HENRY, ROBERT, D.D., was the son of a farmer in the parish of St. Ninians, Stirlingshire, where he was born in 1718. Having completed the usual course of education for the Scottish church at the University of Edinburgh, he was licensed as a preacher in 1746, being then master of the burgh or grammar-school of Annan, in Dumfriesshire. In 1748 he was elected minister of a Presbyterian congregation at Carlisle, with which he remained till August 1760, when he removed to a similar situation in the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed. It is supposed to have been about this time that he conceived the project of his History of Great Britain, written on a new plan,' on which his literary reputation rests. The same year that he established himself in Berwick he married a Miss Balderston, whose sister afterwards married Gilbert Laurie, Esq., lord provost of Edinburgh; and this connection eventually led, in 1768, to Mr. Henry's removal to that city. His first appointment was as minister of the church of the New Grey Friars, which he retained till 1776, and then exchanged for the easier charge of one of the ministers of the Old Church, in which he continued till his death. His access to the libraries at Edinburgh encouraged him to proceed with the design of his History, which want of the necessary books had before almost induced him to relinquish. The first volume, in 4to, appeared in 1771, the second in 1774, the third in 1777, the fourth in 1781, and the fifth, bringing down the narrative to the accession of Henry VII., in 1785. The author, upon whom the degree of D.D. had been conferred by the University of Edinburgh in 1770, died in 1790; but before his death he had completed the greater part of another volume of his History, extending to the accession of Edward VI., which was published in 1793 under the superintendence of Malcolm Laing, Esq., who supplied the chapters that were wanting, and added an Appendix. Dr. Henry's History has, since its completion, been repeatedly reprinted in twelve volumes 8vo. The author had published the successive quarto volumes on his own account; but when the first octavo edition was proposed in 1786, he sold the property of the work to a publishing house for 1000l., besides which the profits it had already yielded him amounted to 2300l. In 1781, on the unsolicited application of Lord Mansfield, | a pension of 100l. a year was granted to Dr. Henry by the king. These facts are extracted from a biographical memoir of some length which appeared with the posthumous volume of the History, and in which may be also found a diffuse account of Dr. Henry as a private member of society, in which character he appears to much advantage. His only other publication was a Sermon preached before the (Scottish) Society for propagating Christian Knowledge, in 1773. The early volumes of his History were assailed with unusual virulence as they successively appeared by Dr. Gilbert Stuart, well known as the author of various able and learned historical works. Stuart was a man of bad temper and little principle, and he was probably actuated in this affair by feelings of personal animosity to Dr. Henry or some of his friends; but he was a person of genuine learning and original research, as well as of great acuteness, and in many of his objections to the History there was much force and justice. Henry's cause, on the other hand, was taken up by his friends, and there is printed in the Memoir of his Life' a very encomiastic character of his work (so far as it had proceeded), which is said to be "by one of the most eminent historians of the present age, whose history of the same period justly possesses the highest reputation," and "who died before the publication of the third volume," words which we suppose describe Mr. Hume. The work had certainly considerable merit as the first attempt to write a History of England upon so extended a plan, combining the history of society and the general civilisation of the country with that of public events; and the author has collected a great mass of curious matter, a large portion of which is not to be found in any of our common histories; but it has no pretensions to be considered as executed either classically or critically. It abounds in statements derived from sources of no authority, and in other negligences and inaccuracies, partly arising from the character of the author's mind and acquirements, partly the consequence of his provincial situation and want of acquaintance with or access to the best sources of information. In every one of the departments into which it is divided it is now very far indeed behind the state to which historical and archæological knowledge has advanced.

HENRY, WILLIAM, was the son of Mr. Thomas Henry of Manchester, who was a zealous cultivator of chemical science. Dr. Henry was born on the 12th of December 1775. His earliest instructor was

the Rev. Ralph Harrison, who on the establishment of an academy in Manchester, afterwards removed to York, was chosen to fill the chair of classical literature. Immediately after leaving the academy he became an inmate in the house of Dr. Percival, whose character as an able and enlightened physician is well known. Here he remained for some years, and in 1795 he studied at Edinburgh, where the chair of chemistry was occupied by the venerable Dr. Black. After remaining there only one year however, he was obliged from prudential motives to quit the university. On visiting Edinburgh again in 1807 he received the diploma of Doctor in Medicine, and although he subsequently and successfully practised as a physician in Manchester, he was compelled to retire from it on account of the state of his health, which from an accident in early life had always been delicate.

Though the period between his two academical residences was passed in the engro. sing occupations of his profession, and the superintend

ence of a chemical business established by his father, he nevertheless both zealously and successfully attended to the science of chemistry, and from that period until 1836, the year in which he died, he contributed a great number of important papers to the Royal Society, the Philosophical Society of Manchester, and to various philosophical journals. In 1797 he communicated to the Royal Society an experimental memoir, the design of which was to re-establish, in opposition to the conclusions drawn by Dr. Austin, and sanctioned by the approval of Dr. Beddoes and other eminent chemists, the title of carbon to be ranked among elementary bodies, although his proofs indeed contained a fallacy, which in a subsequent paper he himself corrected. In 1800 he published in the 'Philosophical Transactions' researches on muriatic acid gas. These experiments were undertaken in the hopes of detaching the imaginary element, which, in accordance with the prevailing theory, was supposed with oxygen to constitute the acid in question. It was not till many years afterwards that the true nature of this acid was ascertained by Davy, and to the new doctrine Dr. Henry was an early convert. In 1803 Dr. Henry made known to the Royal Society his elaborate experiments on the quantity of gases absorbed by water at different temperatures, and he arrived at the simple law, "that water takes up of gas condensed by one, two, or more additional atmospheres, a quantity which ordinarily compressed would be equal to twice, thrice, &c., the volume absorbed under the common pressure of the atmosphere." In 1808 he published in the same work a form of apparatus adapted to the combustion of larger quantities of gas than could be fired in eudiometric tubes. In the same year he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, and in the year following he received, by the award of the president and council, Sir Godfrey Copley's donation, as a mark of their approbation of his valuable communications to the society. He published various other papers, both in the Manchester Memoirs' and in the 'Philosophical Transactions.' His latest communication to the Royal Society was a paper in 1824, in which he succeeded in overcoming the only difficulty he had not before conquered, that of ascertaining by chemical means the exact proportions which the gases left after the action of chlorine on oil and coal gas bear to each other. This he effected by availing himself of the property which had been recently discovered by Döberciner in finelydivided platina, of determining gaseous combination. All his communications afford admirable examples of inductive research, great philosophical acumen, and almost unequalled precision in manipulating. Dr. Henry was also the author of a most valuable and useful work, entitled 'Elements of Experimental Chemistry,' which has reached the eleventh edition. He was a man of great general information, and considerable literary attainments and ability, as shown by the very superior style of his scientific papers. In his private character he was in every respect estimable.

Dr. Henry's frame, originally delicate, worn out by illness and distracted by loss of sleep, at last gave way, and he died on the 2nd of September 1836 in his sixty-first year.

HENRYSON, ROBERT, a Scottish poet of much merit, lived in the latter part of the 15th century. Of his life hardly anything is known. He is supposed to have been the Robert Henryson whose signature as notary-public is attached to a charter granted in 1478 by the abbot of Dunfermline, in Fifeshire; and he is elsewhere said to have been a schoolmaster in that town. It has been inferred that he must have been an ecclesiastic, and it has been conjectured that he may have been a Benedictine monk. In a poem of Dunbar, printed in 1508, he is spoken of as dead: and in one of his poems he had described himself as a man of age.' His tale of 'Orpheus Kyng, and how he yeid to hewyn and to hel to seik his quene,' was printed at Edinburgh, in 1508: and in 1593 there was printed his 'Testament of Faire Creseide,' which had been suggested by the 'Troilus and Creseide' of Chaucer, and is found in the common editions of that poet's works. His beautiful pastoral of 'Robin and Makyne' is known to most readers from Percy's 'Reliques. Other specimens of Henryson's poems are in Sibbald's 'Chronicle of Scottish Poetry,' Dr. Irving's Lives of the Scottish Poets,' Lord Hailes's' Ancient Scottish Poems,' Ellis's 'Specimens,' and more recent collections. His thirteen poems, called 'Fables,' were edited by Dr. Irving in 1832, for the Bannatyne club, and for that club, in 1824, Mr. George Chalmers had edited the Testament of Creseide,' and 'Robin and Makyne.' Henryson writes with much greater purity and correctness than most Scotsmen of his time: his versification is good, and his poetical fancy rich and lively. HEPHÆ'STION, a grammarian of Alexandria, lived about the middle of the 2nd century of the Christian era. He is said to have instructed the emperor Verus, (Julius Capitolinus, c. 2.) He wrote a treatise on Greek metres, which was printed for the first time at Florence in 1526: but the best edition is by Gaisford, 8vo., Oxford, 1810, with the Chrestomathia' of Proclus, reprinted at Leipzig, 1832. An English translation of this work, with prolegomena and notes by T. H. Barham, appeared at Cambridge in 1843. HEPHÆSTION. [ALEXANDER III.]

HERACLITUS of Ephesus, surnamed the Naturalist, belongs to the dynamical school of the Ionian philosophy. He is said to have been born about B.c. 500, and, according to Aristotle, died in the sixtieth year of his age. The title he assumed of 'self-taught' refutes at once the claims of the various masters whom he is said to have

had, and the distinguished position that he held in political life attests the wealth and lustre of his descent. The gloomy haughtiness and melancholy of his temperament led him to despise all human pursuits, and he expressed unqualified contempt as well for the political sagacity of his fellow-citizens as for the speculations of all other philosophers, as having mere learning and not wisdom for their object. Of his work 'On Nature' (repl púσews), the difficulty of which obtained for him the surname of the obscure,' many fragments are still extant, and exhibit a broken and concise style, hinting rather than explaining his opinions, which are often conveyed in mythical and half-oracular images. On this account he well compares himself to the Sibyl, "who," he says, "speaking with inspired mouth, smileless, inornate, and unperfumed, pierces through centuries by the power of the god." According to Heraclitus, the end of wisdom is to discover the ground and principle of all things. This principle, which is an eternal everliving unity, and pervades and is in all phenomena, he called fire. By this term Heraclitus understood, not the elemental fire or flame, which he held to be the excess of fire, but a warm and dry vapour; which therefore, as air, is not distinct from the soul or vital energy, and which, as guiding and directing the mundane development, is endued with wisdom and intelligence. This supreme and perfect force of life is obviously without limit to its activity; consequently nothing that it forms can remain fixed; all is constantly in a process of formation. This he has thus figuratively expressed: "No one has ever been twice on the same stream." Nay, the passenger himself is without identity: "On the same stream we do and we do not embark; for we are and we are not."

The vitality of the rational fire has in it a tendency to contraries, whereby it is made to pass from gratification to want, and from want to gratification, and in fixed periods it alternates between a swifter and a slower flux. Now these opposite tendencies meet together in determinate order, and by the inequality or equality of the forces occasion the phenomena of life and death. The quietude of death, however, is a mere semblance which exists only for the senses of man. For man in his folly forms a truth of his own, whereas it is only the universal reason that is really cognisant of the truth. Lastly, the rational principle which governs the whole moral and physical world is also the law of the individual; whatever therefore is, is the wisest and the best; and "it is not for man's welfare that his wishes should be fulfilled; sickness makes health pleasant, as hunger does gratification,

and labour rest."

The physical doctrines of Heraclitus formed no inconsiderable portion of the eclectical system of the later Stoics, and in times still more recent there is much in the theories of Schelling and Hegel that presents a striking though general resemblance thereto.

The fragments of Heraclitus have been collected from Plutarch, Stobæus, Clemens of Alexandria, and Sextus Empiricus, and explained by Schleiermacher in Wolf and Buttman's Museum der Altherthumswissenschaft,' vol. i. See also Brandis's 'Handbuch der Geschichte der Griechisch-Röm. Philos.,' Berlin, 1835; and Ritter's 'History of Antient Philosophy,' Oxford, 1837.

HERA'CLIUS, the son of the patrician Heraclius, who was governor of Africa under the Emperor Phocas, assisted in dethroning the latter in A.D. 610, and was proclaimed emperor in his place. The destitute condition of the empire at the accession of Heraclius compelled him to be an almost inactive spectator of the ruinous invasions of the Avars in Europe and the Persians in Asia. By submitting to an annual tribute of one thousand talents (pounds?) of gold, as many talents of silver, one thousand silk robes, and one thousand slave girls, he induced the Persian king Chosroes or Khosrew to discontinue his invasions of Asia Minor, and to be satisfied with the conquests he had made from the Greek empire, which comprehended Egypt and the whole of the Asiatic provinces east and south of a line drawn from the northern frontiers of Syria to the eastern extremity of the province of Pontus. Heraclius made a less humiliating peace with the Avars. Having got rid of his enemies, he applied himself to reform the discipline of the army, and he employed vigorous means to fill his treasury, not sparing the property of the churches; he was thus enabled to raise an army strong enough to stop all further designs of the Persian king. The plan of attacking that powerful foe was bold and well designed, and it was executed with so much boldness and prudence, and such a startling combination of offence and defence, as to equal the strategical operations of the greatest generals.

A powerful Persian army was stationed in the valley of the Upper Euphrates ready to descend through the passes of the Anti-Taurus into the high plains of Cappadocia, and to push on towards Constantinople, as they had done in 616. The army of Heraclius, consisting chiefly of raw levies, was quartered in the environs of Constantinople, and afterwards in those of Chalcedon on the Asiatic shore of the Bosporus, and a whole year was required to prepare his men for a campaign. But Heraclius was master of the sea, and his numerous fleet enabled him to choose his base of operation. Early in the spring of 622 he embarked his troops, and from the Bosporus sailed to the eastern corner of Cilicia, which lies round the bay of Iskénderún (Alexandria), and is protected on the north and east by the Taurus, and on the south by Mount Amanus. There on the plain of Issus he continued accustoming his troops to actual warfare by making them manœuvre in the same way as modern troops do, and he occupied the

BIOG. DIV. VOL. III.

Cilician and Syrian gates and other passes that lead through the surrounding ranges. A Persian army approaching in full confidence of making the Romans prisoners of war, or of forcing them to re-embark, was turned, routed, and driven into the mountains of Armenia. Having thus cleared his way and secured his rear, Heraclius marched through the Cilician gates northward in the direction of Mount Argæus (Arjísh) and the Upper Halys (Kizil Irmák), where, as it seems, a portion of his troops remained during the winter as a body of observation. The emperor with the main body advanced upon Trebizond, and quartered his troops in the province of Pontus. Trebizond now became the centre of his operations. He left it however soon after his arrival, sailed to Constantinople, and in the following spring of 623 returned with a fleet and a chosen body of 5000 men.

From Trebizond Heraclius carried the war, in the spring of 623, into the heart of Persia. The nations in the Caucasus were his allies, and he had entered into negociations with the khazars beyond the Caucasus. These were the causes of his first advancing north-east into the Caucasian provinces, and only after having shown himself there and increased his army through the contingents of his allies, he marched south upon Charsa (Kars) and thence in a direction parallel with the Araxes as far as the great bend of that river, where, after a south-eastern and eastern course, it turns north-east. Thence he marched right upon Gazaca or Gandzaca, which is the still common Armenian name of Tabriz, and this city fell into his hands with all its wealth, Chosroes, who was in the neighbourhood with 40,000 men, not daring to offer battle for the relief of his northern capital. From Gandzaca Heraclius marched south, turned the Persian army and fell upon their rear, took and destroyed Theabarma, now Urúmiyeh, near the western shore of the large lake of Urúmíyeh, which is said to be the birthplace of Zoroaster, and many other cities which have not yet been identified, and at last wheeled round and took up his winterquarters in the flat country between the Lower Araxes and the Caspian, which is now known as the plain of Mogan. We may suppose that he chose that tract, which is renowned for its vast pasturages, for the support of his numerous cavalry, and for the purpose of having an easy communication with the khazars, who used to pass through Dághestán and the Iron Gate, near Derbent, whenever they invaded Persia.

In the following year, 624, Heraclius penetrated into the heart of Media, took Casbin, and probably also Aspahan (Isfahán), defeated Chosroes in a pitched battle, and, after having carried the Roman arms farther into Persia than any of his predecessors, returned to his former winter-quarters at the foot of the Caucasus.

During this time Chosroes had withdrawn his troops from Egypt and Syria, and thought himself strong enough to act on the offensive. In the spring of 625 he ordered his lieutenant Sarbar, or Sarbaraza, to menace Asia Minor, while he endeavoured to keep the Roman emperor at check in the Caucasus. Sarbar, who was in Northern Mesopotamia, marched south-west and fell upon the eastern angle of Cilicia. His intention was apparently to take the easiest way for penetrating into Asia Minor, to cut off the communication between the Romans in the fortresses of the Anti-Taurus and the Taurus with the Mediterranean, and to destroy the magazines of the Romans in Cilicia. Informed of this diversion, Heraclius moved on; but while he appeared to threaten the main body of the Persians under Chosroes, he suddenly passed by, left the defence of Armenia to his Caucasian allies, and followed Sarbar through Mesopotamia, either by his track or on a parallel road. They met in Cilicia on the banks of the Sarus, now Sihún, at a moment when Sarbar was in a very critical position. Theophanes says, that Heraclius approached from Germánicia (Marásh), passed by Adána, and arrived in Cilicia before Sarbar; and as, when the battle began, the Romans were on the right and the Persians on the left bank of the Sarus, we may suppose that Sarbar came through the Syrian passes and found himself in presence of the main army of the Romans, just when he was going to attack the Cilician passes. In the ensuing battle Heraclius astonished both his own and his enemy's troops by his heroic deeds. At the head of a few veterans he stormed the stone bridge over the Sarus (below Adána), which the Persians had occupied and fortified, and slew with his own hand a gigantic Persian whom nobody dared to fight. After a bloody conflict the Persians were routed; and Sarbar escaped, through the Syrian passes, with the scattered remnants of his army to Persia. Heraclius did not pursue him, but marched through the Cilician passes upon Sebaste (Siwás), and took up his winter-quarters in Pontus.

The next campaign of 626 equals the most splendid military operations in ancient or modern time. Early in 626 Chosroes opened the campaign with two armies against Heraclius, and a third under Sarbar, who was commissioned to attempt a second invasion of Asia Minor. Sarbar was successful, traversed the whole peninsula, and reached the walls of Chalcedon, opposite Constantinople; and, at the same time, a host of more than 100,000 Avars and other barbarians, the allies of Chosroes, invaded Thrace, laid siege to Constantinople, and twelve times assailed its walls. Chosroes hoped to induce Heraclius to hasten to the succour of his capital, but the emperor stood firm at the foot of the Caucasus, despatching however, by sea, 12,000 armed horsemen, who arrived safely at Constantinople. He knew that however great the danger was for Constantinople, the Persians and

20

Avars had no ships to effect a union, and that the inhabitants of the capital would fight to the last before they surrendered to an enemy whom it was more dangerous to encounter in the open field than in their assaults upon walls and towers. A Slavonian fleet having entered the Bosporus, destined to convey the Persians over to the European shore, the Greek galleys left the Golden Horn, and, in sight of the besiegers, destroyed the ships of the barbarians or took them and carried them off into the harbour of Constantinople. Shortly after this event the Avars withdrew and Constantinople was free, although Sarbar continued to amuse himself with the siege of Chalcedon. While this took place in the west, Theodore, the brother of Heraclius, defeated the Persian general Said in Armenia, and the emperor defended with success the Caucasian provinces against the desperate attack of Chosroes, who took the field against him with a select army of 50,000 men called the Golden Spears. A still greater advantage the emperor derived from effecting an alliance with Ziebel, the khan of the Khazars, who came through the Iron Gate with a numerous host, and joined the Romans at Tifilis (Tiflis). Another army of Khazars invaded Persia on the side of Turkistán. The united Romans and Khazars were 70,000 men, or perhaps more, since the Khazars alone were 50,000 strong, and Heraclius led them forthwith into the province of Atropatene, where he took up his winter-quarters. He crowned the success of his arms by a most successful stratagem. After the junction of the Romans and the Khazars, Chosroes sent a despatch to Sarbar, with an order to give up all further designs against Constantinople, and to join him without delay in Persia. The messenger having fallen into the hands of the Romans, Heraclius altered the despatch, enjoining him to hold out as long as possible, and the letter was forwarded through another courier. Sarbar continued the siege, but his protracted absence irritated the king so much that he despatched a second messenger to the first lieutenant of Sarbar with an order to kill his general as a traitor. The despatch having been delivered to Sarbar instead of his lieutenant, he added the names of 400 of the principal officers as being all destined to be sacrificed to the anger of their master, whereupon he showed them the order, and declared the only way to save themselves was to break their allegiance to Chosroes and to make peace with the emperor on their own account. The officers gave their consent, they persuaded the army to follow their example, and Heraclius having granted them favourable conditions, they laid down their arms, and abandoned Chosroes at a moment when he stood most in need of them. There is something strange in this story, and it would seem as if Heraclius had not so much a hand in it as Siroes, the son of Chosroes, who rebelled against his father, and put him to death in 626.

In spite of this loss Chosroes had still a numerous army to oppose Heraclius in the campaign of 627. But his efforts were in vain. With irresistible power the Roman emperor moved on upon Assyria, and although his progress was slow, he was successful in every siege and engagement. He came from the province of Atropatene, passed the Zabas (Great Záb) in its upper part, and marched towards Niniveh (opposite Mósul), where he encountered a Persian army commanded by Rhazater, who had followed the emperor for some time, but gained some marches over him, and had taken a position near the ruins of Niniveh with the intention of preventing the Romans from occupying the valley of the Tigris and marching upon Ctesiphon. After an obstinate resistance from day break till night Rhazater was routed and killed, and Heraclius, who had again signalised himself as a general and a warrior, pursued the fugitive enemy, and occupied the bridges over the Great and the Little Záb, which the Persians had no time to secure. The battle at Niniveh was fought on the 12th of December 627. On his way to Dastagerd or Artemita, Heraclius took, plundered, and destroyed the royal palaces of Rusa, Beglali, and others, and immense treasures fell into his hands. Soon afterwards he took Dastagerd, the favourite residence of Chosroes, and its treasures, of which Theophanes gives a fabulous description; and many thousands of captive Romans, chiefly inhabitants of Edessa and Alexandria, as also 300 standards and other trophies taken from the Romans in former campaigns, were recovered by the victors. Chosroes fled from Dastagerd to Ctesiphon (El-Modain), and thence into the interior of Persia. Heraclius was already in sight of Ctesiphon, when he suddenly retreated north-east upon Siazura (Sherzúr) and Gandzaca, crossing the Assyrian mountains in the midst of winter without loss. The motives of his retreat were either the fear of being unable to take the well-fortified city of Ctesiphon in the winter, the want of provisions in Assyria, which had been ravaged, being already very sensibly felt, or perhaps the rebellion of Siroes against his father Chosroes, whom he treacherously seized and put to death with eighteen of his sons, the brothers of Siroes. (February 28, 628.) In the month of March following peace was concluded between Siroes and Heraclius. Siroes ceded Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Armenia, and gave back the Holy Cross taken by his father at the conquest of Jerusalem; and Heraclius gave up many thousand Persian captives, and allowed the Persian troops who still occupied the principal towns of Egypt, Syria, and Mesopotamia to return to their native country: they were treated with great humanity on their march through the Roman provinces. In the same year Heraclius had his triumphal entrance into Constantinople. Theophanes, so vague and obscure in his accounts of the first campaigns

of Heraclius, gives a detailed and accurate description of the campaign of 627. The latter years of the reign of this emperor were passed amidst theological controversies. Heraclius supported the doctrine of the Monothelites, who taught that the human nature in Jesus Christ was entirely passive under the will of his divine nature. Pope John IV. assembled a council at Rome in 640, which condemned the Monothelites. Meantime the Arabians, after the death of Mohammed, and under the kalifate of Abu-Bekr, invaded Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia, and under the following kalifate of Omar they conquered Egypt and Cyrenaica. Heraclius was unable to oppose the torrent of Arabian courage and fanaticism; he sunk into inactivity and sloth, and died of the dropsy in February 641, after a reign of thirty years. From that epoch the decided though gradual decline of the Eastern empire may be dated. Heraclius was succeeded by HERACLIUS CONSTANTINE, his son by his first wife Eudocia, who in the fourth month of his reign was poisoned by his stepmother Martina, who had her own son Heracleonas proclaimed in his stead. An insurrection however soon after broke out at Constantinople against the new emperor, who was mutilated and banished together with his mother, and Constans II., son of Heraclius Constantine, was raised to the imperial throne. (Theophanes and other Byzantine historians; Gibbon; Le Beau; D'Anville, &c.)

CONG

Coin of Heraclius.

British Museum. Actual size. Gold. Weight 69 grains. HERBART, JOHANN FRIEDRICH, a distinguished German philosopher, was born in 1776, at Oldenburg, where his father at the time held an office connected with the administration of justice. Receiving his religious instruction from a man well acquainted with the philosophical systems of Leibnitz and Kant, Herbart, at the age of about twelve, was led to speculate upon such subjects as God, freedom, and immortality. In his eighteenth year he went to the University of Jena, where he studied under Fichte, and formed an intimate acquaintance with him, and he entertained the highest opinion of his master until Schelling's work, Vom Ich,' fell into his hands, which was admired by Fichte, while Herbart opposed its tendency with the greatest zeal. This caused a breach between Fichte and Herbart, who gladly accepted a place of private tutor which was offered to him at Bern in Switzerland. He had already conceived the idea of a system of psychology based upon mathematics, and the more clearly Fichte explained his views upon psychology in his 'Sittenlehre' (Leipzig and Jena, 1798), the more Herbart became convinced that the speculations of Fichte must be abandoned if any permanent basis was to be gained for his science. About the same time he devoted himself with great zeal to the study of the history of ancient philosophy, which led him to form an intimate acquaintance with the systems of Plato and the Eleatics. However he continued his own researches which he had commenced under Fichte, and from 1802 to 1805 he delivered philosophical lectures in the University of Gottin gen, where he developed his peculiar method of thinking, which was subsequently much extended, but remained essentially the same as it had been from the beginning. His tendency was pre-eminently practical, and it was partly owing to this circumstance, and partly to his personal acquaintance with Pestalozzi, that his first works treated on education. In 1809 he was appointed professor of philosophy at Königsberg, and was at the same time entrusted with the superintendence of the higher educational establishments in the eastern parts of Prussia, in the organisation of which he did great service. In 1833 he was invited to the chair of philosophy in the University of Göttingen, where his lectures attracted great attention on account of the clearness and precision with which he explained his views. He remained at Göttingen until his death, on the 14th of August 1841.

·

Herbart is the founder of a particular system of philosophy, which is interesting on accout of his peculiar method rather than his origi nality of thought, for in reality his system is of a syncretic kind, and Fichte's influence upon it cannot be mistaken. Although Herbart occasionally professes to be a follower of Kant, still he is of opinion that Kant's Criticism of Pure Reason' is almost without any objec tive value, and that its method must be entirely abandoned if metaphysics are to be founded on a secure and permanent basis. Herbart's realistic tendency further reminds us of the monades of Leibnitz. Philosophy, according to Herbart, has not, like ordinary sciences, any particular set of subjects which are its province, but it consists in the manner and method in which any subject whatsoever is treated. The subjects themselves are supposed to be known, and are called by him notions' (Begriffe), so that philosophy is the methodical treatment and working out of those notions. The different methods of treatment constitute the main departments of philosophy. The first of

them is logic, which considers the nature and clearness of notions and their combinations. But the contemplation of the world and of ourselves brings before us notions which cause a discord in our thoughts. This circumstance renders it necessary for us to modify or change those notions according to the particular nature of each. By the process of modification or change something new is added, which Herbart calls the supplement or complement (Ergänzung). Now the second main department of philosophy is metaphysics, which Herbart defines to be the science of the supplementary notions. The method of discovering the supplementary notions which are necessary in order to render given facts which contain contradictory notions, intelligible, is, according to him, the method of relations, and it is by this method alone that the other notions of the world and of ourselves can be properly defined. Hence arises what he calls practical metaphysics, which is subdivided into psychology, the philosophy of nature, and natural theology. A third class of notions, lastly, add something to our conceptions, which produces either pleasure or displeasure, and the science of these notions is æsthetics, which, when applied to given things, forms a series of theories of art, which may be termed prac tical sciences. They are founded upon certain model notions, such as the ideas of perfection, benevolence, malevolence, justice, compensation, equity, and the like. In his metaphysics Herbart points out three problems containing contradictions, viz. things with several attributes, change, and our own subjectivity (das Ich). In order to solve these contradictions, and to make the external and internal world agree and harmonise so as to become conceivable, he assumes that the quality of everything existing (des Seienden) is absolutely simple. Things therefore which exist have no attributes referring to space and time, but they stand in relation to a something, which is the essence of things. Wherever this essence consists of a plurality of attributes, there must also be a plurality of things or beings, and these many simple things or beings are the principles of all things in nature, and the latter, consequently, are nothing but aggregates of simple things. They exist by themselves in space so far as it is conceived by our intellect, but not in physical space, which contains only bodies. We do not know the real simple essence of things, but we may acquire a certain amount of knowledge concerning internal and external relations. When they accidentally meet in space they disturb one another, but at the same time strive to preserve themselves; and in this manner they manifest themselves as powers, although they neither are powers nor have powers. By means of these principles Herbart endeavours to reform the whole system of psychology which he found established by his predecessors; for, according to him, the soul too is a simple being, and as such it is and remains unknown to us; and it is neither a subject for speculation nor for experimental psychology. It never and nowhere has any plurality of attributes, nor has it any power or faculty of receiving or producing anything; and the various faculties usually mentioned by psychologists, such as imagination, reason, &c., which sometimes are at war and sometimes in concord with each other, are, according to Herbart, mere fictions of philosophers. In like manner he denies that it possesses certain forms of thought or laws regulating our desires and actions. The soul as a simple being, and in its accidental association with others, is like the latter subject to disturbance and exerts itself for its own preservation. The latter point is the principal question in Herbart's psychology, and he endeavours to deduce and calculate the whole life of the soul, with the aid of mathematics, from those mutual disturb ances, checks, and from its reactions against them. Hence he is obliged to deny man's moral or transcendental freedom, although he allows him a certain free character. He maintains the immortality of the soul, because the simple principles of all things are eternal; but he denies the possibility of acquiring any knowledge whatever of the deity. These theories, which betray a tendency to subtleties and overrefinement, are explained more fully in his works, of which the principal are contained in the following list :-1, 'Pestalozzi's Idee eines A. B. C. der Anschauung, untersucht und wissenschaftlich entwickelt,' Göttingen, 1802, 8vo. 2, 'Allgemeine Paedagogik,' Göttingen, 1806, 8vo. 3, Allgemeine Practische Philosophie,' Göttingen, 1808, 8vo. 4, 'Hauptpunkte der Metaphysik,' Göttingen, 1808, 8vo. 5, Einleitung in die Philosophie,' 1813, an improved edition appeared in 1816. 6, Kleines Lehrbuch zur Psychologie,' Göttingen, 1815, 8vo. 7, 'Ueber meinen Streit mit der Modephilosophie dieser Zeit,' Königsberg, 1814. His great psychological work, however, is 8, 'Psychologie als Wissenschaft, neu gegründet auf Erfahrung, Metaphysik, und Mathematik,' Königsberg, 2 vols. 8vo, 1824-25. 9,Allgemeine Metaphysik, nebst den Anfängen der Philosophischen Naturlehre,' Königsberg, 1828-29, 2 vols. 8vo. 10, 'Kurze Encyclopaedie der Philosophie, aus practischen Gesichtspunkten entworfen,' Königsberg, 1831, 8vo. His smaller essays appeared in three volumes, Leipzig, 1842-43, 8vo; the first volume contains a good Life of Herbart.

་

(Neuer Nekrolog der Deutschen; Brockhaus, Conversations-Lexikon.) HERBELOT, BARTHE'LEMİ D', was born at Paris, on the 14th of December 1625. He commenced the study of the Oriental languages in early life, and acquired an accurate knowledge of the Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac, Persian, and Turkish languages. During his residence in Italy, whither he went with the hope of obtaining

instruction from natives of the east, he enjoyed the friendship and patronage of the cardinals Barberini and Grimaldi; and on his return to France he received a pension from Fouquet of 1500 livres, which he afterwards lost on the disgrace of that minister. He was subse quently appointed Oriental secretary and interpreter to the king. During a second visit which he made to Italy he was received in the most distinguished manner by Ferdinand II., grand-duke of Tuscany, who presented him with a great number of valuable Oriental manuscripts, and wished to retain him at his court. But D'Herbelot was prevailed upon by the solicitations of the minister Colbert to return to Paris, where he was appointed professor of Syriac on the death of Auvergne. He also received a pension from the king. He died on the 8th of December 1695.

The work by which D'Herbelot is known to posterity is entitled 'Bibliothèque Orientale, ou Dictionnaire Universel, contenant généralement tout ce qui regarde la connoissance des peuples de l'Orient,' fol., Paris, 1697. This work, which he commenced in Italy, and upon which he employed the labour of many years, was published after his death by Galand. The 'Bibliothèque Orientale' was founded upon the Arabic dictionary of Haji Khalfa, and has been deservedly considered by scholars as a most extraordinary work for the time in which it appeared. D'Herbelot also drew his materials from numerous other works in Arabic, Persian, and Turkish, which are enumerated by Galand in his preface to the Bibliothèque.' On many subjects connected with Oriental history and antiquities the Bibliothèque Orientale' supplies the only information which is available at the present day to a person unacquainted with the Oriental languages. But its statements must be received with great caution; for while the learned author appears to have had a most extensive knowledge on all subjects connected with the east, he certainly did not pay sufficient attention to accuracy. It should however be recollected that he did not live to complete the work, and that his plan embraced too great a number of subjects to allow any one individual to do justice to them all.

The 'Bibliothèque Orientale' was reprinted at Maestricht, fol., 1776, and also at the Hague, 4 vols. 4to, 1777-99. The latter edition contains many valuable additions by Schultens and Reiske, and also a supplement by Visdelou and Galand. An abridgement of the original work was published at Paris, 6 vols. 8vo, 1782, by Désessarts. A German translation of the 'Bibliothèque Orientale' was published at Halle, by Schulz, 4 vols. 8vo, 1785-90.

D'Herbelot also wrote several other works, which have never been published. Amongst these Galand mentions a Turkish and Persian Dictionary, in 3 vols. folio.

HERBERT, EDWARD, LORD HERBERT OF CHERBURY, was born in the year 1581, at Montgomery, in the principality of Wales. After going through the usual course of studies at Oxford, where he was a member of University College, Herbert visited London in 1600, and shortly afterwards proceeded to the Continent with the design of seeing foreign parts, but was induced by an inherent love of enterprise and danger to join the English auxiliaries then serving in the Netherlands, where he soon distinguished himself by his reckless daring and intrepidity. Having returned to England, he was, upon the accession of James I., created a knight of the Bath, and was distinguished at the court of that pedantic monarch by his gallantry and his learning. In 1618 Sir Edward was sent ambassador to France. In this situation the bold independence with which he answered a haughty remark of the Connétable De Luynes brought upon him the displeasure of the French monarch, at whose request he was recalled. The conduct of Herbert met however with the approbation of James, who, upon the death of De Luynes, sent him in a similar capacity to Paris, where he published his first work, entitled Tractatus de Veritate, prout distinguitur à Revelatione, à Verisimili, à Possibili, et à Falso,' 4to, Paris, 1624. The year following he returned to England, and was created a baron of the kingdom of Ireland. From this date Lord Herbert does not appear to have held any public office, and his time was divided between the gaieties of the court and the pursuits of literature. In 1631 he was elevated to an English peerage, and two years after published an enlarged edition of the Tractatus,' of which another appeared in 1645, accompanied with the treatise De Religione Gentilium, Errorumque apud eos Caussis.' Upon the outbreak of the political troubles under Charles I., Lord Herbert at first took the side of the parliament, which however he subsequently abandoned. He died in the year 1648. After his death two posthumous works were published, the Expeditio Buckinghami Ducis in Ream Insulam,' and the 'Life and Reign of King Henry VIII.,' with a dedication to the first Charles. It is by the latter work that Lord Herbert is best known to posterity. His Memoirs, which are the earliest instance of autobiography in our language, remained in manuscript until they were printed, in 1764, by Horace Walpole, at his private press at Strawberry Hill.

Herbert of Cherbury was the contemporary of Hobbes of Malmesbury, to whose principles of philosophising he was directly opposed, notwithstanding the striking coincidence of many of the results at which they respectively arrived. He maintained the theory of innate ideas, and made a certain instinct of the reason (rationalis instinctus) to be the primary source of all human knowledge. Accordingly he did not, with Aristotle and the Stoics, compare the mind to a pure

tablet, or to the tabula rasa of the schoolmen, but to a closed volume which opens itself at the solicitation of outward nature acting upon the senses. Thus acted upon, the mind produces out of itself certain general or universal principles (communes notiones), by reference to which all debateable questions in theology and philosophy may be determined, since upon these principles at least all men are unanimous. Consistently with these views, he does not, with Hobbes, make religion to be founded on revelation or historical tradition, but upon an immediate consciousness of God and of divine things. The religion of reason therefore, resting on such grounds, is, he argues, the criterion of every positive religion which claims a foundation in revelation. No man can appeal to revelation as an immediate evidence of the reasonableness of his faith, except those to whom that revelation has been directly given; for all others, the fact of revelation is a matter of mere tradition or testimony. Even the recipient of a revelation may himself be easily deceived, since he possesses no means of convincing himself of the reality or authenticity of his admitted revelation. Herbert made his own religion of reason to rest upon the following grounds: There is a God whom man ought to honour and reverence; a life of holiness is the most acceptable worship that can be offered him; sinners must repent them of their sins, and strive to become better; and after death every one must expect the rewards or penalties befitting the acts of this life.

Lord Herbert is one of the numerous instances on record of the little influence which speculative opinions exercise upon the conduct of life. Maintaining that no revelation is credible which is imparted to a portion only of mankind, he nevertheless claims the belief of his hearers when he tells them that his doubts as to the publication of his work were removed by a direct manifestation of the divine will. Notwithstanding the little favour which has been shown to his works, which is partly indeed attributable to the obscurity both of his style and diction, but chiefly to the predominant inclination for the empirical philosophy of Bacon and Hobbes, the skill and sagacity with which he has pursued his researches on a purely rational method are alone sufficient, even had we not a Glanvill and a few others to boast of, to refute the objection which has been urged against us of a total absence in the national mind of all pure and reflex reasoning. The doctrine that outward objects are but the occasions of educing all general knowledge is the foundation of the fame of Kant; and there is much also in the writings of Jacobi which reminds the reader of the principles and method of the philosopher of Cherbury.

HERBERT, GEORGE, born April 3, 1593, was the fifth brother of Lord Herbert of Cherbury. He was educated at Westminster, and elected thence to Trinity College, Cambridge, about the year 1608. In 1615 he became Fellow of the college, and in 1619 was elected to the office of public orator, a post in those times of considerably more importance than at present. While at Cambridge he made the acquaintance of Lord Bacon, but the pleasures of the court and some hopes of preferment led him to spend much of his time away from that seat of learning. His expectations however failing on the death of James I., he turned his attention to divinity, of which he had before been a laborious student, and took holy orders. He was made prebendary of Leighton Bromswold, or Layton Ecclesia, in 1626. He married in 1630, and in the same year accepted the rectory of Bemerton; but the effects of a quotidian ague, which had attacked him the year before, soon made themselves again apparent, and he died in 1632. His poetical works are well and deservedly known. Under a quaint guise they convey sometimes profound and very often beautiful thoughts. They belong to the same school with those of Donne, Quarles, and Herrick, and remind us forcibly of certain poems which some years ago appeared at Oxford under the title of 'The Christian Year,' and the same analogy may be traced between that school of divines to whom these poems are owing and our author; there is the same zeal and energy in pastoral duties, the same love of paradox in language, the same reverence for antiquity and for the ceremonies of the Church.

(Izaak Walton, Life of Herbert.)

*HERBERT, JOHN ROGERS, R.A., was born in 1810 at Malden in Essex. Having passed through the Royal Academy as a student, he for some years practised portrait-painting. In 1835 he had a picture entitled "Prayer' in the Academy exhibition; but he first attracted attention by one originally exhibited at the British Institution called 'The Appointed Hour' -a young lover lying assassinated at the foot of the stairs down which his mistress, to whom his fate is unknown, is descending to meet him: a "telling" incident, which, when the picture was engraved, caused the print to become an exceed. ingly popular one. His studies in Italy led Mr. Herbert about this time to paint numerous subjects from Venetian history, as the Brides of Venice,-Procession of 1528' (1839), 'Pirates of Istria bearing off the Brides of Venice,' &c., and he made numerous drawings of Venetian subjects for engraving in one or more of the annual publications, then so much in request. But his pencil was by no means confined to Venetian subjects, he having exhibited among others, some

of a melodramatic character, corresponding to his 'Appointed Hour,' as 'Constancy-Love outwatched the drowsy Guard,' &c., and in a different style, 'The Monastery in the 14th century-Boar Hunters refreshed at St. Augustine's Monastery, Canterbury.' In 1841 Mr. Herbert was elected A.R.A., but somewhat carlier a circumstance had occurred (too publicly announced, and too often referred to, to make mention of it here improper) which probably had a far more powerful influence on his character as a painter than the acquisition of the academic honours; this was, his passing over with his family to the Romish Church, having been led thereto, as is generally said, by the influence of that zealous Roman Catholic and medievalist, the late Welby Pugin. From that time Mr. Herbert's style of painting and choice of subjects underwent a very marked change. He turned to the Scriptures or to ecclesiastical history for his themes, and he treated them in a medieval manner,-somewhat hard, but with great purity and refinement of feeling, and with conscientious attention to costume and to details. He was, in fact, the first English painter of ability, who seemed to have looked to the modern German, rather than the great Italian masters for guidance. He has since considerably modified his style, but he still loves to paint scriptural subjects as they may be imagined to present themselves to the mind of a Romish ecclesiastic, well imbued with church traditions, deep in missal and symbolic lore, but equally well acquainted with the fruits of recent investigations. The results of his new views and studies, appeared in the exhibition of 1842, to which he contributed a very remarkable work,-'The First Introduction of Christianity into Britain,' and a portrait of Dr. Wiseman. In 1843 appeared 'Christ and the Woman of Samaria;' in 1844 'Sir Thomas More and his Daughter,' for the Vernon collection, and 'The Trial of the Seven Bishops'-an old-standing commission we believe, but at any rate the picture presented an almost ludicrous contrast to other works in his recent manner; in 1845 St. Gregory teaching his chant to the Roman Boys'; 1846, a portrait of his friend Pugin; in 1847 Our Saviour subject to his Parents at Nazareth'-one of the most characteristic of his works; and in 1848 St. John the Baptist reproving Herod,' also a work of great power.

Thus far Mr. Herbert's pictures for the last six years had been all of a similar order. In 1846 he had been elected an academician, and now, 1848, he was called upon by the Royal Commission to assist in decorating the new palace at Westminster-a circumstance which gave a somewhat new direction to his pencil, and perhaps a not unuseful diversion to his thoughts. To him was assigned the painting of certain spaces in the Poet's Hall, with subjects from Shakspere's King Lear.' In 1849 he exhibited at the Academy his study in oil for the first of them- Lear disinheriting Cordelia,'-a second-a large and highly finished oil picture, Lear recovering his Reason, at the sight of Cordelia,' was exhibited in 1855: both were works of a high order of merit. So well satisfied were the commissioners with his first frescoes, that they have since directed him to execute nine fresco paintings on the walls of the Peers' Robing Room, the subjects being taken from the Old Testament-a commission honourable to all concerned, and one which affords to the painter an opportunity he is well qualified to turn to profit. The pictures are to represent 'Moses bringing down the Tables of the Law to the Israelites; The Fall of Man;' Man's Condemnation to Labour;' The Judgment of Solomon;' The Visit of the Queen of Sheba;' The Building of the Temple;' The Judgment of Daniel;' 'Daniel in the Lion's Den; and The Vision of Daniel.' Since his employment on the House of Lords, Mr. Herbert has found time to paint but few works for the Academy exhibitions. Besides those mentioned above his only contributions have been-'The Outcast of the People' (1849); 'Study for the Judgment of Daniel,' and a 'Head of a Scribe' both studies for the frescoes in the Peers' Robing Room; and a very peculiar portrait of the great French painter Horace Vernet in 1855.

Mr. Herbert's eldest son, ARTHUR JOHN HERBERT, contributed to the Royal Academy Exhibition, 1855, a somewhat quaint but very promising picture entitled 'Don Quixote's first impulse to lead the life of a Knight-errant;' and to that of 1856 one of 'Philip IV. of Spain knighting Velasquez,' a work displaying greatly increased power; but unhappily the promise was cut short by the young artist's premature death of typhoid fever, at Muriac, in Auvergne, September 18th, 1856, at the age of twenty-two.

*HERBERT, RIGHT HON. SIDNEY, M.P. for South Wilts, second son of the eleventh Earl of Pembroke, by a daughter of the late Count Woronzow of Russia, was born in 1810. He received his education at Harrow and at Oriel College, Oxford, where he graduated in classical honours in 1831. He first entered public life in December 1832 as member for the southern division of Wilts, for which he has continued to sit without interruption down to the present time (October 1856). His parliamentary career exhibits an apt illustration of the gradual tendency of thinking minds to liberalise their political opinions, and to abandon narrow prejudices for wider and more enlightened principles. In 1834 he made his first speech in the House of Commons, when he seconded a resolution for the exclusion of Dissenters from the University of Oxford. In 1838 he opposed the motion of Mr. Grote in favour of the ballot, and strenuously opposed all the measures of the Melbourne ministry down to its fall in the year 1841, including the motions on the affairs of Spain and on the opium trade and war with