be borne in mind that to Greek philosophy the sharp distinction between
subject and object which pervades modern thought was foreign, a
consideration which suggests the conclusion that, while it is a great
mistake to reckon Heraclitus with the materialistic cosmologists of the
Ionic schools, it is, on the other hand, going too far to treat his
theory, with Hegel and Lassalle, as one of pure Panlogism. Accordingly,
when he denies the reality of Being, and declares Becoming, or eternal
flux and change, to be the sole actuality, Heraclitus must be understood
to enunciate not only the unreality of the abstract notion of being,
except as the correlative of that of not-being, but also the physical
doctrine that all phenomena are in a state of continuous transition from
non-existence to existence, and vice versa, without either
distinguishing these propositions or qualifying them by any reference to
the relation of thought to experience. "Every thing is and is not"; all
things are, and nothing remains. So far he is in general agreement with
Anaximander (q.v.), but he differs from him in the solution of the
problem, disliking, as a poet and a mystic, the primary matter which
satisfied the patient researcher, and demanding a more vivid and
picturesque element. Naturally he selects fire, according to him the
most complete embodiment of the process of Becoming, as the principle of
empirical existence, out of which all things, including even the soul,
grow by way of a _quasi_ condensation, and into which all things must in
course of time be again resolved. But this primordial fire is in itself
that divine rational process, the harmony of which constitutes the law
of the universe (see LOGOS). Real knowledge consists in comprehending
this all-pervading harmony as embodied in the manifold of perception,
and the senses are "bad-witnesses," because they apprehend phenomena,
not as its manifestation, but as "stiff and dead." In like manner real
virtue consists in the subordination of the individual to the laws of
this harmony as the universal reason wherein alone true freedom is to be
found. "The law of things is a law of Reason Universal ([Greek: logos]),
but most men live as though they had a wisdom of their own." Ethics here
stands to sociology in a close relation, similar, in many respects, to
that which we find in Hegel and in Comte. For Heraclitus the soul
approaches most nearly to perfection when it is most akin to the fiery
vapour out of which it was originally created, and as this is most so in
death, "while we live our souls are dead in us, but when we die our
souls are restored to life." The doctrine of immortality comes
prominently forward in his ethics, but whether this must not be reckoned
with the figurative accommodation to the popular theology of Greece
which pervades his ethical teaching, is very doubtful.
The school of disciples founded by Heraclitus flourished for long after
his death, the chief exponent of his teaching being Cratylus. A good
deal of the information in regard to his doctrines has been gathered
from the later Greek philosophy, which was deeply influenced by it.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The only authentic extant work of Heraclitus is the
[Greek: peri physeos]. The best edition (containing also the probably
spurious [Greek: Epistolai]) is that of I. Bywater, _Heracliti Ephesii
reliquiae_ (Oxford, 1877); of the epistles alone by A. Westermann
(Leipzig, 1857). See also in A. H. Ritter and L. Preller's _Historia
philosophiae Graecae_ (8th ed. by E. Wellmann, 1898); F. W. A.
Mullach, _Fragm. philos. Graec._ (Paris, 1860); A. Fairbanks, _The
First Philosophers of Greece_ (1898); H. Diels, _Heraklit von Ephesus_
(2nd ed., 1909), Greek and German. English translation of Bywater's
edition with introduction by G. T. W. Patrick (Baltimore, 1889). For
criticism see, in addition to the histories of philosophy, F.
Lassalle, _Die Philosophie Herakleitos' des Dunklen_ (Berlin, 1858;
2nd ed., 1892), which, however, is too strongly dominated by modern
Hegelianism; Paul Schuster, _Heraklit von Ephesus_ (Leipzig, 1873); J.
Bernays, _Die heraklitischen Briefe_ (Berlin, 1869); T. Gomperz, _Zu
Heraclits Lehre und den Uberresten seines Werkes_ (Vienna, 1887), and
in his _Greek Thinkers_ (English translation, L. Magnus, vol. i.
1901); J. Burnet, _Early Greek Philosophy_ (1892); A. Patin,
_Heraklits Einheitslehre_ (Leipzig, 1886); E. Pfleiderer, _Die
Philosophie des Heraklitus von Ephesus im Lichte der Mysterienidee_
(Berlin, 1886); G. T. Schafer, _Die Philosophie des Heraklit von
Ephesus und die moderne Heraklitforschung_ (Leipzig, 1902); Wolfgang
Schultz, _Studien zur antiken Kultur_, i.; _Pythagoras und Heraklit_
(Leipzig, 1905); O. Spengler, _Heraklit. Eine Studie uber den
energetischen Grundgedanken seiner Philosophie_ (Halle, 1904); A.
Brieger, "Die Grundzuge der heraklitischen Physik" in _Hermes_, xxxix.
(1904), 182-223, and "Heraklit der Dunkle" in _Neue Jahrb. f. das
klass. Altertum_ (1904), p. 687. For his place in the development of
early philosophy see also articles IONIAN SCHOOL OF PHILOSOPHY and
LOGOS. Ancient authorities: Diog. Laert. ix.; Sext. Empiric., _Adv.
mathem._ vii. 126, 127, 133; Plato, _Cratylus_, 402 A and
_Theaetetus_, 152 E; Plutarch, _Isis and Osiris_, 45, 48; Arist. _Nic.
Eth._ vii. 3, 4; Clement of Alexandria, _Stromata_, v. 599, 603 (ed.
Paris). (J. M. M.)
HERACLIUS ([Greek: Herakleios]) (c. 575-642), East Roman emperor, was
born in Cappadocia. His father held high military command under the
emperor Maurice, and as governor of Africa maintained his independence
against the usurper Phocas (q.v.). When invited to head a rebellion
against the latter, he sent his son with a fleet which reached
Constantinople unopposed, and precipitated the dethronement of Phocas.
Proclaimed emperor, Heraclius set himself to reorganize the utterly
disordered administration. At first he found himself helpless before the
Persian armies (see PERSIA: _Ancient History_; and CHOSROES II.) of
Chosroes II., which conquered Syria and Egypt and since 616 had encamped
opposite Constantinople; in 618 he even proposed in despair to abandon
his capital and seek a refuge in Carthage, but at the entreaty of the
patriarch he took courage. By securing a loan from the Church and
suspending the corn-distribution at Constantinople, he raised sufficient
funds for war, and after making a treaty with the Avars, who had nearly
surprised the capital during an incursion in 619, he was at last able to
take the field against Persia. During his first expedition (622) he
failed to secure a footing in Armenia, whence he had hoped to take the
Persians in flank, but by his unwearied energy he restored the
discipline and efficiency of the army. In his second campaign (624-26)
he penetrated into Armenia and Albania, and beat the enemy in the open
field. After a short stay at Constantinople, which his son Constantine
had successfully defended against renewed incursions by the Avars,
Heraclius resumed his attacks upon the Persians (627). Though deserted
by the Khazars, with whom he had made an alliance upon entering into
Pontus, he gained a decisive advantage by a brilliant march across the
Armenian highlands into the Tigris plain, and a hard-fought victory over
Chosroes' general, Shahrbaraz, in which Heraclius distinguished himself
by his personal bravery. A subsequent revolution at the Persian court
led to the dethronement of Chosroes in favour of his son Kavadh II.
(q.v.); the new king promptly made peace with the emperor, whose troops
were already advancing upon the Persian capital Ctesiphon (628). Having
thus secured his eastern frontier, Heraclius returned to Constantinople
with ample spoils, including the true cross, which in 629 he brought
back in person to Jerusalem. On the northern frontier of the empire he
kept the Avars in check by inducing the Serbs to migrate from the
Carpathians to the Balkan lands so as to divert the attention of the
Avars.
The triumphs which Heraclius had won through his own energy and skill
did not bring him lasting popularity. In his civil administration he
followed out his own ideas without deferring to the nobles or the
Church, and the opposition which he encountered from these quarters went
far to paralyse his attempts at reform. Worn out by continuous fighting
and weakened by dropsy, Heraclius failed to show sufficient energy
against the new peril that menaced his eastern provinces towards the end
of his reign. In 629 the Saracens made their first incursion into Syria
(see CALIPHATE, section A, S 1); in 636 they won a notable victory on
the Yermuk (Hieromax), and in the following years conquered all Syria,
Palestine and Egypt. Heraclius made no attempt to retrieve the
misfortunes of his generals, but evacuated his possessions in sullen
despair. The remaining years of his life he devoted to theological
speculation and ecclesiastical reforms. His religious enthusiasm led him
to oppress his Jewish subjects; on the other hand he sought to reconcile
the Christian sects, and to this effect propounded in his _Ecthesis_ a
conciliatory doctrine of monothelism. Heraclius died of his disease in
642. He had been twice married; his second union, with his niece
Martina, was frequently made a matter of reproach to him. In spite of
his partial failures, Heraclius must be regarded as one of the greatest
of Byzantine emperors, and his early campaigns were the means of saving
the realm from almost certain destruction.
AUTHORITIES.--G. Finlay, _History of Greece_ (Oxford, 1877) i.
311-358; J. B. Bury, _The Later Roman Empire_ (London, 1889), ii.
207-273; T. E. Evangelides, [Greek: Herakleios ho autokrator tou
Byzantiou] (Odessa, 1903); A. Pernice, _L'Imperatore Eraclio_
(Florence, 1905). On the Persian campaigns: the epic of George Pisides
(ed. 1836, Bonn); F. Macler, _Histoire d'Heraclius par l'eveque
Sebeos_ (Paris, 1904); E. Gerland in _Byzantinische Zeitschrift_, iii.
(1894) 330-337; N. H. Baynes in the _English Historical Review_
(1904), pp. 694-702. (M. O. B. C.)
HERALD (O. Fr. _heraut_, _herault_; the origin is uncertain, but O.H.G.
_heren_, to call, or _hariwald_, leader of an army, have been proposed;
the Gr. equivalent is [Greek: keryx]: Lat. _praeco_, _caduceator_,
_fetialis_), in Greek and Roman antiquities, the term for the officials
described below; in modern usage, while the word "herald" is often used
generally in a sense analogous to that of the ancients, it is more
specially restricted to that dealt with in the article HERALDRY.
The Greek heralds, who claimed descent from Hermes, the messenger of the
gods, through his son Keryx, were public functionaries of high
importance in early times. Like Hermes, they carried a staff of olive or
laurel wood surrounded by two snakes (or with wool as messengers of
peace); their persons were inviolable; and they formed a kind of
priesthood or corporation. In the Homeric age, they summoned the
assemblies of the people, at which they preserved order and silence;
proclaimed war; arranged the cessation of hostilities and the conclusion
of peace; and assisted at public sacrifices and banquets. They also
performed certain menial offices for the kings (mixing and pouring out
the wine for the guests), by whom they were treated as confidential
servants. In later times, their position was a less honourable one;
they were recruited from the poorer classes, and were mostly paid
servants of the various officials. Pollux in his _Onomasticon_
distinguishes four classes of heralds: (1) the sacred heralds at the
Eleusinian mysteries;[1] (2) the heralds at the public games, who
announced the names of the competitors and victors; (3) those who
superintended the arrangements of festal processions; (4) those who
proclaimed goods for sale in the market (for which purpose they mounted
a stone), and gave notice of lost children and runaway slaves. To these
should be added (5) the heralds of the boule and demos, who summoned the
members of the council and ecclesia, recited the solemn formula of
prayer before the opening of the meeting, called upon the orators to
speak, counted the votes and announced the results; (6) the heralds of
the law courts, who gave notice of the time of trials and summoned the
parties. The heralds received payment from the state and free meals
together with the officials to whom they were attached. Their
appointment was subject to some kind of examination, probably of the
quality of their voice. Like the earlier heralds, they were also
employed in negotiations connected with war and peace.
Among the Romans the _praecones_ or "criers" exercised their profession
both in private and official business. As private criers they were
especially concerned with auctions; they advertized the time, place and
conditions of sale, called out the various bids, and like the modern
auctioneer varied the proceedings with jokes. They gave notice in the
streets of things that had been lost, and took over various commissions,
such as funeral arrangements. Although the calling was held in little
estimation, some of these criers amassed great wealth. The state criers,
who were mostly freedmen and well paid, formed the lowest class of
_apparitores_ (attendants on various magistrates). On the whole, their
functions resembled those of the Greek heralds. They called the popular
assemblies together, proclaimed silence and made known the result of the
voting; in judicial cases, they summoned the plaintiff, defendant,
advocates and witnesses; in criminal executions they gave out the
reasons for the punishment and called on the executioner to perform his
duty; they invited the people to the games and announced the names of
the victors. Public criers were also employed at state auctions in the
municipia and colonies, but, according to the lex Julia municipalis of
Caesar, they were prohibited from holding office.
Amongst the Romans the settlement of matters relating to war and peace
was entrusted to a special class of heralds called _Fetiales_ (not
_Feciales_), a word of uncertain etymology, possibly connected with
_fateor_, _fari_, and meaning "the speakers." They formed a priestly
college of 20 (or 15) members, the institution of which was ascribed to
one of the kings. They were chosen from the most distinguished families,
held office for life, and filled up vacancies in their number by
co-optation. Their duties were to demand redress for insult or injury to
the state, to declare war unless satisfaction was obtained within a
certain number of days and to conclude treaties of peace. A deputation
of four (or two), one of whom was called _pater patratus_, wearing
priestly garments, with sacred herbs plucked from the Capitoline hill
borne in front, proceeded to the frontier of the enemy's territory and
demanded the surrender of the guilty party. This demand was called
_clarigatio_ (perhaps from its being made in a loud, clear voice). If no
satisfactory answer was given within 30 days, the deputation returned to
Rome and made a report. If war was decided upon, the deputation again
repaired to the frontier, pronounced a solemn formula, and hurled a
charred and blood-stained javelin across the frontier, in the presence
of three witnesses, which was tantamount to a declaration of war (Livy
i. 24, 32). With the extension of the Roman empire, it became
impossible to carry out this ceremonial, for which was substituted the
hurling of a javelin over a column near the temple of Bellona in the
direction of the enemy's territory. When the termination of a war was
decided upon, the fetiales either made an arrangement for the suspension
of hostilities for a definite term of years, after which the war
recommenced automatically or they concluded a solemn treaty with the
enemy. Conditions of peace or alliance proposed by the general on his
own responsibility (_sponsio_) were not binding upon the people, and in
case of rejection the general, with hands bound, was delivered by the
fetiales to the enemy (Livy ix. 10). But if the terms were agreed to, a
deputation carrying the sacred herbs and the flint stones, kept in the
temple of Jupiter Feretrius for sacrificial purposes, met a deputation
of fetiales from the other side. After the conditions of the treaty had
been read, the sacrificial formula was pronounced and the victims slain
by a blow from a stone (hence the expression _foedus ferire_). The
treaty was then signed and handed over to the keeping of the fetial
college. These ceremonies usually took place in Rome, but in 201 a
deputation of fetiales went to Africa to ratify the conclusion of peace
with Carthage. From that time little is heard of the fetiales, although
they appear to have existed till the end of the 4th century A.D. The
_caduceator_ (from _caduceus_, the latinized form of [Greek: kerykeion])
was the name of a person who was sent to treat for peace. His person was
considered sacred; and like the fetiales he carried the sacred herbs,
instead of the caduceus, which was not in use amongst the Romans.
For the Greek heralds, see Ch. Ostermann, _De praeconibus Graecorum_
(1845); for the Roman Praecones, Mommsen, _Romisches Staatsrecht_, i.
363 (3rd ed., 1887); also article PRAECONES in Pauly's
_Realencyclopadie_ (1852 edition); for the Fetiales, monographs by F.
C. Conradi (1734, containing all the necessary material), and G.
Fusinato (1884, from _Atti della R. Accad. dei Lincei_, series iii.
vol. 13); also Marquardt, _Romische Staatsverwaltung_, iii. 415 (3rd
ed., 1885), and A. Weiss in Daremberg and Saglio's _Dictionnaire des
antiquites_. (J. H. F.)
FOOTNOTE:
[1] These heralds are regarded by some as a branch of the Eumolpidae,
by others as of Athenian origin. They enjoyed great prestige and
formed a hieratic caste like the Eumolpidae, with whom they shared
the most important liturgical functions. From them were selected the
[Greek: dadouchos] or torch-bearer, the [Greek: hierokeryx], whose
chief duty was to proclaim silence, and [Greek: ho epi bomo], an
official connected with the service at the altar (see L. R. Farnell,
Cults of the Greek States, iii. 161; J. Topffer, _Attische
Genealogie_ (1889); Dittenberger in _Hermes_, xx.; P. Foucart, "Les
Grands Mysteres d'Eleusis" in _Mem. de l'Institut National de
France_, xxxvii. (1904).
HERALDRY. Although the word Heraldry properly belongs to all the
business of the herald (q.v.), it has long attached itself to that which
in earlier times was known as armory, the science of armorial bearings.
_History of Armorial Bearings._--In all ages and in all quarters of the
world distinguishing symbols have been adopted by tribes or nations, by
families or by chieftains. Greek and Roman poets describe the devices
borne on the shields of heroes, and many such painted shields are
pictured on antique vases. Rabbinical writers have supported the fancy
that the standards of the tribes set up in their camps bore figures
devised from the prophecy of Jacob, the ravening wolf for Benjamin, the
lion's whelp for Judah and the ship of Zebulon. In the East we have such
ancient symbols as the five-clawed dragon of the Chinese empire and the
chrysanthemum of the emperor of Japan. In Japan, indeed, the
systematized badges borne by the noble clans may be regarded as akin to
the heraldry of the West, and the circle with the three asarum leaves of
the Tokugawa shoguns has been made as familiar to us by Japanese lacquer
and porcelain as the red pellets of the Medici by old Italian fabrics.
Before the landing of the Spaniards in Mexico the Aztec chiefs carried
shields and banners, some of whose devices showed after the fashion of a
phonetic writing the names of their bearers; and the eagle on the new
banner of Mexico may be traced to the eagle that was once carved over
the palace of Montezuma. That mysterious business of totemism, which
students of folk-lore have discovered among most primitive peoples, must
be regarded as another of the forerunners of true heraldry, the totem of
a tribe supplying a badge which was sometimes displayed on the body of
the tribesman in paint, scars or tattooing. Totemism so far touches our
heraldry that some would trace to its symbols the white horse of
Westphalia, the bull's head of the Mecklenburgers and many other ancient
armories.
When true heraldry begins in Western Europe nothing is more remarkable
than the suddenness of its development, once the idea of hereditary
armorial symbols was taken by the nobles and knights. Its earliest
examples are probably still to be discovered by research, but certain
notes may be made which narrow the dates between which we must seek its
origin. The older writers on heraldry, lacking exact archaeology, were
wont to carry back the beginnings to the dark ages, even if they lacked
the assurance of those who distributed blazons among the angelic host
before the Creation. Even in our own times old misconceptions give
ground slowly. Georg Ruexner's _Thurnier Buch_ of 1522 is still cited
for its evidence of the tournament laws of Henry the Fowler, by which
those who would contend in tournaments were forced to show four
generations of arms-bearing ancestors. Yet modern criticism has
shattered the elaborated fiction of Ruexner. In England many legends
survive of arms borne by the Conqueror and his companions. But nothing
is more certain than that neither armorial banners nor shields of arms
were borne on either side at Hastings. The famous record of the Bayeux
tapestry shows shields which in some cases suggest rudely devised
armorial bearings, but in no case can a shield be identified as one
which is recognized in the generations after the Conquest. So far is the
idea of personal arms from the artist, that the same warrior, seen in
different parts of the tapestry's history, has his shield with differing
devices. A generation later, Anna Comnena, the daughter of the Byzantine
emperor, describing the shields of the French knights who came to
Constantinople, tells us that their polished faces were plain.
Of all men, kings and princes might be the first to be found bearing
arms. Yet the first English sovereign who appears on his great seal with
arms on his shield is Richard I. His seal of 1189 shows his shield
charged with a lion ramping towards the sinister side. Since one half
only is seen of the rounded face of the shield, English antiquaries have
perhaps too hastily suggested that the whole bearing was two lions face
to face. But the mounted figure of Philip of Alsace, count of Flanders,
on his seal of 1164 bears a like shield charged with a like lion, and in
this case another shield on the counterseal makes it clear that this is
the single lion of Flanders. Therefore we may take it that, in 1189,
King Richard bore arms of a lion rampant, while, nine years later,
another seal shows him with a shield of the familiar bearings which have
been borne as the arms of England by each one of his successors.
That seal of Philip of Alsace is the earliest known example of the arms
of the great counts of Flanders. The ancient arms of the kings of
France, the blue shield powdered with golden fleurs-de-lys, appear even
later. Louis le Jeune, on the crowning of his son Philip Augustus,
ordered that the young prince should be clad in a blue dalmatic and blue
shoes, sewn with golden fleurs-de-lys, a flower whose name, as "Fleur de
Loys," played upon that of his own, and possibly upon his epithet name
of Florus. A seal of the same king has the device of a single lily. But
the first French royal seal with the shield of the lilies is that of
Louis VIII. (1223-1226). The eagle of the emperors may well be as
ancient a bearing as any in Europe, seeing that Charlemagne is said, as
the successor of the Caesars, to have used the eagle as his badge. The
emperor Henry III. (1039-1056) has the sceptre on his seal surmounted by
an eagle; in the 12th century the eagle was embroidered upon the
imperial gloves. At Molsen in 1080 the emperor's banner is said by
William of Tyre to have borne the eagle, and with the beginning of
regular heraldry this imperial badge would soon be displayed on a
shield. The double-headed eagle is not seen on an imperial seal until
after 1414, when the bird with one neck becomes the recognized arms of
the king of the Romans.