Chapter 13

Bibliography.â€”T. Bell,A History of British Reptiles(and Amphibians) (1849); W. T. Blanford,Fauna of British India: Mammalia(1889-1891); G. A. Boulenger,Monograph of the Tailless Batrachians of Europe, edited by the Ray Society; â€œTeleosteiâ€ inCambridge Natural History, vii. 541-727 (1904); T. W. Bridge, â€œDipneusteiâ€ inCambridge Natural History, vii. 505-520 (1904); A. H. Cooke, â€œMolluscsâ€ inCambridge Natural History, iii. 25-27 (1895); T. A. Coward,P.Z.S.pp. 849-855 (1906), and pp. 312-324 (1907); C. Darwin,A Naturalistâ€™sVoyage Round the World, pp. 97-98 (1907 ed.); W. L. Distant,A Naturalist in the Transvaal, ch. iii. (1892); Marshall Hall, â€œHibernation,â€ inToddâ€™s Cyclopaedia of Anatomy and Physiology, pp. 764-776 (1839) (Bibliography);Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc.(1832); John Hunter,Observations on parts of the Animal Economy(1837);Index Catalogue of the Library of the Surgeon-Generalâ€™s Office of the U.S. Army, vii. (1902), Bibliography relating to physiology of Hibernation; W. Kirby and W. Spence,An Introduction to Entomology, ed. 17, pp. 517-533 (1856); L. Landois,A Text-book of Human Physiology, translated by W. Stirling, i. 410 (1904); V. Laporte, â€œSuspension of Vitality in Animals,â€Pop. Sci. Monthly, xxxvi. 257-259 (New York, 1889-1890); Mangili, â€œEssai sur la lÃ©thargie pÃ©riodique,â€Annales du MusÃ©um, x. 453-456 (1807); C. Hart Merriam,North American Pocket Mice(Washington, 1889); W. Miller, â€œHibernation and Allied States in Animals,â€Trans. Pan-Amer. Med. Congr.(1893), pt. ii. pp. 1274-1285 (Washington, 1895); M. S. Pembrey and A. G. Pitts, â€œThe Relation between the Internal Temperature and the Respiratory Movements of Hibernating Animals,â€Journ. Physiol.(London, 1899), pp. 305-316; Prunelle, â€œRecherches sur les phÃ©nomÃ¨nes et sur les causes du sommeil hivernal,â€Annales du MusÃ©um, xviii.; J. A. Saissy,Recherches sur les animaux hivernans(1808); L. Spallanzani,MÃ©moires sur la respiration(1803); J. Emerson Tennent,Sketches of the Natural History of Ceylon, pp. 351-358 (1861); Volkov, â€œLe Sommeil hivernal chez les paysans russes,â€Bull. Mem. Soc. Anthropol.(Paris, 1900), i. 67; abstract inBrit. Med. Journ.(1900), i. 1554.

(R. I. P.)

HIBERNIA,in ancient geography, one of the names by which Ireland was known to Greek and Roman writers. Other names were Ierne, Iuverna, Iberio. All these are adaptations of a stem from which also Erin is descended. The island was well known to the Romans through the reports of traders, so far at least as its coasts. But it never became part of the Roman empire. Agricola (aboutA.D.80) planned its conquest, which he judged an easy task, but the Roman government vetoed the enterprise. During the Roman occupation of Britain, Irish pirates seem to have been an intermittent nuisance, and Irish emigrants may have settled occasionally in Wales; the best attested emigration is that of the Scots into Caledonia. It was only in post-Roman days that Roman civilization, brought perhaps by Christian missionaries like Patrick, entered the island.

HICKERINGILL(orHickhorngill),EDMUND(1631-1708), English divine, lived an eventful life in the days of the Commonwealth and the Restoration. After graduating at Caius College, Cambridge, where he was junior fellow in 1651-1652, he joined Lilburneâ€™s regiment as chaplain, and afterwards served in the ranks in Scotland and in the Swedish service, ultimately becoming a captain in Fleetwoodâ€™s regiment. He then lived for a time in Jamaica, of which he published an account in 1661. In the same year he was ordained by Robert Sanderson, bishop of Lincoln, having already passed through such shades of belief as are connoted by the terms Baptist, Quaker and Deist. From 1662 until his death in 1708 he was vicar of All Saintsâ€™, Colchester. He was a vigorous pamphleteer, and came into collision with Henry Compton, bishop of London, to whom he had to pay heavy damages for slander in 1682. He made a public recantation in 1684, was excluded from his living in 1685-1688, and ended his career by being convicted for forgery in 1707.

HICKES, GEORGE(1642-1715), English divine and scholar, was born at Newsham near Thirsk, Yorkshire, on the 20th of June 1642. In 1659 he entered St Johnâ€™s College, Oxford, whence after the Restoration he removed to Magdalen College and then to Magdalen Hall. In 1664 he was elected fellow of Lincoln College, and in the following year proceeded M.A. In 1673 he graduated in divinity, and in 1675 he was appointed rector of St Ebbeâ€™s, Oxford. In 1676, as private chaplain, he accompanied the duke of Lauderdale, the royal commissioner, to Scotland, and shortly afterwards received the degree of D.D. from St Andrews. In 1680 he became vicar of All Hallows, Barking, London; and after having been made chaplain to the king in 1681, he was in 1683 promoted to the deanery of Worcester. He opposed both James II.â€™s declaration of indulgence and Monmouthâ€™s rising, and he tried in vain to save from death his nonconformist brother John Hickes (1633-1685), one of the Sedgemoor refugees harboured by Alice Lisle. At the revolution of 1688, having declined to take the oath of allegiance, Hickes was first suspended and afterwards deprived of his deanery. When he heard of the appointment of a successor he affixed to the cathedral doors a â€œprotestation and claim of right.â€ After remaining some time in concealment in London, he was sent by Sancroft and the other nonjurors to James II. in France on matters connected with the continuance of their episcopal succession; upon his return in 1694 he was himself consecrated suffragan bishop of Thetford. His later years were largely occupied in controversies and in writing, while in 1713 he persuaded two Scottish bishops, James Gadderar and Archibald Campbell, to assist him in consecrating Jeremy Collier, Samuel Hawes and Nathaniel Spinckes as bishops among the nonjurors. He died on the 15th of December 1715.

The chief writings of Hickes are theInstitutiones Grammaticae Anglo-Saxonicae et Moeso-Gothicae(1689), andLinguarum veterum Septentrionalium Thesaurus grammatico-criticus et archaeologicus(1703-1705), a work of great learning and industry.Apart from these two works Hickes was a voluminous and laborious author. His earliest writings, which were anonymous, were suggested by contemporary events in Scotland that gave him great satisfactionâ€”the execution of James Mitchell on a charge of having attempted to murder Archbishop Sharp, and that of John Kid and John King, Presbyterian ministers, â€œfor high treason and rebellionâ€ (Ravillac Redivivus, 1678;The Spirit of Popery speaking out of the Mouths of Phanatical Protestants, 1680). In hisJovian(an answer to S. Johnsonâ€™sJulian the Apostate, 1683), he endeavoured to show that the Roman empire was not hereditary, and that the Christians under Julian had recognized the duty of passive obedience. His two treatises, oneOf the Christian Priesthoodand the otherOf the Dignity of the Episcopal Order, originally published in 1707, have been more than once reprinted, and form three volumes of theLibrary of Anglo-Catholic Theology(1847). In 1705 and 1710 were publishedCollections of Controversial Letters, in 1711 a collection ofSermons, and in 1726 a volume ofPosthumous Discourses. Other treatises, such as theApologetical Vindication of the Church of England, are to be met with in Edmund Gibsonâ€™sPreservative against Popery. There is a manuscript in the Bodleian Library which sketches his life to the year 1689, and many of his letters are extant in various collections. A posthumous publication of hisThe Constitution of the Catholick Church and the Nature and Consequences of Schism(1716) gave rise to the celebrated Bangorian controversy.See the article by the Rev. W. D. Macray in theDictionary of National Biography, vol. xxvi. (1891); and J. H. Overton,The Nonjurors(1902).

Apart from these two works Hickes was a voluminous and laborious author. His earliest writings, which were anonymous, were suggested by contemporary events in Scotland that gave him great satisfactionâ€”the execution of James Mitchell on a charge of having attempted to murder Archbishop Sharp, and that of John Kid and John King, Presbyterian ministers, â€œfor high treason and rebellionâ€ (Ravillac Redivivus, 1678;The Spirit of Popery speaking out of the Mouths of Phanatical Protestants, 1680). In hisJovian(an answer to S. Johnsonâ€™sJulian the Apostate, 1683), he endeavoured to show that the Roman empire was not hereditary, and that the Christians under Julian had recognized the duty of passive obedience. His two treatises, oneOf the Christian Priesthoodand the otherOf the Dignity of the Episcopal Order, originally published in 1707, have been more than once reprinted, and form three volumes of theLibrary of Anglo-Catholic Theology(1847). In 1705 and 1710 were publishedCollections of Controversial Letters, in 1711 a collection ofSermons, and in 1726 a volume ofPosthumous Discourses. Other treatises, such as theApologetical Vindication of the Church of England, are to be met with in Edmund Gibsonâ€™sPreservative against Popery. There is a manuscript in the Bodleian Library which sketches his life to the year 1689, and many of his letters are extant in various collections. A posthumous publication of hisThe Constitution of the Catholick Church and the Nature and Consequences of Schism(1716) gave rise to the celebrated Bangorian controversy.

See the article by the Rev. W. D. Macray in theDictionary of National Biography, vol. xxvi. (1891); and J. H. Overton,The Nonjurors(1902).

HICKOK, LAURENS PERSEUS(1798-1888), American philosopher and divine, was born at Bethel, Connecticut, on the 29th of December 1798. He took his degree at Union College in 1820. Until 1836 he was occupied in active pastoral work, and was then appointed professor of theology at the Western Reserve College, Ohio, and later (1844-1852) at the Auburn (N.Y.) Theological Seminary. From this post he was elected vice-president of Union College and professor of mental and moral science. In 1866 he succeeded Dr E. Nott as president, but in July 1868 retired to Amherst, Massachusetts, where he devoted himself to writing and study. A collected edition of his principal works was published at Boston in 1875. He died at Amherst on the 7th of May 1888. He wroteRational Psychology(1848),System of Moral Science(1853),Empirical Psychology(1854),Rational Cosmology(1858),Creator and Creation, or the Knowledge in the Reason of God and His Work(1872),Humanity Immortal(1872),Logic of Reason(1874).

HICKORY,a shortened form of the American Indian namepohickery. Hickory trees are natives of North America, and belong to the genusCarya. They are closely allied to the walnuts (Juglans), the chief or at least one very obvious difference being that, whilst inCaryathe husk which covers the shell of the nut separates into four valves, inJuglansit consists of but one piece, which bursts irregularly. The timber is both strong and heavy, and remarkable for its extreme elasticity, but it decays rapidly when exposed to heat and moisture, and is peculiarly subject to the attacks of worms. It is very extensively employed in manufacturing musket stocks, axle-trees, screws, rake teeth, the bows of yokes, the wooden rings used on the rigging of vessels, chair-backs, axe-handles, whip-handles and other purposes requiring great strength and elasticity. Its principal use in America is for hoop-making; and it is the only American wood found perfectly fit for that purpose.

The wood of the hickory is of great value as fuel, on account of the brilliancy with which it burns and the ardent heat which itgives out, the charcoal being heavy, compact and long-lived. The species which furnish the best wood areCarya alba(shell-bark hickory),C. tomentosa(mockernut),C. olivaeformis(pecan or pacane nut), andC. porcina(pig-nut), that of the last named, on account of its extreme tenacity, being preferred for axle-trees and axle-handles. The wood ofC. albasplits very easily and is very elastic, so that it is much used for making whip-handles and baskets. The wood of this species is also used in the neighbourhood of New York and Philadelphia for making the back bows of Windsor chairs. The timber ofC. amaraandC. aquaticais considered of inferior quality.

Most of the hickories form fine-looking noble trees of from 60 to 90 ft. in height, with straight, symmetrical trunks, well-balanced ample heads, and bold, handsome, pinnated foliage. When confined in the forest they shoot up 50 to 60 ft. without branches, but when standing alone they expand into a fine head, and produce a lofty round-headed pyramid of foliage. They have all the qualities necessary to constitute fine graceful park trees. The most ornamental of the species areC. olivaeformis,C. albaandC. porcina, the last two also producing delicious nuts, and being worthy of cultivation for their fruit alone.

The husk of the hickory nut, as already stated, breaks up into four equal valves or separates into four equal portions in the upper part, while the nut itself is tolerably even on the surface, but has four or more blunt angles in its transverse outline. The hickory nuts of the American markets are the produce ofC. alba, called the shell-bark hickory because of the roughness of its bark, which becomes loosened from the trunk in long scales bending outwards at the extremities and adhering only by the middle. The nuts are much esteemed in all parts of the States, and are exported in considerable quantities to Europe. The pecan-nuts, which come from the Western States, are from 1 in. to 1Â½ in. long, smooth, cylindrical, pointed at the ends and thin-shelled, with the kernels full, not like those of most of the hickories divided by partitions, and of delicate and agreeable flavour. The thick-shelled fruits of the pig-nut are generally left on the ground for swine, squirrels, &c., to devour. InC. amarathe kernel is so bitter that even squirrels refuse to eat it.

HICKS, ELIAS(1748-1830), American Quaker, was born in Hempstead township, Long Island, on the 19th of March 1748. His parents were Friends, but he took little interest in religion until he was about twenty; soon after that time he gave up the carpenterâ€™s trade, to which he had been apprenticed when seventeen, and became a farmer. By 1775 he had â€œopenings leading to the ministryâ€ and was â€œdeeply engaged for the right administration of discipline and order in the church,â€ and in 1779 he first set out on his itinerant preaching tours between Vermont and Maryland. He attacked slavery, even when preaching in Maryland; wroteObservations on the Slavery of the Africans and their Descendants(1811); and was influential in procuring the passage (in 1817) of the act declaring free after 1827 all negroes born in New York and not freed by the Act of 1799. He died at Jericho, Long Island, on the 27th of February 1830. His preaching was practical rather than doctrinal and he was heartily opposed to any set creed; hence his successful opposition at the Baltimore yearly meeting of 1817 to the proposed creed which would make the Society in America approach the position of the English Friends by definite doctrinal statements. HisDoctrinal Epistle(1824) stated his position, and a break ensued in 1827-1828, Hicksâ€™s followers, who call themselves the â€œLiberal Branch,â€ being called â€œHicksitesâ€ by the â€œOrthodoxâ€ party, which they for a time outnumbered. The village of Hicksville, in Nassau County, New York, 15 m. E. of Jamaica, lies in the centre of the Quaker district of Long Island and was named in honour of Elias Hicks.

SeeA Series of Extemporaneous Discourses ... by Elias Hicks(Philadelphia, 1825);The Journal of the Life and Labors of Elias Hicks(Philadelphia, 1828), and hisLetters(Philadelphia, 1834).

HICKS, HENRY(1837-1899), British physician and geologist, was born on the 26th of May 1837 at St Davidâ€™s, in Pembrokeshire, where his father, Thomas Hicks, was a surgeon. He studied medicine at Guyâ€™s Hospital, London, qualifying as M.R.C.S. in 1862. Returning to his native place he commenced a practice which he continued until 1871, when he removed to Hendon. He then devoted special attention to mental diseases, took the degree of M.D. at St Andrews in 1878, and continued his medical work until the close of his life. In Wales he had been attracted to geology by J. W. Salter (then palaeontologist to the Geological Survey), and his leisure time was given to the study of the older rocks and fossils of South Wales. In conjunction with Salter, he established in 1865 the Menevian group (Middle Cambrian) characterized by the trilobiteParadoxides. Subsequently Hicks contributed a series of important papers on the Cambrian and Lower Silurian rocks, and figured and described many new species of fossils. Later he worked at the Pre-Cambrian rocks of St Davidâ€™s, describing the Dimetian (granitoid rock) and the Pebidian (volcanic series), and his views, though contested, have been generally accepted. At Hendon Dr Hicks gave much attention to the local geology and also to the Pleistocene deposits of the Denbighshire caves. For a few years before his death he had laboured at the Devonian rocks. With his keen eye for fossils he detected organic remains in the Morte slates, previously regarded as unfossiliferous, and these he regarded as including representatives of Lower Devonian and Silurian. His papers were mostly published in theGeol. Mag.andQuart. Journ. Geol. Soc.He was elected F.R.S. in 1885, and president of the Geological Society of London 1896-1898. He died at Hendon on the 18th of November 1899.

HICKS, WILLIAM(1830-1883), British soldier, entered the Bombay army in 1849, and served through the Indian mutiny, being mentioned in despatches for good conduct at the action of Sitka Ghaut in 1859. In 1861 he became captain, and in theAbyssinian expedition of 1867-68 was a brigade major, being again mentioned in despatches and given a brevet majority. He retired with the honorary rank of colonel in 1880. After the close of the Egyptian war of 1882, he entered the khediveâ€™s service and was made a pasha. Early in 1883 he went to Khartum as chief of the staff of the army there, then commanded by Suliman Niazi Pasha. Camp was formed at Omdurman and a new force of some 8000 fighting men collectedâ€”mostly recruited from the fellahin of Arabiâ€™s disbanded troops, sent in chains from Egypt. After a monthâ€™s vigorous drilling Hicks led 5000 of his men against an equal force of dervishes in Sennar, whom he defeated, and cleared the country between the towns of Sennar and Khartum of rebels. Relieved of the fear of an immediate attack by the mahdists the Egyptian officials at Khartum intrigued against Hicks, who in July tendered his resignation. This resulted in the dismissal of Suliman Niazi and the appointment of Hicks as commander-in-chief of an expeditionary force to Kordofan with orders to crush the mahdi, who in January 1883 had captured El Obeid, the capital of that province. Hicks, aware of the worthlessness of his force for the purpose contemplated, stated his opinion that it would be best to â€œwait for Kordofan to settle itselfâ€ (telegram of the 5th of August). The Egyptian ministry, however, did not then believe in the power of the mahdi, and the expedition started from Khartum on the 9th of September. It was made up of 7000 infantry, 1000 cavalry and 2000 camp followers and included thirteen Europeans. On the 20th the force left the Nile at Duem and struck inland across the almost waterless wastes of Kordofan for Obeid. On the 5th of November the army, misled by treacherous guides and thirst-stricken, was ambuscaded in dense forest at Kashgil, 30 m. south of Obeid. With the exception of some 300 men the whole force was killed. According to the story of Hicksâ€™s cook, one of the survivors, the general was the last officer to fall, pierced by the spear of the khalifa Mahommed Sherif. After emptying his revolver, the pasha kept his assailants at bay for some time with his sword, a body of Baggara who fled before him being known afterwards as â€œBaggar Hicksâ€ (the cows driven by Hicks), a play on the wordsbaggaraandbaggar, the former being the herdsmen and the latter the cows. Hicksâ€™s head was cut off and taken to the mahdi.

SeeMahdiism and the Egyptian Sudan, book iv., by Sir F. R. Wingate (London, 1891), andWith Hicks Pasha in the Soudan, by J. Colborne (London, 1884), AlsoEgypt:Military Operations.

HIDALGO,an inland state of Mexico, bounded N. by San Luis Potosi and Vera Cruz, E. by Vera Cruz and Puebla, S. by Tlaxcala and Mexico (state), and W. by QuerÃ©taro. Pop. (1895) 551,817, (1900) 605,051. Area, 8917 sq. m. The northern and eastern parts are elevated and mountainous, culminating in the Cerro de Navajas (10,528 ft.). A considerable area of this region on the eastern side of the state is arid and semi-barren, being part of the elevated tableland of Apam where themaguey(American aloe) has been grown for centuries. The southern and western parts of the state consist of rolling plains, in the midst of which is the large lake of Metztitlan. Hidalgo produces cereals in the more elevated districts, sugar, maguey, coffee, beans, cotton and tobacco. Maguey is cultivated for the production ofpulque, the national drink. The chief industry, however, is mining, the mineral districts of Pachuca, El Chico, Real del Monte, San JosÃ© del Oro, and ZimapÃ¡n being among the richest in Mexico. The mineral products include silver, gold, mercury, copper, iron, lead, zinc, antimony, manganese and plumbago. Coal, marble and opals are also found. Railway facilities are afforded by a branch of the Vera Cruz and Mexico line, which runs from Ometusco to Pachuca, the capital of the state, and by the Mexican Central. Among the principal towns are Tulancingo (pop. 9037), a rich mining centre 24 m. E. of Pachuca, IxmiquilpÃ¡n (about 9000) with silver mines 80 m. N. by W. of the Federal Capital, and ActÃ³pan (2666), the chief town of the district N.N.W. of Pachuca, inhabited principally by Indians of the Othomies nation.

HIDALGO(a Spanish word, contracted fromhijo dâ€™algoorhijo de algo, son of something, or somewhat), originally a Spanish title of the lower nobility; the hidalgo being the lowest grade of nobility which was entitled to use the prefix â€œdon.â€ The term is now used generally to denote one of gentle birth. The Portuguesefidalgohas a similar history and meaning.

HIDALGO Y COSTILLA, MIGUEL(1753-1811), Mexican patriot, was born on the 8th of May 1753, on a farm at Corralejos, near Guanajuato. His motherâ€™s maiden name was Gallaga, but contrary to the usual custom of the Spaniards he used only the surname of his father, Cristobal Hidalgo y Costilla. He was educated at Valladolid in Mexico, and was ordained priest in 1779. Until 1809 he was known only as a man of pious life who exerted himself to introduce various forms of industry, including the cultivation of silk, among his parishioners at Dolores. But Napoleonâ€™s invasion of Spain in 1808 caused a widespread commotion. The colonists were indisposed to accept a French ruler and showed great zeal in proclaiming Ferdinand VII. as king. The societies they formed for their professedly loyal purpose were regarded, however, by the Spanish authorities with suspicion as being designed to prepare the independence of Mexico. Hidalgo and several of his friends, among whom was Miguel Dominguez, mayor of QuerÃ©taro, engaged in consultation and preparations which the authorities considered treasonable. Dominguez was arrested, but Hidalgo was warned in time. He collected some hundred of his parishioners, and on the 16th of September 1810 they seized the prison at Dolores. This action began what was in fact a revolt against the Spanish and Creole elements of the population. With what is known as the â€œgritoâ€ or cry of Dolores as their rallying shout, a multitude gathered round Hidalgo, who took for his banner a wonder-working picture of the Virgin belonging to a popular shrine. At first he met with some success. A regiment of dragoons of the militia joined him, and some small posts were stormed. The whole tumultuous host moved on the city of Mexico. But here the Spaniards and Creoles were concentrated. Hidalgo lost heart and retreated. Many of his followers deserted, and on the march to QuerÃ©taro he was attacked at Aculco by General Felix Calleja on the 7th of November 1810, and routed. He endeavoured to continue the struggle, and did succeed in collecting a mob estimated at 100,000 about Guadalajara. With this ill-armed and undisciplined crowd he took up a position on the bridge of Calderon on the river Santiago. On the 17th of January 1811 he was completely beaten by Calleja and a small force of soldiers. Hidalgo was deposed by the other leaders, and soon afterwards all of them were betrayed to the Spaniards. They were tried at Chihuahua, and condemned. Hidalgo was first degraded from the priesthood and then shot as a rebel, on the 31st of July or the 1st of August 1811.

See H. H. Bancroft,The Pacific States, vol. vii., which contains a copious bibliography.

HIDDENITE,a green transparent variety of spodumene, (q.v.) used as a gem-stone. It was discovered by William E. Hidden (b. 1853) about 1879 at Stonypoint, Alexander county, North Carolina, and was at first taken for diopside. In 1881 J. Lawrence Smith proved it to be spodumene, and named it. Hiddenite occurs in small slender monoclinic crystals of prismatic habit, often pitted on the surface. A well-marked prismatic cleavage renders the mineral rather difficult to cut. Its colour passes from an emerald green to a greenish-yellow, and is often unevenly distributed through the stone. The mineral is dichroic in a marked degree, and shows much â€œfireâ€ when properly cut. The composition of the mineral is represented by the formula LiAl(SiO3)2, the green colour being probably due to the presence of a small proportion of chromium. The presence of lithia in this green mineral suggested the inappropriate name of lithia emerald, by which it is sometimes known. Hiddenite was originally found as loose crystals in the soil, but was afterwards worked in a veinstone, where it occurred in association with beryl, quartz, garnet, mica, rutile, &c.

HIDE1(Lat.hida, A.-S.higÃd,hÃdorhiwisc, members of a household), a measure of land. The word was in general use in England in Anglo-Saxon and early English times, although its meaning seems to have varied somewhat from time to time. Among its Latin equivalents areterra unius familiae,terra unius cassatiandmansio; the first of these forms is used by Bede, who, like all early writers, gives to it no definite area. In its earliest form the hide was the typical holding of the typical family. Gradually, this typical holding came to be regarded as containing 120 â€œacresâ€ (not 120 acres of 4840 sq. yds. each, but 120 times the amount of land which a ploughteam of eight oxen could plough in a single day). This definition appears to have been very general in England before the Norman Conquest, and in Domesday Book 30, 40, 50 and 80 acres are repeatedly mentioned as fractions of a hide. Some historians, however, have thought that the hide only contained 30 acres or thereabouts.

â€œThe question about the hide,â€ says Professor Maitland inDomesday Book and Beyond, â€œis â€˜pre-judicialâ€™ to all the great questions of early English history.â€ The main argument employed by J. M. Kemble (The Saxons in England) in favour of the â€œsmallâ€ hide is that the number of hides stated to have existed in the various parts of England gives an acreage far in excess of the total acreage of these parts, making due allowance for pasture and for woodland, an allowance necessary because the hide was only that part of the land which came under the plough, and each hide must have carried with it a certain amount of pasture. Two illustrations in support of Kembleâ€™s theory must suffice. Bede says the Isle of Wight contained 1200 hides. Now 1200 hides of 120 acres each gives a total acreage of 144,000 acres, while the total acreage of the island to-day is only 93,000 acres. Again a document calledThe Tribal Hidageputs the number of hides in the whole of England at nearly a quarter of a million. This gives in acres a figure about equal to the total acreage of England at the present time, but it leaves no room for pasture and for the great proportion of land which was still woodland. On these grounds Kemble regarded the hide as containing 30 or 33, certainly not more than 40 acres, and thought that each acre contained about 4000 sq. yds.,i.e.that it was roughly equal to the modern acre. Another argument brought forward is that 30 or 40 acres was enough land for the support of the average family, in other words that it was theterra unius familiaeof Bede. Another Domesday student, R. W. Eyton, puts down the hide at 48 acres.But formidable arguments have been advanced against the â€œsmallâ€ hide. There is no doubt that at the time of Domesday the hide was equated with 120 and not with 30 acres. Then, taking the wordfamiliain its proper sense, a household with many dependent members, and making an allowance for primitive methods of agriculture, it is questionable whether 30 or 40 acres were sufficient for its support; and again if the equation 1 hide = 120 acres is rejected there is no serious evidence in favour of any other. A possible explanation is that, although in early Anglo-Saxon times the hide consisted of 30 acres or thereabouts, it had come before the time of Domesday to contain 120 acres. But no trace of such change can be found; there is no break in the continuity of the land-charters which refer to hides and manses. Reviewing the whole question Professor Maitland accepts the view that the hide contained 120 acres. The difficulties are serious but they are not insuperable. Bede, writing in a primitive age and speaking for the most part of lands far away from Northumbria, uses figures in a vague and general fashion; then the hide of 120 acres does not mean 120 times 4840 yds., it means much less; and lastly at the time of Domesday the hide was not a unit of measurement, it was a unit for purposes of taxation. On the other hand, Mr. H. M. Chadwick (Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions) says there is no evidence that the hide contained 120 acres before the 10th century. He suggests that possibly the size of the hide in Mercia may have been fixed at 40 acres, while in Wessex it was regarded as containing 120 acres. Dr Stubbs (Const. Hist.i.) suggests that the confusion may have arisen because the word was used â€œto express the whole share of one man in all the fields of the village.â€ Thus it might refer to 30 acres, his share in one field, or to 120 acres, his share in the four fields. He adds, however, that this explanation is not adequate for all cases. But these differences about the size of the hide are not peculiar to modern times. Henry of Huntingdon says,Hida Anglice vocatur terra unius aratri culturae sufficiens per annum, while theDialogus de scaccario puts its size at 100 acres, though this may be the long hundred, or120. Perhaps, therefore, Selden is wisest when he says, â€œhides were of an incertain quantity.â€ Certainly he gives a very good description of the early hide when he says (Titles of Honour): â€œNow a hide of land regularly is and was (as I think) as much land as might be well manured with one plough, together with pasture, meadow and wood competent for the maintenance of that plough, and the servants of the family.â€ The view that the size of the hide varied from district to district is borne out by Professor Vinogradoffâ€™s more recent researches. In hisEnglish Society in the Eleventh Centuryhe mentions that there was a hide of 48 acres in Wiltshire and one of 40 acres in Dorset. In addition some authorities distinguish between English hides and Welsh hides, and in Sussex the hide often contained 8 virgates. Sometimes again in the 11th century hides were not merely fiscal units; they were shares in the land itself.

But formidable arguments have been advanced against the â€œsmallâ€ hide. There is no doubt that at the time of Domesday the hide was equated with 120 and not with 30 acres. Then, taking the wordfamiliain its proper sense, a household with many dependent members, and making an allowance for primitive methods of agriculture, it is questionable whether 30 or 40 acres were sufficient for its support; and again if the equation 1 hide = 120 acres is rejected there is no serious evidence in favour of any other. A possible explanation is that, although in early Anglo-Saxon times the hide consisted of 30 acres or thereabouts, it had come before the time of Domesday to contain 120 acres. But no trace of such change can be found; there is no break in the continuity of the land-charters which refer to hides and manses. Reviewing the whole question Professor Maitland accepts the view that the hide contained 120 acres. The difficulties are serious but they are not insuperable. Bede, writing in a primitive age and speaking for the most part of lands far away from Northumbria, uses figures in a vague and general fashion; then the hide of 120 acres does not mean 120 times 4840 yds., it means much less; and lastly at the time of Domesday the hide was not a unit of measurement, it was a unit for purposes of taxation. On the other hand, Mr. H. M. Chadwick (Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions) says there is no evidence that the hide contained 120 acres before the 10th century. He suggests that possibly the size of the hide in Mercia may have been fixed at 40 acres, while in Wessex it was regarded as containing 120 acres. Dr Stubbs (Const. Hist.i.) suggests that the confusion may have arisen because the word was used â€œto express the whole share of one man in all the fields of the village.â€ Thus it might refer to 30 acres, his share in one field, or to 120 acres, his share in the four fields. He adds, however, that this explanation is not adequate for all cases. But these differences about the size of the hide are not peculiar to modern times. Henry of Huntingdon says,Hida Anglice vocatur terra unius aratri culturae sufficiens per annum, while theDialogus de scaccario puts its size at 100 acres, though this may be the long hundred, or120. Perhaps, therefore, Selden is wisest when he says, â€œhides were of an incertain quantity.â€ Certainly he gives a very good description of the early hide when he says (Titles of Honour): â€œNow a hide of land regularly is and was (as I think) as much land as might be well manured with one plough, together with pasture, meadow and wood competent for the maintenance of that plough, and the servants of the family.â€ The view that the size of the hide varied from district to district is borne out by Professor Vinogradoffâ€™s more recent researches. In hisEnglish Society in the Eleventh Centuryhe mentions that there was a hide of 48 acres in Wiltshire and one of 40 acres in Dorset. In addition some authorities distinguish between English hides and Welsh hides, and in Sussex the hide often contained 8 virgates. Sometimes again in the 11th century hides were not merely fiscal units; they were shares in the land itself.

The fact that the hide was a unit of assessment, has been established by Mr J. H. Round in hisFeudal England, and is regarded as throwing a most valuable light upon the many problems which present themselves to the student of Domesday. The process which converted the hide from a unit of measurement to a unit for assessment purposes is probably as follows. Being in general use to denote a large piece of land, and such pieces of land being roughly equal all over England, the hide was a useful unit on which to levy taxation, a use which dates doubtless from the time of the Danegeld. For some time the two meanings were used side by side, but before the Norman Conquest the hide, a unit for taxation, had quite supplanted the hide, a measure of land, and this was the state of affairs when in 1086 William I. ordered his great inquest to be made. The formula used in Domesday varies from county to county, but a single illustration may be given.Huntedun Burg defendebat se ad geldum regis pro quarta parte de Hyrstingestan hundred pro L. hidis. This does not mean that the town of Huntingdon contained a certain fixed number of square yards multiplied by 50, but that for purposes of taxation Huntingdon was regarded as worth 50 times a certain fiscal unit.

This view of the nature of the hide was hinted at by R. W. Eyton inA Key to Domesdayand was accepted by Maitland. Its proof rests primarily upon the prevalence of the five-hide unit. By collating various documents which formed part of the Domesday inquest Mr Round has brought together for certain parts of England, especially for Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire, the holdings of the various lords in the different vills, and vill after vill shows a total of 5 hides or 10 hides or only a slight discrepancy therefrom. A similar result is shown for the hundreds where multiples of 5 are almost universal, and the total hidage for the county of Worcester is very near the round figure of 1200. This arrangement is obviously artificial; it must have been imposed upon the counties or the hundreds by the central authority and then divided among the vills. Another proof is found in what is called â€œbeneficial hidation.â€ It is shown that in certain cases the number of hides in a hundred has been reduced since the time of Edward the Confessor, and that this reduction had been transferredpro ratato the vills in the hundred. Thus Mr Round concludes that the hide was fixed â€œindependently of area or value.â€ Some slight criticism has been directed against the idea of â€œartificial hidation,â€ but the most that can be said against it is that its proof rests upon isolated cases, a reproach which further research will doubtless remove. However, Professor Vinogradoff accepts the hide primarily as a fiscal unit â€œwhich corresponds only in a very rough way to the agrarian reality,â€ and Maitland says the fiscal hide is â€œat its best a lame compromise between a unit of area and a unit of value.â€

What is the origin of the five-hide unit? Various conjectures have been hazarded, and the unit is undoubtedly older than the Danegeld. Rejecting the idea that it is of Roman or of British origin, and pointing to the serious difference in the rates at which the various counties were assessed, Mr Round thinks that it dates from the time when the various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were independent. Possibly it was the unit of assessment for military service, possibly it was the recognized endowment of a Saxon thegn. In Anglo-Saxon times a manâ€™s standing in society was dependent to a great extent upon the number of hides which he possessed; this statement is fully proved from the laws. Moreover, in the laws of the Wessex king, Ine, the value of a manâ€™s oath is expressed in hides, the oath for a kingâ€™s thegn being probably worth 60 hides and that of a ceorl 5 hides.

The usual division of the hide was into virgates, a virgate being, after the Conquest at least, the normal holding of thevillein with two oxen. Mr Round holds that in Domesday at all events the hide always consisted of four virgates; Mr F. Seebohm inThe English Village Community, although thinking that the normal hide â€œconsisted as a rule of four virgates of 30 acres each,â€ says that the Hundred Rolls for Huntingdonshire show that â€œthe hide did not always contain the same number of virgates.â€ The virgate, it may be noted, consisted of a strip of land ineachacre of the hide, and there is undoubtedly a strong case in favour of the equation 1 hide = 4 virgates.

Mr Seebohm, propounding his theory that English institutions are rooted in those of Rome, argues for some resemblance between the methods of taxation of land in Rome and in England; he sees some connexion between the Romancenturiaand the hide, and between the Roman system of taxation calledjugatioand the English hidage. Professor Vinogradoff (Villainage in England) summarizes the views of those who hold a contrary opinion thus: â€œThe curious fact that the normal holding, the hide, was equal all over England can be explained only by its origin; it came full-formed from Germany and remained unchanged in spite of all diversities of geographical and economical conditions.â€

In the Danish parts of England, or rather in the district of the â€œFive Boroughs,â€ the carucate takes the place of the hide as the unit of value, and six supplants five, six carucates being the unit of assessment. In Leicestershire and in part of Lancashire the hide is quite different from what it is elsewhere in England. According to Mr Round the Leicestershire hide consisted of 18 carucates; Mr W. H. Stevenson (English Historical Review, vol. v.) argues that it contained only 12 and that it was a hundred and not a hide. Mr Seebohm thinks there was asolandaor double hide of 240 acres in Essex and other southern counties, but Mr Round does not think that this word refers to a measure or unit of assessment at all. For Kent, however, the wordsullungor solin, is used inDomesday Bookand in the charters instead of hide and carucate as elsewhere, and Vinogradoff thinks that this contained from 180 to 200 acres.

Under the Norman and early Plantagenet kings a levy of two or more shillings on each hide of land was a usual and recognized method of raising money, royal and some other estates, however, as is seen from Domesday, not being hidated and not paying the tax. This geld, or tax, received several names, one of the most general beinghidage(Lat.hidagium). â€œHidage,â€ says Vinogradoff, â€œis historically connected with the old English Danegeld system,â€ and as Danegeld and then hidage it was levied long after its original purpose was forgotten, and was during the 11th century â€œthe most sweeping and the heaviest of all the taxes.â€ Henry of Huntingdon says its usual rate was 2s. on each hide of land, and this was evidently the rate at the time of the famous dispute between Henry II. and Becket at Woodstock in 1163, but it was not always kept at this figure, as in 1084 William I. had levied a tax of 6s. on each hide, an unusual extortion. The feudal aids were levied on the hide. Thus in 1109 Henry I. raised one at the rate of 3s. per hide for the marriage of his daughter Matilda with the emperor Henry V., and in 1194, when money was collected for the ransom of Richard I., some of the taxation for this purpose seems to have been assessed according to the hidage given in Domesday Book.

By this time the word hidage as the designation of the tax was disappearing, its place being taken by the wordcarucage. The carucate (Lat.caruca, a plough) was a measure of land which prevailed in the north of England, the district inhabited by people of Danish descent. Some authorities regard it as equivalent to the hide, others deny this identity. In 1198, however, when Richard I. imposed a tax of 5s. on eachcarucata terrae sive hyda, the two words were obviously interchangeable, and about the same time the size of the carucate was fixed at 100 acres. The word carucage remained in use for some time longer, and then other names were given to the various taxes on land.

One or two other questions with regard to the hide still remain unsolved. What is the connexion, if any, between the hundred and a hundred hides? Again, was the size of the hide fixed at 120 acres to make the work of reckoning the amount of Danegeld, or hidage, a simple process? 120 acres to the hide, 240 pence to the pound, makes calculations easy. Lastly, is the English hide derived from the Germanhufeorhuba?

(A. W. H.*)

1The homonym â€œhide,â€ meaning to conceal, is in O. Eng.hÃ½dan; the word appears in various forms in Old Teutonic languages. The root is probably seen in Gr.ÎºÎµÏÎ¸ÎµÎ¹Î½to hide, or may be the same as in â€œhide,â€ skin, O. Eng.hÃ½d, which is also seen in Ger.Haut, Dutchhuid; the root appears in Lat.cutis, Gr.ÎºÏÏ„Î¿Ï‚. The Indo-European rootku-, weakened form ofsku-, seen in â€œsky,â€ and meaning â€œto cover,â€ may be the ultimate source of both words. The slang use of â€œto hide,â€ to flog or whip, means â€œto take the skin off, to flay.â€

HIEL, EMMANUEL(1834-1899), Belgian-Dutch poet and prose writer, was born at Dendermonde, in Flanders, in May 1834. He acted in various functions, from teacher and government official to journalist and bookseller, busily writing all the time both for the theatre and the magazines of North and South Netherlands. His last posts were those of librarian at the Industrial Museum and professor of declamation at the Conservatoire in Brussels. Among his better-known poetic works may be citedLooverkens(â€œLeaflets,â€ 1857);Nieuwe Liedekens(â€œNew Poesies,â€ 1861);Gedichten(â€œPoems,â€ 1863);Psalmen, Zangen, en Oratorios(â€œPsalms, Songs, and Oratorios,â€ 1869);De Wind(1869), an inspiriting cantata, which had a large measure of success and was crowned;De Liefde in â€™t Leven(â€œLove in Life,â€ 1870);ElleandIsa(two musical dramas, 1874);Liederen voor Groote en Kleine Kinderen(â€œSongs for Big and Small Folk,â€ 1879);Jakoba van Beieren(â€œJacquelineof Bavaria,â€ a poetic drama, 1880);Mathilda van Denemarken(a lyrical drama, 1890). His collected poetical works were published in three volumes at Rousselaere in 1885. Hiel took an active and prominent part in the so-called â€œFlemish movementâ€ in Belgium, and his name is constantly associated with those of Jan van Beers, the Willems and Peter Benoit. The last wrote some of his compositions to Hielâ€™s verses, notably to his oratoriosLucifer(performed in London at the Royal Albert Hall and elsewhere) andDe Schelde(â€œThe Scheldtâ€); whilst the Dutch composer, Richard Hol (of Utrecht), composed the music to Hielâ€™s â€œOde to Liberty,â€ and van Gheluwe to the poetâ€™s â€œSongs for Big and Small Folkâ€ (second edition, much enlarged, 1879), which has greatly contributed to their popularity in schools and among Belgian choral societies. Hiel also translated several foreign lyrics. His rendering of Tennysonâ€™sDoraappeared at Antwerp in 1871. For the national festival of 1880 at Brussels, to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of Belgian independence, Hiel composed two cantatas,Belgenland(â€œThe Land of the Belgiansâ€) andEer Belgenland(â€œHonour to Belgiumâ€), which, set to music, were much appreciated. He died at Schaerbeek, near Brussels, on the 27th of August 1899. Hielâ€™s efforts to counteract Walloon influences and bring about arapprochementbetween the Netherlanders in the north and the Teutonic racial sympathizers across the Rhine made him very popular with both, and a volume of his best poems was in 1874 the first in a collection of Dutch authors published at Leipzig.

HIEMPSAL,the name of the two kings of Numidia. For Hiempsal I. see underJugurtha. Hiempsal II. was the son of Gauda, the half-brother of Jugurtha. In 88B.C., after the triumph of Sulla, when the younger Marius fled from Rome to Africa, Hiempsal received him with apparent friendliness, his real intention being to detain him as a prisoner. Marius discovered this intention in time and made good his escape with the assistance of the kingâ€™s daughter. In 81 Hiempsal was driven from his throne by the Numidians themselves, or by Hiarbas, ruler of part of the kingdom, supported by Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, the leader of the Marian party in Africa. Soon afterwards Pompey was sent to Africa by Sulla to reinstate Hiempsal, whose territory was subsequently increased by the addition of some land on the coast in accordance with a treaty concluded with L. Aurelius Cotta. When the tribune P. Servilius Rullus introduced his agrarian law (63), these lands, which had been originally assigned to the Roman people by Scipio Africanus, were expressly exempted from sale, which roused the indignation of Cicero (De lege agraria, i. 4, ii. 22). From Suetonius (Caesar, 71) it is evident that Hiempsal was alive in 62. According to Sallust (Jugurtha, 17), he was the author of an historical work in the Punic language.

Plutarch,Marius, 40,Pompey, 12; Appian,Bell. civ., i. 62. 80; Dio Cassius xli. 41.

HIERAPOLIS.1. (ArabicManbijorMumbij) an ancient Syrian town occupying one of the finest sites in Northern Syria, in a fertile district about 16 m. S.W. of the confluence of the Sajur and Euphrates. There is abundant water supply from large springs. In 1879, after the Russo-Turkish war, a colony ofCircassians from Vidin (Widdin) was planted in the ruins, and the result has been the constant discovery of antiquities, which find their way into the bazaars of Aleppo and Aintab. The place first appears in Greek asBambyce, but Pliny (v. 23) tells us its Syrian name wasMabog. It was doubtless an ancient Commagenian sanctuary; but history knows it first under the Seleucids, who made it the chief station on their main road between Antioch and Seleucia-on-Tigris; and as a centre of the worship of the Syrian Nature Goddess, Atargatis (q.v.), it became known to the Greeks as the city of the sanctuaryá¼¹ÎµÏÏŒÏ€Î¿Î»Î¹Ï‚, and finally as the Holy Cityá¼¹ÎµÏÎ¬Ï€Î¿Î»Î¹Ï‚. Lucian, a native of Commagene (or some anonymous writer) has immortalized this worship in the tractDe Dea Syria, wherein are described the orgiastic luxury of the shrine and the tank of sacred fish, of which Aelian also relates marvels. According to theDe Dea Syria, the worship was of a phallic character, votaries offering little male figures of wood and bronze. There were also hugephalliset up like obelisks before the temple, which were climbed once a year with certain ceremonies, and decorated. For the rest the temple was of Ionic character with golden plated doors and roof and much gilt decoration. Inside was a holy chamber into which priests only were allowed to enter. Here were statues of a goddess and a god in gold, but the first seems to have been the more richly decorated with gems and other ornaments. Between them stood a giltxoanon, which seems to have been carried outside in sacred processions. Other rich furniture is described, and a mode of divination by movements of axoanonof Apollo. A great bronze altar stood in front, set about with statues, and in the forecourt lived numerous sacred animals and birds (but not swine) used for sacrifice. Some three hundred priests served the shrine and there were numerous minor ministrants. The lake was the centre of sacred festivities and it was customary for votaries to swim out and decorate an altar standing in the middle of the water. Self-mutilation and other orgies went on in the temple precinct, and there was an elaborate ritual on entering the city and first visiting the shrine under the conduct of local guides, which reminds one of the Meccan Pilgrimage.

The temple was sacked by Crassus on his way to meet the Parthians (53B.C.); but in the 3rd century of the empire the city was the capital of the Euphratensian province and one of the great cities of Syria. Procopius called it the greatest in that part of the world. It was, however, ruinous when Julian collected his troops there ere marching to his defeat and death in Mesopotamia, and Chosroes I. held it to ransom after Justinian had failed to put it in a state of defence. Harun restored it at the end of the 8th century and it became a bone of contention between Byzantines, Arabs and Turks. The crusaders captured it from the Seljuks in the 12th century, but Saladin retook it (1175), and later it became the headquarters of Hulagu and his Mongols, who completed its ruin. The remains are extensive, but almost wholly of late date, as is to be expected in the case of a city which survived into Moslem times. The walls are Arab, and no ruins of the great temple survive. The most noteworthy relic of antiquity is the sacred lake, on two sides of which can still be seen stepped quays and water-stairs. The first modern account of the site is in a short narrative appended by H. Maundrell to hisJourney from Aleppo to Jerusalem. He was at Mumbij in 1699.

The coinage of the city begins in the 4th centuryB.C.with an Aramaic series, showing the goddess, either as a bust with mural crown or as riding on a lion. She continues to supply the chief type even during imperial times, being generally shown seated with thetympanumin her hand. Other coins substitute the legendÎ˜Îµá¾¶Ï‚ Î£Ï…ÏÎ¯Î±Ï‚ á¼¹ÎµÏÎ¿Ï€Î¿Î»Î¹Ï„á¿¶Î½, within a wreath. It is interesting to note that fromBambyce(near which much silk was produced) were derived thebombycina vestisof the Romans and, through the crusaders, the bombazine of modern commerce.

Back to Index Next