1. Kent, after the battle of Creccanford, in which 4,000 Britons were slain, was abandoned by the Britons, and became the kingdom of their conquerors, a band of Jutes, who had come in 446 A.D. to serve Vortigern, king of the Picts, as mercenaries, under the leadership of Hengist and Horsa, who were little other than pirates. Hengist became king of Kent, and his son Eric or Aesc succeeded him, and from his descendants, the kings of Kent, were called Aescingas. In 796 Kent was conquered by Cenwulf, king of Mercia; and about 823 both were conquered by Egbert, king of Wessex, who appointed his son Ethelwulf king of Kent, which hereafter, though separate in name, was really subordinate to Wessex.

2. Sussex, partially conquered about 477, and wholly, before 491, by Ella the Saxon, who was the first bretwalda of Britain. Sussex submitted to Egbert of Wessex in 828, and his son Athelstane governed it under him.

3. Wessex, though fluctuating in extent, as all the kingdoms did, included Surrey, Hants, the Isle of Wight, Berks, Wilts, Dorset, Somerset, Devon, and part of Cornwall. It was founded about 494 by Cerdic and Cynric his son, "Ealdormen" or leaders of the "old Saxons." King Egbert, who returned from a flight to Gaul in 800, and ruled from that year till his death in 836, was, as a conqueror, the most successful of all these Saxon kings. When he died, his dominions were divided between his sons, Ethelwulf and Athelstane, the former taking Wessex Proper, and the latter Kent, Essex, Sussex, and Surrey. Another Athelstane, who succeeded in 925 to Mercia and Wessex, conquered Exeter, and assumed Northumbria, exacted tribute from the Welsh, and some formal submission from the Britons of the west, as well as the Danes and Scots. He appears occasionally to have held witenagemôtes or Saxon parliaments of subordinate chiefs (subreguli), and at one of these, Constantine, king of Scotland, appeared as a subregulus. But Athelstane and his successors as well as his predecessor, Alfred the Great, belong to the history of England, as indeed do all the Saxon states and kings after Egbert.

4. Essex, which comprised also Middlesex, if ever independent, was so about 530 A.D.; but early in the 7th c. it became subject to Mercia, and fell with it to Wessex in 823. This state and Sussex and Wessex were founded by the old Saxons; the remaining three by the Angles who came from Holstein, and gave their name to England.

5. Northumbria consisted of Bernicia and Deira, which were at first separate and independent states. The former comprised Northumberland and all Scotland s. of the Forth, and was founded by Ida about 560. The latter comprised Cumberland, Durham, York, and Lancaster, and was founded by Ella the Angle about the same date. These two were united about 655, and as Northumbria, they submitted to Egbert in 829. 6. East Anglia, comprising Norfolk, Suffolk, and Cambridge, was founded about 571 by Uffa, and from him its kings were named Uffingas. In 883 it was conquered by the Danes, and was only restored to Saxon rule by Athelstane in 925.

7. Mercia included the counties in the center of the kingdom, and is said to have been founded by Crida or Creoda in 585. Three-quarters of a century later it was conquered for a time by Northumbria, but it recovered its independence, and retained it until Egbert subdued it. Canute the Dane had it and Northumbria ceded to him in 1016, just before Edmund Ironside's death allowed him to become king of England, and the Danes to obtain the ascendency over the Saxons, for which they had been striving, at intervals, for five generations. Compare Palgrave's Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth (2 vols. Lond. 1832).

HEPTATEUCH, THE, is an independent translation of the first seven books of the Bible into Anglo-Saxon, made by Elfric, archbishop of Canterbury, in the tenth century. There are copies of it in the British Museum (Claud. B. IV.), and in the Bodleian Library (Laud 509). The Heptateuch was not printed until 1698 by Edward Thwaites.

HEPWORTH, GEORGE HUGHES, b. Boston, 1833; graduated at Harvard theological school, and became a Unitarian preacher in Nantucket. In 1858 he was pastor of a Boston church; in 1862 chaplain of the union army; 1863 on Gen. Banks's staff in Louisiana. After the war (1870) he took charge of the church of the Messiah in New York, but resigned within two years, renouncing the Unitarian faith, and soon afterwards he established in the same city the Congregational church of the Disciples. H resigned this charge in 1878, and went abroad for rest; later he was pastor of the Belleville Avenue Congregational church, Newark, N. J. He has been connected editorially with the New York Herald since 1873. In 1880 he traveled through Ireland in charge of the famine relief fund. He has been distinguished as a popular lecturer, and is the author of Whip, Hoe, and Sword, Rocks and Shoals, Starboard and Port, They Met in Heaven, Brown Studies, Hiram Golf's Religion, The Farmer and the Lord (1896), etc.

HERA. See JUNO.

HERACLEA, a city of Bithynia (now Eregli in Amadolia) on the s. coast of the Black sea, having a good harbor and considerable trade. (See EREGLI.)

HERACLEA, a city of Sicily; at the mouth of the Halycus (the modern Platani), not far from the promontory now known as cape Bianco. It is distinguished from other Heracleas by the surname of Minoa, which is explained as referring to its founda

tion by Minos of Crete. Its name frequently occurs in connection with the Carthaginian occupation of Sicily, and it was in the neighboring sea that the Carthaginian fleet was routed by Regulus and Manlius, 256 B.C. The Romans introduced a colony.

HERACLEI A, an ancient city of Magna Græcia, situated on the right bank of the Aciris (the modern Agri), about 3 m. above the mouth of that river in the gulf of Tarentum. It was founded about 432 B.C., and although under the Romans it became a prosperous, important, and refined city, it never acquired any historical prominence. When it fell into decay is not known, but at the present day little more remains to mark its site than heaps of rubbish. In the neighborhood, besides a large number of coins, ranking among the very finest relics of antiquity, there have been discovered certain bronze tables, known as the Tabule Heracleenses containing a copy of the Lex Julia Municipalis (45 B.C.), and forming one of the principal authorities for a knowledge of the municipal law of ancient Italy. This inscription has been published by Muratori, Savigny, and others.

HERACLEI DE. This term means, in its widest sense, all "the descendants of Heracles" (Hercules), of whatever time, and in whatever district of Greece, but is specially applied to those adventurers who, founding their claims on their supposed descent from the great hero (to whom Zeus had promised a portion of the land), joined the Dorians in the conquest of the Peloponnesus. There were five different expeditions, the last and greatest occurring eighty years after the Trojan war. The leaders of this last were Temenus, Cresphontes, and Aristodemus, sons of Aristomachus. They defeated Tisamenus, son of Orestes, and grandson of Agamemnon, and thus gained possession of Argos, Sparta, and Mycena. The other parts of the country quickly submitted to them, and they then proceeded to divide the spoil. Argos fell to Temenus; Lacedæmon to Procles and Eurystheus, the sons of Aristodemus; and Messenia to Cresphontes. This story of the return of the Heraclidæ touches on the historical period, and though there is much of fable and tradition, yet there seems to be also a large substratum of truth in the records. -See Müller's Dorians, Thirlwall's and Grote's Greece.

HERACLEI TUS, a Greek philosopher, was b. at Ephesus, in Asia Minor, and flourished about 500 B. C. He is said to have traveled much, and to have been very sorrowfully impressed with the weaknesses of his fellow creatures, whence, according to old traditions, he obtained the nick-name of the "weeping philosopher," in contrast to Democritus, "the laughing philosopher." He died at the age of 60. The result of Heracleitus's researches and meditations was a work on the nature of things, said to have been entitled Peri Physeōs (on nature). Such fragments of it as remain were collected and elucidated by Schleiermacher in Wolf and Buttmann's Museum der Alterthumswissenschaften (vol. i. part 3, Berlin, 1805). From these, it appears that he considered fire to be the first principle of all phenomena, and the original substance out of which they have all been evolved. Heracleitus was neither a very original nor a very coherent thinker, and his speculations deserve little attention.

HERACLEONITES, called after Heracleon, a Gnostic who flourished 125 A.D. in s. Italy or Sicily. In his system he appears to have regarded the divine nature as a vast abyss in whose pleroma were æons of different orders and degrees,-emanations from the source of being. Midway between the supreme God and the material world was Demiurgus, who created the latter, and under whose jurisdiction the lower animal soul of man proceeded after death, while his higher celestial soul returned to the pleroma whence it first issued. Heracleon seems to have received the ordinary Christian scriptures; and Origen has preserved fragments of a commentary by him on St. John's gospel, while Clement of Alexandria quotes from him what appears to be a passage from a commentary on St. Luke's gospel. These writings are remarkable for their intensely mystical and allegorical interpretations of the text.

HERACLES. See HERCULES.

HERACLIDES, PONTICUS, a Greek author of the 4th c. B.C., said to have been a disciple of Plato and Aristotle. According to Suidas, the second of these philosophers on departing for Sicily left his scholars in the charge of Heraclides. The latter part of his life was spent at Heraclea. He is said to have been vain and fat, and to have maintained such state in Athens that the wits changed his name into Pompicus, or the Showy. On one occasion Heraclea was afflicted with famine, and the pythoness at Delphi, bribed' by Heraclides, assured his inquiring townsmen that the dearth would be stayed if they granted a crown to that philosopher. This was done; but just as Heraclides was receiving his honor in a crowded assembly he was seized with apoplexy, while the dishonest priestess perished from the bite of a serpent. On his death-bed he is said to have requested a friend to hide his body as soon as life was extinct, and, by putting a serpent in its place, induce his townsmen to suppose that he had been carried up to heaven. The trick was discovered, and Heraclides received only ridicule instead of divine honors.

HERACLIUS, a Byzantine emperor (610-641), of splendid but fitful genius, was descended from a line of brave ancestors, and was b. in Cappadocia about 575 A.D. His father, also named Heraclius, was exarch or gov.gen. of Africa. Regarding Heraclius's youth we know almost nothing; but when upwards of 30, he took part in a conspiracy (which proved successful) against the emperor Phocas, whose horrible cruelties

had made him universally detested.

In 610 Heraclius, at the head of a fleet, appeared at Constantinople: the citizens rose in rebellion, Phocas was beheaded, and Heraclius saluted emperor in his stead. His fellow-conspirators were richly rewarded. The condition of the Byzantine empire at this time was deplorable. Factions within and the barbarians without had almost reduced it to ruin, so that years elapsed before Heraclius could put forth any vigorous efforts for its reorganization. His most powerful enemies in the north were the Avari, who, in 619, plundered the country to the very gates of Constantinople, nearly captured Heraclius himself, and are said to have carried with them to their homes beyond the Danube 250,000 prisoners. The whole western empire had by this time been seized by the Slaves, Lombards, Visigoths, and other tribes; but by far the most alarming conquests were those made in the east by the Persian king, Chosroës II. In 615 Sarbar, the Persian general, stormed and plundered Jerusalem. The same fate befell Alexandria in the following year, after which all Egypt yielded to the victorious Sarbar, who penetrated as far as Abyssinia. By stopping the export of corn from Egypt to Constantinople, he likewise caused a severe famine in the latter city. In the same year (616) the Persians besieged and captured Chaicedon, opposite Constantinople. Heraclius at first tried to negotiate with his enemies, but, flushed with their triumphs, they refused, and even put his ambassadors to death. Probably the emperor, who was now laying his plans for taking a magnificent revenge on the Persians, was not greatly displeased at their refusal. Having, after a whole year of laborious discipline, organized an army composed of Greeks and barbarians, he, in 622, shipped his troops at the Bosporus, and sailed for Cilicia. Having landed, he encamped in the plain of Issus, completely routed a Persian army dispatched against him, and forced his way through the passes of the Taurus and Anti-Taurus, into the province of Pontus, where his soldiers wintered. In 624 he crossed Armenia, conquered several of the Perso-Caucasian countries, and reached the Caspian sea. Here he formed an alliance with the khan of the Khazars, who ruled over the sterile regions north of the Caucasus, as far as the river Ural. By the assistance of these and other barbarians, he attacked Media, and carried his arms as far south as Ispahan. Before going into winter-quarters, he again utterly defeated the main body of the Persians, commanded by Chosroes himself. In 625 Heraclius descended from the Caucasus into Mesopotamia, and thence proceeded into Cilicia, where a sanguinary engagement took place between him and Sarbar; the Persians were routed with immense slaughter, and Sarbar fled to Persia. During the next two years (626-628) the glory of Heraclius culminated. He carried the war into the heart of the Persian empire, and in Dec., 627, cut to pieces the forces of Rhazates, the Persian general, near the junction of the Little Zab and the Tigris. An immense booty fell into the hands of the victors. A few days after, Heraclius took Artemita or Dastagerd, the favorite residence of Chosroes, and here the Arabic historians exhaust hyperbole in attempting to state the enormous treasure which the Byzantine emperor captured. Chosroes fled into the interior of Persia, and was soon afterwards seized, imprisoned, and starved to death by orders of his son and successor, Siroes, who was glad to conclude a peace with Heraclius, by which the Persians gave up all their former conquests. The fame of Heraclius now spread over the whole world, and ambassadors came to him from the remotest kingdoms of the east and west; but a new and terrible enemy suddenly arose in the south. The Arabs, filled with the ardor of a new and fierce faith, had just set out on their career of sanguinary proselytism. The war began during the life of the prophet himself was continued by his successors, Abubekr and Omar. Heraclius no longer commanded the Byzantine forces himself, but wasted his days in his palace at Constantinople, partly in sensual pleasures, and partly in wretched theological disputations. His mighty energies were quite relaxed; and before the close of his life, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, and Egypt were in the hands of the caliphs. He died in 641.

HER ALD (derivation uncertain), an officer whose duty consists in the regulation of armorial bearings, the marshaling of processions, and the superintendence of publie ceremonies. In the middle ages heralds were highly honored, and enjoyed important privileges; their functions also included the bearing of messages, whether of courtesy or defiance, between royal or knightly personages; the superintending and registering of trials by battle, tournaments, jousts, and all chivalric exercises; the computation of the slain after battle; and the recording of the valiant acts of the falling or surviving combatants. The office of herald is probably as old as the origin of coat armor. The principal heraldic officers are designated kings-of-arms or kings-at-arms, and the noviti ates or learners are styled pursuivants. Heralds were originally created with much ceremony; they are now appointed by the earl-marshal in England, and by the lyon king-of-arms in Scotland. There are now in England three kings-of-arms, named by their offices Garter, Clarencieux, and Norroy; six heralds-Somerset, Chester, Windsor, Richmond, Lancaster, and York; and four pursuivants, Rouge Dragon, Portcullis, Blue Mantle, and Rouge Croix. There have been at different periods other heralds, whose titles are now laid aside; heralds extraordinary have also sometimes been created, as Edmonson, by the title of Mowbray, in 1764. În Scotland the principal heraldic officer is lyon king-of-arms; and there were till lately six heralds-Snowdoun, Albany, Ross, Rothesay, Marchmont, and Ilay; and six pursuivants-Unicorn, Carrick, Kintyre, Ormond, Dingwall, and Bute. By 30 Vict. c. 17, the permanent number of heralds and

pursuivants in Scotland is reduced to three of each. Ireland has one king-of-arms, Ulster; two heralds, Cork and Dublin; and two pursuivants, of whom the senior bears the title of Athlone, and the other is called the pursuivant of St. Patrick.

The official costume of a herald consists of an embroidered satin tabard or surcoat of the royal arms, and a collar of SS. See KING-AT-ARMS, PURSUIVANT, HERALDS' COL

LEGE.

HERALDRY is properly the knowledge of the whole multifarious duties devolving on a herald (see HERALD); in the more restricted sense, in which we shall here consider it, it is the science of armorial bearings. After occupying for ages the attention of the learned, and forming an important branch of a princely education, the study of heraldry fell, in later times, into neglect and disrepute, and was abandoned to coach-painters and undertakers, a degradation owing in part to the endless tissue of follies and mystifications that had been interwoven with it. Modern criticism has rescued heraldry from the pedantries and follies of the heralds, and imparted to it a new interest, as a valuable aid to historical investigations.

Though we have instances in remote times of nations and individuals distinguishing themselves by particular emblems or ensigns, nothing that can properly be called_armorial bearings existed before the middle of the 12th century. The shields of the French knights in the first crusade presented a plain face of polished metal, nor is there any evidence of heraldic devices having been in use in the second crusade in 1147. But the Anglo-Norman poet Wace, who flourished in the latter part of the 12th c., mentions devices or cognizances as being in use among the Normans, "that no Norman might perish by the hand of another, nor one Frenchman kill another;" and Wace is curiously corroborated by the Bayeux tapestry of the 12th c., where there are figures of animals on the shields of the invaders, while the Saxon shields have only borders or crosses. The rude devices on these shields have nothing approaching to an armorial form or disposition, yet it is probable that systematic heraldry sprang out of them, but it is difficult to say when they assumed that hereditary character which is essential to the idea of armorial bearings. Some sort of armorial insignia were depicted on the shields used in the third crusade, which took place in 1189; and in the same half-century origi nated the fleurs-de-lis of France and the lions of England. The transmission of arms from father to son seems to have been fully recognized in the 13th c., and in the practice then introduced of embroidering the family insignia on the surcoat worn over the hauberk or coat of mail, originated the expression coat of arms. Arms were similarly embroidered on the jupon, cyclas, and tabard, which succeeded the surcoat, a practice which survived till the time of Henry VIII., when the tabard came to be entirely disused except by heralds, who still continue to wear on their tabards the royal arms.

It was by slow degrees that the usage of arms grew up into the systematized form which it assumes in the works of the established writers on heraldry. The principal existing data for tracing its progress are English rolls of arms yet extant of the times of Henry III., Edward I., and Edward III. The earliest formal treatises date no further back than the end of the 14th c., before which time the whole historical part of the subject had been obscured by a tissue of gratuitous fictions, which has misled most subsequent writers up to a very recent period. The professors of the science represent the heraldry of the 10th and 11th centuries as equally sharply defined with that of the 15th and 16th. The arms of William the Conqueror and his sons are described with all their differences; arms are ascribed to the Saxon kings of England, to Charlemagne, and even to half-mythical persons and heroes of classical times. It is rather surprising to find this fictitious heraldry understood and systematized early in the 14th century. The arms traditionally considered to be those of Edward the confessor were sculptured in Westminster abbey in the reign of Edward II.

In the infancy of heraldry, every knight assumed what arms he pleased, without consulting sovereign or king-at-arm. Animals, plants, imaginary monsters, things artificial, and objects familiar to pilgrims, were all fixed on; and whenever it was possible, the object chosen was one whose name bore sufficient resemblance in sound to suggest the name or title of the bearer of it. There is reason to believe that early arms were generally armes parlantes, though the allusion has in many cases ceased to be intelligible from the old name of the object being forgotten. The charge fixed on was used with great latitude, singly or repeated, or in any way which the bearer chose, or the form of his shield suggested. But as coats of arms became more numerous, confusion often arose from different knights adopting the same symbol; and this confusion was increased by a practice which crept in of sovereigns or feudal chiefs allowing their arms, or part of them, to be borne as a mark of honor by their favorite followers in battle. Hence different coats of arms came in many instances so closely to resemble each other that it was imperative, for distinction's sake, that the fancy of the bearer should be restrained, and regulations laid down regarding the number and position of the charges, and the attitudes of the animals represented. This necessity led, in the course of time, to the systematizing of heraldry, a process which the rolls alluded to show us was going on gradually throughout the 13th and 14th centuries. By the time that heraldry was consolidated into a science, its true origin had been lost sight of, and the credulity and fertility of imagination of the heralds led them to invest the most common charges with mystical meanings, and to trace their original adoption to the desire of commemorating

the adventures or achievements of the founders of the families who bore them. The legends ascribing an origin of this sort to the early armorial bearings have, in nearly all instances where it has been possible to investigate them, turned out to be fabrications. It was only when heraldry began to assume the dignity of a science that augmentations of a commemorative character were granted, one of the earliest known instances being the heart added to the coat of Douglas, in commemoration of the good sir James's pilgrimage with the heart of king Robert. After the science became thoroughly sys tematized, augmentations and new coats were often granted with a reference to the supposed symbolical meanings of the charges.

In England, the assumption of arms by private persons was first restrained by a proclamation of Henry V., which prohibited every one who had not borne arms at Agincourt to assume them, except in virtue of inheritance or a grant from the crown. To enforce the observance of this rule, heralds' visitations or processions through the counties were instituted, and continued from time to time till the reign of William and Mary. See VISITATIONS, HERALDS'.

Jurisdiction in questions of arms is executed by the heralds' college in England, the lyon court in Scotland, and the college of arms in Ireland. No one within the United Kingdom is entitled to bear arms without a hereditary claim by descent, or a grant from the competent authority; and the wrongful assumption of arms is an act for which the assumer may be subjected to penalties. See HERALDS' COLLEGE and LYON COURT. The use of arms, whether rightfully or wrongfully, subjects the bearer of them to an annual tax. It is illegal to use without authority not only a coat of arms, but even a crest. Any figure or device placed on a heraldic wreath (see WREATH) is considered a crest in questions with the heraids' college or lyon court, as well as in questions with the commissioners of inland revenue. It shows how deeply the passion for outward distinction is implanted in human nature, when we find people in countries such as the United States, where all differences of rank are theoretically repudiated, assuming heraldic devices, each man at his own hand.

Besides individuals, communities and states are entitled to the use of arms, and heralds have classified arms, in respect of the right to bear them, under the following ten heads: 1. Arms of dominion; the arms borne by sovereigns as annexed to their territories. 2. Arms of pretension, which sovereigns have borne, who, though not in possession, claim a right to the territories to which the arms belong. Thus, England bore the arms of France from the time of Edward III. till 1801. 3. Arms of community; the arms of bishops' sees, abbeys, universities, towns, and corporations. 4. Arms of assumption; arms which one has a right to assume with the approbation of the sovereign. Thus, it is said, the arms of a prisoner at war may be borne by his captor, and transmitted by him to his heirs. 5. Arms of patronage; added by governors of provinces, lords of the manor, patrons of benefices, etc., to their family arms, as a token of superiority, right, or jurisdiction. 6. Arms of succession, borne quartered with the family arms by those who inherit fiefs or manors, either by will, entail, or donation. Thus, the dukes of Athole, as having been lords of the Isle of Man, quarter the arms of that island, and the duke of Argyle quarters the arms of the lordship of Lorne. 7. Arms of alliance, taken up by the issue of heiresses, to show their maternal descent. 8. Arms of adoption, borne by a stranger in blood, to fulfill the will of a testator. The last of a family may adopt a stranger to bear his name and arms and possess his estate. Arms of adoption can only be borne with permission of a sovereign or king-at-arms. 9. Arms of concession; augmentations granted by a sovereign of part of his royal arms, as a mark of distinction, a usage which, we have already observed, obtained in the earliest days of heraldry; and hence the prevalence among armorial bearings of the lion, the fleurde-lis, and the eagle, the bearings of the sovereigns of England and Scotland, of France, and of Germany. 10. Paternal or hereditary arms, transmitted by the first possessor to his descendants.

D

A coat of arms is composed of charges depicted on an escutcheon representing the old knightly shield. The word escutcheon is derived from the French écusson, which signified a shield with armorial bearings, in contradistinction from écu, a shield generally. The shields in use in England and France in the 11th and 12th centuries were in shape not unlike a boy's kite, a form which seems to have been borrowed from the Sicilians; but when they became the recipients of armorial bearings, they were gradually flattened and shortened. From the time of Henry III., the escutcheon has been most frequently represented on seals as of some- A thing approaching to a triangular form, with the point downwards, the chief exceptions being that the shield of a lady is lozengeshaped, and of a knight-banneret square. To facilitate description, the surface or field of the escutcheon has been divided into nine points (fig. 1), technically distinguished by the following names: A, the dexter chief point; B, the middle chief; C, the sinister chief; D, the honor or collar point; E, the fess point; F, the nombril or navel point; G, the dexter base point; H, the middle base; and I, the sinister base point. It will be observed that the dexter and sinister sides of the shield are so called from their position in relation not to the eye of the spectator, but of the supposed bearer of the shield.

BOEE H

F

GH

Fig. 1.