the exhaustive studies on Hero’s arithmetic by Paul Tannery, “L’Arithmétique des Grecs dans Héron d’Alexandrie” (Mém. de la Soc. des sciences phys. et math. de Bordeaux, ii. série, iv., 1882), “La Stéréométrie d’Héron d’Alexandrie” and “Études Héroniennes” (ibid. v., 1883), “Questions Héroniennes” (Bulletin des sciences math., ii. série, viii., 1884), “Un Fragment des Métriques d’Héron” (Zeitschrift für Math. und Physik, xxxix., 1894; Bulletin des sciences math., ii. série, xviii., 1894). A good account of Hero’s works will be found in M. Cantor’s Geschichte der Mathematik, i.² (1894), chapters 18 and 19, and in G. Loria’s studies, Le Scienze esatte nell’ antica Grecia, especially libro iii. (Modena, 1900), pp. 103-128.

(T. L. H.)

HERO, the Younger, the name given without any sufficient reason to a Byzantine land-surveyor who wrote (about A.D. 938) a treatise on land-surveying modelled on the works of Hero of Alexandria, especially the Dioptra.

See “Géodésie de Héron de Byzance,” published by Vincent in Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothéque Impériale, xix. 2 (Paris, 1858), and T. H. Martin in Mémoires présentés à l’ Académie des Inscriptions, 1st series, iv. (Paris, 1854).

HEROD, the name borne by the princes of a dynasty which reigned in Judaea from 40 B.C.

Herod (surnamed the Great), the son of Antipater, who supported Hyrcanus II. against Aristobulus II. with the aid first of the Nabataean Arabs and then of Rome. The family seems to have been of Idumaean origin, so that its members were liable to the reproach of being half-Jews or even foreigners. Justin Martyr has a tradition that they were originally Philistines of Ascalon (Dial. c. 52), and on the other hand Nicolaus of Damascus (apud Jos. Ant. xiv. 1. 3) asserted that Herod, his royal patron, was descended from the Jews who first returned from the Babylonian Captivity. The tradition and the assertion are in all probability equally fictitious and proceed respectively from the foes and the friends of the Herodian dynasty.

Antipas (or Antipater), the father of Antipater, had been governor of Idumaea under Alexander Jannaeus. His son allied himself by marriage with the Arabian nobility and became the real ruler of Palestine under Hyrcanus II. When Rome intervened in Asia in the person of Pompey, the younger Antipater realized her inevitable predominance and secured the friendship of her representative. After the capture of Jerusalem in 63 B.C. Pompey installed Hyrcanus, who was little better than a figurehead, in the high-priesthood; and when in 55 B.C. the son of Aristobulus renewed the civil war in Palestine, the Roman governor of Syria in the exercise of his jurisdiction arranged a settlement “in accordance with the wishes of Antipater” (Jos. Ant. xiv. 6. 4). To this policy of dependence upon Rome Antipater adhered, and he succeeded in commending himself to Mark Antony and Caesar in turn. After the battle of Pharsalia Caesar made him procurator and a Roman citizen.

At this point Herod appears on the scene as ruler of Galilee (Jos. Ant. xiv. 9. 2) appointed by his father at the age of fifteen or, since he died at seventy, twenty-five. In spite of his youth he soon found an opportunity of displaying his mettle; for he arrested Hezekiah the arch-brigand, who had overrun the Syrian border, and put him to death. The Jewish nobility at Jerusalem seized upon this high-handed action as a pretext for satisfying their jealousy of their Idumaean rulers. Herod was cited in the name of Hyrcanus to appear before the Sanhedrin, whose prerogative he had usurped in executing Hezekiah. He appeared with a bodyguard, and the Sanhedrin was overawed. Only Sameas, a Pharisee, dared to insist upon the legal verdict of condemnation. But the governor of Syria had sent a demand for Herod’s acquittal, and so Hyrcanus adjourned the trial and persuaded the accused to abscond. Herod returned with an army, but his father prevailed upon him to depart to Galilee without wreaking his vengeance upon his enemies. About this time (47-46 B.C.) he was created strategus of Coelesyria by the provincial governor. The episode is important for the light which it throws upon Herod’s relations with Rome and with the Jews.

In 44 B.C. Cassius arrived in Syria for the purpose of filling his war-chest: Antipater and Herod collected the sum of money at which the Jews of Palestine had been assessed. In 43 B.C. Antipater was poisoned at the instigation of one Malichus, who was perhaps a Jewish patriot animated by hatred of the Herods and their Roman patrons.

With the connivance of Cassius Herod had Malichus assassinated; but the country was in a state of anarchy, thanks to the extortions of Cassius and the encroachments of neighbouring powers. Antony, who became master of the East after Philippi, was ready to support the sons of his friend Antipater; but he was absent in Egypt when the Parthians invaded Palestine to restore Antigonus to the throne of his father Aristobulus (40 B.C.). Herod escaped to Rome: the Arabians, his mother’s people, had repudiated him. Antony had made him tetrarch, and now with the assent of Octavian persuaded the Senate to declare him king of Judaea.

In 39 B.C. Herod returned to Palestine and, when the presence of Antony put the reluctant Roman troops entirely at his disposal, he was able to lay siege to Jerusalem two years later. Secure of the support of Rome he was concerned also to legitimize his position in the eyes of the Jews by taking, for love as well as policy, the Hasmonaean princess Mariamne to be his second wife. Jerusalem was taken by storm; the Roman troops withdrew to behead Antigonus the usurper at Antioch. In 37 B.C. Herod was king of Judaea, being the client of Antony and the husband of Mariamne.

The Pharisees, who dominated the bulk of the Jews, were content to accept Herod’s rule as a judgment of God. Hyrcanus returned from his prison: mutilated, he could no longer hold office as high-priest; but his mutilation probably gave him the prestige of a martyr, and his influence—whatever it was worth—seems to have been favourable to the new dynasty. On the other hand Herod’s marriage with Mariamne brought some of his enemies into his own household. He had scotched the faction of Hasmonaean sympathizers by killing forty-five members of the Sanhedrin and confiscating their possessions. But so long as there were representatives of the family alive, there was always a possible pretender to the throne which he occupied; and the people had not lost their affection for their former deliverers. Mariamne’s mother used her position to further her plots for the overthrow of her son-in-law; and she found an ally in Cleopatra of Egypt, who was unwilling to be spurned by him, even if she was not weary of his patron, Antony.

The events of Herod’s reign indicate the temporary triumphs of his different adversaries. His high-priest, a Babylonian, was deposed in order that Aristobulus III., Mariamne’s brother, might hold the place to which he had some ancestral right. But the enthusiasm with which the people received him at the Feast of Tabernacles convinced Herod of the danger; and the youth was drowned by order of the king at Jericho. Cleopatra had obtained from Antony a grant of territory adjacent to Herod’s domain and even part of it. She required Herod to collect arrears of tribute. So it fell out that, when Octavian and the Senate declared war against Antony and Cleopatra, Herod was preoccupied in obedience to her commands and was thus prevented from fighting against the future emperor of Rome.

After the battle of Actium (31 B.C.) Herod executed Hyrcanus and proceeded to wait upon the victorious Octavian at Rhodes. His position was confirmed and his territories were restored. On his return he took in hand to heal with the Hasmonaeans, and in 25 B.C. the old intriguers, their victims like Mariamne, and all pretenders were dead. From this time onwards Herod was free to govern Palestine, as a client-prince of the Roman Empire should govern his kingdom. In order to put down the brigands who still infested the country and to check the raids of the Arabs on the frontier, he built or rebuilt fortresses, which were of material assistance to the Jews in the great revolt against Rome. Within and without Judaea he erected magnificent buildings and founded cities. He established games in honour of the emperor after the ancient Greek model in Caesarea and Jerusalem and revived the splendour of the Olympic games. At Athens and elsewhere he was commemorated as a benefactor; and as Jew and king of the Jews he restored the temple at Jerusalem. The emperor recognized his successful government by putting the districts of Ulatha and Panias under him in 20 B.C.

But Herod found new enemies among the members of his household. His brother Pheroras and sister Salome plotted for their own advantage and against the two sons of Mariamne. The people still cherished a loyalty to the Hasmonaean lineage, although the young princes were also the sons of Herod. The enthusiasm with which they were received fed the suspicion, which their uncle instilled into their father’s mind, and they were strangled at Sebaste. On his deathbed Herod discovered that his eldest son, Antipater, whom Josephus calls a “monster of iniquity,” had been plotting against him. He proceeded to accuse him before the governor of Syria and obtained leave from Augustus to put him to death. The father died five days after his son in 4 B.C. He had done much for the Jews, thanks to the favour he had won and kept in spite of all from the successive heads of the Roman state; he had observed the Law publicly—in fact, as the traditional epigram of Augustus says, “it was better to be Herod’s swine than a son of Herod.”

Josephus, Ant. xv., xvi., xvii. 1-8, B.J. i. 18-33; Schürer, Gesch. d. jüd. Völk., 4th ed., i. pp. 360-418.

Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great by the Samaritan Malthace, and full brother of Archelaus, received as his share of his father’s dominions the provinces of Galilee and Peraea, with the title of tetrarch. Like his father, Antipas had a turn for architecture: he rebuilt and fortified the town of Sepphoris in Galilee; he also fortified Betharamptha in Peraea, and called it Julias after the wife of the emperor. Above all he founded the important town of Tiberias on the west shore of the Sea of Galilee, with institutions of a distinctly Greek character. He reigned 4 B.C.-A.D. 39. In the gospels he is mentioned as Herod. He it was who was called a “fox” by Christ (Luke xiii. 32). He is erroneously spoken of as a king in Mark vi. 14. It was to him that Jesus was sent by Pilate to be tried. But it is in connexion with his wife Herodias that he is best known, and it was through her that his misfortunes arose. He was married first of all to a daughter of Aretas, the Arabian king; but, making the acquaintance of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip (not the tetrarch), during a visit to Rome, he was fascinated by her and arranged to marry her. Meantime his Arabian wife discovered the plan and escaped to her father, who made war on Herod, and completely defeated his army. John the Baptist condemned his marriage with Herodias, and in consequence was put to death in the way described in the gospels and in Josephus. When Herodias’s brother Agrippa was appointed king by Caligula, she was determined to see her husband attain to an equal eminence, and persuaded him, though naturally of a quiet and unambitious temperament, to make the journey to Rome to crave a crown from the emperor. Agrippa, however, managed to influence Caligula against him. Antipas was deprived of his dominions and banished to Lyons, Herodias voluntarily sharing his exile.

Herod Philip, son of Herod the Great by Cleopatra of Jerusalem, received the tetrarchate of Ituraea and other districts to E. and N.E. of the Lake of Galilee, the poorest part of his father’s kingdom. His subjects were mainly Greeks or Syrians, and his coins bear the image of Augustus or Tiberius. He is described as an excellent ruler, who loved peace and was careful to maintain justice, and spent his time in his own territories. He was also a builder of cities, one of which was Caesarea Philippi, and another was Bethsaida, which he called Julias. He died after a reign of thirty-seven years (4 B.C.-A.D. 34); and his dominions were incorporated in the province of Syria.

(J. H. A. H.)

HERODAS (Gr. Ἡρῴδας), or Herondas (the name is spelt differently in the few places where he is mentioned), Greek poet, the author of short humorous dramatic scenes in verse, written under the Alexandrian empire in the 3rd century B.C. Apart from the intrinsic merit of these pieces, they are interesting in the history of Greek literature as being a new species, illustrating Alexandrian methods. They are called Μιμίαμβοι, “Mimeiambics.” Mimes were the Dorian product of South Italy and Sicily, and the most famous of them—from which Plato is said to have studied the drawing of character—were the work of Sophron. These were scenes in popular life, written in the language of the people, vigorous with racy proverbs such as we get in other reflections of that region—in Petronius and the Pentamerone. Two of the best known and the most vital among the Idylls of Theocritus, the 2nd and the 15th, we know to have been derived from mimes of Sophron. What Theocritus is doing there, Herodas, his younger contemporary, is doing in another manner—casting old material into novel form, upon a small scale, under strict conditions of technique. The method is entirely Alexandrian: Sophron had written in a peculiar kind of rhythmical prose; Theocritus uses the hexameter and Doric, Herodas the scazon or “lame” iambic (with a dragging spondee at the end) and the old Ionic dialect with which that curious metre was associated. That, however, hardly goes beyond the choice and form of words; the structure of the sentences is close-knit Attic. But the grumbling metre and quaint language suit the tone of common life which Herodas aims at realizing; for, as Theocritus may be called idealist, Herodas is a realist unflinching. His persons talk in vehement exclamations and emphatic turns of speech, with proverbs and fixed phrases; and occasionally, where it is designed as proper to the part, with the most naked coarseness of expression.

The scene of the second and the fourth is laid at Cos, and the speaking characters in each are never more than three. In Mime I. the old nurse, now the professional go-between or bawd, calls on Metriche, whose husband has been long away in Egypt, and endeavours to excite her interest in a most desirable young man, fallen deeply in love with her at first sight. After hearing all the arguments Metriche declines with dignity, but consoles the old woman with an ample glass of wine, this kind being always represented with the taste of Mrs Gamp. II. is a monologue by the Πορνοβοσκός (“Whoremonger”) prosecuting a merchant-trader for breaking into his establishment at night and attempting to carry off one of the inmates, who is produced in court. The vulgar blackguard, who is a stranger to any sort of shame, remarking that he has no evidence to call, proceeds to a peroration in the regular oratorical style, appealing to the Coan judges not to be unworthy of their traditional glories. In fact, the whole oration is also a burlesque in every detail of an Attic speech at law; and in this case we have the material from which to estimate the excellence of the parody. In III. a desperate mother brings to the schoolmaster a truant urchin, with whom neither she nor his incapable old father can do anything. In a voluble stream of interminable sentences she narrates his misdeeds and implores the schoolmaster to flog him. The boy accordingly is hoisted on another’s back and flogged; but his spirit does not appear to be subdued, and the mother resorts to the old man after all. IV. is a visit of two poor women with an offering to the temple of Asclepius at Cos. While the humble cock is being sacrificed, they turn, like the women in the Ion of Euripides, to admire the works of art; among them a small boy strangling a vulpanser—doubtless the work of Boëthus that we know—and a sacrificial procession by Apelles, “the Ephesian,” of whom we have an interesting piece of contemporary eulogy. The oily sacristan is admirably painted in a few slight strokes. V. brings us very close to some unpleasant facts of ancient life. The jealous woman accuses one of her slaves, whom she has made her favourite, of infidelity; has him bound and sent degraded through the town to receive 2000 lashes; no sooner is he out of sight than she recalls him to be branded “at one job.” The only pleasing person in the piece is the little maidservant—permitted liberties as a verna brought up in the house—whose ready tact suggests to her mistress an excuse for postponing execution of a threat made in ungovernable fury. VI. is a friendly chat or a private conversation. The subject is an ugly one, but the dialogue is as clever and amusing as the rest, with some delicious touches. Our interest is engaged here in a certain Kerdon, the artistic shoemaker, to whom we are introduced in VII. (the name had already become generic for the shoemaker as the typical representative of retail trade), a little bald man with a fluent tongue, complaining of hard times, who bluffs and wheedles by turns. VII. opens with a mistress waking up her maids to listen to her dream; but we have only the beginning, and the other fragments are very short.

Within the limits of 100 lines or less Herodas presents us with a highly entertaining scene and with characters definitely drawn. Some of these had been perfected no doubt upon the Attic stage, where the tendency in the 4th century had been gradually to evolve accepted types—not individuals, but generalizations from a class, an art in which Menander’s was esteemed the master-hand. The Πορνοβοσκός and the Μαστροπός we can piece together from succeeding literature, and see how skilfully the established traits are indicated here. This is achieved by true dramatic means, with touches never wasted and the more delightful often because they do not clamour for attention. The execution has the qualities of first-rate Alexandrian work in miniature, such as the epigrams of Asclepiades possess, the finish and firm outlines; and these little pictures bear the test of all artistic work—they do not lose their freshness with familiarity, and gain in interest as one learns to appreciate their subtle points.

The papyrus MS., obtained from the Fayum, is in the possession of the British Museum, and was first printed by F. G. Kenyon in 1891. Editions by O. Crusius (1905, text only, in Teubner series) and J. A. Nairn (1904), with introduction, notes and bibliography. There is an English verse translation of the mimes by H. Sharpley (1906) under the title A Realist of the Aegean.

(W. G. H.)

HERODIANS (Ἡρωδιανοί), a sect or party mentioned in Scripture as having on two occasions—once in Galilee, and again in Jerusalem—manifested an unfriendly disposition towards Jesus (Mark iii. 6, xii. 13; Matt. xxii. 6; cf. also Mark viii. 15). In each of these cases their name is coupled with that of the Pharisees. According to many interpreters the courtiers or soldiers of Herod Antipas (“Milites Herodis,” Jerome) are intended; but more probably the Herodians were a public political party, who distinguished themselves from the two great historical parties of post-exilian Judaism by the fact that they were and had been sincerely friendly to Herod the Great and to his dynasty (cf. such formations as “Caesariani,” “Pompeiani”). It is possible that, to gain adherents, the Herodian party may have been in the habit of representing that the establishment of a Herodian dynasty would be favourable to the realization of the theocracy; and this in turn may account for Tertullian’s (De praescr.) allegation that the Herodians regarded Herod himself as the Messiah. The sect was called by the Rabbis Boethusians as being friendly to the family of Boethus, whose daughter Mariamne was one of Herod the Great’s wives.

(J. H. A. H.)

HERODIANUS, Greek historian, flourished during the third century A.D. He is supposed to have been a Syrian Greek. In 203 he was in Rome, where he held some minor posts. He does not appear to have attained high official rank; the statement that he was imperial procurator and legate of the Sicilian provinces rests upon conjecture only. His historical work (Ἡρωδιανοῦ τῆς μετὰ Μάρκον βασιλείας ἱστοριῶν βιβλία ὀκτώ) narrates the events of the fifty-eight years between the death of Marcus Aurelius and the proclamation of Gordianus III. (180-238). The narrative is of special value as supplementing Dion Cassius, whose history ends with Alexander Severus. His work has the value that attaches to a record written by one chronicling the events of his own times, gifted with ordinary powers of observation, indubitable candour and independence of view. But while he gives a lively account of external events—such as the death of Commodus and the assassination of Pertinax—the barbarian invasions, the spread of Christianity, the extension of the franchise by Caracalla are unnoticed. The dates are often wrong, and little attention is paid to geographical details, which makes the narrative of military expeditions beyond the borders of the empire difficult to understand. Herodian has been accused of prejudice against Alexander Severus. His style, modelled on that of Thucydides and unreservedly praised by Photius, is on the whole pure, though somewhat rhetorical and showing a fondness for Latinisms.

Extensive use has been made of Herodianus by later chroniclers, especially the “Scriptores historiae Augustae” and John of Antioch. His history was first translated into Latin at the end of the 15th century by Politian. The most complete edition is by G. W. Irmisch (1789-1805), with elaborate indices, but the notes are very diffuse; critical editions by I. Bekker (1855), L. Mendelssohn (1883); see also C. Dändliker.

HERODIANUS, AELIUS, called ὁ τεχνικός, Alexandrian grammarian, flourished in the 2nd century A.D. He early took up his residence at Rome, where he enjoyed the patronage of Marcus Aurelius (161-180), to whom he dedicated his great treatise on prosody. This work in twenty-one books (Καθολικὴ προσῳδία) included also an account of the etymological part of grammar. The work itself is lost, but several epitomes of it have been preserved. His Ἐπιμερισμοί dealt with difficult words and peculiar forms in Homer. Herodianus also wrote numerous grammatical treatises, of which only one has come down to us in a complete form (Περὶ μονήρους λέξεως, on peculiar style), articles on exceptional or anomalous words. Numerous quotations and fragments still exist, chiefly in the Homeric scholiasts and Stephanus of Byzantium. Herodianus enjoyed a great reputation as a grammarian, and Priscian styles him “maximus auctor artis grammaticae.”

The best edition is by A. Lentz, Herodiani. Technici reliquiae (1867-1870); a supplementary volume is included in Uhling’s Corpus grammaticorum Graecorum; for further bibliographical information see W. Christ, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur (1898).

HERODOTUS (c. 484-425 B.C.), Greek historian, called the Father of History, was born at Halicarnassus in Asia Minor, then dependent upon the Persians, in or about the year 484 B.C. Herodotus was thus born a Persian subject, and such he continued until he was thirty or five-and-thirty years of age. At the time of his birth Halicarnassus was under the rule of a queen Artemisia (q.v.). The year of her death is unknown; but she left her crown to her son Pisindelis (born about 498 B.C.), who was succeeded upon the throne by his son Lygdamis about the time that Herodotus grew to manhood. The family of Herodotus belonged to the upper rank of the citizens. His father was named Lyxes, and his mother Rhaeo, or Dryo. He had a brother Theodore, and an uncle or cousin Panyasis (q.v.), the epic poet, a personage of so much importance that the tyrant Lygdamis, suspecting him of treasonable projects, put him to death. It is probable that Herodotus shared his relative’s political opinions, and either was exiled from Halicarnassus or quitted it voluntarily at the time of his execution.

Of the education of Herodotus no more can be said than that it was thoroughly Greek, and embraced no doubt the three subjects essential to a Greek liberal education—grammar, gymnastic training and music. His studies would be regarded as completed when he attained the age of eighteen, and took rank among the ephebi or eirenes of his native city. In a free Greek state he would at once have begun his duties as a citizen, and found therein sufficient employment for his growing energies. But in a city ruled by a tyrant this outlet was wanting; no political life worthy of the name existed. Herodotus may thus have had his thoughts turned to literature as furnishing a not unsatisfactory career, and may well have been encouraged in his choice by the example of Panyasis, who had already gained a reputation by his writings when Herodotus was still an infant. At any rate it is clear from the extant work of Herodotus that he must have devoted himself early to the literary life, and commenced that extensive course of reading which renders him one of the most instructive as well as one of the most charming of ancient writers. The poetical literature of Greece was already large; the prose literature was more extensive than is generally supposed; yet Herodotus shows an intimate acquaintance with the whole of it. The Iliad and the Odyssey are as familiar to him as Shakespeare to the educated Englishman. He is acquainted with the poems of the epic cycle, the Cypria, the Epigoni, &c. He quotes or otherwise shows familiarity with the writings of Hesiod, Olen, Musaeus, Bacis, Lysistratus, Archilochus of Paros, Alcaeus, Sappho, Solon, Aesop, Aristeas of Proconnesus, Simonides of Ceos, Phrynichus, Aeschylus and Pindar. He quotes and criticizes Hecataeus, the best of the prose writers who had preceded him, and makes numerous allusions to other authors of the same class.

It must not, however, be supposed that he was at any time a mere student. It is probable that from an early age his inquiring disposition led him to engage in travels, both in Greece and in foreign countries. He traversed Asia Minor and European Greece probably more than once; he visited all the most important islands of the Archipelago—Rhodes, Cyprus, Delos, Paros, Thasos, Samothrace, Crete, Samos, Cythera and Aegina. He undertook the long and perilous journey from Sardis to the Persian capital Susa, visited Babylon, Colchis, and the western shores of the Black Sea as far as the estuary of the Dnieper; he travelled in Scythia and in Thrace, visited Zante and Magna Graecia, explored the antiquities of Tyre, coasted along the shores of Palestine, saw Gaza, and made a long stay in Egypt. At the most moderate estimate, his travels covered a space of thirty-one degrees of longitude, or 1700 miles, and twenty-four of latitude, or nearly the same distance. At all the more interesting sites he took up his abode for a time; he examined, he inquired, he made measurements, he accumulated materials. Having in his mind the scheme of his great work, he gave ample time to the elaboration of all its parts, and took care to obtain by personal observation a full knowledge of the various countries.

The travels of Herodotus seem to have been chiefly accomplished between his twentieth and his thirty-seventh year (464-447 B.C.).[1] It was probably in his early manhood that as a Persian subject he visited Susa and Babylon, taking advantage of the Persian system of posts which he describes in his fifth book. His residence in Egypt must, on the other hand, have been subsequent to 460 B.C., since he saw the skulls of the Persians slain by Inarus in that year. Skulls are rarely visible on a battlefield for more than two or three seasons after the fight, and we may therefore presume that it was during the reign of Inarus (460-454 B.C.),[2] when the Athenians had great authority in Egypt, that he visited the country, making himself known as a learned Greek, and therefore receiving favour and attention on the part of the Egyptians, who were so much beholden to his countrymen (see [Athens], [Cimon], [Pericles]). On his return from Egypt, as he proceeded along the Syrian shore, he seems to have landed at Tyre, and from thence to have gone to Thasos. His Scythian travels are thought to have taken place prior to 450 B.C.

It is a question of some interest from what centre or centres these various expeditions were made. Up to the time of the execution of Panyasis, which is placed by chronologists in or about the year 457 B.C., there is every reason to believe that Herodotus lived at Halicarnassus. His travels in Asia Minor, in European Greece, and among the islands of the Aegean, probably belong to this period, as also his journey to Susa and Babylon. We are told that when he quitted Halicarnassus on account of the tyranny of Lygdamis, in or about the year 457 B.C., he took up his abode in Samos. That island was an important member of the Athenian confederacy, and in making it his home Herodotus would have put himself under the protection of Athens. The fact that Egypt was then largely under Athenian influence (see [Cimon], [Pericles]) may have induced him to proceed, in 457 or 456 B.C., to that country. The stories that he had heard in Egypt of Sesostris may then have stimulated him to make voyages from Samos to Colchis, Scythia and Thrace. He was thus acquainted with almost all the regions which were to be the scene of his projected history.

After Herodotus had resided for some seven or eight years in Samos, events occurred in his native city which induced him to return thither. The tyranny of Lygdamis had gone from bad to worse, and at last he was expelled. According to Suidas, Herodotus was himself an actor, and indeed the chief actor, in the rebellion against him; but no other author confirms this statement, which is intrinsically improbable. It is certain, however, that Halicarnassus became henceforward a voluntary member of the Athenian confederacy. Herodotus would now naturally return to his native city, and enter upon the enjoyment of those rights of free citizenship on which every Greek set a high value. He would also, if he had by this time composed his history, or any considerable portion of it, begin to make it known by recitation among his friends. There is reason to believe that these first attempts were not received with much favour, and that it was in chagrin at his failure that he precipitately withdrew from his native town, and sought a refuge in Greece proper (about 447 B.C.).[3] We learn that Athens was the place to which he went, and that he appealed from the verdict of his countrymen to Athenian taste and judgment. His work won such approval that in the year 445 B.C., on the proposition of a certain Anytus, he was voted a sum of ten talents (£2400) by decree of the people. At one of the recitations, it was said, the future historian Thucydides was present with his father, Olorus, and was so moved that he burst into tears, whereupon Herodotus remarked to the father—“Olorus, your son has a natural enthusiasm for letters.”[4]

Athens was at this time the centre of intellectual life, and could boast an almost unique galaxy of talent—Pericles, Thucydides the son of Melesias, Aspasia, Antiphon, the musician Damon, Pheidias, Protagoras, Zeno, Cratinus, Crates, Euripides and Sophocles. Accepted into this brilliant society, on familiar terms with all probably, as he certainly was with Olorus, Thucydides and Sophocles, he must have been tempted, like many another foreigner, to make Athens his permanent home. It is to his credit that he did not yield to this temptation. At Athens he must have been a dilettante, an idler, without political rights or duties. As such he would have soon ceased to be respected in a society where literature was not recognized as a separate profession, where a Socrates served in the infantry, a Sophocles commanded fleets, a Thucydides was general of an army, and an Antiphon was for a time at the head of the state. Men were not men according to Greek notions unless they were citizens; and Herodotus, aware of this, probably sharing in the feeling, was anxious, having lost his political status at Halicarnassus, to obtain such status elsewhere. At Athens the franchise, jealously guarded at this period, was not to be attained without great expense and difficulty. Accordingly, in the spring of the following year he sailed from Athens with the colonists who went out to found the colony of Thurii (see [Pericles]), and became a citizen of the new town.

From this point of his career, when he had reached the age of forty, we lose sight of him almost wholly. He seems to have made but few journeys, one to Crotona, one to Metapontum, and one to Athens (about 430 B.C.) being all that his work indicates.[5] No doubt he was employed mainly, as Pliny testifies, in retouching and elaborating his general history. He may also have composed at Thurii that special work on the history of Assyria to which he twice refers in his first book, and which is quoted by Aristotle. It has been supposed by many that he lived to a great age, and argued that “the never-to-be-mistaken fundamental tone of his performance is the quiet talkativeness of a highly cultivated, tolerant, intelligent, old man” (Dahlmann). But the indications derived from the later touches added to his work, which form the sole evidence on the subject, would rather lead to the conclusion that his life was not very prolonged. There is nothing in the nine books which may not have been written as early as 430 B.C.; there is no touch which, even probably, points to a later date than 424 B.C. As the author was evidently engaged in polishing his work to the last, and even promises touches which he does not give, we may assume that he did not much outlive the date last mentioned, or in other words, that he died at about the age of sixty. The predominant voice of antiquity tells us that he died at Thurii, where his tomb was shown in later ages.

The History.—In estimating the great work of Herodotus, and his genius as its author, it is above all things necessary to conceive aright what that work was intended to be. It has been called “a universal history,” “a history of the wars between the Greeks and the barbarians,” and “a history of the struggle between Greece and Persia.” But these titles are all of them too comprehensive. Herodotus, who omits wholly the histories of Phoenicia, Carthage and Etruria, three of the most important among the states existing in his day, cannot have intended to compose a “universal history,” the very idea of which belongs to a later age. He speaks in places as if his object was to record the wars between the Greeks and the barbarians; but as he omits the Trojan war, in which he fully believes, the expedition of the Teucrians and Mysians against Thrace and Thessaly, the wars connected with the Ionian colonization of Asia Minor and others, it is evident that he does not really aim at embracing in his narrative all the wars between Greeks and barbarians with which he was acquainted. Nor does it even seem to have been his object to give an account of the entire struggle between Greece and Persia. That struggle was not terminated by the battle of Mycale and the capture of Sestos in 479 B.C. It continued for thirty years longer, to the peace of Callias (but see [Callias] and [Cimon]). The fact that Herodotus ends his history where he does shows distinctly that his intention was, not to give an account of the entire long contest between the two countries, but to write the history of a particular war—the great Persian war of invasion. His aim was as definite as that of Thucydides, or Schiller, or Napier or any other writer who has made his subject a particular war; only he determined to treat it in a certain way. Every partial history requires an “introduction”; Herodotus, untrammelled by examples, resolved to give his history a magnificent introduction. Thucydides is content with a single introductory book, forming little more than one-eighth of his work; Herodotus has six such books, forming two-thirds of the entire composition.

By this arrangement he is enabled to treat his subject in the grand way, which is so characteristic of him. Making it his main object in his “introduction” to set before his readers the previous history of the two nations who were the actors in the great war, he is able in tracing their history to bring into his narrative some account of almost all the nations of the known world, and has room to expatiate freely upon their geography, antiquities, manners and customs and the like, thus giving his work a “universal” character, and securing for it, without trenching upon unity, that variety, richness and fulness which are a principal charm of the best histories, and of none more than his. In tracing the growth of Persia from a petty subject kingdom to a vast dominant empire, he has occasion to set out the histories of Lydia, Media, Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Scythia, Thrace, and to describe the countries and the peoples inhabiting them, their natural productions, climate, geographical position, monuments, &c.; while, in noting the contemporaneous changes in Greece, he is led to tell of the various migrations of the Greek race, their colonies, commerce, progress in the arts, revolutions, internal struggles, wars with one another, legislation, religious tenets and the like. The greatest variety of episodical matter is thus introduced; but the propriety of the occasion and the mode of introduction are such that no complaint can be made; the episodes never entangle, encumber or even unpleasantly interrupt the main narrative.

It has been questioned, both in ancient and in modern times, whether the history of Herodotus possesses the essential requisite of trustworthiness. Several ancient writers accuse him of intentional untruthfulness. Moderns generally acquit him of this charge; but his severer critics still urge that, from the inherent defects of his character, his credulity, his love of effect and his loose and inaccurate habits of thought, he was unfitted for the historian’s office, and has produced a work of but small historical value. Perhaps it may be sufficient to remark that the defects in question certainly exist, and detract to some extent from the authority of the work, more especially of those parts of it which deal with remoter periods, and were taken by Herodotus on trust from his informants, but that they only slightly affect the portions which treat of later times and form the special subject of his history. In confirmation of this view, it may be noted that the authority of Herodotus for the circumstances of the great Persian war, and for all local and other details which come under his immediate notice, is accepted by even the most sceptical of modern historians, and forms the basis of their narratives.

Among the merits of Herodotus as an historian, the most prominent are the diligence with which he collected his materials, the candour and impartiality with which he has placed his facts before the reader, the absence of party bias and undue national vanity, and the breadth of his conception of the historian’s office. On the other hand, he has no claim to rank as a critical historian; he has no conception of the philosophy of history, no insight into the real causes that underlie political changes, no power of penetrating below the surface, or even of grasping the real interconnexion of the events which he describes. He belongs distinctly to the romantic school; his forte is vivid and picturesque description, the lively presentation of scenes and actions, characters and states of society, not the subtle analysis of motives, the power of detecting the undercurrents or the generalizing faculty.

But it is as a writer that the merits of Herodotus are most conspicuous. “O that I were in a condition,” says Lucian, “to resemble Herodotus, if only in some measure! I by no means say in all his gifts, but only in some single point; as, for instance, the beauty of his language, or its harmony, or the natural and peculiar grace of the Ionic dialect, or his fulness of thought, or by whatever name those thousand beauties are called which to the despair of his imitator are united in him.” Cicero calls his style “copious and polished,” Quintilian, “sweet, pure and flowing”; Longinus says he was “the most Homeric of historians”; Dionysius, his countryman, prefers him to Thucydides, and regards him as combining in an extraordinary degree the excellences of sublimity, beauty and the true historical method of composition. Modern writers are almost equally complimentary. “The style of Herodotus,” says one, “is universally allowed to be remarkable for its harmony and sweetness.” “The charm of his style,” argues another, “has so dazzled men as to make them blind to his defects.” Various attempts have been made to analyse the charm which is so universally felt; but it may be doubted whether any of them are very successful. All, however, seem to agree that among the qualities for which the style of Herodotus is to be admired are simplicity, freshness, naturalness and harmony of rhythm. Master of a form of language peculiarly sweet and euphonical, and possessed of a delicate ear which instinctively suggested the most musical arrangement possible, he gives his sentences, without art or effort, the most agreeable flow, is never abrupt, never too diffuse, much less prolix or wearisome, and being himself simple, fresh, naif (if we may use the word), honest and somewhat quaint, he delights us by combining with this melody of sound simple, clear and fresh thoughts, perspicuously expressed, often accompanied by happy turns of phrase, and always manifestly the spontaneous growth of his own fresh and unsophisticated mind. Reminding us in some respects of the quaint medieval writers, Froissart and Philippe de Comines, he greatly excels them, at once in the beauty of his language and the art with which he has combined his heterogeneous materials into a single perfect harmonious whole. See also [Greece], section History, “Authorities.”

Bibliography.—The history of Herodotus has been translated by many persons and into many languages. About 1450, at the time of the revival of learning, a Latin version was made and published by Laurentius Valla. This was revised in 1537 by Heusbach, and accompanies the Greek text of Herodotus in many editions. The first complete translation into a modern language was the English one of Littlebury, published in 1737. This was followed In 1786 by the French translation of Larcher, a valuable work, accompanied by copious notes and essays. Beloe, the second English translator, based his work on that of Larcher. His first edition, in 1791, was confessedly very defective; the second, in 1806, still left much to be desired. A good German translation, but without note or comment, was brought out by Friedrich Lange at Berlin in 1811. Andrea Mustoxidi, a native of Corfu, published an Italian version in 1820. In 1822 Auguste Miot endeavoured to improve on Larcher; and in 1828-1832 Dr Adolf Schöll brought out a German translation with copious notes (new ed., 1855), which has to some extent superseded the work of Lange. About the same time a new English version was made by Isaac Taylor (London, 1829). In 1858-1860, the history of Herodotus was translated by Canon G. Rawlinson, assisted in the copious notes and appendices accompanying the work by Sir Gardner Wilkinson and Sir Henry Rawlinson. More recently we have translations in English by G. C. Macaulay (2 vols., 1890); in German by Bähr (Stuttgart, 1867) and Stein (Oldenburg, 1875); in French by Giguet (1857) and Talbot (1864); in Italian by Ricci (Turin, 1871-1876), Grandi (Asti, 1872) and Bertini (Naples, 1871-1872). A Swedish translation by F. Carlstadt was published at Stockholm in 1871.

The best of the older editions of the Greek text are the following:—Herodoti historiae, ed. Schweighäuser (5 vols., Strassburg, 1816); Herodoti Halicarnassei historiarum libri IX. (ed. Gaisford, Oxford, 1840); Herodotus, with a Commentary, by J. W. Blakesley (2 vols. London, 1854); Herodoti musae (ed. Bähr, 4 vols., Leipzig, 1856-1861, 2nd ed.); and Herodoti historiae (ed. Abicht, Leipzig, 1869).

The most recent editions of the text, or of portions of it, with and without commentaries are the following:—H. Stein, Herodoti Historiae (ed. Major, 2 vols., Berlin, 1869-1871, with apparatus criticus; still the best edition of the text); H. Kellenberg, Historiarum libri IX. (2 vols., Leipzig, 1887); van Herwerden, Ἱστορίαι (Leiden, 1885); H. Stein, Herodotus, erklärt (Berlin, 1856-1861, and several editions since; the best short commentary and introduction); A. H. Sayce, The Ancient Empires of the East, Herodotus I.-III., with introductions and appendices (1883; an attempt to prove the unveracity of Herodotus, especially in regard to the extent of his travels, which has found little support amongst more recent English or German writers); R. W. Macan, Herodotus IV.-VI. (2 vols., 1895) and Herodotus VII.-IX. (2 vols., 1908), with exhaustive introduction, appendices and notes; the only scientific edition of these books in English; E. Abbott, Herodotus V. and VI. (Oxford, 1893); A. Wiedemann, Herodots zweites Buch mit sachlichen Bemerkungen (Leipzig, 1890; the best and fullest commentary on book ii.).

Among works of value illustrative of Herodotus may be mentioned Bouhier, Recherches sur Hérodote (Dijon, 1746); Rennell, Geography of Herodotus (London, 1800); Niebuhr, Geography of Herodotus and Scythia (Eng. trans., Oxford, 1830); Dahlmann, Herodot, aus seinem Buche sein Leben (Altona, 1823); Eltz, Quaestiones Herodoteae (Leipzig, 1841); Kenrick, Egypt of Herodotus (London, 1841); Mure, Literature of Greece, vol. iv. (London, 1852); Abicht, Übersicht über den Herodoteischen Dialekt (Leipzig, 1869, 3rd ed., 1874), and De codicum Herodoti fide ac auctoritate (Naumburg, 1869); Melander, De anacoluthis Herodoteis (Lund, 1869); Matzat, “Über die Glaubenswürdigkeit der geograph. Angaben Herodots über Asien,” in Hermes, vi.; Büdinger, Zur ägyptischen Forschung Herodots (Vienna, 1873, reprinted from the Sitzungsber. of the Vienna Acad.); Merzdorf, Quaestiones grammaticae de dialecto Herodotea (Leipzig, 1875); A. Kirchhoff, Über die Entstehungszeit des Herodotischen Geschichtswerkes (Berlin, 1878); Adolf Bauer, Herodots Biographie (Vienna, 1878); H. Delbrück, Perser und Burgunderkriege (Berlin, 1887; of great importance for the criticism of the Persian Wars); N. Wecklein, Über die Tradition der Perserkriege (Munich, 1876); A. Hauvette-Besnault, Hérodote historien des guerres médiques (Paris, 1894); J. A. R. Munro, Some Observations on the Persian Wars (in various vols. of the Journal of Hellenic Studies; acute and suggestive); G. B. Grundy, The Great Persian War (London, 1901); J. P. Mahaffy, History of Greek Classical Literature, ii. 16 ff. (London, 1880); E. Meyer, Forschungen zur alten Geschichte, i. 151 ff., and ii. 196 ff. (Halle, 1892-1899); Busolt, Griechische Geschichte, ii. 602 ff. (2nd ed., Gotha, 1895); J. B. Bury, Ancient Greek Historians (1908), lecture 2. For notices of current literature see Bursian’s Jahresbericht. Students of the original may also consult with advantage the lexicons of Aemilius Portus (Oxford, 1817) and of Schweighäuser (London, 1824). On Herodotus’ debt to Hecataeus see Wells, in Journ. Hell. Stud., 1909, pt. i.

(G. R.; E. M. W.)

[1] The date of his travels is difficult to determine. E. Meyer inclines to put all the longer journeys, except the Scythian, between 440 and 430 B.C. The journey to Susa and Babylon is put by C. F. Lehmann c. 450 B.C., and by H. Stein before 450.

[2] Most recent critics (e.g. Stein, Meyer, Busolt) put the visit to Egypt after the suppression of the revolt under Inarus and Amyrtaeus (i.e. after 449 B.C.), on the strength of Herod. 2. 30, which implies the restoration of Persian authority.

[3] Stein, Meyer, Busolt, and other recent writers attribute his departure from Halicarnassus to political causes, e.g. the ascendancy of the anti-Athenian party in the state.

[4] This story is on chronological grounds rejected by all recent critics.

[5] Opinion is divided as to this visit to Athens after his settlement at Thurii. Stein, Meyer and Busolt hold that much of his work (especially the later books) was composed at Athens soon after 430 B.C. See further Wachsmuth, Rheinisches Museum, lvi. (1901) 215-218. Macan, Herodotus VII.-IX. (Introduction, pp. xlv.-lxvi.), seeks to prove that the last three books were the first part of the Histories to be composed. He is followed in this view by Bury.

HÉROET, ANTOINE, surnamed La Maison-neuve (d. 1568), French poet, was born in Paris of a family connected with the famous chancellor, François Olivier. His poetry belongs to his early years, for after he had taken orders he ceased to write profane poetry, no doubt because he considered it out of keeping with his calling, in which he attained the dignity of bishop of Digue. His chief work is La Parfaicte Amye (Lyons, 1542) in which he developed the idea of a purely spiritual love, based chiefly on the reading of the Italian Neo-Platonists. The book aroused great controversy. La Borderie replied in L’Amye de cour with a description of a very much more human woman, and Charles Fontaine contributed a Contr’ amye de cour to the dispute. Héroet, in addition to some translations from the classics, wrote the Complainte d’une dame nouvellement surprise d’amour, an Épistre a François Ier, and some pieces included in the now very rare Opuscules d’amour par Héroet, La Borderie et autres divins poëtes (Lyons, 1547). Héroet belongs to the Lyonnese school of which Maurice Scève may be regarded as the leader. Clément Marot praises him, and Ronsard was careful to exempt him with one or two others from the scorn he poured on his immediate predecessors.

See H. F. Cary, The Early French Poets (1846).

HEROIC ROMANCES, the name by which is distinguished a class of imaginative literature which flourished in the 17th century, principally in France. The beginnings of modern fiction in that country took a pseudo-bucolic form, and the celebrated Astrée (1610) of Honoré d’Urfé (1568-1625), which is the earliest French novel, is properly styled a pastoral. But this ingenious and diffuse production, in which all is artificial, was the source of a vast literature, which took many and diverse forms. Although its action was, in the main, languid and sentimental, there was a side of the Astrée which encouraged that extravagant love of glory, that spirit of “panache,” which was now rising to its height in France. That spirit it was which animated Marin le Roy, sieur de Gomberville (1600-1674), who was the inventor of what have since been known as the Heroical Romances. In these there was experienced a violent recrudescence of the old medieval elements of romance, the impossible valour devoted to a pursuit of the impossible beauty, but the whole clothed in the language and feeling and atmosphere of the age in which the books were written. In order to give point to the chivalrous actions of the heroes, it was always hinted that they were well-known public characters of the day in a romantic disguise.

In the Astrée of Honoré d’Urfé, which was a pure pastoral, in the religious romances of Pierre Camus (1582-1653), in the comic Francion of Charles Sorel, piquancy had been given to the recital by this belief that real personages could be recognized under the disguises. But in the Carithée of Gomberville (1621) we have a pastoral which is already beginning to be a heroic romance, and a book in which, under a travesty of Roman history, an appeal is made to an extravagantly chivalrous enthusiasm. A further development was seen in the Polyxène (1623) of François de Molière, and the Endymion (1624) of Gombauld; in the latter the elderly queen, Marie de’ Medici, was celebrated under the disguise of Diana, for whom a beautiful shepherd of Caria (the author himself) nourishes a hopeless passion. The earliest of the Heroic Romances, pure and simple, is, however, the celebrated Polexandre (1629) of Gomberville. The author began by intending his hero to represent Louis XIII., but he changed his mind, and drew a portrait of Cardinal Richelieu. In this novel, for the first time, the romantic character proper to this class of books is seen undiluted; there is no intrusion of a personage who is not celebrated for his birth, his beauty or his exploits. The story deals with the adventures of a hero who visits all the sea-coasts of the world, the most remote as well as the most fabulous, in search of an ineffable princess, Alcidiane. This absurd and pretentious, yet very original piece of invention enjoyed an immense success, and historical romances of a similar class competed for the favour of the public. There was an equal amount of geography and more of ancient history in the Ariane (1632) of Desmarets de Saint-Sorlin (1595-1676), a book which, long neglected, has in late years been rediscovered, and which has been greeted by M. Paul Morillot as the most readable and the least tiresome of all the Heroic Romances. The type of that class of literature, however, has always been found in the highly elaborate writings of Gauthier de Coste de la Calprenède (1609-1663), which enjoyed for a time a prodigious celebrity, and were read and imitated all over Europe. La Calprenède was a Gascon soldier, imbued with all the extravagance of his race, and in full sympathy with the audacity and violence of the aristocratic society of France in his day. His Cassandre, which appeared in ten volumes between 1642 and 1645, is perhaps the most characteristic of all the Heroic Romances. It deals with a highly romantic epoch of ancient history, the decline of the empire of Alexander the Great. The wars of the Persians and of the Scythians are introduced, and among the characters are discovered such personages as Artaxerxes, Roxana and Ephestion. It must not be supposed, however, that la Calprenède makes the smallest effort to deal with the subject accurately or realistically. The figures are those of his own day; they are seigneurs and great ladies of the court of Louis XIII., masquerading in Macedonian raiment. The passion of love is dominant throughout, and it is treated in the most exalted and hyperbolical spirit. The central heroes of the story, Oroondate and Lysimachus, are dignified, eloquent and amorous; they undergo unexampled privations in the quest of incomparable ladies whose beauty and whose nobility is only equalled by their magnificent loyalty. These books were written with an aim that was partly didactic. Their object was to entertain the ladies and to gratify a taste for endlessly wire-drawn sentimentality, but it was also to teach fortitude and grandeur of soul and to inculcate lessons of practical chivalry. La Calprenède followed up the success of his Cassandre with a Cléopâtre (1647) in twelve volumes, and a Faramond (1661) which he did not live to finish. He became more extravagant, more rhapsodical as he proceeded, and he lost all the little hold on history which he had ever held. Cléopâtre, nevertheless, enjoyed a prodigious popularity, and it became the fashion to emulate as far as possible the prowess of its magnificent hero, the proud Artaban. It should be said that la Calprenède objected to his books being styled romances, and insisted that they were specimens of “history embellished with certain inventions.” He may, in opposition to his wishes, claim the doubtful praise of being, in reality, the creator of the modern historical novel. He was immediately imitated or accompanied by a large number of authors, of whom two have achieved a certain immortality, which, unhappily, must be confessed to be partly of ridicule. The vogue of the historical romance was carried to its height by a brother and a sister, Georges de Scudéry (1601-1667) and Madeleine de Scudéry (1608-1701), who represented in their own persons all the extravagant, tempestuous and absurd elements of the age, and whose elephantine romances remain as portents in the history of literature. These novels—there are five of them—were signed by Georges de Scudéry, but it is believed that all were in the main written by Madeleine. The earliest was Ibrahim, ou l’Illustre Bassa (1641); it was followed by Le Grand Cyrus (1648-1653) and the final, and most preposterous member of the series was Clélie (1649-1654). The romances of Mlle de Scudéry (for to her we may safely attribute them) are much inferior in style to those of la Calprenède. They are pretentious, affected and sickly. The author abuses the element of analysis, and pushes a psychology, which was beyond the age in penetration, to a wearisome and excessive extent. Nothing, it is probable, in the whole evolution of the Historical Romances has attracted so much attention as the “Carte de Tendre” which occurs in the opening book of Clélie. This celebrated map, drawn by the heroine in order to show the route from New Friendship to Tender, and a geographical symbol, therefore, of the progress of love, with its city of Tender-upon-Esteem, its sea of Enmity, its river of Inclination, its rock-built citadel of Pride, its cold lake of Indifference, is a miracle of elaborate and incongruous ingenuity. But, amusing as it is, it shows into what depths of puerility the amorous casuistry of these romances had fallen. These novels formed the chief topic of conversation and of correspondence in the literary society which gathered at and around the Hotel de Rambouillet, and in the personages of Mlle de Scudéry’s romances could be recognized all the famous leaders of that society. The mawkish love-making and the false heroism of these monstrous novels went rapidly out of fashion in France soon after 1660, when the epoch of the Heroic Romance came to an end. In England the Heroic Romance had a period of flourishing popularity. All the principal French examples were very promptly translated, and “he was not to be admitted into the academy of wit who had not read Astrea and The Grand Cyrus.” The great vogue of these books in England lasted from about 1645 to 1660. It led, of course, to the composition of original works in imitation of the French. The most remarkable and successful of these was Parthenissa, published in 1654 by Roger Boyle, Lord Broghill and afterwards Earl of Orrery (1621-1679), which was greatly admired by Dorothy Osborne and her correspondents. Addison speaks in the “Spectator” of the popularity of all these huge books, “the Grand Cyrus, with a pin stuck in one of the middle leaves, Clélie, which opened of itself in the place that describes two lovers in a bower.” When the drama, and in particular tragedy, was reinstituted in England, sentimental readers found a field for their emotions on the stage, and the heroic romances immediately began to go out of fashion. They lingered, however, for a quarter of a century more, and M. Jusserand has analysed what may be considered the very latest of the race, Pandion and Amphigenia, published in 1665 by the dramatist, John Crowne.

See Gordon de Percel, De l’usage des romans (1734); André Le Breton, Le Roman au XVIIe siècle (1890); Paul Morillot, Le Roman en France depuis 1610 (1894); J. J. Jusserand, Le Roman anglais au XVIIe siècle (1888).

(E. G.)

HEROIC VERSE, a term exclusively used in English to Indicate the rhymed iambic line or Heroic Couplet. In ancient literature, the heroic verse, ἡρωικὸν μέτρον, was synonymous with the dactylic hexameter. It was in this measure that those typically heroic poems, the Iliad and Odyssey and the Aeneid were written. In English, however, it was not enough to designate a single iambic line of five beats as heroic verse, because it was necessary to distinguish blank verse from the distich, which was formed by the heroic couplet. This had escaped the notice of Dryden, when he wrote “The English Verse, which we call Heroic, consists of no more than ten syllables.” If that were the case, then Paradise Lost would be written in heroic verse, which is not true. What Dryden should have said is “consists of two rhymed lines, each of ten syllables.” In French the alexandrine has always been regarded as the heroic measure of that language. The dactylic movement of the heroic line in ancient Greek, the famous ῥυθμὸς ἡρῷος of Homer, is expressed in modern Europe by the iambic movement. The consequence is that much of the rush and energy of the antique verse, which at vigorous moments was like the charge of a battalion, is lost. It is owing to this, in part, that the heroic couplet is so often required to give, in translation, the full value of a single Homeric hexameter. It is important to insist that it is the couplet, not the single line, which constitutes heroic verse. It is interesting to note that the Latin poet Ennius, as reported by Cicero, called the heroic metre of one line versum longum, to distinguish it from the brevity of lyrical measures. The current form of English heroic verse appears to be the invention of Chaucer, who used it in his Legend of Good Women and afterwards, with still greater freedom, in the Canterbury Tales. Here is an example of it in its earliest development:—

This way of writing was misunderstood and neglected by Chaucer’s English disciples, but was followed nearly a century later by the Scottish poet, called Blind Harry (c. 1475), whose Wallace holds an important place in the history of versification as having passed on the tradition of the heroic couplet. Another Scottish poet, Gavin Douglas, selected heroic verse for his translation of the Aeneid (1513), and displayed, in such examples as the following, a skill which left little room for improvement at the hands of later poets:—

The verse so successfully mastered was, however, not very generally used for heroic purposes in Tudor literature. The early poets of the revival, and Spenser and Shakespeare after them, greatly preferred stanzaic forms. For dramatic purposes blank verse was almost exclusively used, although the French had adopted the rhymed alexandrine for their plays. In the earlier half of the 17th century, heroic verse was often put to somewhat unheroic purposes, mainly in prologues and epilogues, or other short poems of occasion; but it was nobly redeemed by Marlowe in his Hero and Leander and respectably by Browne in his Britannia’s Pastorals. It is to be noted, however, that those Elizabethans who, like Chapman, Warner and Drayton, aimed at producing a warlike and Homeric effect, did so in shambling fourteen-syllable couplets. The one heroic poem of that age written at considerable length in the appropriate national metre is the Bosworth Field of Sir John Beaumont (1582-1628). Since the middle of the 17th century, when heroic verse became the typical and for a while almost the solitary form in which serious English poetry was written, its history has known many vicissitudes. After having been the principal instrument of Dryden and Pope, it was almost entirely rejected by Wordsworth and Coleridge, but revised, with various modifications, by Byron, Shelley (in Julian and Maddalo) and Keats (in Lamia). In the second half of the 19th century its prestige was restored by the brilliant work of Swinburne in Tristram and elsewhere.

(E. G.)

HÉROLD, LOUIS JOSEPH FERDINAND (1791-1833), French musician, the son of François Joseph Hérold, an accomplished pianist, was born in Paris, on the 28th of January 1791. It was not till after his father’s death that Hérold in 1806 entered the Paris conservatoire, where he studied under Catal and Méhul. In 1812 he gained the grand prix de Rome with the cantata La Duchesse de la Vallière, and started for Italy, where he remained till 1815 and composed a symphony, a cantata and several pieces of chamber music. During his stay in Italy also Hérold for the first time ventured on the stage with the opera La Gioventù di Enrico V., first performed at Naples in 1815 with moderate success. During a short stay in Vienna he was much in the society of Salieri. Returning to Paris he was invited by Boieldieu to collaborate with him on an opera called Charles de France, performed in 1816, and soon followed by Hérold’s first French opera, Les Rosières (1817), which was received very favourably. Hérold produced numerous dramatic works for the next fifteen years in rapid succession. Only the names of some of the more important need here be mentioned:—La Clochette (1817), L’Auteur mort et vivant (1820), Marie (1826), and the ballets La Fille mal gardée (1828) and La Belle au bois dormant (1829). Hérold also wrote a vast quantity of pianoforte music, in spite of his time being much occupied by his duties as accompanist at the Italian opera in Paris. In 1831 he produced the romantic opera Zampa, and in the following year Le Pré aux clercs (first performance December 15, 1832), in which French esprit and French chivalry find their most perfect embodiment. These two operas secured immortality for the name of the composer, who died on the 18th of January 1833, of the lung disease from which he had suffered for many years, and the effects of which he had accelerated by incessant work. Hérold’s incomplete opera Ludovic was afterwards printed by J. F. F. Halévy.

HERON (Fr. héron; Ital. aghirone, airone; Lat. ardea; Gr. ἐρωδιός: A.-S. hragra; Icelandic, hegre; Swed. häger; Dan. heire; Ger. Heiger, Reiher, Heergans; Dutch, reiger), a long-necked, long-winged and long-legged bird, the typical representative of the group Ardeidae. It is difficult or even impossible to estimate with any accuracy the number of species of Ardeidae which exist. Professor Hermann Schlegel in 1863 enumerated 61, besides 5 of what he terms “conspecies,” as contained in the collection at Leyden (Mus. des Pays-Bas, Ardeae, 64 pp.),—on the other hand, G. R. Gray in 1871 (Handlist, &c. iii. 26-34) admitted above 90, while Dr Anton Reichenow (Journ. für Ornithologie, 1877, pp. 232-275) recognizes 67 as known, besides 15 “subspecies” and 3 varieties, arranging them in 3 genera, Nycticorax, Botaurus and Ardea, with 17 sub-genera. But it is difficult to separate the family, with any satisfactory result, into genera, if structural characters have to be found for these groups, for in many cases they run almost insensibly into each other—though in common language it is easy to speak of herons, egrets, bitterns, night-herons and boatbills. With the exception of the last, Professor Schlegel retains all in the genus Ardea, dividing it into eight sections, the names of which may perhaps be Englished—great herons, small herons, egrets, semi-egrets, rail-like herons, little bitterns, bitterns and night-herons.

The common heron of Europe, Ardea cinerea of Linnaeus, is universally allowed to be the type of the family, and it may also be regarded as that of Professor Schlegel’s first section. The species inhabits suitable localities throughout the whole of Europe, Africa and Asia, reaching Japan, many of the islands of the Indian Archipelago and even Australia. Though by no means so numerous as formerly in Britain, it is still sufficiently common,[1] and there must be few persons who have not seen it rising slowly from some river-side or marshy flat, or passing overhead in its lofty and leisurely flight on its way to or from its daily haunts; while they are many who have been entertained by watching it as it sought its food, consisting chiefly of fishes (especially eels and flounders) and amphibians—though young birds and small mammals come not amiss—wading midleg in the shallows, swimming occasionally when out of its depth, or standing motionless to strike its prey with its formidable and sure beak. When sufficiently numerous the heron breeds in societies, known as heronries, which of old time were protected both by law and custom in nearly all European countries, on account of the sport their tenants afforded to the falconer. Of late years, partly owing to the withdrawal of the protection they had enjoyed, and still more, it would seem, from agricultural improvement, which, by draining meres, fens and marshes, has abolished the feeding-places of a great population of herons, many of the larger heronries have broken up—the birds composing them dispersing to neighbouring localities and forming smaller settlements, most of which are hardly to be dignified by the name of heronry, though commonly accounted such. Thus the number of so-called heronries in the United Kingdom, and especially in England and Wales, has become far greater than formerly, but no one can doubt that the number of herons has dwindled. The sites chosen by the heron for its nest vary greatly. It is generally built in the top of a lofty tree, but not unfrequently (and this seems to have been much more usual in former days) near or on the ground among rough vegetation, on an island in a lake, or again on a rocky cliff of the coast. It commonly consists of a huge mass of sticks, often the accumulation of years, lined with twigs, and in it are laid from four to six sea-green eggs. The young are clothed in soft flax-coloured down, and remain in the nest for a considerable time, therein differing remarkably from the “pipers” of the crane, which are able to run almost as soon as they are hatched. The first feathers assumed by young herons in a general way resemble those of the adult, but the pure white breast, the black throat-streaks and especially the long pendent plumes, which characterize only the very old birds, and are most beautiful in the cocks, are subsequently acquired. The heron measures about 3 ft. from the bill to the tail, and the expanse of its wings is sometimes not less than 6 ft., yet it weighs only between 3 and 4 ℔.

Large as is the common heron of Europe, it is exceeded in size by the great blue heron of America (Ardea herodias), which generally resembles it in appearance and habits, and both are smaller than the A. sumatrana or A. typhon of India and the Malay Archipelago, while the A. goliath, of wide distribution in Africa and Asia, is the largest of all. The purple heron, A. purpurea, as a well-known European species having a great range over the Old World, also deserves mention here. The species included in Professor Schlegel’s second section inhabit the tropical parts of Africa, Australasia and America. The egrets, forming his third group, require more notice, distinguished as they are by their pure white plumage, and, when in breeding-dress, by the beautiful dorsal tufts of decomposed feathers that ordinarily droop over the tail, and are so highly esteemed as ornaments by Oriental magnates. The largest species is A. occidentalis, only known apparently from Florida and Cuba; but one not much less, the great egret (A. alba), belongs to the Old World, breeding regularly in south-eastern Europe, and occasionally straying to Britain. A third, A. egretta, represents it in America, while much the same may be said of two smaller species, A. garzetta, the little egret of English authors, and A. candidissima; and a sixth, A. intermedia, is common in India, China and Japan, besides occurring in Australia. The group of semi-egrets, containing some nine or ten forms, among which the buff-backed heron (A. bubulcus), is the only species that is known to have occurred in Europe, is hardly to be distinguished from the last section except by their plumage being at certain seasons varied in some species with slaty-blue and in others with rufous. The rail-like herons form Professor Schlegel’s next section, but it can scarcely be satisfactorily differentiated, and the epithet is misleading, for its members have no rail-like affinities, though the typical species, which inhabits the south of Europe, and occasionally finds its way to England, has long been known as A. ralloides.[2] Nearly all these birds are tropical or subtropical. Then there is the somewhat better defined group of little bitterns, containing about a dozen species—the smallest of the whole family. One of them, A. minuta, though very local in its distribution, is a native of the greater part of Europe, and has bred in England. It has a close counterpart in the A. exilis of North America, and is represented by three or four forms in other parts of the world, the A. pusilla of Australia especially differing very slightly from it. Ranged by Professor Schlegel with these birds, which are all remarkable for their skulking habits, but more resembling the true herons in their nature, are the common green bittern of America (A. virescens) and its very near ally the African A. atricapilla, from which last it is almost impossible to distinguish the A. javanica, of wide range throughout Asia and its islands, while other species, less closely related, occur elsewhere as A. flavicollis—one form of which, A. gouldi, inhabits Australia.

The true bitterns, forming the genus Botaurus of most authors, seem to be fairly separable, but more perhaps on account of their wholly nocturnal habits and correspondingly adapted plumage than on strictly structural grounds, though some differences of proportion are observable. The common bittern (q.v.) of Europe (B. stellaris), is widely distributed over the eastern hemisphere.[3] Australia and New Zealand have a kindred species, B. poeciloptilus, and North America a third, B. mugitans[4] or B. lentiginosus. Nine other species from various parts of the world are admitted by Professor Schlegel, but some of them should perhaps be excluded from the genus Botaurus.

Of the night-herons the same author recognizes six species, all of which may be reasonably placed in the genus Nycticorax, characterized by a shorter beak and a few other peculiarities, among which the large eyes deserve mention. The first is N. griseus, a bird widely spread over the Old World, and not unfrequently visiting England, where it would undoubtedly breed if permitted. Professor Schlegel unites with it the common night-heron of America; but this, though very closely allied, is generally deemed distinct, and is the N. naevius or N. gardeni of most writers. A clearly different American species, with a more southern habitat, is the N. violaceus or N. cayennensis, while others are found in South America, Australia, some of the Asiatic Islands and in West Africa. The Galapagos have a peculiar species, N. pauper, and another, so far as is known, peculiar to Rodriguez, N. megacephalus, existed in that island at the time of its being first colonized, but is now extinct.

The boatbill, of which only one species is known, seems to be merely a night-heron with an exaggerated bill,—so much widened as to suggest its English name,—but has always been allowed generic rank. This curious bird, the Cancroma cochlearia of most authors, is a native of tropical America, and what is known of its habits shows that they are essentially those of a Nycticorax.[5]

Bones of the common heron and bittern are not uncommon in the peat of the East-Anglian fens. Remains from Sansan and Langy in France have been referred by Alphonse Milne-Edwards to herons under the names of Ardea perplexa and A. formosa; a tibia from the Miocene of Steinheim am Albuch by Dr Fraas to an A. similis, while Sir R. Owen recognized a portion of a sternum from the London Clay as most nearly approaching this family.

It remains to say that the herons form part of Huxley’s section Pelargomorphae, belonging to his larger group Desmognathae, and to draw attention to the singular development of the patches of “powder-down” which in the family Ardeidae attain a magnitude hardly to be found elsewhere. Their use is utterly unknown.

(A. N.)

[1] In many parts of England it is generally called a “hernser”—being a corruption of “heronsewe,” which, as Professor Skeat states (Etymol. Dictionary, p. 264), is a perfectly distinct word from “heronshaw,” commonly confounded with it. The further corruption of “hernser” into “handsaw,” as in the well-known proverb, was easy in the mouth of men to whom hawking the heronsewe was unfamiliar.

[2] It is the “Squacco-Heron” of modern British authors—the distinctive name, given “Sguacco” by Willughby and Ray from Aldrovandus, having been misspelt by Latham.

[3] The last-recorded instance of the bittern breeding in England was in 1868, as mentioned by Stevenson (Birds of Norfolk, ii. 164).

[4] Richardson, a most accurate observer, asserts (Fauna Boreali-Americana, ii. 374) that its booming (whence the epithet) exactly resembles that of its Old-World congener, but American ornithologists seem only to have heard the croaking note it makes when disturbed.

[5] The very wonderful shoe-bird (Balaeniceps) has been regarded by many authorities as allied to Cancroma; but there can be little doubt that it is more nearly related to the genus Scopus belonging to the storks. The sun-bittern (Eurypyga) forms a family of itself, allied to the rails and cranes.

HERPES (from the Gr. ἕρπειν, to creep), an inflammation of the true skin resulting from a lesion of the underlying nerve or its ganglion, attended with the formation of isolated or grouped vesicles of various sizes upon a reddened base. They contain a clear fluid, and either rupture or dry up. Two well-marked varieties of herpes are frequently met with. (a) In herpes labialis et nasalis the eruption occurs about the lips and nose. It is seen in cases of certain acute febrile ailments, such as fevers, inflammation of the lungs or even in a severe cold. It soon passes off. (b) In the herpes zoster, zona or “shingles” the eruption occurs in the course of one or more cutaneous nerves, often on one side of the trunk, but it may be on the face, limbs or other parts. It may occur at any age, but is probably more frequently met with in elderly people. The appearance of the eruption is usually preceded by severe stinging neuralgic pains for several days, and, not only during the continuance of the herpetic spots, but long after they have dried up and disappeared, these pains sometimes continue and give rise to great suffering. The disease seldom recurs. The most that can be done for its relief is to protect the parts with cotton wool or some dusting powder, while the pain may be allayed by opiates or bromide of potassium. Quinine internally is often of service.

HERRERA, FERNANDO DE (c. 1534-1597), Spanish lyrical poet, was born at Seville. Although in minor orders, he addressed many impassioned poems to the countess of Gelves, wife of Alvaro Colon de Portugal; but it is suggested that these should be regarded as Platonic literary exercises in the manner of Petrarch. As is shown by his Anotaciones á las obras de Garcilaso de la Vega (1580), Herrera had a boundless admiration for the Italian poets, and continued the work of Boscán in naturalizing the Italian metrical system in Spain. His commentary on Garcilaso involved him in a series of literary polemics, and his verbal innovations laid him open to attack. But, even if his amatory sonnets are condemned as insincere in sentiment, their workmanship is admirable, while his odes on the battle of Lepanto, on Don John of Austria, and the elegy on King Sebastian of Portugal entitle him to rank as the greatest of Andalusian poets and as the most important of the followers of Garcilaso de la Vega (see [Vega]). His poems were published in 1582, and reprinted with additions in 1619; they are reissued in the Biblioteca de autores españoles, vol. xxxii. Of Herrera’s prose works only the Vida y muerta de Tomas Moro (1592) survives; it is a translation of the life in Thomas Stapleton’s Tres Thomae (1588).

Bibliography.—E. Bourciez, “Les Sonnets de Fernando de Herrera,” Annales de la Faculté des Lettres de Bordeaux (1891); Fernando de Herrera, controversia sobre sus anotaciones á les obras de Garcilaso de la Vega (Seville, 1870); A. Morel-Fatio, L’Hymne sur Lépante (Paris, 1893).

HERRERA, FRANCISCO (1576-1656), surnamed el Viejo (the old), Spanish historical and fresco painter, studied under Luis Fernandez in Seville, his native city, where he spent most of his life. Although so rough and coarse in manners that neither scholar nor child could remain with him, the great talents of Herrera, and the promptitude with which he used them, brought him abundant commissions. He was also a skilful worker in bronze, an accomplishment that led to his being charged with coining base money. From this accusation, whether true or false, he sought sanctuary in the Jesuit college of San Hermenegildo, which he adorned with a fine picture of its patron saint. Philip IV., on his visit to Seville in 1624, having seen this picture, and learned the position of the artist, pardoned him at once, warning him, however, that such powers as his should not be degraded. In 1650 Herrera removed to Madrid, where he lived in great honour till his death in 1656. Herrera was the first to relinquish the timid Italian manner of the old Spanish school of painting, and to initiate the free, vigorous touch and style which reached such perfection in Velazquez, who had been for a short time his pupil. His pictures are marked by an energy of design and freedom of execution quite in keeping with his bold, rough character. He is said to have used very long brushes in his painting; and it is also said that, when pupils failed, his servant used to dash the colours on the canvas with a broom under his directions, and that he worked them up into his designs before they dried. The drawing in his pictures is correct, and the colouring original and skilfully managed, so that the figures stand out in striking relief. What has been considered his best easel-work, the “Last Judgment,” in the church of San Bernardo at Seville, is an original and striking composition, showing in its treatment of the nude how ill-founded the common belief was that Spanish painters, through ignorance of anatomy, understood only the draped figure. Perhaps his best fresco is that on the dome of the church of San Buenaventura; but many of his frescoes have perished, some by the effects of the weather and others by the artist’s own carelessness in preparing his surfaces. He has, however, preserved several of his own designs in etchings. For his easel-works Herrera often chose such humble subjects as fairs, carnivals, ale-houses and the like.

His son Francisco Herrara (1622-1685), surnamed el Mozo (the young), was also an historical and fresco painter. Unable to endure his father’s cruelty, the younger Herrera, seizing what money he could find, fled from Seville to Rome. There, instead of devoting himself to the antiquities and the works of the old Italian masters, he gave himself up to the study of architecture and perspective, with the view of becoming a fresco-painter. He did not altogether neglect easel-work, but became renowned for his pictures of still-life, flowers and fruit, and from his skill in painting fish was called by the Italians Lo Spagnuolo degli pesci. In later life he painted portraits with great success. He returned to Seville on hearing of his father’s death, and in 1660 was appointed subdirector of the new academy there under Murillo. His vanity, however, brooked the superiority of no one; and throwing up his appointment he went to Madrid. There he was employed to paint a San Hermenegildo for the barefooted Carmelites, and to decorate in fresco the roof of the choir of San Felipe el Real. The success of this last work procured for him a commission from Philip IV. to paint in fresco the roof of the Atocha church. He chose as his subject for this the Assumption of the Virgin. Soon afterwards he was rewarded with the title of painter to the king, and was appointed superintendent of the royal buildings. He died at Madrid in 1685. Herrera el Mozo was of a somewhat similar temperament to his father, and offended many people by his inordinate vanity and suspicious jealousy. His pictures are inferior to the older Herrera’s both in design and in execution; but in some of them traces of the vigour of his father, who was his first teacher, are visible. He was by no means an unskilful colourist, and was especially master of the effects of chiaroscuro. As his best picture Sir Edmund Head in his Handbook names his “San Francisco,” in Seville Cathedral. An elder brother, known as Herrera el Rubio (the ruddy), who died very young, gave great promise as a painter.

HERRERA Y TORDESILLAS, ANTONIO DE (1549-1625), Spanish historian, was born at Cuellar, in the province of Segovia in Spain. His father, Roderigo de Tordesillas, and his mother, Agnes de Herrera, were both of good family. After studying for some time in his native country, Herrera proceeded to Italy, and there became secretary to Vespasian Gonzago, with whom, on his appointment as viceroy of Navarre, he returned to Spain. Gonzago, sensible of his secretary’s abilities, commended him to Philip II. of Spain; and that monarch appointed Herrera first historiographer of the Indies, and one of the historiographers of Castile. Placed thus in the enjoyment of an ample salary, Herrera devoted the rest of his life to the pursuit of literature, retaining his offices until the reign of Philip IV., by whom he was appointed secretary of state very shortly before his death, which took place at Madrid on the 29th of March 1625. Of Herrera’s writings, the most valuable is his Historia general de los hechos de los Castellanos en las islas y tierra firme del Mar Oceano (Madrid, 1601-1615, 4 vols.), a work which relates the history of the Spanish-American colonies from 1492 to 1554. The author’s official position gave him access to the state papers and to other authentic sources not attainable by other writers, while he did not scruple to borrow largely from other MSS., especially from that of Bartolomé de Las Casas. He used his facilities carefully and judiciously; and the result is a work on the whole accurate and unprejudiced, and quite indispensable to the student either of the history of the early colonies, or of the institutions and customs of the aboriginal American peoples. Although it is written in the form of annals, mistakes are not wanting, and several glaring anachronisms have been pointed out by M. J. Quintana. “If,” to quote Dr Robertson, “by attempting to relate the various occurrences in the New World in a strict chronological order, the arrangement of events in his work had not been rendered so perplexed, disconnected and obscure that it is an unpleasant task to collect from different parts of his book and piece together the detached shreds of a story, he might justly have been ranked among the most eminent historians of his country.” This work was republished in 1730, and has been translated into English by J. Stevens (London, 1740), and into other European languages.

Herrera’s other works are the following: Historia de lo sucedido en Escocia é Inglaterra en quarenta y quatro años que vivió la reyna Maria Estuarda (Madrid, 1589); Cinco libros de la historia de Portugal, y conquista de las islas de los Açores, 1582-1583 (Madrid, 1591); Historia de lo sucedido en Francia, 1585-1594 (Madrid, 1598); Historia general del mundo del tiempo del rey Felipe II, desde 1559 hasta su muerte (Madrid, 1601-1612, 3 vols.); Tratado, relacion, y discurso historico de los movimientos de Aragon (Madrid, 1612); Comentarios de los hechos de los Españoles, Franceses, y Venecianos en Italia, &c., 1281-1559 (Madrid, 1624, seq.). See W. H. Prescott, History of the Conquest of Mexico, vol. ii.

HERRICK, ROBERT (1591-1674), English poet, was born at Cheapside, London, and baptized on the 24th of August 1591. He belonged to an old Leicestershire family which had settled in London. He was the seventh child of Nicholas Herrick, goldsmith, of the city of London, who died in 1592, under suspicion of suicide. The children were brought up by their uncle, Sir William Herrick, one of the richest goldsmiths of the day, to whom in 1607 Robert was bound apprentice. He had probably been educated at Westminster school, and in 1614 he proceeded to Cambridge; and it was no doubt during his apprenticeship that the young poet was introduced to that circle of wits which he was afterwards to adorn. He seems to have been present at the first performance of The Alchemist in 1610, and it was probably about this time that Ben Jonson adopted him as his poetical “son.” He entered the university as fellow-commoner of St John’s College, and he remained there until, in 1616, upon taking his degree, he removed to Trinity Hall. A lively series of fourteen letters to his uncle, mainly begging for money, exists at Beaumanoir, and shows that Herrick suffered much from poverty at the university. He took his B.A. in 1617, and in 1620 he became master of arts. From this date until 1627 we entirely lose sight of him; it has been variously conjectured that he spent these years preparing for the ministry at Cambridge, or in much looser pursuits in London. In 1629 (September 30) he was presented by the king to the vicarage of Dean Prior, not far from Totnes in Devonshire. At Dean Prior he resided quietly until 1648, when he was ejected by the Puritans. The solitude there oppressed him at first; the village was dull and remote, and he felt very bitterly that he was cut off from all literary and social associations; but soon the quiet existence in Devonshire soothed and delighted him. He was pleased with the rural and semi-pagan customs that survived in the village, and in some of his most charming verses he has immortalized the morris-dances, wakes and quintains, the Christmas mummers and the Twelfth Night revellings, that diversified the quiet of Dean Prior. Herrick never married, but lived at the vicarage surrounded by a happy family of pets, and tended by an excellent old servant named Prudence Baldwin. His first appearance in print was in some verses he contributed to A Description of the King and Queen of Fairies, in 1635. In 1650 a volume of Wit’s Recreations contained sixty-two small poems afterwards acknowledged by Herrick in the Hesperides, and one not reprinted until our own day. These partial appearances make it probable that he visited London from time to time. We have few hints of his life as a clergyman. Anthony Wood says that Herricks’s sermons were florid and witty, and that he was “beloved by the neighbouring gentry.” A very aged woman, one Dorothy King, stated that the poet once threw his sermon at his congregation, cursing them for their inattention. The same old woman recollected his favourite pig, which he taught to drink out of a tankard. He was a devotedly loyal supporter of the king during the Civil War, and immediately upon his ejection in 1648 he published his celebrated collection of lyrical poems, entitled Hesperides; or the Works both Human and Divine of Robert Herrick. The “divine works” bore the title of Noble Numbers and the date 1647. That he was reduced to great poverty in London has been stated, but there is no evidence of the fact. In August 1662 Herrick returned to Dean Prior, supplanting his own supplanter, Dr John Syms. He died in his eighty-fourth year, and was buried at Dean Prior, October 15, 1674. A monument was erected to his memory in the parish church in 1857, by Mr Perry Herrick, a descendant of a collateral branch of the family. The Hesperides (and Noble Numbers) is the only volume which Herrick published, but he contributed poems to Lachrymae Musarum (1649) and to Wit’s Recreations.

As a pastoral lyrist Herrick stands first among English poets. His genius is limited in scope, and comparatively unambitious, but in its own field it is unrivalled. His tiny poems—and of the thirteen hundred that he has left behind him not one is long—are like jewels of various value, heaped together in a casket. Some are of the purest water, radiant with light and colour, some were originally set in false metal that has tarnished, some were rude and repulsive from the first. Out of the unarranged, heterogeneous mass the student has to select what is not worth reading, but, after he has cast aside all the rubbish, he is astonished at the amount of excellent and exquisite work that remains. Herrick has himself summed up, very correctly, the themes of his sylvan muse when he says:—

He saw the picturesqueness of English homely life as no one before him had seen it, and he described it in his verse with a certain purple glow of Arcadian romance over it, in tones of immortal vigour and freshness. His love poems are still more beautiful; the best of them have an ardour and tender sweetness which give them a place in the forefront of modern lyrical poetry, and remind us of what was best in Horace and in the poets of the Greek anthology.

After suffering complete extinction for more than a century, the fame of Herrick was revived by John Nichols, who introduced his poems to the readers of the Gentleman’s Magazine of 1796 and 1797. Dr Drake followed in 1798 with considerable enthusiasm. By 1810 interest had so far revived in the forgotten poet that Dr Nott ventured to print a selection from his poems, which attracted the favourable notice of the Quarterly Review. In 1823 the Hesperides and the Noble Numbers were for the first time edited by Mr T. Maitland, afterwards Lord Dundrennan. Since then the reprints of Herrick’s have been too numerous to be mentioned here; there are few English poets of the 17th century whose writings are now more accessible. See F. W. Moorman, Robert Herrick (1910).

(E. G.)

HERRIES, JOHN CHARLES (1778-1855), English politician, son of a London merchant, began his career as a junior clerk in the treasury, and became known for his financial abilities as private secretary to successive ministers. He was appointed commissary-in-chief (1811), and, on the abolition of that office (1816), auditor of the civil list. In 1823 he entered parliament as secretary to the treasury, and in 1827 became chancellor of the exchequer under Lord Goderich; but in consequence of internal differences, arising partly out of a slight put upon Herries, the ministry was broken up, and in 1828 he was appointed master of the mint. In 1830 he became president of the board of trade, and for the earlier months of 1835 he was secretary at war. From 1841 to 1847 he was out of parliament, but during 1852 he was president of the board of control under Lord Derby. He was a consistent and upright Tory of the old school, who carried weight as an authority on financial subjects. His eldest son, Sir Charles John Herries (1815-1882), was chairman of the board of inland revenue.

See the Life by his younger son, Edward Herries (1880).

HERRIES, JOHN MAXWELL, 4th Lord (c. 1512-1583), Scottish politician, was the second son of Robert Maxwell, 4th Lord Maxwell (d. 1546). In 1547 he married Agnes (d. 1594), daughter of William Herries, 3rd Lord Herries (d. 1543), a grandson of Herbert Herries (d. c. 1500) of Terregles, Kirkcudbrightshire, who was created a lord of the Scottish parliament about 1490, and in 1567 he obtained the title of Lord Herries. But before this event Maxwell had become prominent among the men who rallied round Mary queen of Scots, although during the earlier part of his public life he had been associated with the religious reformers and had been imprisoned by the regent, Mary of Lorraine. He was, moreover—at least until 1563—very friendly with John Knox, who calls him “a man zealous and stout in God’s cause.” But the transition from one party to the other was gradually accomplished, and from March 1566, when Maxwell joined Mary at Dunbar after the murder of David Rizzio and her escape from Holyrood, he remained one of her staunchest friends, although he disliked her marriage with Bothwell. He led her cavalry at Langside, and after this battle she committed herself to his care. Herries rode with the queen into England in May 1568, and he and John Lesley, bishop of Ross, were her chief commissioners at the conferences at York. He continued to labour in Mary’s cause after returning to Scotland, and was imprisoned by the regent Murray; he also incurred Elizabeth’s displeasure by harbouring the rebel Leonard Dacres, but he soon made his peace with the English queen. He showed himself in general hostile to the regent Morton, but he was among the supporters of the regent Lennox until his death on the 20th of January 1583. His son William, 5th Lord Herries (d. 1604), was, like his father, warden of the west marches.

William’s grandson John, 7th Lord Herries (d. 1677), became 3rd earl of Nithsdale in succession to his cousin Robert Maxwell, the 2nd earl, in 1667. John’s grandson was William, 5th earl of Nithsdale, the Jacobite (see [Nithsdale]). William was deprived of his honours in 1716, but in 1858 the House of Lords decided that his descendant William Constable-Maxwell (1804-1876) was rightly Lord Herries of Terregles. In 1876 William’s son Marmaduke Constable-Maxwell (b. 1837) became 12th Lord Herries, and in 1884 he was created a baron of the United Kingdom.

HERRING (Clupea harengus, Häring in German, le hareng in French, sill in Swedish), a fish belonging to the genus Clupea, of which more than sixty different species are known in various parts of the globe. The sprat, pilchard or sardine and shad are species of the same genus. Of all sea-fishes Clupeae are the most abundant; for although other genera may comprise a greater variety of species, they are far surpassed by Clupea with regard to the number of individuals. The majority of the species of Clupea are of greater or less utility to man; it is only a few tropical species that acquire, probably from their food, highly poisonous properties, so as to be dangerous to persons eating them. But no other species equals the common herring in importance as an article of food or commerce. It inhabits in incredible numbers the North Sea, the northern parts of the Atlantic and the seas north of Asia. The herring inhabiting the corresponding latitudes of the North Pacific is another species, but most closely allied to that of the eastern hemisphere. Formerly it was the general belief that the herring inhabits the open ocean close to the Arctic Circle, and that it migrates at certain seasons towards the northern coasts of Europe and America. This view has been proved to be erroneous, and we know now that this fish lives throughout the year in the vicinity of our shores, but at a greater depth, and at a greater distance from the coast, than at the time when it approaches land for the purpose of spawning.

Herrings are readily recognized and distinguished from the other species of Clupea by having an ovate patch of very small teeth on the vomer (that is, the centre of the palate). In the dorsal fin they have from 17 to 20 rays, and in the anal fin from 16 to 18; there are from 53 to 59 scales in the lateral line and 54 to 56 vertebrae in the vertebral column. They have a smooth gill-cover, without those radiating ridges of bone which are so conspicuous in the pilchard and other Clupeae. The sprat cannot be confounded with the herring, as it has no teeth on the vomer and only 47 or 48 scales in the lateral line.

The spawn of the herring is adhesive, and is deposited on rough gravelly ground at varying distances from the coast and always in comparatively shallow water. The season of spawning is different in different places, and even in the same district, e.g. the east coast of Scotland, there are herrings spawning in spring and others in autumn. These are not the same fish but different races. Those which breed in winter or spring deposit their spawn near the coast at the mouths of estuaries, and ascend the estuaries to a considerable distance at certain times, as in the Firths of Forth and Clyde, while those which spawn in summer or autumn belong more to the open sea, e.g. the great shoals that visit the North Sea annually.

Herrings grow very rapidly; according to H. A. Meyer’s observations, they attain a length of from 17 to 18 mm. during the first month after hatching, 34 to 36 mm. during the second, 45 to 50 mm. during the third, 55 to 61 mm. during the fourth, and 65 to 72 mm. during the fifth. The size which they finally attain and their general condition depend chiefly on the abundance of food (which consists of crustaceans and other small marine animals), on the temperature of the water, on the season at which they have been hatched, &c. Their usual size is about 12 in., but in some particularly suitable localities they grow to a length of 15 in., and instances of specimens measuring 17 in. are on record. In the Baltic, where the water is gradually losing its saline constituents, thus becoming less adapted for the development of marine species, the herring continues to exist in large numbers, but as a dwarfed form, not growing either to the size or to the condition of the North-Sea herring. The herring of the American side of the Atlantic is specifically identical with that of Europe. A second species (Clupea leachii) has been supposed to exist on the British coast; but it comprises only individuals of a smaller size, the produce of an early or late spawn. Also the so-called “white-bait” is not a distinct species, but consists chiefly of the fry or the young of herrings and sprats, and is obtained “in perfection” at localities where these small fishes find an abundance of food, as in the estuary of the Thames.

Several excellent accounts of the herring have been published, as by Valenciennes in the 20th vol. of the Histoire naturelle des poissons, and more especially by Mr J. M. Mitchell, The Herring, its Natural History and National Importance (Edinburgh, 1864). Recent investigations are described in the Reports of the Fishery Board for Scotland, and in the reports of the German Kommission zur Untersuchung der Deutschen Meere (published at Kiel).

(J. T. C.)

HERRING-BONE, a term in architecture applied to alternate courses of bricks or stone, which are laid diagonally with binding courses above and below: this is said to give a better bond to the wall, especially when the stone employed is stratified, such as Stonefield stone, and too thin to be laid in horizontal courses. Although it is only occasionally found in modern buildings, it was a type of construction constantly employed in Roman, Byzantine and Romanesque work, and in the latter is regarded as a test of very early date. It is frequently found in the Byzantine walls in Asia Minor, and in Byzantine churches was employed decoratively to give variety to the wall surface. Sometimes the diagonal courses are reversed one above the other. Examples in France exist in the churches at Querqueville in Normandy and St Christophe at Suèvres (Loir et Cher), both dating from the 10th century, and in England herring-bone masonry is found in the walls of castles, such as at Guildford, Colchester and Tamworth. The term is also applied to the paving of stable yards with bricks laid flat diagonally and alternating so that the head of one brick butts against the side of another; and the effect is more pleasing than when laid in parallel courses.

HERRINGS, BATTLE OF THE, the name applied to the action of Rouvray, fought in 1429 between the French (and Scots) and the English, who, under Sir John Falstolfe (or Falstaff), were convoying Lenten provisions, chiefly herrings, to the besiegers of Orleans. (See [Orleans] and [Hundred Years’ War].)

HERRNHUT, a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Saxony, 18 m. S.E. of Bautzen, and situated on the Löbau-Zittau railway. Pop. 1200. It is chiefly known as the principal seat of the Moravian or Bohemian brotherhood, the members of which are called Herrnhuter. A colony of these people, fleeing from persecution in Moravia, settled at Herrnhut in 1722 on a site presented by Count Zinzendorf. The buildings of the society include a church, a school and houses for the brethren, the sisters and the widowed of both sexes, while it possesses an ethnographical museum and other collections of interest. The town is remarkable for its ordered, regular life and its scrupulous cleanliness. Linen, paper (to varieties of which Herrnhut gives its name), tobacco and various minor articles are manufactured. The Hutberg, at the foot of which the town lies, commands a pleasant view. Berthelsdorf, a village about a mile distant, has been the seat of the directorate of the community since about 1789.

HERSCHEL, CAROLINE LUCRETIA (1750-1848), English astronomer, sister of Sir William Herschel, the eighth child and fourth daughter of her parents, was born at Hanover on the 16th of March 1750. On account of the prejudices of her mother, who did not desire her to know more than was necessary for being useful in the family, she received, in youth only the first elements of education. After the death of her father in 1767 she obtained permission to learn millinery and dressmaking with a view to earning her bread, but continued to assist her mother in the management of the household until the autumn of 1772, when she joined her brother William, who had established himself as a teacher of music at Bath. At once she became a valuable co-operator with him both in his professional duties and in the astronomical researches to which he had already begun to devote all his spare time. She was the principal singer at his oratorio concerts, and acquired such a reputation as a vocalist that she was offered an engagement for the Birmingham festival, which, however, she declined. When her brother accepted the office of astronomer to George III., she became his constant assistant in his observations, and also executed the laborious calculations which were connected with them. For these services she received from the king in 1787 a salary of £50 a year. Her chief amusement during her leisure hours was sweeping the heavens with a small Newtonian telescope. By this means she detected in 1783 three remarkable nebulae, and during the eleven years 1786-1797 eight comets, five of them with unquestioned priority. In 1797 she presented to the Royal Society an Index to Flamsteed’s observations, together with a catalogue of 561 stars accidentally omitted from the “British Catalogue,” and a list of the errata in that publication. Though she returned to Hanover in 1822 she did not abandon her astronomical studies, and in 1828 she completed the reduction, to January 1800, of 2500 nebulae discovered by her brother. In 1828 the Astronomical Society, to mark their sense of the benefits conferred on science by such a series of laborious exertions, unanimously resolved to present her with their gold medal, and in 1835 elected her an honorary member of the society. In 1846 she received a gold medal from the king of Prussia. She died on the 9th of January 1848.

See The Memoir and Correspondence of Caroline Herschel, by Mrs John Herschel (1876).

HERSCHEL, SIR FREDERICK WILLIAM (1738-1822), generally known as Sir William Herschel, English astronomer, was born at Hanover on the 15th of November 1738. His father was a musician employed as hautboy player in the Hanoverian guard. The family had quitted Moravia for Saxony in the early part of the 17th century on account of religious troubles, they themselves being Protestants. Herschel’s earlier education was necessarily of a very limited character, chiefly owing to the warlike commotions of his country; but being at all times an indomitable student, he, by his own exertions, more than repaired this deficiency. He became a very skilful musician, both theoretical and practical; while his attainments as a self-taught mathematician were fully adequate to the prosecution of those branches of astronomy which he so eminently advanced and adorned. Whatever he did he did methodically and thoroughly; and in this methodical thoroughness lay the secret of what Arago very properly termed his astonishing scientific success.

In 1752, at the age of fourteen, he joined the band of the Hanoverian guard, and with his detachment visited England in 1755, accompanied by his father and eldest brother; in the following year he returned to his native country; but the hardships of campaigning during the Seven Years’ War imperilling his health, his parents privately removed him from the regiment, and on the 26th of July 1757 despatched him to England. There, as might have been expected, the earlier part of his career was attended with formidable difficulties and much privation. We find him engaged in several towns in the north of England as organist and teacher of music, which were not lucrative occupations. But the tide of his fortunes began to flow when he obtained in 1766 the appointment of organist to the Octagon chapel in Bath, at that time the resort of the wealth and fashion of the city.

During the next five or six years he became the leading musical authority, and the director of all the chief public musical entertainments at Bath. His circumstances having thus become easier, he revisited Hanover for the purpose of bringing back with him his sister Caroline, whose services he much needed in his multifarious undertakings. She arrived in Bath in August 1772, being at that time in her twenty-third year. She thus describes her brother’s life soon after her arrival: “He used to retire to bed with a bason of milk or a glass of water, with Smith’s Harmonics and Ferguson’s Astronomy, &c., and so went to sleep buried under his favourite authors; and his first thoughts on waking were how to obtain instruments for viewing those objects himself of which he had been reading.” It is not without significance that we find him thus reading Smith’s Harmonics; to that study loyalty to his profession would impel him; as a reward for his thoroughness this led him to Smith’s Optics; and this, by a natural sequence, again led him to astronomy, for the purposes of which the chief optical instruments were devised. It was in this way that he was introduced to the writings of Ferguson and Keill, and subsequently to those of Lalande, whereby he educated himself to become an astronomer of undying fame. In those days telescopes were very rare, very expensive and not very efficient, for the Dollonds had not as yet perfected even their beautiful little achromatics of 2¾ in. aperture. So Herschel was obliged to content himself with hiring a small Gregorian reflector of about 2 in. aperture, which he had seen exposed for loan in a tradesman’s shop. Not satisfied with this implement, he procured a small lens of about 18 ft. focal length, and set his sister to work on a pasteboard tube to match it, so as to make him a telescope. This unsatisfactory material was soon replaced by tin, and thus a sorry sort of vision was obtained of Jupiter, Saturn and the moon. He then sought in London for a reflector of much larger dimensions; but no such instrument was on sale; and the terms demanded for the construction of a reflecting telescope of 5 or 6 ft. focal length he regarded as too exorbitant even for the gratification of such desires as his own. So he was driven to the only alternative that remained; he must himself build a large telescope. His first step in this direction was to purchase the débris of an amateur’s implements for grinding and polishing small mirrors; and thus, by slow degrees, and by indomitable perseverance, he in 1774 had, as he says, the satisfaction of viewing the heavens with a Newtonian telescope of 6 ft. focal length made by his own hands. But he was not contented to be a mere star-gazer; on the contrary, he had from the very first conceived the gigantic project of surveying the entire heavens, and, if possible, of ascertaining the plan of their general structure by a settled mode of procedure, if only he could provide himself with adequate instrumental means. For this purpose he, his brother and his sister toiled for many years at the grinding and polishing of hundreds of specula, always retaining the best and recasting the others, until the most perfect of the earlier products had been surpassed. This was the work of the daylight in those seasons of the year when the fashionable visitors of Bath had quitted the place, and had thus freed the family from professional duties. After 1774 every available hour of the night was devoted to the long-hoped-for scrutiny of the skies. In those days no machinery had been invented for the construction of telescopic mirrors; the man who had the hardihood to undertake polishing them doomed himself to walk leisurely and uniformly round an upright post for many hours, without removing his hands from the mirror, until his work was done. On these occasions Herschel received his food from the hands of his faithful sister. But his reward was nigh.

In May 1780 his first two papers containing some results of his observations on the variable star “Mira” and the mountains of the moon were communicated to the Royal Society through the influential introduction of Dr William Watson. Herschel had made his acquaintance in a characteristic manner. In order to obtain a sight of the moon the astronomer had taken his telescope into the street opposite his house; the celebrated physician happening to pass at the time, and seeing his eye removed for a moment from the instrument, requested permission to take his place. The mutual courtesies and intelligent conversation which ensued soon ripened this casual acquaintance into a solid and enduring regard.

The phenomena of variable stars were examined by Herschel as a guide to what might be occurring in our own sun. The sun, he knew, rotated on its axis, and he knew that dark spots often exist on its photosphere; the questions that he put to himself were—Are there dark spots also on variable stars? Do the stars also rotate on their axes? or are they sometimes partially eclipsed by the intervention of opaque bodies? And he went on to enquire, What are these singular spots upon the sun? and have they any practical relation to the inhabitants of this planet? To these questions he applied his telescopes and his thoughts; and he communicated the results to the Royal Society in no less than six memoirs, occupying very many pages in the Philosophical Transactions, and extending in date from 1780 to 1801. It was in the latter year that these remarkable papers culminated in the inquiry whether any relation could be traced in the recurrence of sun-spots, regarded as evidences of solar activity, and the varying seasons of our planet, as exhibited by the varying price of corn. Herschel’s reply was inconclusive; nor has a final solution of the related problems yet been obtained.

In 1781 he communicated to the Royal Society the first of a series of papers on the rotation of the planets and of their several satellites. The object which he had in view was not so much to ascertain the times of their rotation as to discover whether those rotations are strictly uniform. From the result he expected to gather, by analogy, the probability of an alteration in the length of our own day. These inquiries occupy the greater part of seven memoirs extending from 1781 to 1797. While engaged on them he noticed the curious appearance of a white spot near to each of the poles of the planet Mars. On investigating the inclination of its axis to the plane of its orbit, and finding that it differed little from that of the earth, he concluded that its changes of climate also would resemble our own, and that these white patches were probably polar snow. Modern researches have confirmed his conclusion. He also discovered that, as far as his observations extended, the times of the rotations of the various satellites round their axes conform to the analogy of our moon by equalling the times of their revolution round their primaries. Here again we perceive that his discoveries arose out of the systematic and comprehensive nature of his investigation. Nothing with such a man is accidental.

In the same year (1781) Herschel made a discovery which completely altered the character of his professional life. In the course of a methodical review of the heavens he lighted on an object which at first he supposed to be a comet, but which, by its subsequent motions and appearance, averred itself to be a new planet, moving outside the orbit of Saturn. The name of Georgium Sidus was by him assigned to it, but has by general consent been laid aside in favour of Uranus. The object was detected with a 7-ft. reflector having an aperture of 6½ in.; subsequently, when he had provided himself with a much more powerful telescope, of 20 ft. focal length, he discovered, as he believed, no less than six Uranian satellites. Modern observations, while abolishing four of these supposed attendants, have added two others apparently not observed by Herschel. Seven memoirs on the subject were communicated by him to the Royal Society, extending from the date of the discovery in 1781 to 1815. A noteworthy peculiarity in Herschel’s mode of observation led to the discovery of this planet. He had observed that the spurious diameters of stars are not much affected by increasing the magnifying powers, but that the case is different with other celestial objects; hence if anything in his telescopic field struck him as unusual in aspect, he immediately varied the magnifying power in order to decide its nature. Thus Uranus was discovered; and had a similar method been applied to Neptune, that planet would have been found at Cambridge some months before it was recognized at Berlin.

We now come to the beginning of Herschel’s most important series of observations, culminating in what ought probably to be regarded as his capital discovery. A material part of the task which he had set himself embraced the determination of the relative distances of the stars from our sun and from each other. Now, in the course of his scrutiny of the heavens, he had observed many stars in apparently very close contiguity, but often differing greatly in relative brightness. He concluded that, on the average, the brighter star would be the nearer to us, the smaller enormously more distant; and considering that an astronomer on the earth, in consequence of its immense orbital displacement of some 180 millions of miles every six months, would see such a pair of stars under different perspective aspects, he perceived that the measurement of these changes should lead to an approximate determination of the stars’ relative distances. He therefore mapped down the places and aspects of all the double stars that he met with, and communicated in 1782 and 1785 very extensive catalogues of the results. Indeed, his very last scientific memoir, sent to the Royal Astronomical Society in the year 1822, when he was its first president and already in the eighty-fourth year of his age, related to these investigations. In the memoir of 1782 he threw out the hint that these apparently contiguous stars might be genuine pairs in mutual revolution; but he significantly added that the time had not yet arrived for settling the question. Eleven years afterwards (1793), he remeasured the relative positions of many such couples, and we may conceive what his feelings must have been at finding his prediction verified. For he ascertained that some of these stars circulated round each other, after the manner required by the laws of gravitation, and thus demonstrated the action among the distant members of the starry firmament of the same mechanical laws which bind together the harmonious motions of our solar system. This sublime discovery, announced in 1802, would of itself suffice to immortalize his memory. If only he had lived long enough to learn the approximate distances of some of these binary combinations, he would at once have been able to calculate their masses relative to that of our own sun; and the quantities being, as we now know, strictly comparable, he would have found another of his analogical conjectures realized.

In the year 1782 Herschel was invited to Windsor by George III., and accepted the king’s offer to become his private astronomer, and henceforth devote himself wholly to a scientific career. His salary was fixed at £200 per annum, to which an addition of £50 per annum was subsequently made for the astronomical assistance of his sister. Dr Watson, to whom alone the amount was mentioned, made the natural remark, “Never before was honour purchased by a monarch at so cheap a rate.” In this way the great astronomer removed from Bath, first to Datchet and soon afterwards permanently to Slough, within easy access of his royal patron at Windsor.

The old pursuits at Bath were soon resumed at Slough, but with renewed vigour and without the former professional interruptions. The greater part, in fact, of the papers already referred to are dated from Datchet and Slough; for the magnificent astronomical speculations in which he was engaged, though for the most part conceived in the earlier portion of his philosophical career, required years of patient observation before they could be fully examined and realized.

It was at Slough in 1783 that he wrote his first memorable paper on the “Motion of the Solar System in Space,”—a sublime speculation, yet through his genius realized by considerations of the utmost simplicity. He returned to the same subject with fuller details in 1805. It was also after his removal to Slough that he published his first memoir on the construction of the heavens, which from the first had been the inspiring idea of his varied toils. In a long series of remarkable papers, addressed as usual to the Royal Society, and extending from the year 1784 to 1818, when he was eighty years of age, he demonstrated the fact that our sun is a star situated not far from the bifurcation of the Milky Way, and that all the stars visible to us lie more or less in clusters scattered throughout a comparatively thin, but immensely extended stratum. At one time he imagined that his powerful instruments had pierced through this stellar stratum, and that he had approximately determined the form of some of its boundaries. In the last of his memoirs, having convinced himself of his error, he admitted that to his telescopes the Milky Way was “fathomless.” On either side of this assemblage of stars, presumably in ceaseless motion round their common centre of gravity, Herschel discovered a canopy of discrete nebulous masses, such as those from the condensation of which he supposed the whole stellar universe to have been formed,—a magnificent conception, pursued with a force of genius and put to the practical test of observation with an industry almost incredible.

Hitherto we have said nothing about the great reflecting telescope, of 40 ft. focal length and 4 ft. aperture, the construction of which is often, though mistakenly, regarded as his chief performance. The full description of this celebrated instrument will be found in the 85th volume of the Transactions of the Royal Society. On the day that it was finished (August 28, 1789) Herschel saw at the first view, in a grandeur not witnessed before, the Saturnian system with six satellites, five of which had been discovered long before by C. Huygens and G. D. Cassini, while the sixth, subsequently named Enceladus, he had, two years before, sighted by glimpses in his exquisite little telescope of 6½ in. aperture, but now saw in unmistakable brightness with the towering giant he had just completed. On the 17th of September he discovered a seventh, which proved to be the nearest to the globe of Saturn. It has since received the name of Mimas. It is somewhat remarkable that, notwithstanding his long and repeated scrutinies of this planet, the eighth satellite, Hyperion, and the crape ring should have escaped him.

Herschel married, on the 8th of May 1788, the widow of Mr John Pitt, a wealthy London merchant, by whom he had an only son, John Frederick William. The prince regent conferred a Hanoverian knighthood upon him in 1816. But a far more valued and less tardy distinction was the Copley medal assigned to him by his associates in the Royal Society in 1781.

He died at Slough on the 25th of August 1822, in the eighty-fourth year of his age, and was buried under the tower of St Laurence’s Church, Upton, within a few hundred yards of the old site of the 40-ft. telescope. A mural tablet on the wall of the church bears a Latin inscription from the pen of the late Dr Goodall, provost of Eton College.

See Mrs John Herschel, Memoir of Caroline Herschel (1876); E. S. Holden, Herschel, his Life and Works (1881); A. M. Clerke, The Herschels and Modern Astronomy (1895); E. S. Holden and C. S. Hastings, Synopsis of the Scientific Writings of Sir William Herschel (Washington, 1881); Baron Laurier, Éloge historique, Paris Memoirs (1823), p. lxi.; F. Arago, Analyse historique, Annuaire du Bureau des Longitudes (1842), p. 249; Arago, Biographies of Scientific Men, p. 167; Madame d’Arblay’s Diary, passim; Public Characters (1798-1799), p. 384 (with portrait); J. Sime, William Herschel and his Work (1900). Herschel’s photometric Star Catalogues were discussed and reduced by E. C. Pickering in Harvard Annals, vols. xiv. p. 345, xxiii. p. 185, and xxiv.

(C. P.; A. M. C.)

HERSCHEL, SIR JOHN FREDERICK WILLIAM, Bart. (1792-1871), English astronomer, the only son of Sir William Herschel, was born at Slough, Bucks, on the 7th of March 1792. His scholastic education commenced at Eton, but maternal fears or prejudices soon removed him to the house of a private tutor. Thence, at the early age of seventeen, he was sent to St John’s College, Cambridge, and the form and method of the mathematical instruction he there received exercised a material influence on the whole complexion of his scientific career. In due time the young student won the highest academical distinction of his year, graduating as senior wrangler in 1813. It was during his undergraduateship that he and two of his fellow-students who subsequently attained to very high eminence, Dean Peacock and Charles Babbage, entered into a compact that they would “do their best to leave the world wiser than they found it,”—a compact loyally and successfully carried out by all three to the end. As a commencement of this laudable attempt we find Herschel associated with these two friends in the production of a work on the differential calculus, and on cognate branches of mathematical science, which changed the style and aspect of mathematical learning in England, and brought it up to the level of the Continental methods. Two or three memoirs communicated to the Royal Society on new applications of mathematical analysis at once placed him in the front rank of the cultivators of this branch of knowledge. Of these his father had the gratification of introducing the first, but the others were presented in his own right as a fellow.

With the intention of being called to the bar, he entered his name at Lincoln’s Inn on the 24th of January 1814, and placed himself under the guidance of an eminent special pleader. Probably this temporary choice of a profession was inspired by the extraordinary success in legal pursuits which had attended the efforts of some noted Cambridge mathematicians. Be that as it may, an early acquaintance with Dr Wollaston in London soon changed the direction of his studies. He experimented in physical optics; took up astronomy in 1816; and in 1820, assisted by his father, he completed for a reflecting telescope a mirror of 18 in. diameter and 20 ft. focal length. This, subsequently improved by his own hands, became the instrument which enabled him to effect the astronomical observations forming the chief basis of his fame. In 1821-1823 we find him associated with Sir James South in the re-examination of his father’s double stars, by the aid of two excellent refractors, of 7 and 5 ft. focal length respectively. For this work he was presented in 1826 with the Astronomical Society’s gold medal; and with the Lalande medal of the French Institute in 1825; while the Royal Society had in 1821 bestowed upon him the Copley medal for his mathematical contributions to their Transactions. From 1824 to 1827 he held the responsible post of secretary to that society; and was in 1827 elected to the chair of the Astronomical Society, which office he also filled on two subsequent occasions. In the discharge of his duties to the last-named society he delivered presidential addresses and wrote obituary notices of deceased fellows, memorable for their combination of eloquence and wisdom. In 1831 the honour of knighthood was conferred on him by William IV., and two years later he again received the recognition of the Royal Society by the award of one of their medals for his memoir “On the Investigation of the Orbits of Revolving Double Stars.” The award significantly commemorated his completion of his father’s discovery of gravitational stellar systems by the invention of a graphical method whereby the eye could as it were see the two component stars of the binary system revolving under the prescription of the Newtonian law.

Before the end of the year 1833, being then about forty years of age, Sir John Herschel had re-examined all his father’s double stars and nebulae, and had added many similar bodies to his own lists; thus accomplishing, under the conditions then prevailing, the full work of a lifetime. For it should be remembered that astronomers were not as yet provided with those valuable automatic contrivances which at present materially abridge the labour and increase the accuracy of their determinations. Equatorially mounted instruments actuated by clockwork, electrical chronographs for recording the times of the phenomena observed, were not available to Sir John Herschel; and he had no assistant.

His scientific life now entered upon another and very characteristic phase. The bias of his mind, as he subsequently was wont to declare, was towards chemistry and the phenomena of light, rather than towards astronomy. Indeed, very shortly after taking his degree at Cambridge, he proposed himself as a candidate for the vacant chair of chemistry in that university; but, as he said with some humour, the result of the election was to leave him in a glorious minority of one. In fact Herschel had become an astronomer from a sense of duty, and it was by filial loyalty to his father’s memory that he was now impelled to undertake the completion of the work nobly begun at Slough. William Herschel had searched the northern heavens; John Herschel determined to explore the southern, besides re-exploring northern skies. “I resolved,” he said, “to attempt the completion of a survey of the whole surface of the heavens; and for this purpose to transport into the other hemisphere the same instrument which had been employed in this, so as to give a unity to the results of both portions of the survey, and to render them comparable with each other.” In accordance with this resolution, he and his family embarked for the Cape on the 13th November 1833; they arrived in Table Bay on the 15th January 1834; and proceedings, he says, “were pushed forward with such effect that on the 22nd of February I was enabled to gratify my curiosity by a view of κ Crucis, the nebula about η Argûs, and some other remarkable objects in the 20-ft. reflector, and on the night of the 4th of March to commence a regular course of sweeping.”

To give an adequate description of the vast mass of labour completed during the next four busy years of his life at Feldhausen would require the transcription of a considerable portion of the Cape Observations, a volume of unsurpassed interest and importance; although it might perhaps be equalled by a judicious selection from Sir William’s “Memoirs,” now scattered through some thirty volumes of the Philosophical Transactions. It was published, at the sole expense of the late duke of Northumberland, but not till 1847, nine years after the author’s return to England, for the cogent reason, that as he said, “The whole of the observations, as well as the entire work of reducing, arranging and preparing them for the press, have been executed by myself.” There are 164 pages of catalogues of southern nebulae and clusters of stars. There are then careful and elaborate drawings of the great nebula in Orion, and of the region surrounding the remarkable star in Argo. The labour and the thought bestowed upon some of these objects are almost incredible; several months were spent upon a minute spot in the heavens containing 1216 stars, but which an ordinary spangle, held at a distance of an arm’s length, would eclipse. These catalogues and charts being completed, he proceeded to discuss their significance. He confirmed his father’s hypothesis that these wonderful masses of glowing vapours are not irregularly scattered over the visible heavens, but are collected in a sort of canopy, whose vertex is at the pole of that vast stratum of stars in which our solar system finds itself buried, as Herschel supposed, at a depth not greater than that of the average distance from us of an eleventh magnitude star. Then follows his catalogue of the relative positions and magnitudes of the southern double stars, to one of which, γ Virginis, he applied the beautiful method of orbital determination invented by himself, and he had the satisfaction of witnessing the fulfilment of his prediction that the components would, in the course of their revolution, appear to close up into a single star, inseparable by any telescopic power. In the next chapter he proceeded to describe his observations on the varying and relative brightness of the stars. It has been already detailed how his father began his scientific career by similar observations on stellar light-fluctuations, and how his remarks culminated years afterwards in the question whether the radiative changes of our sun, due to the presence or absence of sun-spots, affected our harvests and the price of corn. Sir John carried speculation still farther, pointing out that variations to the extent of half a magnitude in the sun’s brightness would account for those strange alternations of semi-arctic and semi-tropical climates which geological researches show to have occurred in various regions of our globe.

Herschel returned to his English home in the spring of 1838. As was natural and right, he was welcomed with an enthusiastic greeting. By the queen at her coronation he was created a baronet; and, what to him was better than all such rewards, other men caught the contagion of his example, and laboured in fields similar to his own, with an adequate portion of his success.

Herschel was a highly accomplished chemist. His discovery in 1819 of the solvent power of hyposulphite of soda on the otherwise insoluble salts of silver was the prelude to its use as a fixing agent in photography; and he invented in 1839, independently of Fox Talbot, the process of photography on sensitized paper. He was the first person to apply the now well-known terms positive and negative to photographic images, and to imprint them upon glass prepared by the deposit of a sensitive film. He also paved the way for Sir George Stokes’s discovery of fluorescence, by his addition of the lavender rays to the spectrum, and by his announcement in 1845 of “epipolic dispersion,” as exhibited by sulphate of quinine. Several other important researches connected with the undulatory theory of light are embodied in his treatise on “Light” published in the Encyclopaedia metropolitana.

Perhaps no man can become a truly great mathematician or philosopher if devoid of imaginative power. John Herschel possessed this endowment to a large extent; and he solaced his declining years with the translation of the Iliad into verse, having earlier executed a similar version of Schiller’s Walk. But the main work of his later life was the collection of all his father’s catalogues of nebulae and double stars combined with his own observations and those of other astronomers each into a single volume. He lived to complete the former, to present it to the Royal Society, and to see it published in a separate form in the Philosophical Transactions, vol. cliv. The latter work he left unfinished, bequeathing it, in its imperfect form, to the Astronomical Society. That society printed a portion of it, which serves as an index to the observations of various astronomers on double stars up to the year 1866.

A complete list of his contributions to learned societies will be found in the Royal Society’s great catalogue, and from them may be gathered most of the records of his busy scientific life. Sir John Herschel met with an amount of public recognition which was unusual in the time of his illustrious father. Naturally he was a member of almost every important learned society in both hemispheres. For five years he held the same office of master of the mint, which more than a century before had belonged to Sir Isaac Newton; his friends also offered to propose him as president of the Royal Society and again as member of parliament for the university of Cambridge, but neither position was desired by him.

In private life Sir John Herschel was a firm and most active friend; he had no jealousies; he avoided all scientific feuds; he gladly lent a helping hand to those who consulted him in scientific difficulties; he never discouraged, and still less disparaged, men younger than or inferior to himself; he was pleased by appreciation of his work without being solicitous for applause; it was said of him by a discriminating critic, and without extravagance, that “his was a life full of serenity of the sage and the docile innocence of a child.”

He died at Collingwood, his residence near Hawkhurst in Kent, on the 11th of May 1871, in the seventy-ninth year of his age, and his remains are interred in Westminster Abbey close to the grave of Sir Isaac Newton.

Besides the laborious Cape Observations, Sir John Herschel was the author of several books, one of which at least, On the Study of Natural Philosophy (1830), possesses an interest which no future advances of the subjects on which he wrote can obliterate. In 1849 came the Outlines of Astronomy, a volume still replete with charm and instruction. His articles, “Meteorology,” “Physical Geography,” and “Telescope,” contributed to the 8th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, were afterwards published separately. When he was at the Cape he was more than once assisted in the attempts there made to diffuse a love of knowledge among men not engaged in literary pursuits; and with the same purpose he, on his return to England, published, in Good Words and elsewhere, a series of papers on interesting points of natural philosophy, subsequently collected in a volume called Familiar Lectures on Scientific Subjects. Another less widely known volume is his Collected Addresses, in which he is seen in his happiest and most instructive mood.

See also Mrs John Herschel, “Memoir of Caroline Herschel,” Month. Notices Roy. Astr. Society, xxxii. 122 (C. Pritchard); Proceedings Roy. Society, xx. p. xvii. (T. Romney Robinson); Proceedings Roy. Society of Edinburgh vii. 543 (P. G. Tait); Nature iv. 69; E. Dunkin, Obituary Notices, p. 47; Report Brit. Association (1871), p. lxxxv. (Lord Kelvin); The Times. (May 13, 1871); R. Grant, History of Phys. Astronomy; A. M. Clerke, Popular Hist. of Astronomy; A. M. Clerke, The Herschels and Modern Astronomy; J. H. Mädler, Geschichte der Himmelskunde, Bd. ii.; Mémoires de la Société Physique de Genève, xxi. 586 (E. Gautier). Reductions, based on standard magnitudes of 919 southern stars, observed by Herschel in sequences of relative brightness, were published by W. Doberck in the Astrophysical Journal, xi. 192, 270, and in Harvard Annals, vol. xli., No. viii.

(C. P.; A. M. C.)

HERSCHELL, FARRER HERSCHELL, 1st Baron (1837-1899), lord chancellor of England, was born on the 2nd of November 1837. His father was the Rev. Ridley Haim Herschell, a native of Strzelno, in Prussian Poland, who, when a young man, exchanged the Jewish faith for Christianity, took a leading part in founding the British Society for the Propagation of the Gospel among the Jews, and, after many journeyings, settled down to the charge of a Nonconformist chapel near the Edgware Road, in London, where he ministered to a large congregation. His mother was a daughter of William Mowbray, a merchant of Leith. He was educated at a private school and at University College, London. In 1857 he took his B.A. degree at the University of London. He was reckoned the best speaker in the school debating society, and he displayed there the same command of language and lucidity of thought which were his characteristics during his official life. The reputation which Herschell enjoyed during his school days was maintained after he became a law-student at Lincoln’s Inn. In 1858 he entered the chambers of Thomas Chitty, the famous common law pleader, father of the late Lord Justice Chitty. His fellow pupils, amongst whom were A. L. Smith, afterwards master of the rolls, and Arthur Charles, afterwards judge of the queen’s bench division, gave him the sobriquet of “the chief baron” in recognition of his superiority. He subsequently read with James Hannen, afterwards Lord Hannen. In 1860 he was called to the bar and joined the northern circuit, then in its palmy days of undividedness. For four or five years he did not obtain much work. Fortunately, he was never a poor man, and so was not forced into journalism, or other paths of literature, in order to earn a living. Two of his contemporaries, each of whom achieved great eminence, found themselves in like case. One of these, Charles Russell, became lord chief justice of England; the other, William Court Gully, speaker of the House of Commons. It is said that these three friends, dining together during a Liverpool assize some years after they had been called, agreed that their prospects were anything but cheerful. Certain it is that about this time Herschell meditated quitting England for Shanghai and practising in the consular courts there. Herschell, however, soon made himself useful to Edward James, the then leader of the northern circuit, and to John Richard Quain, the leading stuff-gownsman. For the latter he was content to note briefs and draft opinions, and when, in 1866, Quain donned “silk,” it was on Herschell that a large portion of his mantle descended.

In 1872 Herschell was made a queen’s counsel. He had all the necessary qualifications for a leader—a clear, though not resonant voice; a calm, logical mind; a sound knowledge of legal principles; and (greatest gift of all) an abundance of common sense. He never wearied the judges by arguing at undue length, and he knew how to retire with dignity from a hopeless cause. His only weak point was cross-examination. In handling a hostile witness he had neither the insidious persuasiveness of a Hawkins nor the compelling, dominating power of a Russell. But he made up for all by his speech to the jury, marshalling such facts as told in his client’s favour with the most consummate skill. He very seldom made use of notes, but trusted to his memory, which he had carefully trained. By this means he was able to conceal his art, and to appear less as a paid advocate than as an outsider interested in the case anxious to assist the jury in arriving at the truth. By 1874 Herschell’s business had become so good that he turned his thoughts to parliament. In February of that year there was a general election, with the result that the Conservative party came into power with a majority of fifty. The usual crop of petitions followed. The two Radicals (Thompson and Henderson) who had been returned for Durham city were unseated, and an attack was then made on the seats of two other Radicals (Bell and Palmer) who had been returned for Durham county. For one of these last Herschell was briefed. He made so excellent an impression on the local Radical leaders that they asked him to stand for Durham city; and after a fortnight’s electioneering, he was elected as junior member. Between 1874 and 1880 Herschell was most assiduous in his attendance in the House of Commons. He was not a frequent speaker, but a few great efforts sufficed in his case to gain for him a reputation as a debater. The best examples of his style as a private member will be found in Hansard under the dates 18th February 1876, 23rd May 1878, 6th May 1879. On the last occasion he carried a resolution in favour of abolishing actions for breach of promise of marriage except when actual pecuniary loss had ensued, the damages in such cases to be measured by the amount of such loss. The grace of manner and solid reasoning with which he acquitted himself during these displays obtained for him the notice of Gladstone, who in 1880 appointed Herschell solicitor-general.

Herschell’s public services from 1880 to 1885 were of great value, particularly in dealing with the “cases for opinion” submitted by the Foreign Office and other departments. He was also very helpful in speeding government measures through the House, notably the Irish Land Act 1881, the Corrupt Practices and Bankruptcy Acts 1883, the County Franchise Act 1884 and the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885. This last was a bitter pill for Herschell, since it halved the representation of Durham city, and so gave him statutory notice to quit. Reckoning on the local support of the Cavendish family, he contested the North Lonsdale division of Lancashire; but in spite of the powerful influence of Lord Hartington, he was badly beaten at the poll, though Mr Gladstone again obtained a majority in the country. Herschell now thought he saw the solicitor-generalship slipping away from him, and along with it all prospect of high promotion. Lord Selborne and Sir Henry James, however, successively declined Gladstone’s offer of the Woolsack, and in 1886 Herschell, by a sudden turn of fortune’s wheel, found himself in his forty-ninth year lord chancellor.

Herschell’s chancellorship lasted barely six months, for in August 1886 Gladstone’s Home Rule Bill was rejected in the Commons and his administration fell. In August 1892, when Gladstone returned to power, Herschell again became lord chancellor. In September 1893, when the second Home Rule Bill came on for second reading in the House of Lords, Herschell took advantage of the opportunity to justify the “sudden conversion” to Home Rule of himself and his colleagues in 1885 by comparing it to the duke of Wellington’s conversion to Catholic Emancipation in 1829 and to that of Sir Robert Peel to Free Trade in 1846. In 1895, however, his second chancellorship came to an end with the defeat of the Rosebery ministry.

Whether sitting at the royal courts in the Strand, on the judicial committee of the privy council, or in the House of Lords, Lord Herschell’s judgments were distinguished for their acute and subtle reasoning, for their grasp of legal principles, and, whenever the occasion arose, for their broad treatment of constitutional and social questions. He was not a profound lawyer, but his quickness of apprehension was such that it was an excellent substitute for great learning. In construing a real property will or any other document, his first impulse was to read it by the light of nature, and to decline to be influenced by the construction put by the judges on similar phrases occurring elsewhere. But when he discovered that certain expressions had acquired a technical meaning which could not be disturbed without fluttering the dovecotes of the conveyancers, he would yield to the established rule, even though he did not agree with it. He was perhaps seen at his judicial best in Vagliano v. Bank of England (1891) and Allen v. Flood (1898). Latterly he showed a tendency, which seems to grow on some judges, to interrupt counsel overmuch. The case last mentioned furnishes an example of this. The question involved was what constituted a molestation of a man in the pursuit of his lawful calling. At the close of the argument of counsel, whom he had frequently interrupted, one of their lordships, noted for his pretty wit, observed that although there might be a doubt as to what amounted to such molestation in point of law, the House could well understand, after that day’s proceedings, what it was in actual practice. In addition to his political and judicial work, Herschell rendered many public services. In 1888 he presided over an inquiry directed by the House of Commons with regard to the Metropolitan Board of Works. He acted as chairman of two royal commissions, one on Indian currency, the other on vaccination. He took a great interest in the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, not only promoting the acts of 1889 and 1894, but also bestowing a good deal of time in sifting the truth of certain allegations which had been brought against the management of that society. In June 1893 he was appointed chancellor of the university of London in succession to the earl of Derby, and he entered on his new duties with the usual thoroughness. “His views of reform,” according to Victor Dickins, the accomplished registrar of the university, “were always most liberal and most frankly stated, though at first they were not altogether popular with an important section of university opinion. He disarmed opposition by his intellectual power, rather than conciliated it by compromise, and sometimes was perhaps a little masterful, after a fashion of his own, in his treatment of the various burning questions that agitated the university during his tenure of office. His characteristic power of detachment was well illustrated by his treatment of the proposal to remove the university to the site of the Imperial Institute at South Kensington. Although he was at that time chairman of the Institute, the most irreconcilable opponent of the removal never questioned his absolute impartiality.” With the Imperial Institute Herschell had been officially connected from its inception. He was chairman of the provisional committee appointed by the prince of Wales to formulate a scheme for its organization, and he took an active part in the preparation of its charter and constitution in conjunction with Lord Thring, Lord James, Sir Frederick Abel and Mr John Hollams. He was the first chairman of its council, and, except during his tour in India in 1888, when he brought the Institute under the notice of the Indian authorities, he was hardly absent from a single meeting. For his special services in this connexion he was made G.C.B. in 1893, this being the only instance of a lord chancellor being decorated with an order.

In 1897 he was appointed, jointly with Lord Justice Collins, to represent Great Britain on the Venezuela Boundary Commission, which assembled in Paris in the spring of 1899. So complicated a business involved a great deal of preparation and a careful study of maps and historic documents. Not content with this, he accepted in 1898 a seat on the joint high commission appointed to adjust certain boundary and other important questions pending between Great Britain and Canada on the one hand and the United States on the other hand. He started for America in July of that year, and was received most cordially at Washington. His fellow commissioners elected him their president. In February 1899, while the commission was in full swing, he had the misfortune to slip in the street and in falling to fracture a hip bone. His constitution, which at one time was a robust one, had been undermined by constant hard work, and proved unequal to sustaining the shock. On the 1st of March, only a fortnight after the accident, he died at the Shoreham Hotel, Washington, a post-mortem examination revealing disease of the heart. Mr Hay, secretary of state, at once telegraphed to Mr Choate, the United States ambassador in London, the “deep sorrow” felt by President McKinley; and Sir Wilfred Laurier said the next day, in the parliament chamber at Ottawa, that he regarded Herschell’s death “as a misfortune to Canada and to the British Empire.” A funeral service held in St John’s Episcopal Church, Washington, was attended by the president and vice-president of the United States, by the cabinet ministers, the judges of the Supreme Court, the members of the joint high commission, and a large number of senators and other representative men. The body was brought to London in a British man-of-war, and a second funeral service was held in Westminster Abbey before it was conveyed to its final resting-place at Tincleton, Dorset, in the parish church of which he had been married. Herschell left a widow, granddaughter of Vice-Chancellor Kindersley; a son, Richard Farrer (b. 1878), who succeeded him as second baron; and two daughters.

A “reminiscence” of Herschell by Mr Speaker Gully (Lord Selby) will be found in The Law Quarterly Review for April 1899. The Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation (of which he had been president from its formation in 1893) contains, in its part for July of the same year, notices of him by Lord James of Hereford, Lord Davey, Mr Victor Williamson (his executor and intimate friend), and also by Mr Justice D. J. Brewer and Senator C. W. Fairbanks (both of the United States).

(M. H. C.)

HERSENT, LOUIS (1777-1860), French painter, was born at Paris on the 10th of March 1777, and becoming a pupil of David, obtained the Prix de Rome in 1797; in the Salon of 1802 appeared his “Metamorphosis of Narcissus,” and he continued to exhibit with rare interruptions up to 1831. His most considerable works under the empire were “Achilles parting from Briseis,” and “Atala dying in the arms of Chactas” (both engraved in Landon’s Annales du Musée); an “Incident of the life of Fénelon,” painted in 1810, found a place at Malmaison, and “Passage of the Bridge at Landshut,” which belongs to the same date, is now at Versailles. Hersent’s typical works, however, belong to the period of the Restoration; “Louis XVI. relieving the Afflicted” (Versailles) and “Daphnis and Chloë” (engraved by Langier and by Gelée) were both in the Salon of 1817; at that of 1819 the “Abdication of Gustavus Vasa” brought to Hersent a medal of honour, but the picture, purchased by the duke of Orleans, was destroyed at the Palais Royal in 1848, and the engraving by Henriquel-Dupont is now its sole record. “Ruth,” produced in 1822, became the property of Louis XVIII., who from the moment that Hersent rallied to the Restoration jealously patronized him, made him officer of the legion of honour, and pressed his claims at the Institute, where he replaced van Spaendonck. He continued in favour under Charles X., for whom was executed “Monks of Mount St Gotthard,” exhibited in 1824. In 1831 Hersent made his last appearance at the Salon with portraits of Louis Philippe, Marie-Amélie and the duke of Montpensier; that of the king though good, is not equal to the portrait of Spontini (Berlin), which is probably Hersent’s chef-d’œuvre. After this date Hersent ceased to exhibit at the yearly salons. Although in 1846 he sent an excellent likeness of Delphine Gay and one or two other works to the rooms of the Société d’Artistes, he could not be tempted from his usual reserve even by the international contest of 1855. He died on the 2nd of October 1860.

HERSFELD, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau, is pleasantly situated at the confluence of the Geis and Haun with the Fulda, on the railway from Frankfort-on-Main to Bebra, 24 m. N.N.E. of Fulda. Pop. (1905) 8688. Some of the old fortifications of the town remain, but the ramparts and ditches have been laid out as promenades. The principal buildings are the Stadt Kirche, a beautiful Gothic building, erected about 1320 and restored in 1899, with a fine tower and a large bell; the old and interesting town hall (Rathaus) and the ruins of the abbey church. This church was erected on the site of the cathedral in the beginning of the 12th century; it was built in the Byzantine style and was burnt down by the French in 1761. Outside the town are the Frauenberg and the Johannesberg, on both of which are monastic ruins. Among the public institutions are a gymnasium and a military school. The town has important manufactures of cloth, leather and machinery; it has also dye-works, worsted mills and soap-boiling works.

Hersfeld owes its existence to the Benedictine abbey (see below). It became a town in the 12th century and in 1370 the burghers, having meanwhile shaken off the authority of the abbots, placed themselves under the protection of the landgraves of Hesse. It was taken and retaken during the Thirty Years’ War and later it suffered from the attacks of the French.

The Benedictine abbey of Hersfeld was founded by Lullus, afterwards archbishop of Mainz, about 769. It was richly endowed by Charlemagne and became an ecclesiastical principality in the 12th century, passing under the protection of the landgraves of Hesse in 1423. It was secularized in 1648, having been previously administered for some years by a member of the ruling family of Hesse. As a secular principality Hersfeld passed to Hesse, and with electoral Hesse was united with Prussia in 1866. In the middle ages the abbey was famous for its library.

See Vigelius, Denkwürdigkeiten von Hersfeld (Hersfeld, 1888); Demme, Nachrichten und Urkunden zur Chronik von Hersfeld (Hersfeld, 1891-1901), and P. Hafner, Die Reichsabtei Hersfeld bis zur Mitte des 13ten Jahrhunderts (Hersfeld, 1889).

HERSTAL, or Heristal, a town of Belgium, less than 2 m. N. of Liége and practically one of its suburbs. The name is supposed to be derived from Heerstelle, i.e. “Permanent Camp.” The second Pippin was born here, and this mayor of the palace acquired the control of the kingdom of the Franks. His grandson, Pippin the Short, died at Herstal in A.D. 768, and it disputes with Aix la Chapelle the honour of being the birthplace of Charlemagne. It is now a very active centre of iron and steel manufactures. The Belgian national small arms factory and cannon foundry are fixed here. Pop. (1904) 20,114.

HERTFORD, EARLS AND MARQUESSES OF. The English earldom of Hertford was held by members of the powerful family of Clare from about 1138, when Gilbert de Clare was created earl of Hertford, to 1314 when another earl Gilbert was killed at Bannockburn. In 1537 Edward Seymour, viscount Beauchamp, a brother of Henry VIII.’s queen, Jane Seymour, was created earl of Hertford, being advanced ten years later to the dignity of duke of Somerset and becoming protector of England. His son Edward (c. 1540-1621) was styled earl of Hertford from 1547 until the protector’s attainder and death in January 1552, when the title was forfeited; in 1559, however, he was created earl of Hertford. In 1560 he was secretly married to Lady Catherine Grey (c. 1538-1568), daughter of Henry Grey, duke of Suffolk, and a descendant of Henry VII. Queen Elizabeth greatly disliked this union, and both husband and wife were imprisoned, while the validity of their marriage was questioned. Catherine died on the 27th of January 1568 and Hertford on the 6th of April 1621. Their son Edward, Lord Beauchamp (1561-1612), who inherited his mother’s title to the English throne, predeceased his father; and the latter was succeeded in the earldom by his grandson William Seymour (1588-1660), who was created marquess of Hertford in 1640 and was restored to his ancestor’s dukedom of Somerset in 1660. The title of marquess of Hertford became extinct when John, 4th duke of Somerset, died in 1675, and the earldom when Algernon, the 7th duke, died in February 1750.

In August 1750 Francis Seymour Conway, 2nd Baron Conway (1718-1794), who was a direct descendant of the protector Somerset, was created earl of Hertford; this nobleman was the son of Francis Seymour Conway (1679-1732), who had taken the name of Conway in addition to that of Seymour, and was the brother of Field-marshal Henry Seymour Conway. Hertford was ambassador to France from 1763 to 1765; was lord-lieutenant of Ireland in 1765 and 1766; and lord chamberlain of the household from 1766 to 1782. Horace Walpole speaks of his “decorum and piety” and refers to him as a “perfect courtier,” but says that he had “too great propensity to heap emoluments on his children.” In 1793 he became earl of Yarmouth and marquess of Hertford, and he died on the 14th of June 1794. His son, Francis Ingram Seymour Conway (1743-1822), who was known during his father’s lifetime as Lord Beauchamp, took a prominent part in the debates of the House of Commons from 1766 until he succeeded to the marquessate in 1794. He was sent as ambassador to Berlin and Vienna in 1793 and from 1812 to 1821 he was lord chamberlain. His son Francis Charles, the 3rd marquess (1777-1842), was an intimate friend of the prince regent, afterwards George IV., and is the original of the “Marquis of Steyne” in Thackeray’s Vanity Fair and of “Lord Monmouth” in Disraeli’s Coningsby. The 4th marquess was his son, Richard (1800-1870), whose mother was the great heiress, Maria Emily Fagniani, and whose brother was Lord Henry Seymour (1805-1859), the founder of the Jockey Club at Paris. When Richard died unmarried in Paris in August 1870 his title passed to his kinsman, Francis Hugh George Seymour (1812-1884), a descendant of the 1st marquess, whose son, Hugh de Grey (b. 1843) became 6th marquess in 1884. The 4th marquess left his great wealth and his priceless collection of art treasures to Sir Richard Wallace (1818-1890), his reputed half-brother, and Wallace’s widow, who died in 1897, bequeathed the collection to the British nation. It is now in Hertford House, formerly the London residence of the marquesses of Hertford.

HERTFORD, a market-town and municipal borough, and the county town of Hertfordshire, England, in the Hertford parliamentary division of the county, 24 m. N. from London, the terminus of branch lines of the Great Eastern and Great Northern railways. Pop. (1901) 9322. It is pleasantly situated in the valley of the river Lea. The chief buildings are the modern churches of St Andrew and of All Saints, on the sites of old ones, a town hall, corn exchange, public library, school of art and the old castle, which retains the wall and part of a tower dating from the Norman period, and is represented by a picturesque Jacobean building of brick, largely modernized. There are several educational establishments, including the preparatory school for Christ’s Hospital, a picturesque building (in great part, however, rebuilt) at the east end of the town, Hale’s grammar school, the Cowper Testimonial school, and a Green-coat school for boys and girls. Two miles S.E. is Haileybury College, one of the principal public schools of England, founded in 1805 by the East India Company for their civil service students, who were then temporarily housed in Hertford Castle. The school lies high above the Lea valley, towards Hoddesdon, in the midst of a stretch of finely-wooded country. Hertford has a considerable agricultural trade, and there are maltings, breweries, iron foundries, and oriental printing works. The town is governed by a mayor, 5 aldermen and 15 councillors. Area, 1134 acres.

Hertford (Herutford, Heorotford, Hurtford) was the scene of a synod in 673. Its communication with London by way of the Lea and the Thames gave it strategic importance during the Danish occupation of East Anglia. In 1066 and later it was a royal garrison and burgh. It made separate payments for aids to the Norman and Angevin kings; and in 1331 was governed by a bailiff annually elected by the commonalty. A charter incorporated the bailiffs and burgesses in 1555, and was confirmed under Elizabeth and in 1606. A charter of 1680 to the mayor, aldermen and commonalty was effective until the Municipal Corporation Act. Hertford returned two burgesses to the parliament of 1298, and to others until, after 1375/6, such right became abeyant, to be restored by order of parliament in 1623/4. One representative was lost by the Representation Act in 1868, and separate representation by the Redistribution Act in 1885. A grant of fairs in 1226 probably originated or confirmed those held in 1331 on the feasts of the Assumption and of St Simon and St Jude, their vigils and morrows, which fairs were confirmed by Elizabeth and Charles II. Another on the vigil, morrow and feast of the Nativity of the Virgin was granted by Elizabeth: its date was changed to May-day under James I. Modern fairs are on the third Saturday before Easter, the 12th of May, the 5th of July and the 8th of November. Markets were held in 1331 on Wednesday and Saturday; after 1368 on Thursday and Saturday; and they returned to Wednesdays and Saturdays in 1680.

HERTFORDSHIRE [Herts], a county of England, bounded N. by Cambridgeshire, N.W. by Bedfordshire, E. by Essex, S. by Middlesex, and S.W. by Buckinghamshire. The area is 634.6 sq. m., the county being the sixth smallest in England. Its aspect is always pleasant, the surface generally undulating, while in some parts, where these undulations form a quick succession of hills and valleys, the woodland scenery becomes very beautiful, as in the upper Lea valley, in the neighbourhood of Tewin near Hertford, and elsewhere. To the north-west and north considerable elevations are reached, a line of hills, facing north-westward with a sharp descent, crossing this portion of the county, and overlooking the flat lands of Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire. They continue the line of the Chiltern Hills under the name of the East Anglian Ridge. They exceed 800 ft. near Dunstable, sinking gradually north-eastward. These uplands are generally bare, and in parts remarkably sparsely populated as compared with the home counties at large. In the greater part of the county, however, rich arable lands are intermingled with the parks and woodlands of numerous fine country seats, which impart to the county a peculiar luxuriance. Of the principal rivers, the Lea, rising beyond Luton in Bedfordshire, enters Hertfordshire near East Hyde, flows S.E. to near Hatfield, then E. by N. to Hertford and Ware, whence it bends S. and passing along the eastern boundary of the county falls into the Thames below London. It receives in its course the Maran, or Mimram, the Beane, the Rib and the Stort, all joining on the north side; the Stort for some distance forming the county boundary with Essex. The Colne flows through the south-western part of the county, to fall into the Thames at Staines. It receives the Ver, the Bulborne and the Chess. The Ivel, rising in the N.W. soon passes into Bedfordshire to join the Great Ouse. To the south of Hatfield, near North Mimms, two streams of moderate size are lost in pot-holes, except in the highest floods. The New River, one of the water supplies of London, has its source near Ware, and runs roughly parallel with the Lea. Most of the rivers are full of fish, including trout in the upper parts (of the Lea and Colne especially), which are carefully preserved.

Geology.—The rocks of Hertfordshire belong to the shallow syncline known as the London basin, the beds dipping in a south-easterly direction. The two most important formations are the Chalk, which forms the high ground in the north and west; and the Eocene Reading beds and London Clay which occupy the remaining southern part of the county. On the northern boundary, at the foot of the chalk hills, a small strip of Gault Clay and the Upper Greensand above it falls just within the county. The lowest subdivision of the chalk is the Chalk Marl, which with the Totternhoe Stone above it, lies at the base of the Chalk escarpment, by Ashwell, Pirton and Miswell to Tring. Above these beds, the Lower Chalk, without flints, rises up sharply to form the downs which are the easterly continuation of the Chiltern Hills. Next comes the Chalk Rock, which being a hard bed, lies near the hilltops by Boxmoor, Apsley End and near Baldock. The Upper Chalk slopes southward towards the Eocene boundary previously mentioned. The Reading beds consist of mottled and yellow clays and sands, the latter are frequently hardened into masses made up of pebbles in a siliceous cement, known locally as Hertfordshire puddingstone. The London Clay, a stiff blue clay which weathers brown, rests nearly everywhere upon the Reading beds. Outliers of Eocene rocks rest on the chalk at Micklefield Green, Sarrat, Bedmont, &c. The Chalk is often covered by the Clay-with-flints, a detrital deposit, formed of the remnants of Tertiary rocks and Chalk. Glacial gravels, clays and loams cover a great deal of the whole area, and the Upper Chalk itself has been disturbed at Reed and Barley by the same agency. Chalk was formerly used for building purposes; it is now burned for lime. Reading beds and London clay are dug for brick-making at Watford, Hertford and Hatfield. Phosphatic nodules have been excavated from the base of the Chalk Marl at several places along the outcrop; the Marl is worked for cement.

Climate and Agriculture.—The climate is mild, dry and generally healthy. On this account London physicians were formerly accustomed to recommend the county to persons in weak health, and it was so much coveted by the noble and wealthy as a place of residence that it was a common saying that “he who buys a home in Hertfordshire pays two years’ purchase for the air.” Of the total area about four-fifths is under cultivation, and of this more than one-third is in permanent pasture. The principal grain crop is wheat, occupying about two-fifths of the area under corn, but gradually decreasing. The varieties mostly grown are white, and they are unsurpassed by those of any English county. Wheathampstead on the upper Lea receives its name from the fine quality of the wheat grown in that district. Barley is largely used in the county for malting purposes. Vetches are grown for the London stables, and the greater part of the permanent grass is used for hay. There are some very rich pastures on the banks of the Stort, and also near Rickmansworth on the Colne. Some two-thirds of the area occupied by green crops is under turnips, swedes and mangolds, many cows being kept for the supply of milk and butter to London. The quantity of stock is generally small, but increasing except in the case of sheep, of which the numbers have greatly decreased. Of cows the most common breed is the Suffolk variety; of sheep, Southdowns, Wiltshires and a cross between Cotteswolds and Leicesters. In the south-west large quantities of cherries, apples and strawberries are grown for the London market; and on the best soils near London vegetables are forced by the aid of manure, and more than one crop is sometimes obtained in a year. A considerable industry lies in the growth of watercresses in the pure water of the upper parts of the rivers and the smaller streams. There are a number of rose-gardens and nurseries.

Other Industries.—The manufacturing industries are slight; though the great brewing establishments at Watford may be mentioned, and straw-plaiting, paper-making, coach-building, tanning and brick-making are carried on in various towns.

Communications.—Owing to its proximity to the metropolis, Hertfordshire is particularly well served by railways. On the eastern border there is the Great Eastern (Cambridge line) with branches to Hertford and to Buntingford. The main line of the Great Northern passes through the centre by Hatfield, Stevenage and Hitchin, with branches from Hatfield to Hertford, to St Albans and to Luton and Dunstable, and from Hitchin to Baldock, Royston and so to Cambridge. The Midland passes through St Albans and Harpenden, with a branch to Hemel Hempstead. The London & North-Western traverses the south-west by Watford, Berkhampstead and Tring, with branches to Rickmansworth and to St Albans. The Metropolitan & Great Central joint line serves Rickmansworth, and suburban lines of the Great Northern the Barnet district. The existence of these communications has combined with the natural attractions of the county to cause many villages to become large residential centres. Water communications are supplied from Hertford, Ware and Bishop Stortford, southward to the Thames by the Lea and Stort Navigation; and the Grand Junction canal from London to the north-west traverses the south-western corner of the county by Rickmansworth and Berkhampstead. Three great highways from London to the north traverse the county. The Holyhead Road passes Chipping Barnet, South Mimms and St Albans, quitting the county near Dunstable. The Great North Road branches from the Holyhead Road at Barnet, and passes Potter’s Bar, Hatfield, Stevenage and Baldock, with a branch from Welwyn to Hitchin and beyond. Another road follows the Lea valley to Ware, whence it runs to Royston, being here coincident with the Roman Ermine Street and known as the Old North Road.

Population and Administration.—The area of the ancient county is 406,157 acres with a population in 1891 of 220,162, and in 1901 of 250,152. The area of the administrative county is 404,518 acres. The county comprises eight hundreds. The municipal boroughs are: Hemel Hempstead (11,264), Hertford (9322), St Albans, a city (16,019). The other urban districts are: Baldock (2057), Barnet (7876), Berkhampstead (Great Berkhampstead, 5140), Bishop Stortford (7143), Bushey (4564), Cheshunt (12,292), East Barnet Valley (10,094), Harpenden (4725), Hitchin (10,072), Hoddesdon (4711), Rickmansworth (5627), Royston (3517), Sawbridgeworth (2085), Stevenage (3957), Tring (4349), Ware (5573) and Watford (29,327). The county is in the home circuit, and assizes are held at Hertford. It has two courts of quarter-sessions, and is divided into 15 petty-sessional divisions. The boroughs of Hertford and St Albans have separate commissions of the peace. The total number of civil parishes is 158. All the civil parishes within 12 m. of, or in which no portion is more than 15 m. from, Charing Cross, London, are included in the metropolitan police district. The county contains 170 ecclesiastical parishes or districts, wholly or in part; it is nearly all in the diocese of St Albans, but small parts are in the dioceses of Ely, Oxford and London. It is divided into four parliamentary divisions—Northern or Hitchin, Eastern or Hertford, Mid or St Albans, Western or Watford, each returning one member. There is no parliamentary borough within the county.

History.—Relics of Saxon occupation have been found in Hertfordshire for the most part near St Albans and Hitchin. The diocesan limits show that part of the shire was included in the West Saxon kingdom. The East Saxons, as early as the 6th century, were settled about Hertford, which in 673 was sufficiently important to be the meeting-place of a synod convened by Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, while in 675 the Witenagemot assembled at a place which has been identified with Hatfield. In the 9th century the district was frequently visited by the Danes; and after the peace of Wedmore the country east of the Lea was included in the Danelaw; in 911 Edward the Elder erected forts on both sides of the river at Hertford.

After the battle of Hastings William advanced on Hertfordshire and ravaged as far as Berkhampstead, where the Conquest received its formal ratification. In the sweeping confiscation of estates which followed, the church was generously endowed, the abbey of St Albans alone holding 172 hides, while Count Eustace of Boulogne, the chief lay tenant, held a vast fief in the north-east of the county. Large estates were held by Geoffrey de Mandeville, and the barony of Peter de Valognes, sheriff of the county in 1086, though extending over six counties in the east of England, was returned in 1166 as a Hertfordshire barony. Berkhampstead was the head of an honour carved from the fief of Robert of Mortain. The Hertfordshire estates, however, for the most part changed hands very frequently and the county is noticeably lacking in historic families. Edmund Langley, fifth son of Edward III., was born at King’s Langley in this county.

During the war between John and his barons, William, earl of Salisbury and Falkes de Breauté had the king’s orders to ravage Hertfordshire, and in 1216 Hertford Castle was captured and Berkhampstead Castle besieged by Louis of France, who had come over by invitation of the barons. At the time of the rising of 1381 the abbot’s tenants broke into the abbey of St Albans and forced the abbot to grant them a charter. During the Wars of the Roses, Henry VI. was defeated at St Albans in 1455; at the second battle of St Albans the earl of Warwick was defeated by Queen Margaret; and in 1471 Edward IV. again defeated the earl at Barnet. On the outbreak of the Civil War of the 17th century, Hertfordshire joined with Bedfordshire and Essex in petitioning for peace, and St Albans again played an important part in the struggle, being at different times the headquarters of Essex and Fairfax.

As a shire Hertfordshire is of purely military origin, being the district assigned to the fortress which Edward the Elder erected at Hertford. It is first mentioned in the Saxon Chronicle in 1011. At the time of the Domesday Survey the boundaries were approximately those of the present day, but part of Meppershall in Bedfordshire formed a detached portion of the shire and is still assessed for land and income tax in Hertfordshire. Of the nine Domesday hundreds, those of Danais and Tring were consolidated about 1200 under the name of Dacorum; the modern hundred of Cashio, from being held by the abbots of St Albans, was known as Albaneston, while the remaining six hundreds correspond approximately both in name and extent with those of the present day.

Hertfordshire was originally divided between the dioceses of London and Lincoln. In 1291 that part included in the Lincoln diocese formed part of the archdeaconry of Huntingdom and comprised the deaneries of Berkhampstead, Hitchin, Hertford and Baldock, and the archdeaconry and deanery of St Albans; while that part within the London diocese formed the deanery of Braughing within the archdeaconry of Middlesex. In 1535 the jurisdiction of St Albans had been transferred to the London diocese, the division being otherwise unchanged. In 1846 the whole county was placed within the diocese of Rochester and archdeaconry of St Albans, and in the next year the deaneries of Welwyn, Bennington, Buntingford, Bishop Stortford and Ware were created, and that of Braughing abolished. In 1864 the archdeaconries of Rochester and St Albans were united under the name of the archdeaconry of Rochester and St Albans. In 1878 the county was placed in the newly created diocese of St Albans, and formed the archdeaconry of St Albans, the deaneries being unchanged.

Hertfordshire was closely associated with Essex from the time of its first settlement, and the counties paid a joint fee-farm and were united under one sheriff until 1565, the shire-court being held at Hertford. The hundred of St Albans was at an early date constituted a separate liberty, with independent courts and coroners under the control of the abbot; it preserved a separate commission of the peace until 1874, when by act of parliament the county was arranged in two divisions, the eastern division being named Hertford, and the western the liberty of St Albans. These divisions have since been abolished.

Hertfordshire has always been an agricultural county, with few manufactures, and at the time of the Domesday Survey its wealth was derived almost entirely from its rural manors, with their water meadows, woodlands, fisheries paying rent in eels, and water-mills, the shire on its eastern side being noticeably free from waste land. In Norman times the woollen trade was considerable, and the great corn market at Royston has been famous since the reign of Elizabeth. At the time of the Civil War the malting industry was largely carried on, and saltpetre was produced in the county. In the 17th century Hertfordshire was famous for its horses, and the 18th century saw the introduction of several minor industries, such as straw-plaiting, paper-making and silk weaving.

In 1290 Hertfordshire returned two members to parliament, and in 1298 the borough of Hertford was represented. St Albans, Bishop Stortford and Berkhampstead acquired representation in the 14th century, but from 1375 to 1553 no returns were made for the boroughs. St Albans regained representation in 1553 and Hertford in 1623. Under the Reform Act of 1832 the county returned three members. St Albans was disfranchised on account of bribery in 1852. Hertford lost one member in 1868, and was disfranchised by the act of 1885.

Antiquities.—Among the objects of antiquarian interest may be mentioned the cave of Royston, doubtless once used as a hermitage; Waltham Cross, erected to mark the spot where rested the body of Eleanor, queen of Edward I., on its way to Westminster for interment; and the Great Bed of Ware referred to in Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night and preserved at Rye House. The principal monastic buildings are the noble pile of St Albans abbey; the remains of Sopwell Benedictine nunnery near St Albans, founded in 1140; the remains of the priory of Ware, dedicated to St Francis, and originally a cell to the monastery of St Ebrulf at Utica in Normandy; and the remains of the priory at Hitchin built by Edward II. for the Carmelites. Among the more interesting churches may be mentioned those of Abbots Langley and Hemel Hempstead, both of Late Norman architecture; Baldock, a handsome mixed Gothic building supposed to have been erected by the Knights Templars in the reign of Stephen; Royston, formerly connected with the priory of canons regular; Hitchin of the 15th century; Hatfield, dating from the 13th century but in the main later; Berkhampstead, chiefly in the Perpendicular style, with a tower of the 16th century. Sandridge church shows good Norman work with the use of Roman bricks; Wheathampstead church, mainly very fine Decorated, has pre-Norman remains. The remains of secular buildings of importance are those of Berkhampstead castle, Hertford castle, Hatfield palace of the bishops of Ely, the slight traces at Bishop Stortford, and the earthworks at Anstey. Among the numerous mansions of interest, Rye House, erected in the reign of Henry VI., was tenanted by Rumbold, one of the principal agents in the plot to assassinate Charles II. Moor Park, Rickmansworth, once the property of St Albans abbey, was granted by Henry VII. to John de Vere, earl of Oxford, and was afterwards the property of the duke of Monmouth, who built the present mansion, which, however, was subsequently cased with Portland stone and received various other additions. Knebworth, the seat of the Lyttons, was originally a Norman fortress, rebuilt in the time of Elizabeth in the Tudor style and restored in the 19th century. Hatfield House is the seat of the marquis of Salisbury; but its earlier history is of great interest, as is that of Theobalds near Cheshunt. Panshanger House, until recently the principal seat of the Cowpers, is a splendid mansion in Gothic style erected at the beginning of the 19th century. The manor of Cashiobury House, the seat of the earls of Essex, was formerly held by the abbot of St Albans, but the mansion was rebuilt in the beginning of the 19th century from designs by Wyatt. Gorhambury House, near St Albans, the seat of the earl of Verulam, formerly the seat of the Bacons, and the residence of the great chancellor, was rebuilt at the close of the 18th century. At Kings Langley and Hunsdon were also former royal residences.

See Sir H. Chauncy, Historical Antiquities of Hertfordshire (London, 1700, 2nd ed., Bishop Stortford, 1826); N. Salmon, History of Hertfordshire (London, 1728); R. Clutterbuck, History and Antiquities of the County of Hertford (London, 1815-1827); W. Berry, Pedigrees of the Hertfordshire Families (London, 1844); J. E. Cussans, History of Hertfordshire (London, 1870-1881); Victoria County History, Hertfordshire (London, 1902, &c.); see also “Visitation of Hertfordshire, 1572-1634,” in Harleian Society’s Publ. vol. xvii., and various papers in Middlesex and Hertfordshire Notes and Queries (1895-1898), which in January 1899 was incorporated in the Home Counties Magazine.

HERTHA, or Nerthus, in Teutonic mythology, the goddess of fertility, “Mother Earth.” Tacitus states that many Teutonic tribes worshipped her with orgies and mysterious rites celebrated at night. The chief seat of her cult was an island which has not been identified. A single priest performed the service. Her veiled statue was moved from place to place by sacred cows on which none but the priest might lay hands. At the conclusion of the rites the image, its vestments and its vehicle were bathed in a lake.

HERTZ, HEINRICH RUDOLF (1857-1894), German physicist, was born at Hamburg on the 22nd of February 1857. On leaving school he determined to adopt the profession of engineering, and in the pursuance of this decision went to study in Munich in 1877. But soon coming to the conclusion that engineering was not his vocation he abandoned it in favour of physical science, and in October 1878 began to attend the lectures of G. R. Kirchhoff and H. von Helmholtz at Berlin. In preparation for these he spent the winter of 1877-1878 in reading up original treatises like those of Laplace and Lagrange on mathematics and mechanics, and in attending courses on practical physics under P. G. von Jolly and J. F. W. von Bezold; the consequence was that within a few days of his arrival in Berlin in October 1878 he was able to plunge into original research on a problem of electric inertia. For the best solution a prize was offered by the philosophical faculty of the University, and this he succeeded in winning with the paper which was published in 1880 on the “Kinetic Energy of Electricity in Motion.” His next investigation, on “Induction in Rotating Spheres,” he offered in 1880 as his dissertation for his doctor’s degree, which he obtained with the rare distinction of summa cum laude. Later in the same year he became assistant to Helmholtz in the physical laboratory of the Berlin Institute. During the three years he held this position he carried out researches on the contact of elastic solids, hardness, evaporation and the electric discharge in gases, the last earning him the special commendation of Helmholtz. In 1883 he went to Kiel, becoming Privatdozent, and there he began the studies in Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory which a few years later resulted in the discoveries that rendered his name famous. These were actually made between 1885 and 1889, when he was professor of physics in the Carlsruhe Polytechnic. He himself recorded that their origin is to be sought in a prize problem proposed by the Berlin Academy of Sciences in 1879, having reference to the experimental establishment of some relation between electromagnetic forces and the dielectric polarization of insulators. Imagining that this would interest Hertz and be successfully attacked by him, Helmholtz specially drew his attention to it, and promised him the assistance of the Institute if he decided to work on the subject; but Hertz did not take it up seriously at that time, because he could not think of any procedure likely to prove effective. It was of course well known, as a necessity of Maxwell’s mathematical theory, that the polarization and depolarization of an insulator must give rise to the same electromagnetic effects in the neighbourhood as a voltaic current in a conductor. The experimental proof, however, was still lacking, and though several experimenters had come very near its discovery, Hertz was the first who actually succeeded in supplying it, in 1887. Continuing his inquiries for the next year or two, he was able to discover the progressive propagation of electromagnetic action through space, to measure the length and velocity of electromagnetic waves, and to show that in the transverse nature of their vibration and their susceptibility to reflection, refraction and polarization they are in complete correspondence with the waves of light and heat. The result, was in Helmholtz’s words, to establish beyond doubt that ordinary light consists of electrical vibrations in an all-pervading ether which possesses the properties of an insulator and of a magnetic medium. Hertz himself gave an admirable account of the significance of his discoveries in a lecture on the relations between light and electricity, delivered before the German Society for the Advancement of Natural Science and Medicine at Heidelberg in September 1889. Since the time of these early experiments, various other modes of detecting the existence of electric waves have been found out in addition to the spark-gap which he first employed, and the results of his observations, the earliest interest of which was simply that they afforded a confirmation of an abstruse mathematical theory, have been applied to the practical purposes of signalling over considerable distances (see [Telegraphy], [Wireless]). In 1889 Hertz was appointed to succeed R. J. E. Clausius as ordinary professor of physics in the university of Bonn. There he continued his researches on the discharge of electricity in rarefied gases, only just missing the discovery of the X-rays described by W. C. Röntgen a few years later, and produced his treatise on the Principles of Mechanics. This was his last work, for after a long illness he died at Bonn on the 1st of January 1894. By his premature death science lost one of her most promising disciples. Helmholtz thought him the one of all his pupils who had penetrated farthest into his own circle of scientific thought, and looked to him with the greatest confidence for the further extension and development of his work.

Hertz’s scientific papers were translated into English by Professor D. E. Jones, and published in three volumes: Electric Waves (1893), Miscellaneous Papers (1896), and Principles of Mechanics (1899). The preface contributed to the first of these by Lord Kelvin, and the introductions to the second and third by Professors P. E. A. Lenard and Helmholtz, contain many biographical details, together with statements of the scope and significance of his investigations.

HERTZ, HENRIK (1797-1870), Danish poet, was born of Jewish parents in Copenhagen on the 25th of August 1798. In 1817 he was sent to the university. His father died in his infancy, and the family property was destroyed in the bombardment of 1807. The boy was brought up by his relative, M. L. Nathanson, a well-known newspaper editor. Young Hertz passed his examination in law in 1825. But his taste was all for polite literature, and in 1826-1827 two plays of his were produced, Mr Burchardt and his Family and Love and Policy; in 1828 followed the comedy of Flyttedagen. In 1830 he brought out what was a complete novelty in Danish literature, a comedy in rhymed verse, Amor’s Strokes of Genius. In the same year Hertz published anonymously Gengangerbrevene, or Letters from a Ghost, which he pretended were written by Baggesen, who had died in 1826. The book was written in defence of J. L. Heiberg, and was full of satirical humour and fine critical insight. Its success was overwhelming; but Hertz preserved his anonymity, and the secret was not known until many years later. In 1832 he published a didactic poem, Nature and Art, and Four Poetical Epistles. A Day on the Island of Als was his next comedy, followed in 1835 by The Only Fault. Hertz passed through Germany and Switzerland into Italy in 1833; he spent the winter there, and returned the following autumn through France to Denmark. In 1836 his comedy of The Savings Bank enjoyed a great success. But it was not till 1837 that he gave the full measure of his genius in the romantic national drama of Svend Dyrings Hus, a beautiful and original piece. His historical tragedy Valdemar Atterdag was not so well received in 1839; but in 1845 he achieved an immense success with his lyrical drama Kong René’s Datter (King René’s Daughter), which has been translated into almost every European language. To this succeeded the tragedy of Ninon in 1848, the romantic comedy of Tonietta in 1849, A Sacrifice in 1853, The Youngest in 1854. His lyrical poems appeared in successive collections, dated 1832, 1840 and 1844. From 1858 to 1859 he edited a literary journal entitled Weekly Leaves. His last drama, Three Days in Padua, was produced in 1869, and he died on the 25th of February of the next year.

Hertz is one of the first of Danish lyrical poets. His poems are full of colour and passion, his versification has more witchcraft in it than any other poet’s of his age, and his style is grace itself. He has all the sensuous fire of Keats without his proclivity to the antique. As a romantic dramatist he is scarcely less original. He has bequeathed to the Danish theatre, in Svend Dyrings Hus and King René’s Daughter, two pieces which have become classic. He is a troubadour by instinct; he has little or nothing of Scandinavian local colouring, and succeeds best when he is describing the scenery or the emotions of the glowing south.

His Dramatic Works (18 vols.) were published at Copenhagen in 1854-1873; and his Poems (4 vols.) in 1851-1862.

HERTZBERG, EWALD FRIEDRICH, Count Von (1725-1795), Prussian statesman, who came of a noble family which had been settled in Pomerania since the 13th century, was born at Lottin, in that province, on the 2nd of September 1725. After 1739 he studied, chiefly classics and history at the gymnasium at Stettin, and in 1742 entered the university of Halle as a student of jurisprudence, becoming in due course a doctor of laws in 1745. In addition to this principal study, he was also interested while at the university in historical and philosophical (Christian Wolff) studies. A first thesis for his doctorate, entitled Jus publicum Brandenburgicum, was not printed, because it contained a criticism of the existing condition of the state. Shortly afterwards Hertzberg entered the government service, in which he was first employed in the department of the state archives (of which he became director in 1750), soon after in the foreign office, and finally in 1763 as chief minister (Cabinetsminister). In 1752 he married Baroness Marie von Knyphausen, a marriage which was happy, but childless.

For more than forty years Hertzberg played an active part in the Prussian foreign office. In this capacity he had a decisive influence on Prussian policy, both under Frederick the Great and Frederick William II. At the beginning of the Seven Years’ War (1756) he took part as a political writer in the Hohenzollern-Habsburg quarrel, both in his Ursachen, die S.K.M. in Preussen bewogen haben, sich wider die Absichten des Wienerischen Hofes zu setzen und deren Ausführung zuvorzukommen (“Motives which have induced the king of Prussia to oppose the intentions of the court of Vienna, and to prevent them from being carried into effect”), and in his Mémoire raisonné sur la conduite des cours de Vienne et de Saxe, based on the secret papers taken by Frederick the Great from the archives of Dresden. After the defeat at Kolin (1757) he hastened to Pomerania in order to organize the national defence there and collect the necessary troops for the protection of the fortresses of Stettin and Colberg. In the same year he conducted the peace negotiations with Sweden, and was of great service in bringing about the peace of Hubertsburg (1763), on the conclusion of which the king received him with the words, “I congratulate you. You have made peace as I made war, one against many.”

In the later years, too, of Frederick the Great’s reign, Hertzberg played a considerable part in foreign policy. In 1772, in a memoir based upon comprehensive historical studies, he defended the Prussian claims to certain provinces of Poland. He also took part successfully as a publicist in the negotiations concerning the question of the Bavarian succession (1778) and those of the peace of Teschen (1779). But in 1780 he failed to uphold Prussian interests at the election of the bishop of Münster. In 1784 appeared Hertzberg’s memoir containing a thorough study of the Fürstenbund. He championed this latest creation of Frederick the Great’s mainly with a view to an energetic reform of the empire, though the idea of German unity was naturally still far from his mind. In 1785 followed “An explanation of the motives which have led the king of Prussia to propose to the other high estates of the empire an association for the maintenance of the system of the empire” (Erklärung der Ursachen, welche S.M. in Preussen bewogen haben, ihren hohen Mitständen des Reichs eine Association zur Erhaltung des Reichssystems anzutragen). By upholding the Fürstenbund Hertzberg made many enemies, prominent among whom was the king’s brother, Prince Henry. Though the Fürstenbund failed to effect a reform of the empire, it at any rate prevented the fulfilment of Joseph II.’s old desire for the incorporation of Bavaria with Austria. The last act of state in which Hertzberg took part under Frederick the Great was the commercial treaty concluded in 1785 between Prussia and the United States.

With Frederick, especially in his later years, Hertzberg stood in very intimate personal relations and was often the king’s guest at Sans-Souci. Under Frederick William II. his influential position at the court of Berlin was at first unshaken. The king at once received him with favour, as is clearly proved by Hertzberg’s elevation to the rank of count in 1786; and Mirabeau would never have attacked him with such violence in his Secret History of the Court of Berlin, which appeared in 1788, if he had not seen in him the most powerful man after the king. In this attack Mirabeau seems to have been influenced by Hertzberg’s personal enemies at the court. Hertzberg’s political system remained on the whole the same under Frederick William II. as it had been under his predecessor. It was mainly characterized by a sharp opposition to the house of Habsburg and by a desire to win for Prussia the support of England, a policy supported by him in important memoirs of the years 1786 and 1787. His diplomacy was directed also against Austria’s old ally, France. Hence it was chiefly owing to Hertzberg that in 1787, in spite of the king’s unwillingness at first, Prussia intervened in Holland in support of the stadtholder William V. against the democratic French party (see [Holland]: History). The success of this intervention, which was the practical realization of a plan very characteristic of Hertzberg, marks the culminating point in his career.

But the opposition between him and the new king, which had already appeared at the time of the conclusion of the triple alliance between Holland, England and Prussia, became more marked in the following years, when Hertzberg, relying upon this alliance, and in conscious imitation of Frederick II.’s policy at the time of the first partition of Poland, sought to take advantage of the entanglement of Austria with Russia in the war with Turkey to secure for Prussia an extension of territory by diplomatic intervention. According to his plan, Prussia was to offer her mediation at the proper moment, and in the territorial readjustments that the peace would bring, was to receive Danzig and Thorn as her portion. Beyond this he aimed at preventing the restoration of the hegemony of Austria in the Empire, and secretly cherished the hope of restoring Frederick the Great’s Russian alliance.

With a curious obstinacy he continued to pursue these aims even when, owing to military and diplomatic events, they were already partly out of date. His personal position became increasingly difficult, as deep-rooted differences between him and the king were revealed during these diplomatic campaigns. Hertzberg wished to effect everything by peaceful means, while Frederick William II. was for a time determined on war with Austria. As regards Polish policy, too, their ideas came into conflict, Hertzberg having always been openly opposed to the total annihilation of the Polish kingdom. The same is true of the attitude of king and minister towards Great Britain. At the conferences at Reichenbach in the summer of 1790, this opposition became more and more acute, and Hertzberg was only with difficulty persuaded to come to an agreement merely on the basis of the status quo, as demanded by Pitt. The king’s renunciation of any extension of territory was in Hertzberg’s eyes impolitic, and this view of his was later endorsed by Bismarck. A letter which came to the eyes of the king, in which Hertzberg severely criticized the king’s foreign policy, and especially his plans for attacking Russia, led to his dismissal on the 5th of July 1791. He afterwards made several attempts to exert an influence over foreign affairs, but in vain. The king showed himself more and more personally hostile to the ex-minister, and in later years pursued Hertzberg, now quite embittered, with every kind of petty persecution, even ordering his letters to be opened.

Even in his literary interests Hertzberg found an adversary in the ungrateful king, for Frederick William, to give one instance, made it so difficult for him to use the archives that in the end Hertzberg entirely gave up the attempt. He found, however, some recompense for all his disillusionment and discouragement in learning, and, Wilhelm von Humboldt excepted, he was the most learned of all the Prussian ministers. As a member of the Berlin Academy especially, and, from 1786 onwards, as its curator, Hertzberg carried on a great and valuable activity in the world of learning. His yearly reports dealt with history, statistics and political science. The most interesting is that of 1784: Sur la forme des gouvernements, et quelle est la meilleure. This is directed exclusively against the absolute system (following Montesquieu), upholds a limited monarchy, and is in favour of extending to the peasants the right to be represented in the diet. He spoke for the last time in 1793 on Frederick the Great and the advantages of monarchy. After 1783 these discourses caused a great sensation, since Hertzberg introduced into them a review of the financial situation, which in the days of absolutism seemed an unprecedented innovation. Besides this, Hertzberg exerted himself as an academician to change the strongly French character of the Academy and make it into a truly German institution. He showed a keen interest in the old German language and literature. A special “German deputation” was set aside at the Academy and entrusted with the drawing up of a German grammar and dictionary. He also stood in very close relations with many of the German poets of the time, and especially with Daniel Schubart. Among the German historians in whom he took a great interest, he had the greatest esteem for Pufendorf. He was equally concerned in the improvement of the state of education. In 1780 he boldly took up the defence of German literature, which had been disparaged by Frederick the Great in his famous writing De la littérature allemande.

Hertzberg’s frank and honourable nature little fitted him to be a successful diplomatist; but the course of history has justified many of his aims and ideals, and in Prussia his memory is honoured. He died at Berlin on the 22nd of May 1795.

Authorities.—(1) By Hertzberg himself: The Mémoires de l’Académie from 1780 on contain Hertzberg’s discourses. The most noteworthy of them were printed in 1787. Here too is to be found: Histoire de la dissertation [du roi] sur la littérature allemande; see also Recueil des déductions, &c., qui ont été rédigés ... pour la cour de Prusse par le ministre (3 vols., 1789-1795); and an “Autobiographical Sketch” published by Höpke in Schmidt’s Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, i. (1843). (2) Works dealing specially with Hertzberg: Mirabeau, Histoire secrète de la cour de Berlin (1788); P. F. Weddigen, Hertzbergs Leben (Bremen, 1797); E. L. Posselt, Hertzbergs Leben (Tübingen, 1798); H. Lehmann, in Neustettiner Programm (1862); E. Fischer, in Staatsanzeiger (1873); M. Duncker, in Historische Zeitschrift (1877); Paul Bailleu, in Historische Zeitschrift (1879); and Allgemeine deutsche Biographie (1880); H. Petrich, Pommersche Lebensbilder i. (1880); G. Dressler, Friedrich II. und Hertzberg in ihrer Stellung zu den holländischen Wirren, Breslauer Dissertation (1882); K. Krauel, Hertzberg als Minister Friedrich Wilhelms II. (Berlin, 1899); F. K. Wittichen, in Historische Vierteljahrschrift, 9 (1906); A. Th. Preuss, Ewald Friedrich, Graf von Hertzberg (Berlin, 1909). (3) General works: F. K. Wittichen, Preussen und England, 1785-1788 (Heidelberg, 1902); F. Luckwaldt, Die englisch-preussische Allianz von 1788 in den Forschungen zur brandenburgisch-preussischen Geschichte, Bd. 15, and in the Delbrückfestschrift (Berlin, 1908); L. Sevin, System der preussischen Geheimpolitik 1790-1791 (Heidelberger Dissertation, 1903); P. Wittichen, Die polnische Politik Preussens 1788-1790 (Berlin, 1899); F. Andreae, Preussische und russische Politik in Polen 1787-1789 (Berliner Dissertation, 1905); also W. Wenck, Deutschland vor 100 Jahren (2 vols., 1887, 1890); A. Harnack, Geschichte der preussischen Akademie (4 vols., 1899); Consentius, Preussische Jahrbücher (1904); J. Hashagen, “Hertzbergs Verhältnis zur deutschen Literatur,” in Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie for 1903.

(J. Hn.)

HERTZEN, ALEXANDER (1812-1870), Russian author, was born at Moscow, a very short time before the occupation of that city by the French. His father, Ivan Yakovlef, after a personal interview with Napoleon, was allowed to leave, when the invaders arrived, as the bearer of a letter from the French to the Russian emperor. His family attended him to the Russian lines. Then the mother of the infant Alexander (a young German Protestant of Jewish extraction from Stuttgart, according to A. von Wurzbach), only seventeen years old, and quite unable to speak Russian, was forced to seek shelter for some time in a peasant’s hut. A year later the family returned to Moscow, where Hertzen passed his youth—remaining there, after completing his studies at the university, till 1834, when he was arrested and tried on a charge of having assisted, with some other youths, at a festival during which verses by Sokolovsky, of a nature uncomplimentary to the emperor, were sung. The special commission appointed to try the youthful culprits found him guilty, and in 1835 he was banished to Viatka. There he remained till the visit to that city of the hereditary grand-duke (afterwards Alexander II.), accompanied by the poet Joukofsky, led to his being allowed to quit Viatka for Vladimir, where he was appointed editor of the official gazette of that city. In 1840 he obtained a post in the ministry of the interior at St Petersburg; but in consequence of having spoken too frankly about a death due to a police officer’s violence, he was sent to Novgorod, where he led an official life, with the title of “state councillor,” till 1842. In 1846 his father died, leaving him by his will a very large property. Early in 1847 he left Russia, never to return. From Italy, on hearing of the revolution of 1848, he hastened to Paris, whence he afterwards went to Switzerland. In 1852 he quitted Geneva for London, where he settled for some years. In 1864 he returned to Geneva, and after some time went to Paris, where he died on the 21st of January 1870.

His literary career began in 1842 with the publication of an essay, in Russian, on Dilettantism in Science, under the pseudonym of “Iskander,” the Turkish form of his Christian name—convicts, even when pardoned, not being allowed in those days to publish under their own names. His second work, also in Russian, was his Letters on the Study of Nature (1845-1846). In 1847 appeared, his novel Kto Vinovat? (Whose Fault?), and about the same time were published in Russian periodicals the stories which were afterwards collected and printed in London in 1854, under the title of Prervannuie Razskazui (Interrupted Tales). In 1850 two works appeared, translated from the Russian manuscript, Vom anderen Ufer (From another Shore) and Lettres de France et d’Italie. In French appeared also his essay Du Développement des idées révolutionnaires en Russie, and his Memoirs, which, after being printed in Russian, were translated under the title of Le Monde russe et la Révolution (3 vols., 1860-1862), and were in part translated into English as My Exile to Siberia (2 vols., 1855). From a literary point of view his most important work is Kto Vinovat? a story describing how the domestic happiness of a young tutor, who marries the unacknowledged daughter of a Russian sensualist of the old type, dull, ignorant and genial, is troubled by a Russian sensualist of the new school, intelligent, accomplished and callous, without there being any possibility of saying who is most to be blamed for the tragic termination. But it was as a political writer that Hertzen gained the vast reputation which he at one time enjoyed. Having founded in London his “Free Russian Press,” of the fortunes of which, during ten years, he gave an interesting account in a book published (in Russian) in 1863, he issued from it a great number of Russian works, all levelled against the system of government prevailing in Russia. Some of these were essays, such as his Baptized Property, an attack on serfdom; others were periodical publications, the Polyarnaya Zvyezda (or Polar Star), the Kolokol (or Bell), and the Golosa iz Rossii (or Voices from Russia). The Kolokol soon obtained an immense circulation, and exercised an extraordinary influence. For three years, it is true, the founders of the “Free Press” went on printing, “not only without selling a single copy, but scarcely being able to get a single copy introduced into Russia”; so that when at last a bookseller bought ten shillings’ worth of Baptized Property, the half-sovereign was set aside by the surprised editors in a special place of honour. But the death of the emperor Nicholas in 1855 produced an entire change. Hertzen’s writings, and the journals he edited, were smuggled wholesale into Russia, and their words resounded throughout that country, as well as all over Europe. Their influence became overwhelming. Evil deeds long hidden, evil-doers who had long prospered, were suddenly dragged into light and disgrace. His bold and vigorous language aptly expressed the thoughts which had long been secretly stirring Russian minds, and were now beginning to find a timid utterance at home. For some years his influence in Russia was a living force, the circulation of his writings was a vocation zealously pursued. Stories tell how on one occasion a merchant, who had bought several cases of sardines at Nijni-Novgorod, found that they contained forbidden print instead of fish, and at another time a supposititious copy of the Kolokol was printed for the emperor’s special use, in which a telling attack upon a leading statesman, which had appeared in the genuine number, was omitted. At length the sweeping changes introduced by Alexander II. greatly diminished the need for and appreciation of Hertzen’s assistance in the work of reform. The freedom he had demanded for the serfs was granted, the law-courts he had so long denounced were remodelled, trial by jury was established, liberty was to a great extent conceded to the press. It became clear that Hertzen’s occupation was gone. When the Polish insurrection of 1863 broke out, and he pleaded the insurgents’ cause, his reputation in Russia received its death-blow. From that time it was only with the revolutionary party that he was in full accord.

In 1873 a collection of his works in French was commenced in Paris. A volume of posthumous works, in Russian, was published at Geneva in 1870. His Memoirs supply the principal information about his life, a sketch of which appears also in A. von Wurzbach’s Zeitgenossen, pt. 7 (Vienna, 1871). See also the Revue des deux mondes for July 15 and Sept. 1, 1854. Kto Vinovat? has been translated into German under the title of Wer ist schuld? in Wolffsohn’s Russlands Novellendichter, vol. iii. The title of My Exile in Siberia is misleading; he was never in that country.

(W. R. S.-R.)

HERULI, a Teutonic tribe which figures prominently in the history of the migration period. The name does not occur in writings of the first two centuries A.D. Where the original home of the Heruli was situated is never clearly stated. Jordanes says that they had been expelled from their territories by the Danes, from which it may be inferred that they belonged either to what is now the kingdom of Denmark, or the southern portion of the Jutish peninsula. They are mentioned first in the reign of Gallienus (260-268), when we find them together with the Goths ravaging the coasts of the Black Sea and the Aegean. Shortly afterwards, in A.D. 289, they appear in the region about the mouth of the Rhine. During the 4th century they frequently served together with the Batavi in the Roman armies. In the 5th century we again hear of piratical incursions by the Heruli in the western seas. At the same time they had a kingdom in central Europe, apparently in or round the basin of the Elbe. Together with the Thuringi and Warni they were called upon by Theodoric the Ostrogoth about the beginning of the 6th century to form an alliance with him against the Frankish king Clovis, but very shortly afterwards they were completely overthrown in war by the Langobardi. A portion of them migrated to Sweden, where they settled among the Götar, while others crossed the Danube and entered the Roman service, where they are frequently mentioned later in connexion with the Gothic wars. After the middle of the 6th century, however, their name completely disappears. It is curious that in English, Frankish and Scandinavian works they are never mentioned, and there can be little doubt that they were known, especially among the western Teutonic peoples, by some other name. Probably they are identical either with the North Suabi or with the Iuti. The name Heruli itself is identified by many with the A.S. eorlas (nobles), O.S. erlos (men), the singular of which (erilaz) frequently occurs in the earliest Northern inscriptions, apparently as a title of honour. The Heruli remained heathen until the overthrow of their kingdom, and retained many striking primitive customs. When threatened with death by disease or old age, they were required to call in an executioner, who stabbed them on the pyre. Suttee was also customary. They were entirely devoted to warfare and served not only in the Roman armies, but also in those of all the surrounding nations. They disdained the use of helmets and coats of mail, and protected themselves only with shields.

See Georgius Syncellus; Mamertinus Paneg. Maximi; Ammianus Marcellinus; Zosimus i. 39; Idatius, Chronica; Jordanes, De origine Getarum; Procopius, esp. Bellum Goticum, ii. 14 f.; Bellum Persicum, ii. 25; Paulus Diaconus, Hist. Langobardorum, i. 20; K. Zeuss, Die Deutschen und die Nachbarstämme, pp. 476 ff. (Munich, 1837).

(F. G. M. B.)

HERVÁS Y PANDURO, LORENZO (1735-1809), Spanish philologist, was born at Horcajo (Cuenca) on the 10th of May 1735. He joined the Jesuits on the 29th of September 1745 and in course of time became successively professor of philosophy and humanities at the seminaries of Madrid and Murcia. When the Jesuit order was banished from Spain in 1767, Hervás settled at Forli, and devoted himself to the first part of his Idea dell’ Universo (22 vols., 1778-1792). Returning to Spain in 1798, he published his famous Catálogo de las lenguas de las naciones conocidas (6 vols., 1800-1805), in which he collected the philological peculiarities of three hundred languages and drew up grammars of forty languages. In 1802 he was appointed librarian of the Quirinal Palace in Rome, where he died on the 24th of August 1809. Max Müller credits him with having anticipated Humboldt, and with making “one of the most brilliant discoveries in the history of the science of language” by establishing the relation between the Malay and Polynesian family of speech.

HERVEY, JAMES (1714-1758), English divine, was born at Hardingstone, near Northampton, on the 26th of February 1714, and was educated at the grammar school of Northampton, and at Lincoln College, Oxford. Here he came under the influence of John Wesley and the Oxford methodists; ultimately, however, while retaining his regard for the men and his sympathy with their religious aims, he adopted a thoroughly Calvinistic creed, and resolved to remain in the Anglican Church. Having taken orders in 1737, he held several curacies, and in 1752 succeeded his father in the family livings of Weston Favell and Collingtree. He was never robust, but was a good parish priest and a zealous writer. His style is often bombastic, but he displays a rare appreciation of natural beauty, and his simple piety made him many friends. His earliest work, Meditations and Contemplations, said to have been modelled on Robert Boyle’s Occasional Reflexions on various Subjects, within fourteen years passed through as many editions. Theron and Aspasio, or a series of Letters upon the most important and interesting Subjects, which appeared in 1755, and was equally well received, called forth some adverse criticism even from Calvinists, on account of tendencies which were considered to lead to antinomianism, and was strongly objected to by Wesley in his Preservative against unsettled Notions in Religion. Besides carrying into England the theological disputes to which the Marrow of Modern Divinity had given rise in Scotland, it also led to what is known as the Sandemanian controversy as to the nature of saving faith. Hervey died on the 25th of December 1758.

A “new and complete” edition of his Works, with a memoir, appeared in 1797. See also Collection of the Letters of James Hervey, to which is prefixed an account of his Life and Death, by Dr Birch (1760).

HERVEY DE SAINT DENYS, MARIE JEAN LÉON, Marquis d’ (1823-1892), French Orientalist and man of letters, was born in Paris in 1823. He devoted himself to the study of Chinese, and in 1851 published his Recherches sur l’agriculture et l’horticulture des Chinois, in which he dealt with the plants and animals that might be acclimatized in the West. At the Paris Exhibition of 1867 he acted as commissioner for the Chinese exhibits; in 1874 he succeeded Stanislas Julien in the chair of Chinese at the Collège de France; and in 1878 he was elected a member of the Académie des Inscriptions et de Belles-Lettres. His works include Poésies de l’époque des T’ang (1862), translated from the Chinese; Ethnographie des peuples étrangers à la Chine, translated from Ma-Touan-Lin (1876-1883); Li-Sao (1870), from the Chinese; Mémoires sur les doctrines religieuse; de Confucius et de l’école des lettres (1887); and translations of some Chinese stories not of classical interest but valuable for the light they throw on oriental custom. Hervey de Saint Denys also translated some works from the Spanish, and wrote a history of the Spanish drama. He died in Paris on the 2nd of November 1892.

HERVEY OF ICKWORTH, JOHN HERVEY, Baron (1696-1743), English statesman and writer, eldest son of John, 1st earl of Bristol, by his second marriage, was born on the 13th of October 1696. He was educated at Westminster school and at Clare Hall, Cambridge, where he took his M.A. degree in 1715. In 1716 his father sent him to Paris, and thence to Hanover to pay his court to George I. He was a frequent visitor at the court of the prince and princess of Wales at Richmond, and in 1720 he married Mary Lepell, who was one of the princess’s ladies-in-waiting, and a great court beauty. In 1723 he received the courtesy title of Lord Hervey on the death of his half-brother Carr, and in 1725 he was elected M.P. for Bury St Edmunds. He had been at one time on very friendly terms with Frederick, prince of Wales, but from 1731 he quarrelled with him, apparently because they were rivals in the favour of Anne Vane. These differences probably account for the scathing picture he draws of the prince’s callous conduct. Hervey had been hesitating between William Pulteney (afterwards earl of Bath) and Walpole, but in 1730 he definitely took sides with Walpole, of whom he was thenceforward a faithful adherent. He was assumed by Pulteney to be the author of Sedition and Defamation display’d with a Dedication to the patrons of The Craftsman (1731). Pulteney, who, up to this time, had been a firm friend of Hervey, replied with A Proper Reply to a late Scurrilous Libel, and the quarrel resulted in a duel from which Hervey narrowly escaped with his life. Hervey is said to have denied the authorship of both the pamphlet and its dedication, but a note on the MS. at Ickworth, apparently in his own hand, states that he wrote the latter. He was able to render valuable service to Walpole from his influence over the queen. Through him the minister governed Queen Caroline and indirectly George II. Hervey was vice-chamberlain in the royal household and a member of the privy council. In 1733 he was called to the House of Lords by writ in virtue of his father’s barony. In spite of repeated requests he received no further preferment until after 1740, when he became lord privy seal. After the fall of Sir Robert Walpole he was dismissed (July 1742) from his office. An excellent political pamphlet, Miscellaneous Thoughts on the present Posture of Foreign and Domestic Affairs, shows that he still retained his mental vigour, but he was liable to epilepsy, and his weak appearance and rigid diet were a constant source of ridicule to his enemies. He died on the 5th of August 1743. He predeceased his father, but three of his sons became successively earls of Bristol.

Hervey wrote detailed and brutally frank memoirs of the court of George II. from 1727 to 1737. He gave a most unflattering account of the king, and of Frederick, prince of Wales, and their family squabbles. For the queen and her daughter, Princess Caroline, he had a genuine respect and attachment, and the princess’s affection for him was commonly said to be the reason for the close retirement in which she lived after his death. The MS. of Hervey’s memoirs was preserved by the family, but his son, Augustus John, 3rd earl of Bristol, left strict injunctions that they should not be published until after the death of George III. In 1848 they were published under the editorship of J. W. Croker, but the MS. had been subjected to a certain amount of mutilation before it came into his hands. Croker also softened in some cases the plainspokenness of the original. Hervey’s bitter account of court life and intrigues resembles in many points the memoirs of Horace Walpole, and the two books corroborate one another in many statements that might otherwise have been received with suspicion.

Until the publication of the Memoirs Hervey was chiefly known as the object of savage satire on the part of Pope, in whose works he figured as Lord Fanny, Sporus, Adonis and Narcissus. The quarrel is generally put down to Pope’s jealousy of Hervey’s friendship with Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. In the first of the Imitations of Horace, addressed to William Fortescue, “Lord Fanny” and “Sappho” were generally identified with Hervey and Lady Mary, although Pope denied the personal intention. Hervey had already been attacked in the Dunciad and the Bathos, and he now retaliated. There is no doubt that he had a share in the Verses to the Imitator of Horace (1732) and it is possible that he was the sole author. In the Letter from a nobleman at Hampton Court to a Doctor of Divinity (1733), he scoffed at Pope’s deformity and humble birth. Pope’s reply was a Letter to a Noble Lord, dated November 1733, and the portrait of Sporus in the Epistle to Dr Arbuthnot (1735), which forms the prologue to the satires. Many of the insinuations and insults contained in it are borrowed from Pulteney’s libel. The malicious caricature of Sporus does Hervey great injustice, and he is not much better treated by Horace Walpole, who in reporting his death in a letter (14th of August 1743) to Horace Mann, said he had outlived his last inch of character. Nevertheless his writings prove him to have been a man of real ability, condemned by Walpole’s tactics and distrust of able men to spend his life in court intrigue, the weapons of which, it must be owned, he used with the utmost adroitness. His wife Lady Hervey [Molly Lepell] (1700-1768), of whom an account is to be found in Lady Louisa Stuart’s Anecdotes, was a warm partisan of the Stuarts. She retained her wit and charm throughout her life, and has the distinction of being the recipient of English verses by Voltaire.

See Hervey’s Memoirs of the Court of George II., edited by J. W. Croker (1848); and an article by G. F. Russell Barker in the Dict. Nat. Biog. (vol. xxvi., 1891). Besides the Memoirs he wrote numerous political pamphlets, and some occasional verses.

HERVIEU, PAUL (1857-  ), French dramatist and novelist, was born at Neuilly (Seine) on the 2nd of November 1857. He was called to the bar in 1877, and, after serving some time in the office of the president of the council, he qualified for the diplomatic service, but resigned on his nomination in 1881 to a secretaryship in the French legation in Mexico. He contributed novels, tales and essays to the chief Parisian papers and reviews, and published a series of clever novels, including L’Inconnu (1887), Flirt (1890), L’Exorcisée (1891), Peints par eux-mêmes (1893), an ironical study written in the form of letters, and L’Armature (1895), dramatized in 1905 by Eugène Brieux. But his most important work consists of a series of plays: Les Paroles restent (Vaudeville, 17th of November 1892); Les Tenailles (Théâtre Français, 28th of September 1895); La Loi de l’homme (Théâtre Français, 15th of February 1897); La Course du flambeau (Vaudeville, 17th of April 1901); Point de lendemain (Odéon, 18th of October 1901), a dramatic version of a story by Vivaut Denon; L’Ênigme (Théâtre Français, 5th of November 1901); Théroigne de Méricourt (Théâtre Sarah Bernhardt, 23rd of September 1902); Le Dédale (Théâtre Français, 19th of December 1903), and Le Réveil (Théâtre Français, 18th of December 1905). These plays are built upon a severely logical method, the mechanism of which is sometimes so evident as to destroy the necessary sense of illusion. The closing words of La Course du flambeau—“Pour ma fille, j’ai tué ma mère”—are an example of his selection of a plot representing an extreme theory. The riddle in L’Éngime (staged at Wyndham’s Theatre, London, March 1st 1902, as Caesar’s Wife) is, however, worked out with great art, and Le Dédale, dealing with the obstacles to the remarriage of a divorced woman, is reckoned among the masterpieces of the modern French stage. He was elected to the French Academy in 1900.

See A. Binet, in L’Année psychologique, vol. x. Hervieu’s Théâtre was published, by Lemerre (3 vols., 1900-1904).

HERWARTH VON BITTENFELD, KARL EBERHARD (1796-1884), Prussian general field-marshal, came of an aristocratic family which had supplied many distinguished officers to the Prussian army. He entered the Guard infantry in 1811, and served through the War of Liberation (1813-15), distinguishing himself at Lützen and Paris. During the years of peace he rose slowly to high command. In the Berlin revolution of 1848 he was on duty at the royal palace as colonel of the 1st Guards. Major-general in 1852, and lieutenant-general in 1856, he received the grade of general of infantry and the command of the VIIth (Westphalian) Army Corps in 1860. In the Danish War of 1864 he succeeded to the command of the Prussians when Prince Frederick Charles became commander-in-chief of the Allies, and it was under his leadership that the Prussians forced the passage into Alsen on the 29th of June. In the war of 1866 Herwarth commanded the “Army of the Elbe” which overran Saxony and invaded Bohemia by the valley of the Elbe and Iser. His troops won the actions of Hühnerwasser and Münchengrätz, and at Königgrätz formed the right wing of the Prussian army. Herwarth himself directed the battle against the Austrian left flank. In 1870 he was not employed in the field, but was in charge of the scarcely less important business of organizing and forwarding all the reserves and material required for the armies in France. In 1871 his great services were recognized by promotion to the rank of field-marshal. The rest of his life was spent in retirement at Bonn, where he died in 1884. Since 1889 the 13th (1st Westphalian) Infantry has borne his name.