VOLUME XIII SLICE IV Hero to Hindu Chronology (continued 6)

Comprises the midges, gnats, crane-flies, gad-flies, &c.

2. Cyclorrhapha: Larva vermiform (no head-capsule). Puparium opening by an anterior “lid.”

Comprises the hover-flies, flesh-flies, bot-flies, &c.

Order: Siphonaptera.

Mandibles fused into a piercer; first maxillae developed as piercers; palps of both pairs of maxillae present; hypopharynx wanting. Prothorax large. Wings absent or vestigial. Larva eruciform, limbless.

Includes the fleas.

Order: Hymenoptera.

Biting mandibles; second maxillae incompletely or completely fused; often forming a suctorial proboscis. Prothorax small, and united to mesothorax. First abdominal segment united to metathorax. Wings membranous, fore-wings larger than hind-wings. Ovipositor always well developed, and often modified into a sting. Numerous (20-150) Malpighian tubes (in rare cases, 6-12 only). Larva eruciform, with seven or eight pairs of abdominal prolegs, or entirely legless. Pupa free.

Includes two sub-orders:—

1. Symphyta: Abdomen not basally constricted. Larvae caterpillars with thoracic legs and abdominal prolegs.

Comprises the saw-flies.

2. Apocrita: Abdomen markedly constricted at second segment. Larvae legless grubs.

Comprises gall-flies, ichneumon-flies, ants, wasps, bees. See Hymenoptera.

Geological History

The classification just given has been drawn up with reference to existing insects, but the great majority of the extinct forms that have been discovered can be referred with some confidence to the same orders, and in many cases to recent families. The Hexapoda, being aerial, terrestrial and fresh-water animals, are but occasionally preserved in stratified rocks, and our knowledge of extinct members of the class is therefore fragmentary, while the description, as insects, of various obscure fossils, which are perhaps not even Arthropods, has not tended to the advancement of this branch of zoology. Nevertheless, much progress has been made. Several Silurian fossils have been identified as insects, including a Thysanuran from North America, but upon these considerable doubt has been cast.

The Devonian rocks of Canada (New Brunswick) have yielded several fossils which are undoubtedly wings of Hexapods. These have been described by S. H. Scudder, and include gigantic forms related to the Ephemeroptera.

In the Carboniferous strata (Coal measures) remains of Hexapods become numerous and quite indisputable. Many European forms of this age have been described by C. Brongniart, and American by S. H. Scudder. The latter has established, for all the Palaeozoic insects, an order Palaeodictyoptera, there being a closer similarity between the fore-wings and the hind-wings than is to be seen in most living orders of Hexapoda, while affinities are shown to several of these orders—notably the Orthoptera, Ephemeroptera, Odonata and Hemiptera. It is probable that many of these Carboniferous insects might be referred to the Isoptera, while others would fall into the existing orders to which they are allied, with some modification of our present diagnoses. Of special interest are cockroach-like forms, with two pairs of similar membranous wings and a long ovipositor, and gigantic insects allied to the Odonata, that measured 2 ft. across the outspread wings. A remarkable fossil from the Scottish Coal-measures (Lithomantis) had apparently small wing-like structures on the prothorax, and in allied genera small veined outgrowths—like tracheal gills—occurred on the abdominal segments. To the Permian period belongs a remarkable genus Eugereon, that combines hemipteroid jaws with orthopteroid wing-neuration. With the dawn of the Mesozoic epoch we reach Hexapods that can be unhesitatingly referred to existing orders. From the Trias of Colorado, Scudder has described cockroaches intermediate between their Carboniferous precursors and their present-day descendants, while the existence of endopterygotous Hexapods is shown by the remains of Coleoptera of several families. In the Jurassic rocks are found Ephemeroptera and Odonata, as well as Hemiptera, referable to existing families, some representatives of which had already appeared in the oldest of the Jurassic ages—the Lias. To the Lias also can be traced back the Neuroptera, the Trichoptera, the orthorrhaphous Diptera and, according to the determination of certain obscure fossils, also the Hymenoptera (ants). The Lithographic stone of Kimmeridgian age, at Solenhofen in Bavaria, is especially rich in insect remains, cyclorrhaphous Diptera appearing here for the first time. In Tertiary times the higher Diptera, besides Lepidoptera and Hymenoptera, referable to existing families, become fairly abundant. Numerous fossil insects preserved in the amber of the Baltic Oligocene have been described by G. L. Mayr and others, while Scudder has studied the rich Oligocene faunas of Colorado (Florissant) and Wyoming (Green River). The Oeningen beds of Baden, of Miocene age, have also yielded an extensive insect fauna, described fifty years ago by O. Heer. Further details of the geological history of the Hexapoda will be found in the special articles on the various orders. Fragmentary as the records are, they show that the Exopterygota preceded the Endopterygota in the evolution of the class, and that among the Endopterygota those orders in which the greatest difference exists between imago and larva—the Lepidoptera, Diptera and Hymenoptera—were the latest to take their rise.

Geographical Distribution

The class Hexapoda has a world-wide range, and so have most of its component orders. The Aptera have perhaps the most extensive distribution of all animals, being found in Franz Josef Land and South Victoria Land, on the snows of Alpine glaciers, and in the depths of the most extensive caves. Most of the families and a large proportion of the genera of insects are exceedingly widespread, but a study of the genera and species in any of the more important families shows that faunas can be distinguished whose headquarters agree fairly with the regions that have been proposed to express the distribution of the higher vertebrates. Many insects, however, can readily extend their range, and a careful study of their distribution leads us to discriminate between faunas rather than definitely to map regions. A large and dominant Holoarctic fauna, with numerous subdivisions, ranges over the great northern continents, and is characterized by the abundance of certain families like the Carabidae and Staphylinidae among the Coleoptera and the Tenthredinidae among the Hymenoptera. The southern territory held by this fauna is invaded by genera and species distinctly tropical. Oriental types range far northwards into China and Japan. Ethiopian forms invade the Mediterranean area. Neotropical and distinctively Sonoran insects mingle with members of the Holoarctic fauna across a wide “transition zone” in North America. “Wallace’s line” dividing the Indo-Malayan and Austro-Malayan sub-regions is frequently transgressed in the range of Malayan insects. The Australian fauna is rich in characteristic and peculiar genera, and New Zealand, while possessing some remarkable insects of its own, lacks entirely several families with an almost world-wide range—for example, the Notodontidae, Lasiocampidae, and other families of Lepidoptera. Interesting relationships between the Ethiopian and Oriental, the Neotropical and West African, the Patagonian and New Zealand faunas suggest great changes in the distribution of land and water, and throw doubt on the doctrine of the permanence of continental areas and oceanic basins. Holoarctic types reappear on the Andes and in South Africa, and even in New Zealand. The study of the Hexapoda of oceanic islands is full of interest. After the determination of a number of cosmopolitan insects that may well have been artificially introduced, there remains a large proportion of endemic species—sometimes referable to distinct genera—which suggest a high antiquity for the truly insular faunas.

Relationships and Phylogeny

The Hexapoda form a very clearly defined class of the Arthropoda, and many recent writers have suggested that they must have arisen independently of other Arthropods from annelid worms, and that the Arthropoda must, therefore, be regarded as an “unnatural,” polyphyletic assemblage. The cogent arguments against this view are set forth in the article on Arthropoda. A near relationship between the Apterygota and the Crustacea has been ably advocated by H. J. Hansen (1893). It is admitted on all hands that the Hexapoda are akin to the Chilopoda. Verhoeff has lately (1904) put forward the view that there are really six segments in the hexapodan thorax and twenty in the abdomen—the cerci belonging to the seventeenth abdominal segment thus showing a close agreement with the centipede Scolopendra. On the other hand, G. H. Carpenter (1899, 1902-1904) has lately endeavoured to show an exact numerical correspondence in segmentation between the Hexapoda, the Crustacea, the Arachnida, and the most primitive of the Diplopoda. On either view it may be believed that the Hexapoda arose with the allied classes from a primitive arthropod stock, while the relationships of the class are with the Crustacea, the Chilopoda and the Diplopoda, rather than with the Arachnida.

Nature of Primitive Hexapoda.—Two divergent views have been held as to the nature of the original hexapod stock. Some of those zoologists who look to Peripatus, or a similar worm-like form, as representing the direct ancestors of the Hexapoda have laid stress on a larva like the caterpillar of a moth or saw-fly as representing a primitive stage. On the other hand, the view of F. Müller and F. Brauer, that the Thysanura represent more nearly than any other existing insects the ancestors of the class, has been accepted by the great majority of students. And there can be little doubt that this belief is justified. The caterpillar, or the maggot, is a specialized larval form characteristic of the most highly developed orders, while the campodeiform larva is the starting-point for the more primitive insects. The occurrence in the hypermetamorphic Coleoptera (see supra) of a campodeiform preceding an eruciform stage in the life-history is most suggestive. Taken in connexion with the likeness of the young among the more generalized orders to the adults, it indicates clearly a thysanuroid starting-point for the evolution of the hexapod orders. And we must infer further that the specialization of the higher orders has been accompanied by an increase in the extent of the metamorphosis—a very exceptional condition among animals generally, as has been ably pointed out by L. C. Miall (1895).

Origin of Wings.—The post-embryonic growth of Hexapods with or without metamorphosis is accompanied in most cases by the acquisition of wings. These organs, thus acquired during the lifetime of the individual, must have been in some way acquired during the evolution of the class. Many students of the group, following Brauer, have regarded the Apterygota as representing the original wingless progenitors of the Pterygota, and the many primitive characters shown by the former group lend support to this view. On the other hand, it has been argued that the presence of wings in a vast majority of the Hexapoda suggests their presence in the ancestors of the whole class. It is most unlikely that wings have been acquired independently by various orders of Hexapoda, and if we regard the Thysanura as the slightly modified representatives of a primitively wingless stock, we must postulate the acquisition of wings by some early offshoot of that stock, an offshoot whence the whole group of the Pterygota took its rise. How wings were acquired by these primitive Pterygota must remain for the present a subject for speculation. Insect wings are specialized outgrowths of certain thoracic segments, and are quite unrepresented in any other class of Arthropods. They are not, therefore, like the wings of birds, modified from some pre-existing structures (the fore-limbs) common to their phylum; they are new and peculiar structures. Comparison of the tracheated wings with the paired tracheated outgrowths on the abdominal segments of the aquatic campodeiform larva of may-flies (see fig. 27) led C. Gegenbaur to the brilliant suggestion that wings might be regarded as specialized and transformed gills. But a survey of the Hexapoda as a whole, and especially a comparative study of the tracheal system, can hardly leave room for doubt that this system is primitively adapted for atmospheric breathing, and that the presence of tracheal gills in larvae must be regarded as a special adaptation for temporary aquatic life. The origin of insect wings remains, therefore, a mystery, deepened by the difficulty of imagining any probable use for thoracic outgrowths, comparable to the wing-rudiments of the Exopterygota, in the early stages of their evolution.

Origin of Metamorphosis.—In connexion with the question whether metamorphosis has been gradually acquired, we have to consider two aspects, viz. the bionomic nature of metamorphosis, and to what extent it existed in primitive insects. Bionomically, metamorphosis may be defined as the sum of adaptations that have gradually fitted the larva (caterpillar or maggot) for one kind of life, the fly for another. So that we may conclude that the factors of evolution would favour its development. With regard to its occurrence in primitive insects, our knowledge of the geological record is most imperfect, but so far as it goes it supports the conclusion that holometabolism (i.e. extreme metamorphosis) is a comparatively recent phenomenon of insect life. None of the groups of existing Endopterygota have been traced with certainty farther back than the Mesozoic epoch, and all the numerous Palaeozoic insect-fossils seem to belong to forms that possessed only imperfect metamorphosis. The only doubt arises from the existence of insect remains, referred to the order Coleoptera, in the Silesian Culm of Steinkunzendorf near Reichenbach. The oldest larva known, Mormolucoides articulatus, is from the New Red Sandstone of Connecticut; it belongs to the Sialidae, one of the lowest forms of Holometabola. It is now, in fact, generally admitted that metamorphosis has been acquired comparatively recently, and Scudder in his review of the earliest fossil insects states that “their metamorphoses were simple and incomplete, the young leaving the egg with the form of the parent, but without wings, the assumption of which required no quiescent stage before maturity.”

It has been previously remarked that the phenomena of holometabolism are connected with the development of wings inside the body (except in the case of the fleas, where there are no wings in the perfect insect). Of existing insects 90% belong to the Endopterygota. At the same time we have no evidence that any Endopterygota existed amongst Palaeozoic insects, so that the phenomena of endopterygotism are comparatively recent, and we are led to infer that the Endopterygota owe their origin to the older Exopterygota. In Endopterygota the wings commence their development as invaginations of the hypodermis, while in Exopterygota the wings begin—and always remain—as external folds or evaginations. The two modes of growth are directly opposed, and at first sight it appears that this fact negatives the view that Endopterygota have been derived from Exopterygota.

Only three hypotheses as to the origin of Endopterygota can be suggested as possible, viz.:—(1) That some of the Palaeozoic insects, though we infer them to have been exopterygotous, were really endopterygotous, and were the actual ancestors of the existing Endopterygota; (2) that Endopterygota are not descended from Exopterygota, but were derived directly from ancestors that were never winged; (3) that the predominant division—i.e. Endopterygota—of insects of the present epoch are descended from the predominant—if not the sole—group that existed in the Palaeozoic epoch, viz. the Exopterygota. The first hypothesis is not negatived by direct evidence, for we do not actually know the ontogeny of any of the Palaeozoic insects; it is, however, rendered highly improbable by the modern views as to the nature and origin of wings in insects, and by the fact that the Endopterygota include none of the lower existing forms of insects. The second hypothesis—to the effect that Endopterygota are the descendants of apterous insects that had never possessed wings (i.e. the Apterygogenea of Brauer and others, though we prefer the shorter term Apterygota)—is rendered improbable from the fact that existing Apterygota are related to Exopterygota, not to Endopterygota, and by the knowledge that has been gained as to the morphology and development of wings, which suggest that—if we may so phrase it—were an apterygotous insect gradually to develop wings, it would be on the exopterygotous system. From all points of view it appears, therefore, probable that Endopterygota are descended from Exopterygota, and we are brought to the question as to the way in which this has occurred.

It is almost impossible to believe that any species of insect that has for a long period developed the wings outside the body could change this mode of growth suddenly for an internal mode of development of the organs in question, for, as we have already explained, the two modes of growth are directly opposed. The explanation has to be sought in another direction. Now there are many forms of Exopterygota in which the creatures are almost or quite destitute of wings. This phenomenon occurs among species found at high elevations, among others found in arid or desert regions, and in some cases in the female sex only, the male being winged and the female wingless. This last state is very frequent in Blattidae, which were amongst the most abundant of Palaeozoic insects. The wingless forms in question are always allied to winged forms, and there is every reason to believe that they have been really derived from winged forms. There are also insects (fleas, &c.) in which metamorphosis of a “complete” character exists, though the insects never develop wings. These cases render it highly probable that insects may in some circumstances become wingless, though their ancestors were winged. Such insects have been styled anapterygotous. In these facts we have one possible clue to the change from exopterygotism to endopterygotism, namely, by an intermediate period of anapterygotism.

Although we cannot yet define the conditions under which exopterygotous wings are suppressed or unusually developed, yet we know that such fluctuations occur. There are, in fact, existing forms of Exopterygota that are usually wingless, and that nevertheless appear in certain seasons or localities with wings. We are therefore entitled to assume that the suppressed wings of Exopterygota tend to reappear; and, speaking of the past, we may say that if after a period of suppression the wings began to reappear as hypodermal buds while a more rigid pressure was exerted by the cuticle, the growth of the buds would necessarily be inwards, and we should have incipient endopterygotism. The change that is required to transform Exopterygota into Endopterygota is merely that a cell of hypodermis should proliferate inwards instead of outwards, or that a minute hypodermal evaginated bud should be forced to the interior of the body by the pressure of a contracted cuticle.

If it should be objected that the wings so developed would be rudimentary, and that there would be nothing to encourage their development into perfect functional organs, we may remind the reader that we have already pointed out that imperfect wings of Exopterygota do, even at the present time under certain conditions, become perfect organs; and we may also add that there are, even among existing Endopterygota, species in which the wings are usually vestiges and yet sometimes become perfectly developed. In fact, almost every condition that is required for the change from exopterygotism to endopterygotism exists among the insects that surround us.

But it may perhaps be considered improbable that organs like the wings, having once been lost, should have been reacquired on the large scale suggested by the theory just put forward. If so, there is an alternative method by which the endopterygotous may have arisen from the exopterygotous condition. The sub-imago of the Ephemeroptera suggests that a moult, after the wings had become functional, was at one time general among the Hexapoda, and that the resting nymph of the Thysanoptera or the pupa of the Endopterygota represents a formerly active stage in the life-history. Further, although the wing-rudiments appear externally in an early instar of an exopterygotous insect, the earliest instars are wingless and wing-rudiments have been previously developing beneath the cuticle, growing however outwards, not inwards as in the larva of an endopterygote. The change from an exopterygote to an endopterygote development could, therefore, be brought about by the gradual postponement to a later and later instar of the appearance of the wing-rudiments outside the body, and their correlated growth inwards as imaginal disks. For in the post-embryonic development of the ancestors of the Endopterygota we may imagine two or three instars with wing-rudiments to have existed, the last represented by the sub-imago of the may-flies. As the life-conditions and feeding-habits of the larva and imago become constantly more divergent, the appearance of the wing-rudiments would be postponed to the pre-imaginal instar, and that instar would become predominantly passive.

Relationships of the Orders.—Reasons have been given for regarding the Thysanura as representing, more nearly than any other living group, the primitive stock of the Hexapoda. It is believed that insects of this group are represented among Silurian fossils. We may conclude, therefore, that they were preceded, in Cambrian times or earlier, by Arthropods possessing well developed appendages on all the trunk-segments. Of such Arthropods the living Symphyla—of which the delicate little Scutigerella is a fairly well-known example—give us some representation.

No indications beyond those furnished by comparative anatomy help us to unravel the phylogeny of the Collembola. In most respects, the shortened abdomen, for example, they are more specialized than the Thysanura, and most of the features in which they appear to be simple, such as the absence of a tracheal system and of compound eyes, can be explained as the result of degradation. In their insunken mouth and their jaws retracted within the head-capsule, the Collembola resemble the entotrophous division of the Thysanura (see Aptera), from which they are probably descended.

From the thysanuroid stock of the Apterygota, the Exopterygota took their rise. We have undoubted fossil evidence that winged insects lived in the Devonian and became numerous in the Carboniferous period. These ancient Exopterygota were synthetic in type, and included insects that may, with probability, be regarded as ancestral to most of the existing orders. It is hard to arrange the Exopterygota in a linear series, for some of the orders that are remarkably primitive in some respects are rather highly specialized in others. As regards wing-structure, the Isoptera with the two pairs closely similar are the most primitive of all winged insects; while in the paired mesodermal genital ducts, the elongate cerci and the conspicuous maxillulae of their larvae the Ephemeroptera retain notable ancestral characters. But the vestigial jaws, numerous Malpighian tubes, and specialized wings of may-flies forbid us to consider the order as on the whole primitive. So the Dermaptera, which retain distinct maxillulae and have no ectodermal genital ducts, have either specialized or aborted wings and a large number of Malpighian tubes. The Corrodentia retain vestigial maxillulae and two pairs of Malpighian tubes, but the wings are somewhat specialized in the Copeognatha and absent in the degraded and parasitic Mallophaga. The Plecoptera and Orthoptera agree in their numerous Malpighian tubes and in the development of a folding anal area in the hind-wing. As shown by the number and variety of species, the Orthoptera are the most dominant order of this group. Eminently terrestrial in habit, the differentiation of their fore-wings and hind-wings can be traced from Carboniferous, isopteroid ancestors through intermediate Mesozoic forms. The Plecoptera resemble the Ephemeroptera and Odonata in the aquatic habits of their larvae, and by the occasional presence of tufted thoracic gills in the imago exhibit an aquatic character unknown in any other winged insects. The Odonata are in many imaginal and larval characters highly specialized; yet they probably arose with the Ephemeroptera as a divergent offshoot of the same primitive isopteroid stock which developed more directly into the living Isoptera, Plecoptera, Dermaptera and Orthoptera.

All these orders agree in the possession of biting mandibles, while their second maxillae have the inner and outer lobes usually distinct. The Hemiptera, with their piercing mandibles and first maxillae and with their second maxillae fused to form a jointed beak, stand far apart from them. This order can be traced with certainty back to the early Jurassic epoch, while the Permian fossil Eugereon, and the living order—specially modified in many respects—of the Thysanoptera indicate steps by which the aberrant suctorial and piercing mouth of the Hemiptera may have been developed from the biting mouth of primitive Isopteroids, by the elongation of some parts and the suppression of others. The Anoplura may probably be regarded as a degraded offshoot of the Hemiptera.

The importance of great cardinal features of the life-history as indicative of relationship leads us to consider the Endopterygota as a natural assemblage of orders. The occurrence of weevils—among the most specialized of the Coleoptera—in Triassic rocks shows us that this great order of metabolous insects had become differentiated into its leading families at the dawn of the Mesozoic era, and that we must go far back into the Palaeozoic for the origin of the Endopterygota. In this view we are confirmed by the impossibility of deriving the Endopterygota from any living order of Exopterygota. We conclude, therefore, that the primitive stock of the former sub-class became early differentiated from that of the latter. So widely have most of the higher orders of the Hexapoda now diverged from each other, that it is exceedingly difficult in most cases to trace their relationships with any confidence. The Neuroptera, with their similar fore- and hind-wings and their campodeiform larvae, seem to stand nearest to the presumed isopteroid ancestry, but the imago and larva are often specialized. The campodeiform larvae of many Coleoptera are indeed far more primitive than the neuropteran larvae, and suggest to us that the Coleoptera—modified as their wing-structure has become—arose very early from the primitive metabolous stock. The antiquity of the Coleoptera is further shown by the great diversity of larval form and habit that has arisen in the order, and the proof afforded by the hypermetamorphic beetles that the campodeiform preceded the eruciform larva has already been emphasized.

In all the remaining orders of the Endopterygota the larva is eruciform or vermiform. The Mecaptera, with their predominantly longitudinal wing-nervuration, serve as a link between the Neuroptera and the Trichoptera, their retention of small cerci being an archaic character which stamps them as synthetic in type, but does not necessarily remove them from orders which agree with them in most points of structure but which have lost the cerci. The standing of the Trichoptera in a position almost ancestral to the Lepidoptera is one of the assured results of recent morphological study, the mobile mandibulate pupa and the imperfectly suctorial maxillae of the Trichoptera reappearing in the lowest families of the Lepidoptera. This latter order, which is not certainly known to have existed before Tertiary times, has become the most highly specialized of all insects in the structure of the pupa. Diptera of the sub-order Orthorrhapha occur in the Lias and Cyclorrhapha in the Kimmeridgian. The order must therefore be ancient, and as no evidence is forthcoming as to the mode of reduction of the hind-wings, nor as to the stages by which the suctorial mouth-organs became specialized, it is difficult to trace the exact relationship of the group, but the presence of cerci and a degree of correspondence in the nervuration of the fore-wings suggest the Mecaptera as possible allies. There seems no doubt that the suctorial mouth-organs of the Diptera have arisen quite independently from those of the Lepidoptera, for in the former order the sucker is formed from the second maxillae, in the latter from the first. The eruciform larva of the Orthorrhapha leads on to the headless vermiform maggot of the Cyclorrhapha, and in the latter sub-order we find metamorphosis carried to its extreme point, the muscid flies being the most highly specialized of all the Hexapoda as regards structure, while their maggots are the most degraded of all insect larvae. The Siphonaptera appear by the form of the larva and the nature of the metamorphosis to be akin to the Orthorrhapha—in which division they have indeed been included by many students. They differ from the Diptera, however, in the general presence of palps to both pairs of maxillae, and in the absence of a hypopharynx, so it is possible that their relationship to the Diptera is less close than has been supposed. The affinities of the Hymenoptera afford another problem of much difficulty. They differ from other Endopterygota in the multiplication of their Malpighian tubes, and from all other Hexapoda in the union of the first abdominal segment with the thorax. Specialized as they are in form, development and habit, they retain mandibles for biting, and in their lower sub-order—the Symphyta—the maxillae are hardly more modified than those of the Orthoptera. From the evidence of fossils it seems that the higher sub-order—Apocrita—can be traced back to the Lias, so that we believe the Hymenoptera to be more ancient than the Diptera, and far more ancient than the Lepidoptera. They afford an example—paralleled in other classes of the animal kingdom—of an order which, though specialized in some respects, retains many primitive characters, and has won its way to dominance rather by perfection of behaviour, and specially by the development of family life and helpful socialism, than by excessive elaboration of structure. We would trace the Hymenoptera back therefore to the primitive endopterygote stock. The specialization of form in the constricted abdomen and in the suctorial “tongue” that characterizes the higher families of the order is correlated with the habit of careful egg-laying and provision of food for the young. In some way it is assured among the highest of the Hexapoda—the Lepidoptera, Diptera and Hymenoptera—that the larva finds itself amid a rich food-supply. And thus perfection of structure and instinct in the imago has been accompanied by degradation in the larva, and by an increase in the extent of transformation and in the degree of reconstruction before and during the pupal stage. The fascinating difficulties presented to the student by the metamorphosis of the Hexapoda are to some extent explained, as he ponders over the evolution of the class.

Bibliography.—References to the older classical writings on the Hexapoda are given in the article on Entomology. At present about a thousand works and papers are published annually, and in this place it is possible to enumerate only a few of the most important among (mostly) recent memoirs that bear upon the Hexapoda generally. Further references will be found appended to the special articles on the orders (Aptera, Coleoptera, &c.).

General Works.—A. S. Packard, Text-book of Entomology (London, 1898); V. Graber, Die Insekten (Munich, 1877-1879); D. Sharp, Cambridge Natural History, vols. v., vi. (London, 1895-1899); L. C. Miall and A. Denny, Structure and Life-history of the Cockroach (London, 1886); B. T. Lowne, The Anatomy, Physiology, Morphology and Development of the Blow-fly (2 vols., London, 1890-1895); G. H. Carpenter, Insects: their Structure and Life (London, 1899); L. F. Henneguy, Les Insectes (Paris, 1904); J. W. Folsom, Entomology (New York and London, 1906); A. Berlese, Gli Insetti (Milan, 1906), &c. (Extensive bibliographies will be found in several of the above.)

Head and Appendages.—J. C. Savigny, Mémoires sur les animaux sans vertèbres (Paris, 1816); C. Janet, Essai sur la constitution morphologique de la tête de l’insecte (Paris, 1899); J. H. Comstock and C. Kochi (American Naturalist, xxxvi., 1902); V. L. Kellogg (ibid.); W. A. Riley (American Naturalist, xxxviii., 1904); F. Meinert (Entom. Tidsskr. i., 1880); H. J. Hansen (Zool. Anz. xvi., 1893); J. B. Smith (Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc. xix., 1896); H. Holmgren (Zeitsch. wiss. Zoolog. lxxvi., 1904); K. W. Verhoeff (Abhandl. K. Leop.-Carol. Akad. lxxxiv., 1905).

Thorax, Legs and Wings.—K. W. Verhoeff (Abhandl. K. Leop.-Carol. Akad. lxxxii., 1903); F. Voss (Zeits. wiss. Zool. lxxviii., 1905); F. Dahl (Arch. f. Naturgesch. 1, 1884); J. Demoor (Arch. de biol. x., 1890); J. Redtenbacher (Ann. Kais. naturhist. Museum, Wien, i., 1886); R. von Lendenfeld (S. B. Akad. Wissens., Wien, lxxxiii., 1881); J. H. Comstock and J. G. Needham (Amer. Nat., xxxii., xxxiii., 1898-1899); C. W. Woodworth (Univ. California Entom. Bull. i., 1906).

Abdomen and Appendages.—E. Haase (Morph. Jahrb. xv., 1889); R. Heymons (Morph. Jahrb. xxiv., 1896; Abhandl. K. Leop.-Carol. Akad. lxxiv., 1899); K. W. Verhoeff (Zool. Anz. xix., xx., 1896-1897); S. A. Peytoureau, Contribution à l’étude de la morphologie de l’armure génitale des insectes (Bordeaux, 1895); H. Dewitz (Zeits. wiss. Zool. xxv., xxviii., 1874, 1877); E. Zander (ibid. lxvi., lxvii., 1899-1900).

Nervous System.—H. Viallanes (Ann. Sci. Nat. Zool. [6], xvii., xviii., xix., [7] ii., iv., 1884-1887); S. J. Hickson (Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci. xxv., 1885); W. Patten (Journ. Morph. i., ii., 1887-1888); F. Plateau (Mém. Acad. Belg. xliii., 1888); V. Graber (Arch. mikr. Anat. xx., xxi., 1882).

Respiratory System.—J. A. Palmén, Zur Morphologie des Tracheensystems (Leipzig, 1877); F. Plateau (Mém. Acad. Belg. xiv., 1884); L. C. Miall, Natural History of Aquatic Insects (London, 1895).

Digestive System, &c.—L. Dufour (Ann. Sci. Nat., 1824-1860); V. Faussek (Zeits. wiss. Zool. xlv., 1887).

Malpighian Tubes.—E. Schindler (Zeits. wiss. Zool. xxx., 1878); W. M. Wheeler (Psyche vi., 1893); L. Cuénot (Arch. de biol. xiv., 1895).

Reproductive Organs.—H. V. Wielowiejski (Zool. Anz. ix., 1886); J. A. Palmén, Über paarige Ausführungsgänge der Geschlechtsorgane bei Insekten (Helsingfors, 1884); H. Henking (Zeits. wiss. Zool. xlix., li., liv., 1890-1892); F. Leydig (Zool. Jahrb. Anat. iii., 1889).

Embryology.—F. Blochmann (Morph. Jahrb. xii., 1887); A. Kovalevsky (Mém. Acad. St-Pétersbourg, xvi., 1871; Zeits. wiss. Zool. xlv., 1887); V. Graber (Denksch. Akad. Wissens., Wien, lvi., 1889); K. Heider, Die Embryonalentwicklung von Hydrophilus piceus (Jena, 1889); W. M. Wheeler (Journ. Morph. iii., viii., 1889-1893); E. Korschelt and K. Heider, Handbook of the Comparative Embryology of Invertebrates (trans. M. Bernard), (vol. iii., London, 1899); R. Heymons, Die Embryonalentwicklung von Dermapteren und Orthopteren (Jena, 1895) (also Zeits. wiss. Zool. liii., 1891, lxii., 1897; Anhang zu den Abhandl. K. Akad. d. Wissens., Berlin, 1896); A. Lécaillon (Arch. d’anat. micr. ii., 1898); J. Carrière and O. Burger (Abhandl. K. Leop.-Carol. Akad. lxix., 1897); K. Escherich (ibid. lxxvii., 1901); F. Schwangart (Zeits. wiss. Zool. lxxvi., 1904); R. Ritter (ib. li., 1890); E. Metchnikoff (ib. xvi., 1866); H. Uzel (Zool. Anz. xx., 1897); J. W. Folsom (Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harvard., xxxvi., 1900).

Parthenogenesis and Paedogenesis.—T. H. Huxley (Trans. Linn. Soc. xxii., 1858); R. Leuckart, Zur Kenntnis des Generationswechsels und der Parthogenesis bei den Insekten (Frankfurt, 1858); N. Wagner (Zeits. wiss. Zool. xv., 1865); L. F. Henneguy (Bull. Soc. Philomath. [9], i. 1899); A. Petrunkevich (Zool. Jahrb. Anat. xiv., xvii., 1901-1903); P. Marchal (Arch. zool. exp. et gén. [4], ii., 1904); L. Doncaster (Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci. xlix., li., 1906-1907).

Growth and Metamorphosis.—A. Weismann (Zeits. wiss. Zool. xiii., xiv., 1863-1864); F. Brauer (Verh. zool.-bot. Gesellsch., Wien, xix., 1869); Sir J. Lubbock (Lord Avebury), Origin and Metamorphosis of Insects (London, 1874); L. C. Miall (Nature, liii., 1895); L. C. Miall and A. R. Hammond, Structure and Life-history of the Harlequin-fly (Oxford, 1900); J. Gonin (Bull. Soc. Vaud. Sci. Nat. xxx., 1894); C. de Bruyne (Arch. de biol. xv. (1898); D. Sharp (Proc. Inter. Zool. Congress, 1898); E. B. Poulton (Trans. Linn. Soc. v., 1891); T. A. Chapman (Trans. Ent. Soc., 1893).

Classification.—F. Brauer (S. B. Akad. Wiss., Wien, xci., 1885); A. S. Packard (Amer. Nat. xx.; 1886); C. Börner, A. Handlirsch, F. Klapalek (Zool. Anz. xxvii., 1904); G. Enderlein (Zool. Anz. xxvi., 1903).

Palaeontology.—S. H. Scudder, in Zittel’s Palaeontology (French trans., vol. ii., Paris, 1887, and Eng. trans., vol. i., London, 1900); C. Brongniart, Insectes fossiles des temps primaires (St-Étienne, 1894); A. Handlirsch, Die fossilen Insekten und die Phylogenie der rezenten Formen (Leipzig, 1906).

Phylogeny.—Brauer, Lubbock, Sharp, Börner, &c. (opp. cit.); P. Mayer (Jena, Zeits. Naturw. x., 1876); B. Grassi (Atti R. Accad. dei Lincei, Roma [4], iv., 1888, and Archiv ital. biol. xi., 1889); F. Müller, Facts and Arguments for Darwin (trans. W. S. Dallas, London, 1869); N. Zograf (Congr. Zool. Int., 1892); E. R. Lankester (Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci. xlvii., 1904); G. H. Carpenter (Proc. R. Irish Acad. xxiv., 1903; Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci. xlix., 1905).

(D. S.*; G. H. C.)

HEXASTYLE (Gr. ἕξ, six, and στῦλος, column), an architectural term given to a temple in the portico of which there are six columns in front.

HEXATEUCH, the name given to the first six books of the Old Testament (the Pentateuch and Joshua), to mark the fact that these form one literary whole, describing the early traditional history of the Israelites from the creation of the world to the conquest of Palestine and the origin of their national institutions. These books are the result of an intricate literary process, on which see Bible (Old Testament: Canon), and the articles on the separate books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua).

HEXHAM, a market town in the Hexham parliamentary division of Northumberland, England, 21 m. W. from Newcastle by the Carlisle branch of the North-Eastern railway, served also from Scotland by a branch of the North British railway. Pop. of urban district (1901) 7107. It is pleasantly situated beneath the hills on the S. bank of the Tyne, and its market square and narrow streets bear many marks of antiquity. It is famous for its great abbey church of St Andrew. This building, as renovated in the 12th century, was to consist of nave and transepts, choir and aisles, and massive central tower. The Scots are believed to have destroyed the nave in 1296, but it may be doubted if it was ever completed. In 1536 the last prior was hanged for being concerned in the insurrection called the Pilgrimage of Grace. The church as it stands is a fine monument of Early English work, with Transitional details. Within, although it suffered much loss during a restoration c. 1858, there are several objects of interest. Among these are a Roman slab, carved with figures of a horseman trampling upon an enemy, several fine tombs and stones of the 13th and 14th centuries, the frith or fridstool of stone, believed to be the original bishop’s throne, and the fine Perpendicular roodscreen of oak, retaining its loft. The crypt, discovered in 1726, is part of the Saxon church, and a noteworthy example of architecture of the period. Its material is Roman, some of the stones having Roman inscriptions. These were brought from the Roman settlement at Corbridge, 4 m. E. of Hexham on the N. bank of the Tyne; for Hexham itself was not a Roman station. In 1832 a vessel containing about 8000 Saxon coins was discovered in the churchyard. Fragments of the monastic buildings remain, and west of the churchyard is the monks’ park, known as the Seal, and now a promenade, commanding beautiful views. In the town are two strong castellated towers of the 14th century, known as the Moot Hall and the Manor Office. Their names explain their use, but they were doubtless also intended as defensive works. In the interesting and beautiful neighbourhood of Hexham there should be noticed Aydon castle near Corbridge, a fortified house of the late 13th century; and Dilston or Dyvilston, a typical border fortress dating from Norman times, of which only a tower and small chapel remain. It is replete with memories of the last earl of Derwentwater, who was beheaded in 1716 for his part in the Stuart rising of the previous year, and was buried in the chapel. There is an Elizabethan grammar school. Hexham and Newcastle form a Roman Catholic bishopric, with the cathedral at Newcastle. There are manufactures of leather gloves and other goods, and in the neighbourhood barytes and coal mines and extensive market gardens.

The church and monastery at Hexham (Hextoldesham) were founded about 673 by Wilfrid, archbishop of York, who is said to have received a grant of the whole of Hexhamshire from Æthelhryth, queen of Northumbria, and a grant of sanctuary in his church from the king. The church in 678 became the head of the new see of Bernicia, which was united to that of Lindisfarne about 821, when the bishop of Lindisfarne appears to have taken possession of the lordship which he and his successors held until it was restored to the archbishop of York by Henry II. The archbishops appear to have had almost royal power throughout the liberty, including the rights of trying all pleas of the crown in their court, of taking inquisitions and of taxation. In 1545 the archbishop exchanged Hexhamshire with the king for other property, and in 1572 all the separate privileges which had belonged to him were taken away, and the liberty was annexed to the county of Northumberland. Hexham was a borough by prescription, and governed by a bailiff at least as early as 1276, and the same form of government continued until 1853. In 1343 the men of Hexham were accused of pretending to be Scots and imprisoning many people of Northumberland and Cumberland, killing some and extorting ransoms for others. The Lancastrians were defeated in 1464 near Hexham, and legend says that it was in the woods round the town that Queen Margaret and her son hid until their escape to Flanders. In 1522 the bishop of Carlisle complained to Cardinal Wolsey, then archbishop of York, that the English thieves committed more thefts than “all the Scots of Scotland,” the men of Hexham being worst of all, and appearing 100 strong at the markets held in Hexham, so that the men whom they had robbed dared not complain or “say one word to them.” This state of affairs appears to have continued until the accession of James I., and in 1595 the bailiff and constables of Hexham were removed as being “infected with combination and toleration of thieves.” Hexham was at one time the market town of a large agricultural district. In 1227 a market on Monday and a fair on the vigil and day of St Luke the Evangelist were granted to the archbishop, and in 1320 Archbishop Melton obtained the right of holding two new fairs on the feasts of St James the Apostle lasting five days and of SS. Simon and Jude lasting six days. The market day was altered to Tuesday in 1662, and Sir William Fenwick, then lord of the manor, received a grant of a cattle market on the Tuesday after the feast of St Cuthbert in March and every Tuesday fortnight until the feast of St Martin. The market rights were purchased from Wentworth B. Beaumont, lord of the manor, in 1886. During the 17th and 18th centuries Hexham was noted for the leather trade, especially for the manufacture of gloves, but in the 19th century the trade began to decline. Coal mines which had belonged to the archbishop, were sold to Sir John Fenwick, Kt., in 1628. Hexham has never been represented in parliament, but gives its name to one of the four parliamentary divisions of the county.

See Edward Bateson and A. B. Hinds, A History of Northumberland vol. iii. (1893-1896); A. B. Wright, An Essay towards the History of Hexham (1823); James Hewitt, A Handbook to Hexham and its Antiquities (1879).

HEYDEN, JAN VAN DER (1637-1712), Dutch painter, was born at Gorcum in 1637, and died at Amsterdam on the 12th of September 1712. He was an architectural landscape painter, a contemporary of Hobbema and Jacob Ruysdael, with the advantage, which they lacked, of a certain professional versatility; for, whilst they painted admirable pictures and starved, he varied the practice of art with the study of mechanics, improved the fire engine, and died superintendent of the lighting and director of the firemen’s company at Amsterdam. Till 1672 he painted in partnership with Adrian van der Velde. After Adrian’s death, and probably because of the loss which that event entailed upon him, he accepted the offices to which allusion has just been made. At no period of artistic activity had the system of division of labour been more fully or more constantly applied to art than it was in Holland towards the close of the 17th century. Van der Heyden, who was perfect as an architectural draughtsman in so far as he painted the outside of buildings and thoroughly mastered linear perspective, seldom turned his hand to the delineation of anything but brick houses and churches in streets and squares, or rows along canals, or “moated granges,” common in his native country. He was a travelled man, had seen The Hague, Ghent and Brussels, and had ascended the Rhine past Xanten to Cologne, where he copied over and over again the tower and crane of the great cathedral. But he cared nothing for hill or vale, or stream or wood. He could reproduce the rows of bricks in a square of Dutch houses sparkling in the sun, or stunted trees and lines of dwellings varied by steeples, all in light or thrown into passing shadow by moving cloud. He had the art of painting microscopically without loss of breadth or keeping. But he could draw neither man nor beast, nor ships nor carts; and this was his disadvantage. His good genius under these circumstances was Adrian van der Velde, who enlivened his compositions with spirited figures; and the joint labour of both is a delicate, minute, transparent work, radiant with glow and atmosphere.

HEYLYN (or Heylin), PETER (1600-1662), English historian and controversialist, was born at Burford in Oxfordshire. Having made great progress in his studies, he entered Hart Hall, Oxford, in 1613, afterwards joining Magdalen College; and in 1618 he began to lecture on cosmography, being made fellow of Magdalen in the same year. His lectures, under the title of Μικρόκοσμος, were published in 1621, and many editions of this useful book, each somewhat enlarged, subsequently appeared. Having been ordained in 1624 Heylyn attracted the notice of William Laud, then bishop of Bath and Wells; and in 1628 he married Laetitia, daughter of Thomas Highgate, or Heygate, of Hayes, Middlesex; but he appears to have kept his marriage secret and did not resign his fellowship. After serving as chaplain to Danby in the Channel Islands, he became chaplain to Charles I. in 1630, and was appointed by the king to the rectory of Hemingford, Huntingdonshire. John Williams, bishop of Lincoln, however, refused to institute Heylyn to this living, owing to his friendship with Laud; and in return Charles appointed him a prebendary of Westminster, where he made himself very objectionable to Williams, who held the deanery in commendam. In 1633 he became rector of Alresford, soon afterwards vicar of South Warnborough, and he became treasurer of Westminster Abbey in 1637; but before this date he was widely known as one of the most prominent and able controversialists among the high-church party. Entering with great ardour into the religious controversies of the time he disputed with John Prideaux, regius professor of divinity at Oxford, replied to the arguments of Williams in his pamphlets, “A Coal from the Altar” and “Antidotum Lincolnense,” and was hostile to the Puritan element both within and without the Church of England. He assisted William Noy to prepare the case against Prynne for the publication of his Histriomastix, and made himself useful to the Royalist party in other ways. However, when the Long Parliament met he was allowed to retire to Alresford, where he remained until he was disturbed by Sir William Waller’s army in 1642, when he joined the king at Oxford. At Oxford Heylyn edited Mercurius Aulicus, a vivacious but virulent news-sheet, which greatly annoyed the Parliamentarians; and consequently his house at Alresford was plundered and his library dispersed. Subsequently he led for some years a wandering life of poverty, afterwards settling at Winchester and then at Minster Lovel in Oxfordshire; and he refers to his hardships in his pamphlet “Extraneus Vapulans,” the cleverest of his controversial writings, which was written in answer to Hamon l’Estrange. In 1653 he settled at Lacy’s Court, Abingdon, where he resided undisturbed by the government of the Commonwealth, and where he wrote several books and pamphlets, both against those of his own communion, like Thomas Fuller, whose opinions were less unyielding than his own, and against the Presbyterians and others, like Richard Baxter.

His works, all of which are marred by political or theological rancour, number over fifty. Among the most important are: a legendary and learned History of St. George of Cappadocia, written in 1631; Cyprianus Anglicus, or the history of the Life and Death of William Laud, a defence of Laud and a valuable authority for his life; Ecclesia restaurata, or the History of the Reformation of the Church of England (1661; ed. J. C. Robertson, Cambridge, 1849); Ecclesia vindicata, or the Church of England justified; Aërius redivivus, or History of the Presbyterians; and Help to English History, an edition of which, with additions by P. Wright, was published in 1773. In 1636 he wrote a History of the Sabbath, by order of Charles I. to answer the Puritans; and in consequence of a journey through France in 1625 he wrote A Survey of France, a work, frequently reprinted, which was termed by Southey “one of the liveliest books of travel in its lighter parts, and one of the wisest and most replete with information that was ever written by a young man.” Some verses of merit also came from his active pen, and his poetical memorial of William of Waynflete was published by the Caxton Society in 1851.

Heylyn was a diligent writer and investigator, a good ecclesiastical lawyer, and had always learning at his command. His principles, to which he was honestly attached, were defended with ability; but his efforts to uphold the church passed unrecognized at the Restoration, probably owing to his physical infirmities. His sight had been very bad for several years; yet he rejoiced that his “bad old eyes” had seen the king’s return, and upon this event he preached before a large audience in Westminster Abbey on the 29th of May 1661. He died on the 8th of May 1662 and was buried in Westminster Abbey, where he had been sub-dean for some years.

Lives of Heylyn were written by his son-in-law Dr John Barnard or Bernard, and by George Vernon (1682). Bernard’s work was reprinted with Robertson’s edition of Heylyn’s History of the Reformation in 1849.

HEYN, PIETER PIETERZOON [commonly abbreviated to Piet] (1578-1629), Dutch admiral, was born at Delfshaven in 1578, the son of Pieter Hein, who was engaged in the herring fishery. The son went early to sea. In his youth he was taken prisoner by the Spaniards, and was forced to row in the galleys during four years. Having recovered his freedom by an exchange of prisoners, he worked for several years as a merchant skipper with success. The then dangerous state of the seas at all times, and the continuous war with Spain, gave him ample opportunity to gain a reputation as a resolute fighting man. Wills which he made before 1623 show that he had been able to acquire considerable property. When the Dutch West India Company was formed he was Director on the Rotterdam Board, and in 1624 he served as second in command of the fleet which took San Salvador in Bahia de Todos os Santos in Brazil. Till 1628 he continued to serve the Company, both on the coast of Brazil, and in the West Indies. In the month of September of that year he made himself famous, gained immense advantage for the Company, and inflicted ruinous loss on the Spaniards, by the capture of the fleet which was bringing the bullion from the American mines home to Spain. The Spanish ships were outnumbered chiefly because the convoy had become scattered by bad management and bad seamanship. The more valuable part of it, consisting of the four galleons, and eleven trading ships in which the king’s share of the treasure was being carried, became separated from the rest, and on being chased by the superior force of Heyn endeavoured to take refuge at Matanzas in the island of Cuba, hoping to be able to land the bullion in the bush before the Dutchman could come up with them. But Juan de Benavides, the Spanish commander, failed to act with decision, was overtaken, and his ships captured in the harbour before the silver could be discharged. The total loss was estimated by the Spaniards at four millions of ducats. Piet Heyn now returned home, and bought himself a house at Delft with the intention of retiring from the sea. In the following year, however, he was chosen at a crisis to take command of the naval force of the Republic, with the rank of Lieutenant-Admiral of Holland, in order to clear the North Sea and Channel of the Dunkirkers, who acted for the king of Spain in his possessions in the Netherlands. In June of 1629 he brought the Dunkirkers to action, and they were severely beaten, but Piet Heyn did not live to enjoy his victory. He was struck early in the battle by a cannon shot on the shoulder and fell dead on the spot. His memory has been preserved by his capture of the Treasure Galleons, which had never been taken so far, but he is also the traditional representative of the Dutch “sea dogs” of the 17th century.

See de Jonge, Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche Zeewezen; I. Duro, Armada espanola, iv.; der Aa, Biograph. Woordenboek der Nederlanden.

(D. H.)

HEYNE, CHRISTIAN GOTTLOB (1729-1812), German classical scholar and archaeologist, was born on the 25th of September 1729, at Chemnitz in Saxony. His father was a poor weaver, and the expenses of his early education were paid by one of his godfathers. In 1748 he entered the university of Leipzig, where he was frequently in want of the necessaries of life. His distress had almost amounted to despair, when he procured the situation of tutor in the family of a French merchant in Leipzig, which enabled him to continue his studies. After he had completed his university course, he was for many years in very straitened circumstances. An elegy written by him in Latin on the death of a friend attracted the attention of Count von Brühl, the prime minister, who expressed a desire to see the author. Accordingly, in April 1752, Heyne journeyed to Dresden, believing that his fortune was made. He was well received, promised a secretaryship and a good salary, but nothing came of it. Another period of want followed, and it was only by persistent solicitation that Heyne was able to obtain the post of under-clerk in the count’s library, with a salary of somewhat less than twenty pounds sterling. He increased his scanty pittance by translation; in addition to some French novels, he rendered into German the Chaereas and Callirrhoe of Chariton, the Greek romance writer. He published his first edition of Tibullus in 1755, and in 1756 his Epictetus. In the latter year the Seven Years’ War broke out, and Heyne was once more in a state of destitution. In 1757 he was offered a tutorship in the household of Frau Von Schönberg, where he met his future wife. In January 1759 he accompanied his pupil to the university of Wittenberg, from which he was driven in 1760 by the Prussian cannon. The bombardment of Dresden (to which city he had meanwhile returned) on the 18th of July 1760, destroyed all his possessions, including an almost finished edition of Lucian, based on a valuable codex of the Dresden Library. In the summer of 1761, although still without any fixed income, he married, and for some time he found it necessary to devote himself to the duties of land-steward to the Baron von Löben in Lusatia. At the end of 1762, however, he was enabled to return to Dresden, where he was commissioned by P. D. Lippert to prepare the Latin text of the third volume of his Dactyliotheca (an account of a collection of gems). On the death of Johann Matthias Gesner at Göttingen in 1761, the vacant chair was refused first by Ernesti and then by Ruhnken, who persuaded Münchhausen, the Hanoverian minister and principal curator of the university, to bestow it on Heyne (1763). His emoluments were gradually augmented, and his growing celebrity brought him most advantageous offers from other German governments, which he persistently refused. After a long and useful career, he died on the 14th of July 1812. Unlike Gottfried Hermann, Heyne regarded the study of grammar and language only as the means to an end, not as the chief object of philology. But, although not a critical scholar, he was the first to attempt a scientific treatment of Greek mythology, and he gave an undoubted impulse to philological studies.

Of Heyne’s numerous writings, the following may be mentioned. Editions, with copious commentaries, of Tibullus (ed. E. C. Wunderlich, 1817), Virgil (ed. G. P. Wagner, 1830-1841), Pindar (3rd ed. by G. H. Schäfer, 1817), Apollodorus, Bibliotheca Graeca (1803), Homer, Iliad (1802); Opuscula academica (1785-1812), containing more than a hundred academical dissertations, of which the most valuable are those relating to the colonies of Greece and the antiquities of Etruscan art and history. His Antiquarische Aufsätze (1778-1779) is a valuable collection of essays connected with the history of ancient art. His contributions to the Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen are said to have been between 7000 and 8000 in number. See biography by A. H. Heeren (1813) which forms the basis of the interesting essay by Carlyle (Misc. Essays, ii.); H. Sauppe, Göttinger Professoren (1872); C. Bursian in Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, xii.; J. E. Sandys, Hist. Class. Schol. iii. 36-44.

HEYSE, PAUL JOHANN LUDWIG (1830- ), German novelist, dramatist and poet, was born at Berlin on the 15th of March 1830, the son of the distinguished philologist Karl Wilhelm Ludwig Heyse (1797-1855). After attending the Friedrich Wilhelm Gymnasium in Berlin, he went, in 1849, to Bonn University as a student of the Romance languages, and in 1852 took his doctor’s degree. He had already given proof of great literary ability in the production in 1850 of Der Jungbrunnen, Märchen eines fahrenden Schülers and of the tragedy Francesca von Rimini, when after a year’s stay in Italy, he was summoned, early in 1854, by King Maximilian II. to Munich, where he subsequently lived. Here he turned his attention to novel-writing. He published at Munich in 1855 four short stories in one volume, one of which, at least, L’Arrabbiata, was a masterpiece of its kind. These were the precursors of a series of similar volumes, necessarily unequal at times, but on the whole constituting such a mass of highly complex miniature fiction as seldom before had proceeded from the pen of a single writer. Heyse works in the spirit of a sculptor; he seizes upon some picturesque incident or situation, and chisels and polishes until all the effect which it is capable of producing has been extracted from it. The success of the story usually depends upon the theme, for the artist’s skill is generally much the same, and the situation usually leaves a deeper impression than the characters. Heyse is also the author of several novels on a larger scale, all of which have gained success and provoked abundant discussion. The more important are Kinder der Welt (1873), Im Paradiese (1875)—the one dealing with the religious and social problems of its time, the other with artist-life in Munich—Der Roman der Stiftsdame (1888), and Merlin (1892), a novel directed against the modern realistic movement of which Heyse had been the leading opponent in Germany. He has also been a prolific dramatist, but his plays are deficient in theatrical qualities and are rarely seen on the stage. Among the best of them are Die Sabinerinnen (1859); Hans Lange (1866), Kolberg (1868), Die Weisheit Salomos (1886), and Maria von Magdala (1903). There are masterly translations by him of Leopardi, Giusti, and other Italian poets (Italienische Dichter seit der Mitte des 18ten Jahrhundert) (4 vols., 1889-1890).

Heyse’s Gesammelte Werke appeared in 29 vols. (1897-1899); there is also a popular edition of his Romane (8 vols., 1902-1904) and Novellen (10 vols., 1904-1906). See his autobiography, Jugenderinnerungen und Bekenntnisse (1901); also O. Kraus, Paul Heyses Novellen und Romane (1888); E. Petzet, Paul Heyse als Dramatiker (1904), and the essays by T. Ziegler (in Studien und Studienköpfe, 1877), and G. Brandes (in Moderne Geister, 1887).

HEYSHAM, a seaport in the Lancaster parliamentary division of Lancashire, England, on the south shore of Morecambe Bay, served by the Midland railway. Pop. (1901) 3381. Under powers obtained from parliament in 1896, the Midland Railway Company constructed, and opened in 1904, a harbour, enclosed by breakwaters, for the development of traffic with Belfast and other Irish ports, a daily passenger-service of the first class being established to Belfast. The harbour has a depth at low tide of 17 ft., and extensive accommodation for live-stock and goods of all kinds is provided. Heysham is in some favour as a watering-place. The church of St Peter is mainly Norman, and has fragments of even earlier date. Ruins of a very ancient oratory stand near it. This was dedicated to St Patrick, and is traditionally said to have been erected as a place of prayer for those at sea.

HEYWOOD, JOHN (b. 1497), English dramatist and epigrammatist, is generally said to have been a native of North Mimms, near St Albans, Hertfordshire, though Bale says he was born in London. A letter from a John Heywood, who may fairly be identified with him, is dated from Malines in 1575, when he called himself an old man of seventy-eight, which would fix his birth in 1497. He was a chorister of the Chapel Royal, and is said to have been educated at Broadgates Hall (Pembroke College), Oxford. From 1521 onwards his name appears in the king’s accounts as the recipient of an annuity of ten marks as player of the virginals, and in 1538 he received forty shillings for “playing an interlude with his children” before the Princess Mary. He is said to have owed his introduction to her to Sir Thomas More, at whose seat at Gobions near St Albans he wrote his Epigrams, according to Henry Peacham. More took a keen interest in the drama, and is represented by tradition as stepping on to the stage and taking an impromptu part in the dialogue. William Rastell, the printer of four of Heywood’s plays, was the son of More’s brother-in-law, John Rastell, who organized dramatic representations, and possibly wrote plays himself. Mr A. W. Pollard sees in Heywood’s firm adherence to Catholicism and his free satire of legal and social abuses a reflection of the ideas of More and his friends, which counts for much in his dramatic development. His skill in music and his inexhaustible wit made him a favourite both with Henry VIII. and Mary. Under Edward VI. he was accused of denying the king’s supremacy over the church, and had to make a public recantation in 1554; but with the accession of Mary his prospects brightened. He made a Latin speech to her in St Paul’s Churchyard at her coronation, and wrote a poem to celebrate her marriage. Shortly before her death she granted him the lease of a manor and lands in Yorkshire. When Elizabeth succeeded to the throne he fled to Malines, and is said to have returned in 1577. In 1587 he is spoken of as “dead and gone” in Thomas Newton’s epilogue to his works.

John Heywood is important in the history of English drama as the first writer to turn the abstract characters of the morality plays into real persons. His interludes link the morality plays to the modern drama, and were very popular in their day. They represent ludicrous incidents of a homely kind in a style of the broadest farce, and approximate to the French dramatic renderings of the subjects of the fabliaux. The fun in them still survives in spite of the long arguments between the characters and what one of their editors calls his “humour of filth.” Heywood’s name was actually attached to four interludes. The Playe called the foure PP; a newe and a very mery interlude of a palmer, a pardoner, a potycary, a pedler (not dated) is a contest in lying, easily won by Palmer, who said he had never known a woman out of patience. The Play of the Wether, a new and a very mery interlude of all maner of Wethers (printed 1533) describes the chaotic results of Jupiter’s attempts to suit the weather to the desires of a number of different people. The Play of Love (printed 1533) is an extreme instance of the author’s love of wire-drawn argument. It is a double dispute between “Loving not Loved” and “Loved not Loving” as to which is the more wretched, and between “Both Loved and Loving” and “Neither Loving nor Loved” to decide which is the happier. The only action in this piece is indicated by the stage direction marking the entrance of “Neither loved nor loving,” who is to run about the audience with a huge copper tank on his head full of lighted squibs, and is to cry “Water, water! Fire, fire!” The Dialogue of Wit and Folly is more of an academic dispute than a play. But two pieces universally assigned to Heywood, although they were printed by Rastell without any author’s name, combine action with dialogue, and are much more dramatic. In The Mery Play between the Pardoner and the Frere, the Curate and Neybour Pratte (printed 1533, but probably written much earlier) the Pardoner and the Friar both try to preach at the same time, and, coming at last to blows, are separated by the other two personages of the piece. The Mery Play betwene Johan Johan the Husbande, Tyb the Wyfe, and Syr Jhan the Preest (printed 1533) is the best constructed of all his pieces. Tyb and Syr Jhan eat the “Pye” which is the central “property” of the piece, while Johan Johan is made to chafe wax at the fire to stop a hole in a pail. This incident occurs in a French Farce nouvelle très bonne et fort joyeuse de Pernet qui va au vin. Heywood has sometimes been credited with the authorship of the dialogue of Gentylnes and Nobylyte printed by Rastell without date, and Mr Pollard adduces some ground for attributing to him the anonymous New Enterlude called Thersytes (played 1538). Heywood’s other works are a collection of proverbs and epigrams, the earliest extant edition of which is dated 1562; some ballads, one of them being the “Willow Garland,” known to Desdemona; and a long verse allegory of over 7000 lines entitled The Spider and the Flie (1556). A contemporary writer in Holinshed’s Chronicle said that neither its author nor any one else could “reach unto the meaning thereof.” But the flies are generally taken to represent the Roman Catholics and the spiders the Protestants, while Queen Mary is represented by the housemaid who with her broom (the sword) executes the commands of her master (Christ) and her mistress (the church). Dr A. W. Ward speaks of its “general lucidity and relative variety of treatment.” Heywood says that he laid it aside for twenty years before he finished it, and, whatever may be the final interpretation put upon it, it contains a very energetic statement of the social evils of the time, and especially of the deficiencies of English law.

The proverbs and epigrams were reprinted by the Spenser Society in 1867, the Dialogue on Wit and Folly by the Percy Society from an MS. in the British Museum in 1846, with an account of Heywood by F. W. Fairholt, and there are modern reprints of Johan Johan (Chiswick Press, 1819), The Foure PP. (Dodsley’s Old Plays, 1825, 1874), and The Pardoner and the Frere (Dodsley’s Old Plays, 1874). The Spider and the Flie was edited by A. W. Ward for the Spenser Society in 1894. For notes and strictures on that edition see J. Haber in Litterärhistorische Forschungen, vol. xv. (1900). See also A. W. Pollard’s introduction to the reprint of the Play of the Wether and Johan Johan in Representative English Comedies (1903), and The Dramatic Writings of John Heywood, edited by John S. Farmer for the Early English Drama Society (1905).

His son, Jasper Heywood (1535-1598), who translated into English three plays of Seneca, the Troas (1559), the Thyestes (1560) and Hercules Furens (1561), was a fellow of Merton College, Oxford, but was compelled to resign from that society in 1558. In the same year he was elected a fellow of All Souls College, but, refusing to conform to the changes in religion at the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth, he gave up his fellowship and went to Rome, where he was received into the Society of Jesus. For seventeen years he was professor of moral theology and controversy in the Jesuit College at Dillingen, Bavaria. In 1581 he was sent to England as superior of the Jesuit mission, but his leniency in that position led to his recall. He was on his way back to the Continent when a violent storm drove him back to the English coast. He was arrested on the charge of being a priest, but, although extraordinary efforts were made to induce him to abjure his opinions, he remained firm. He was condemned to perpetual exile on pain of death, and died at Naples on the 9th of January 1598. His translations of Seneca were supplemented by other plays contributed by Alexander Neville, Thomas Nuce, John Studley and Thomas Newton. Newton collected these translations in one volume, Seneca, his tenne tragedies translated into Englysh (1581). The importance of this work in the development of English drama can hardly be over-estimated.

See Dr J. W. Cunliffe, On the Influence of Seneca upon Elizabethan Tragedy (1893).

HEYWOOD, THOMAS (d. c. 1650), English dramatist and miscellaneous author, was a native of Lincolnshire, born about 1575, and said to have been educated at Cambridge and to have become a fellow of Peterhouse. Heywood is mentioned by Philip Henslowe as having written a book or play for the Lord Admiral’s company of actors in October 1596; and in 1598 he was regularly engaged as a player in the company, in which he presumably had a share, as no wages are mentioned. He was also a member of other companies, of Lord Southampton’s, of the earl of Derby’s and of the earl of Worcester’s players, afterwards known as the Queen’s Servants. In his preface to the English Traveller (1633) he describes himself as having had “an entire hand or at least a main finger in two hundred and twenty plays.” Of this number, probably considerably increased before the close of his dramatic career, only twenty-three survive. He wrote for the stage, not for the press, and protested against the printing of his works, which he said he had no time to revise. He was, said Tieck, the “model of a light and rapid talent,” and his plays, as might be expected from his rate of production, bear little trace of artistic elaboration. Charles Lamb called him a “prose Shakespeare”; Professor Ward, one of Heywood’s most sympathetic editors, points out that this epigrammatic statement can only be accepted with reservations. Heywood had a keen eye for dramatic situations and great constructive skill, but his powers of characterization were not on a par with his stagecraft. He delighted in what he called “merry accidents,” that is, in coarse, broad farce; his fancy and invention were inexhaustible. It was in the domestic drama of sentiment that he won his most distinctive success. For this he was especially fitted by his genuine tenderness and his freedom from affectation, by the sweetness and gentleness for which Lamb praised him. His masterpiece, A Woman kilde with kindnesse (acted 1603; printed 1607), is a type of the comédie larmoyante, and The English Traveller (1633) is a domestic tragedy scarcely inferior to it in pathos and in the elevation of its moral tone. His first play was probably The Foure Prentises of London: With the Conquest of Jerusalem (printed 1615, but acted some fifteen years earlier). This may have been intended as a burlesque of the old romances, but it is more likely that it was meant seriously to attract the apprentice public to whom it was dedicated, and its popularity was no doubt aimed at in Beaumont and Fletcher’s travesty of the City taste in drama in their Knight of the Burning Pestle. The two parts of King Edward the Fourth (printed 1600), and of If you know not me, you know no bodie; Or, The Troubles of Queene Elizabeth (1605 and 1606) are chronicle histories. His other comedies include: The Royall King, and the Loyall subject (acted c. 1600; printed 1637); the two parts of The Fair Maid of the West; Or, A Girle worth Gold (two parts, printed 1631); The Fayre Maid of the Exchange (printed anonymously 1607); The Late Lancashire Witches (1634), written with Richard Brome, and prompted by an actual trial in the preceding year; A Pleasant Comedy, called A Mayden-Head well lost (1634); A Challenge for Beautie (1636); The Wise-Woman of Hogsdon (printed 1638), the witchcraft in this case being matter for comedy, not seriously treated as in the Lancashire play; and Fortune by Land and Sea (printed 1655), with William Rowley. The five plays called respectively The Golden, The Silver, The Brazen and The Iron Age (the last in two parts), dated 1611, 1613, 1613, 1632, are series of classical stories strung together with no particular connexion except that “old Homer” introduces the performers of each act in turn. Loves Maistresse; Or, The Queens Masque (printed 1636) is on the story of Cupid and Psyche as told by Apuleius; and the tragedy of the Rape of Lucrece (1608) is varied by a “merry lord,” Valerius, who lightens the gloom of the situation by singing comic songs. A series of pageants, most of them devised for the City of London, or its guilds, by Heywood, were printed in 1637. In vol. iv. of his Collection of Old English Plays (1885), Mr A. H. Bullen printed for the first time a comedy by Heywood, The Captives, or The Lost Recovered (licensed 1624), and in vol. ii. of the same series, Dicke of Devonshire, which he tentatively assigns to the same hand.

Besides his dramatic works, twelve of which were reprinted by the “Shakespeare Society,” and were published by Mr John Pearson in a complete edition of six vols. with notes and illustrations in 1874, he was the author of Troia Britannica, or Great Britain’s Troy (1609), a poem in seventeen cantos “intermixed with many pleasant poetical tales” and “concluding with an universal chronicle from the creation until the present time”; An Apology for Actors, containing three brief treatises (1612) edited for the Shakespeare Society in 1841; Γυναικεῖον or nine books of various history concerning women (1624); England’s Elizabeth, her Life and Troubles during her minority from the Cradle to the Crown (1631); The Hierarchy of the Blessed Angels (1635), a didactic poem in nine books; Pleasant Dialogue, and Dramas selected out of Lucian, &c. (1637; ed. W. Bang, Louvain, 1903); and The Life of Merlin surnamed Ambrosius (1641).

See A. W. Ward, History of English Dram. Lit. ii. 550 seq. (1899); the same author’s Introduction to A woman killed with kindness (“Temple Dramatists,” 1897); J. A. Symonds in the Introduction to Thomas Heywood in the “Mermaid” series (new issue, 1903).

HEYWOOD, a municipal borough in the Heywood parliamentary division of Lancashire, England, 9 m. N. of Manchester on the Lancashire and Yorkshire railway. Pop. (1901) 25,458. It is of modern growth and possesses several handsome churches, chapels and public buildings. The Queen’s Park, purchased and laid out at a cost of £11,000 with money which devolved to Queen Victoria in right of her duchy and county palatine of Lancaster, was opened in 1879. Heywood Hall in the neighbourhood of the town was the residence of Peter Heywood, who contributed to the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot. Heywood owes its rise to the enterprise of the Peels, its first manufactures having been introduced by the father of the first Sir Robert Peel. It is an important seat of the cotton manufacture, and there are power-loom factories, iron foundries, chemical works, boiler-works and railway wagon works. Coal is worked extensively in the neighbourhood. Heywood was incorporated in 1881, and the corporation consists of a mayor, 6 aldermen and 18 councillors. Area, 3660 acres.

HEZEKIAH (Heb. for “[my] strength is [of] Yah”), in the Bible son of Ahaz, one of the greatest of the kings of Judah. He flourished at the end of the 8th and beginning of the 7th century B.C., when Palestine passed through one of the most eventful periods of its history. There is much that is uncertain in his reign, and with the exception of the great crisis of 701 B.C. its chronology has not been unanimously fixed. Whether he came to the throne before or after the fall of Samaria (722-721 B.C.) is disputed,1 nor is it clear what share Judah took in the Assyrian conflicts down to 701.2 Shortly before this date the whole of western Asia was in a ferment; Sargon had died and Sennacherib had come to the throne (in 705); vassal kings plotted to recover their independence and Assyrian puppets were removed by their opponents. Judah was in touch with a general rising in S.W. Palestine, in which Ekron, Lachish, Ascalon (Ashkelon) and other towns of the Philistines were supported by the kings of Muṣri and Meluḥḥa.3 Sennacherib completely routed them at Eltekeh (a Danite city), and thence turned against Hezekiah, who had been in league with Ekron and had imprisoned its king Padi, an Assyrian vassal. In this invasion of Judah the Assyrian claims entire success; 46 towns of Judah were captured, 200,150 men and many herds of cattle were carried off among the spoil, and Jerusalem itself was closely invested. Hezekiah was imprisoned “like a bird in a cage”4—to quote Sennacherib, and the Urbi (Arabian?) troops in Jerusalem laid down their arms. Thirty talents of gold, eight hundred of silver, precious stones, couches and seats of ivory—“all kinds of valuable treasure”,—the ladies of the court, male and female attendants (perhaps “singers”) were carried away to Nineveh. Here the Assyrian record ends somewhat abruptly, for, in the meanwhile, Babylonia had again revolted (700 B.C.) and Sennacherib’s presence was urgently needed nearer home.

At what precise period the Babylonian Merodach (i.e. Marduk)-Baladan sent his embassy to Hezekiah is disputed. Although ostensibly to congratulate the king upon his recovery from a sickness, it was really sent in the hope of enlisting his support, and the excessive courtesy and complaisance with which it was received suggest that it found a ready ally in Judah (2 Kings xx. 12 sqq.; Isa. xxxix.). Merodach-Baladan was overthrown by Sargon in 710 B.C., but succeeded in making a fresh revolt some years later (704-703 B.C.), and opinion is much divided whether his embassy was to secure the friendship of the youthful Hezekiah at his succession or is to be associated with the later widespread attempt to remove the Assyrian yoke.5

The brief account of the Assyrian invasion, Hezekiah’s submission, and the payment of tribute in 2 Kings xviii. 14-16, supplements the Assyrian record by the statement that Sennacherib besieged Lachish, a fact which is confirmed by a bas-relief (now in the British Museum) depicting the king in the act of besieging that town.6 This thoroughly historical fragment is followed by two narratives which tell how the king sent an official from Lachish to demand the submission of Hezekiah and conclude with the unexpected deliverance of Jerusalem. Both these stories appear to belong to a biography of Isaiah, and, like the similar biographies of Elijah and Elisha, are open to the suspicion that historical facts have been subordinated to idealize the work of the prophet. See Kings, Books of.

The narratives are (a) 2 Kings xviii. 13, 17-xix. 8; cf. Isa. xxxvi. 1-xxxvii. 8, and (b) xix. 9b-35; cp. Isa. xxxvii. 9-36 (2 Chron. xxxii. 9 sqq. is based on both), and Jerusalem’s deliverance is attributed to a certain rumour (xix. 7), to the advance of Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia (v. 9), and to a remarkable pestilence (v. 35) which finds an echo in a famous story related, not without some confusion of essential facts, by Herodotus (ii. 141; cf. Josephus Antiq. x. i. 5).7 It is difficult to decide whether xix. 9a belongs to the first or second of these narratives; and whether the “rumour” refers to the approach of Tirhakah, or rather to the serious troubles which had arisen in Babylonia. It is equally difficult to determine whether Tirhakah actually appeared on the scene in 701, and the precise application of the term Muṣri (Mizraim) is much debated. Unless the two narratives are duplicates of the same event, it may be urged that Sennacherib’s attack upon Arabia (apparently about 689) involved an invasion of Judah, by which time Egypt was in a position to be of material assistance (cf. Isa. xxx. 1-5, xxxi. 1-3?). This theory of a second campaign (first suggested by Sir Henry Rawlinson) has been contested, although it is pointed out that Sennacherib at all events did not invade Egypt, and that 2 Kings xix. 24 (Isa. xxxvii. 25) can only refer to his successor. The allusion to the murder of Sennacherib (xix. 36 sq.)8 points to the year 681, but it is uncertain to which of the above narratives it belongs. On the whole, the question must be left open, and with it both the problem of the extension of the name Muṣri and Mizraim outside Egypt in the Assyrian and Hebrew records of this period and the true historical background of a number of the Isaianic prophecies. It is quite possible that later events which belong to the time of the Egyptian supremacy and the wars of Esarhaddon have been confused with the history of Sennacherib’s invasion.

It is not certain whether Hezekiah’s conflict with the Philistines as far as Gaza or his preparations to secure for Jerusalem a good water supply (xviii. 8, xx. 20; 2 Chron. xxxii. 30; Ecclus. xlviii. 17 sq.)9 should precede or follow the events which have been discussed. On the other hand, the reforms which the compiler of the book has attributed to the early part of the reign were doubtless much later (2 Kings xviii. 1-8). Not the fall of Samaria, but the crisis of 701, is the earliest date that could safely be chosen, and the extent of these reforms must not be overestimated. They are related in terms that imply an acquaintance with the great “Deuteronomic” movement (see Deuteronomy), and are magnified further with characteristic detail by the chronicler (2 Chron. xxix.-xxxi.). The most remarkable was the destruction of a brazen serpent, the cult of which was traditionally traced back to the time of Moses (Num. xxi. 9).10 This persistence of serpent-cult, and the idolatry (necromancy, tree-worship) which the contemporary prophets denounce, do not support the view that the apparently radical reforms of Hezekiah were extensive or permanent, and Jer. xxvi. 17-19 (which suggests that Micah had a greater influence than Isaiah) throws another light upon the conditions during his reign. Hezekiah was succeeded by his son Manasseh (q.v.).

See further W. R. Smith, Prophets, 359-364, and Hebrew Religion. According to Prov. xxv. 1, Hezekiah was a patron of literature (see Proverbs). The hymn which is ascribed to the king (Isa. xxxviii. 9-20, wanting in 2 Kings) is of post-exilic origin (see Cheyne, Introd. to Isaiah, 222 sq.), but is further proof of the manner in which the Judaean king was idealized in subsequent ages, partly, perhaps, in the belief that the deliverance of Jerusalem was the reward for his piety. For special discussions, see Stade, Zeits. d. alttest. Wissenschaft, 1886, pp. 173 sqq.; Winckler, Alttest. Untersuch., 26 sqq.; Schrader, Cuneiform Inscr. and Old Test. (on 2 Kings, l.c.); Driver, Isaiah, his Life and Times, pp. 43-83; A. Jeremias, Alte Test. 304-310; Nagel, Zug d. Sanherib gegen Jerus. (Leipzig, 1903, conservative); and especially Prášek, Sanherib’s “Feldzüge gegen Juda” (Mitteil. d. Vorderasiat. Gesell., 1903, pp. 113-158), K. Fullerton, Bibliotheca sacra, 1906, pp. 577-634, A. Alt, Israel u. Ägypten (Leipzig, 1909); also the bibliography to Isaiah.

(S. A. C.)

1 See W. R. Smith, Prophets of Israel,[2] 415 sqq.; O. C. Whitehouse, Isaiah, pp. 20 sqq., 372; J. Skinner, Kings, p. 43 seq.; T. K. Cheyne, Ency. Bib. col. 2058, n. 1, and references.

2 The chief dates are: 720, defeat of a coalition (Hamath, Gaza and Muṣri) at Ḳarḳar in north Syria and Raphia (S. Palestine); 715, a rising of Muṣri and Arabian tribes; 713-711, revolt and capture of Ashdod (cp. Is. xx.). That Judah was invaded on this latter occasion is not improbable.

3 Meluḥḥa is held by many critics to be N.W. Arabia; the identification of Muṣri is uncertain, see below.

4 The phrase was a favourite one of Rib-Addi, king of Gebal (Byblus), in the 15th century B.C.; Tell-el-Amarna Letters (ed. Knudtzon), Nos. 74, 79, &c. Jeremiah (v. 27) uses the simile in a different way. For a discussion of Sennacherib’s record, see Wilke, Jesaja u. Assur (Leipzig, 1905), pp. 97 sqq.

5 For the early date (between 720 and 710), Winckler, Alttest. Unt. 139 sqq., Burney, Kings, 350 sq.; Driver; Küchler, &c.; for the later, Whitehouse, Isaiah, 29 sq., in agreement with Schrader, Wellhausen, W. R. Smith, Cheyne, M’Curdy, Paton, &c.

6 Isa. x. 28-32 may perhaps refer to this invasion. Allusions to the Assyrian oppression are found in Isa. x. 5-15, xiv. 24-27, xvii. 12-14; and to internal Judaean intrigues perhaps in Isa. xxii. 15-18, xxix. 15. For a picture of the ruins in Jerusalem, see Isa. xxii. 9-11. But see further Isaiah (Book).

7 See, on the story, Griffith, in D. Hogarth’s Authority and Archaeology, p. 167, n. 1.

8 The house of Nisroch should probably be that of the god Nusku; see also Driver in Hogarth, op. cit. p. 109; Winckler, op. cit. p. 84.

9 It is commonly believed that Hezekiah constructed the conduit of Siloam, famous for its Hebrew inscription (see Inscriptions, Jerusalem). But Isa. viii. 6, would seem to show that the pool was already in existence, and, for palaeographical details, see Pal. Explor. Fund, Quart. Stat. (1909), pp. 289, 305 sqq.

10 The name Nehushtan (2 Kings xviii. 4, cp. nāhāsh, “serpent”) is obscure: see the commentaries.

HIATUS (Lat. for gaping, or gap), a break in continuity, whether in speech, thought or events, a lacuna. In anatomy the term is used for an opening or foramen, as the hiatus Fallopii, a foramen of the temporal bone. In logic a hiatus occurs when a step or link in reasoning is wanting; and in grammar it is the pause made for the sake of euphony in pronouncing two successive vowels, which are not separated by a consonant.

HIAWATHA (“he makes rivers”), a legendary chief (c. 1450) of the Onondaga tribe of North American Indians. The formation of the League of Six Nations, known as the Iroquois, is attributed to him by Indian tradition. In his miraculous character Hiawatha is the incarnation of human progress and civilization. He teaches agriculture, navigation, medicine and the arts, conquering by his magic all the powers of nature which war against man.

See J. N. B. Hewitt, in Amer. Anthrop. for April 1892.

HIBBING, a village of St Louis county, Minnesota, U.S.A., 75 m. N.W. of Duluth. Pop. (1900) 2481; (1905 state census) 6566, of whom 3537 were foreign-born (1169 Finns, 516 Swedes, 498 Canadians, 323 Austrians and 314 Norwegians); (1910) 8832. Hibbing is served by the Great Northern and the Duluth, Missabe & Northern railways. It lies in the midst of the great Mesabi iron-ore deposits of the state; in 1907 forty iron mines were in operation within 10 m. of the village. Lumbering and farming are also important industries. The village owns and operates the water-works and electric-lighting plant. Hibbing was settled in 1892 and was incorporated in 1893.

HIBERNACULUM (Lat. for winter quarters), in botany a term for a winter bud; in botanic gardens, the winter quarters for plants; in zoology, the winter bud of a polyzoan.

HIBERNATION (winter sleep), the dormant condition in which certain animals pass the winter in cold latitudes. Aestivation (summer sleep) is the similar condition in which other species pass periods of heat or drought in warm latitudes. The origins of these kindred phenomena are probably to be sought in the regularly recurrent failure of food supply or of other factors essential to existence due to the seasonal onset of cold in the one case and of excessively dry hot weather in the other. They are means whereby certain non-migratory species are enabled to live through unfavourable climatic conditions which would end fatally in starvation or desiccation were the animals to maintain their normal state of activity.

I. The Physiology of Hibernation. Hibernation and Aestivation.—The physiology of hibernation, as exemplified in mammalia, has been worked out in detail by several observers in the case of some European species, notably bats, hedgehogs, dormice and marmots. Of the physiology of aestivation nothing definite appears to have been ascertained. It seems probable, however, from observations upon the dormant animals that the physiological accompaniments of winter and summer sleep are to all intents and purposes the same. The state of hibernation, for example, in the European hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) is not distinguished by external signs from the state of aestivation of the allied Mascarene genus, the tenrec (Centetes ecaudatus). The lethargy in both cases appears to be directly due to fall in the temperature of the organisms; and the fall in temperature proceeds pari passu with the slowing down and weakening of the respiration and with retardation in the circulation of the blood. Similarity, moreover, between hibernation and aestivation is shown not only in their physiological accompaniments but also in the species of animals which become seasonally dormant. Birds neither hibernate nor aestivate. The tenrec (Centetes) of Madagascar, which aestivates, closely resembles the hedgehog (Erinaceus) in habits and belongs to the same order of mammalia. In the case of reptiles and batrachians, snakes, lizards, tortoises, frogs and toads sleep the winter through in cold countries; and some species of these groups habitually bury themselves in the sand or mud in tropical latitudes where drought is of periodical occurrence. Terrestrial molluscs lie dormant in the winter in cold and temperate latitudes and their tropical allies aestivate in districts where conditions enforce the habit. Some fresh-water molluscs bury themselves in the mud at the bottom of ponds when the surface is covered with ice; others take refuge in the same way when pools and tanks become exhausted during the dry season in the tropics. In temperate and north temperate countries insects and arachnida either die or retire to winter quarters during the cold weather, and in the tropics they similarly disappear during times of drought.

Predisposing Causes of Hibernation.—The likeness between hibernation and aestivation and the coincidence of the one with cold and of the other with heat arrest the conclusion that the temperature of the surrounding medium, whether atmospheric or aquatic, is the prime, much less the sole, cause of either. The effect of extreme cold is to rouse the hibernating animal from its slumber; and its continuance thereafter brings about a state of torpor which proves fatal. This at least appears to be the case with mammals, where actual freezing of the tissues is followed by death because the gases are expelled from the fluids as bubbles and the salts separate in the form of crystals. Some cold-blooded animals, however, may be cooled to 0° C. Fish have been resuscitated after solidification in blocks of ice, and frogs have been known to recover when ice has been formed in the blood and in the lymph of the peritoneal cavity (Landois).

For the reasons given, all hibernating mammals take precautions against exposure to extreme cold. They either bury themselves in the soil or under the snow or seek the shelter of hollow trees or of caves, not infrequently congregating in the same spot so that the temperature is kept up by corporeal contact. Again the hibernating instinct may be suspended unless the conditions are favourable for safely entering upon winter sleep. It is alleged that bears in Scandinavia do not hibernate unless food has been sufficiently plentiful during the summer and autumn to fatten them for their winter fast; and hedgehogs and dormice in captivity have been known to remain active in the cold until warm sleeping-quarters were insured by placing hay and cotton-wool in their cages. Finally the wood-chucks (Arctomys monax) in the Adirondacks retire to winter quarters at about the time of the autumnal equinox, when the weather is warm and pleasant, and emerge at the vernal equinox before the snows of winter have vanished from the ground. These and other facts justify Marshall Hall’s conclusion that cold is merely a predisposing cause of hibernation in the sense that it is a predisposing cause of ordinary sleep. It has also been shown that the state of hibernation cannot be forced upon snails in summer by submitting them to artificial cold even almost to freezing point; but that at the proper season they prepare for winter quarters at temperatures varying from 37° to 77° Fahr. Again insects sometimes retire to winter quarters in the autumn when the temperature of the atmosphere is higher than that of preceding days during which they retain their activity.

Thus the oncoming and ceasing both of winter and summer sleep depend to a considerable extent upon conditions of existence other than those of temperature. Darwin saw scarcely a sign of a living thing on his arrival at Bahia Blanca, Argentina, on the 7th of Sept., although by digging several insects, large spiders and lizards were found in a half-torpid state. During the days of his visit when nature was dormant the mean temperature was 51°, the thermometer seldom rising above 55° at mid-day. But during the succeeding days when the mean temperature was 58° and that of the middle of the day between 60° and 70° both insect and reptilian life was in a state of activity. Nevertheless at Montevideo, lying only four degrees further north, between the 26th of July and the 19th of August when the mean temperature was 58.4° and the mean highest temperature of mid-day 65.5° almost every beetle, several genera of spiders, land molluscs, toads and lizards were all lying dormant beneath stones. Thus the animal-life at Montevideo remained dormant at a temperature which roused that at Bahia Blanca from its torpidity. Darwin unfortunately does not record whether the species observed were identical in the two localities.

The temperature of animals in a profound state of hibernation is approximately the same as that of the surrounding medium or at most a degree or two higher. If, however, the temperature of the chosen hibernaculum (winter quarters) falls as low as freezing point, life is endangered at least in the case of mammals.

In most cold-blooded animals, like reptiles, the temperature is normally only a little above that of the atmosphere, the two rising and falling together. But, setting aside the young, especially of those species in which the offspring are born or hatched at a comparatively early stage of development, the majority of warm-blooded animals are able to maintain a high and approximately level temperature irrespective of decline in the temperature of the surrounding medium. This faculty of temperature adjustment, however, appears to be absent or weakened in most if not in all hibernating mammals both in their normal nocturnal or diurnal sleep and in their winter sleep. In the case of European bats it has been shown that the ordinary day sleep in summer differs only in the matter of duration from the prolonged slumber of the same animals in winter. The temperature falls with that of the atmosphere, respiration practically ceases and immersion in water for as many as eleven minutes has been known to prove innocuous. At moderate temperatures ranging from 45° to 50° F., dormice (Muscardinus avellanarius) and hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) alternately wake to feed and sink into slumber. Dormice awake once in every twenty-four hours; the sleep of the hedgehogs may last for two or three days. The temperature of the hedgehog, when awake and active, rises to about 87° F., that of the dormouse to 92° or 94° F.; but during sleep the temperature of both species falls to about that of the atmosphere. In other words, all the phenomena characteristic of hibernation are exhibited in these animals during the periods of sleep interrupting their periods of wakeful activity. Sleep of this nature, for which the term “diurnation” has been proposed, because it has only been observed in nocturnal animals, lies phenomenally midway between the normal sleep of non-hibernating mammals and the dormant condition in winter of hibernating species. The stimulus of hunger appears to be the prime cause of its periodic cessation. Since then the faculty of temperature adjustment is in abeyance during the ordinary diurnal summer sleep in hibernating mammals, which in this physiological particular resemble reptiles, it seems probable that hibernation can only be practised by those species in which the power to maintain, when sleeping, a permanent average high temperature has been lost or perhaps never acquired. That there is no broad line of demarcation between the ordinary sleep of these hibernating mammals in which the temperature is known to drop considerably and that of non-hibernating species is indicated by the fact that the temperature of human beings and possibly of all non-hibernating species falls to a certain, though to a limited, extent in ordinary sleep.