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. Muller 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, _Memoires sur les animaux sans
vertebres_ (Paris, 1816); C. Janet, _Essai sur la constitution
morphologique de la tete 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 a l'etude de la morphologie de l'armure
genitale 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 (_Mem. Acad. Belg._ xliii., 1888); V. Graber
(_Arch. mikr. Anat._ xx., xxi., 1882).
Respiratory System.--J. A. Palmen, _Zur Morphologie des
Tracheensystems_ (Leipzig, 1877); F. Plateau (_Mem. 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. Cuenot (_Arch. de biol._ xiv.,
1895).
Reproductive Organs.--H. V. Wielowiejski (Zool. Anz. ix., 1886); J. A.
Palmen, _Uber paarige Ausfuhrungsgange 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
(_Mem. Acad. St-Petersbourg_, 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.
Lecaillon (_Arch. d'anat. micr._ ii., 1898); J. Carriere 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 gen._ [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. Borner, 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-Etienne, 1894); A. Handlirsch, _Die fossilen Insekten und die
Phylogenie der rezenten Formen_ (Leipzig, 1906).
Phylogeny.--Brauer, Lubbock, Sharp, Borner, &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.
Muller, _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. [Greek: hex], six, and [Greek: stylos], 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 Aethelhryth, 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 [Greek: Mikrokosmos], 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_; _Aerius 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 Bruhl, 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 Schonberg, 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 Loben 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 Gottingen in 1761, the vacant chair was
refused first by Ernesti and then by Ruhnken, who persuaded Munchhausen,
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. Schafer, 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 Aufsatze_
(1778-1779) is a valuable collection of essays connected with the
history of ancient art. His contributions to the _Gottingische
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,
_Gottinger 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, Marchen eines
fahrenden Schulers_ 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
Studienkopfe_, 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 tres 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
_Litterarhistorische 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 _comedie 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; [Greek: Gynaikeion]
_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 L11,000 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 Musri and Meluhha.[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 Musri (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
Musri 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 Prasek, Sanherib's "Feldzuge gegen Juda"
(_Mitteil. d. Vorderasiat. Gesell_., 1903, pp. 113-158), K. Fullerton,
_Bibliotheca sacra_, 1906, pp. 577-634, A. Alt, _Israel u. Agypten_
(Leipzig, 1909); also the bibliography to ISAIAH. (S. A. C.)