Chapter 6

Hertz’s scientific papers were translated into English by Professor D. E. Jones, and published in three volumes:Electric Waves(1893),Miscellaneous Papers(1896), andPrinciples of Mechanics(1899). The preface contributed to the first of these by Lord Kelvin, and the introductions to the second and third by Professors P. E. A. Lenard and Helmholtz, contain many biographical details, together with statements of the scope and significance of his investigations.

HERTZ, HENRIK(1797-1870), Danish poet, was born of Jewish parents in Copenhagen on the 25th of August 1798. In 1817 he was sent to the university. His father died in his infancy, and the family property was destroyed in the bombardment of 1807. The boy was brought up by his relative, M. L. Nathanson, a well-known newspaper editor. Young Hertz passed his examination in law in 1825. But his taste was all for polite literature, and in 1826-1827 two plays of his were produced,Mr Burchardt and his FamilyandLove and Policy; in 1828 followed the comedy ofFlyttedagen. In 1830 he brought out what was a complete novelty in Danish literature, a comedy in rhymed verse,Amor’s Strokes of Genius. In the same year Hertz published anonymouslyGengangerbrevene, or Letters from a Ghost, which he pretended were written by Baggesen, who had died in 1826. The book was written in defence of J. L. Heiberg, and was full of satirical humour and fine critical insight. Its success was overwhelming; but Hertz preserved his anonymity, and the secret was not known until many years later. In 1832 he published a didactic poem,Nature and Art, andFour Poetical Epistles.A Day on the Island of Alswas his next comedy, followed in 1835 byThe Only Fault. Hertz passed through Germany and Switzerland into Italy in 1833; he spent the winter there, and returned the following autumn through France to Denmark. In 1836 his comedy ofThe Savings Bankenjoyed a great success. But it was not till 1837 that he gave the full measure of his genius in the romantic national drama ofSvend Dyrings Hus, a beautiful and original piece. His historical tragedyValdemar Atterdagwas not so well received in 1839; but in 1845 he achieved an immense success with his lyrical dramaKong René’s Datter(King René’s Daughter), which has been translated into almost every European language. To this succeeded the tragedy ofNinonin 1848, the romantic comedy ofToniettain 1849,A Sacrificein 1853,The Youngestin 1854. His lyrical poems appeared in successive collections, dated 1832, 1840 and 1844. From 1858 to 1859 he edited a literary journal entitledWeekly Leaves. His last drama,Three Days in Padua, was produced in 1869, and he died on the 25th of February of the next year.

Hertz is one of the first of Danish lyrical poets. His poems are full of colour and passion, his versification has more witchcraft in it than any other poet’s of his age, and his style is grace itself. He has all the sensuous fire of Keats without his proclivity to the antique. As a romantic dramatist he is scarcely less original. He has bequeathed to the Danish theatre, inSvend Dyrings HusandKing René’s Daughter, two pieces which have become classic. He is a troubadour by instinct; he has little or nothing of Scandinavian local colouring, and succeeds best when he is describing the scenery or the emotions of the glowing south.

HisDramatic Works(18 vols.) were published at Copenhagen in 1854-1873; and hisPoems(4 vols.) in 1851-1862.

HERTZBERG, EWALD FRIEDRICH,Count Von(1725-1795), Prussian statesman, who came of a noble family which had been settled in Pomerania since the 13th century, was born at Lottin, in that province, on the 2nd of September 1725. After 1739 he studied, chiefly classics and history at the gymnasium at Stettin, and in 1742 entered the university of Halle as a student of jurisprudence, becoming in due course a doctor of laws in 1745. In addition to this principal study, he was also interested while at the university in historical and philosophical (Christian Wolff) studies. A first thesis for his doctorate, entitledJus publicum Brandenburgicum, was not printed, because it contained a criticism of the existing condition of the state. Shortly afterwards Hertzberg entered the government service, in which he was first employed in the department of the state archives (of which he became director in 1750), soon after in the foreign office, and finally in 1763 as chief minister (Cabinetsminister). In 1752 he married Baroness Marie von Knyphausen, a marriage which was happy, but childless.

For more than forty years Hertzberg played an active part in the Prussian foreign office. In this capacity he had a decisive influence on Prussian policy, both under Frederick the Great and Frederick William II. At the beginning of the Seven Years’ War (1756) he took part as a political writer in the Hohenzollern-Habsburg quarrel, both in hisUrsachen, die S.K.M. in Preussen bewogen haben, sich wider die Absichten des Wienerischen Hofes zu setzen und deren Ausführung zuvorzukommen(“Motives which have induced the king of Prussia to oppose the intentions of the court of Vienna, and to prevent them from being carried into effect”), and in hisMémoire raisonné sur la conduite des cours de Vienne et de Saxe, based on the secret papers taken by Frederick the Great from the archives of Dresden. After the defeat at Kolin (1757) he hastened to Pomerania in order to organize the national defence there and collect the necessary troops for the protection of the fortresses of Stettin and Colberg. In the same year he conducted the peace negotiations with Sweden, and was of great service in bringing about the peace of Hubertsburg (1763), on the conclusion of which the king received him with the words, “I congratulate you. You have made peace as I made war, one against many.”

In the later years, too, of Frederick the Great’s reign, Hertzberg played a considerable part in foreign policy. In 1772, in a memoir based upon comprehensive historical studies, he defended the Prussian claims to certain provinces of Poland. He also took part successfully as a publicist in the negotiations concerning the question of the Bavarian succession (1778) and those of the peace of Teschen (1779). But in 1780 he failed to uphold Prussian interests at the election of the bishop of Münster. In 1784 appeared Hertzberg’s memoir containing a thorough study of theFürstenbund. He championed this latest creation of Frederick the Great’s mainly with a view to an energetic reform of the empire, though the idea of German unity was naturally still far from his mind. In 1785 followed “An explanation of the motives which have led the king of Prussia to propose to the other high estates of the empire an association for the maintenance of the system of the empire” (Erklärung der Ursachen, welche S.M. in Preussen bewogen haben, ihren hohen Mitständen des Reichs eine Association zur Erhaltung des Reichssystems anzutragen). By upholding the Fürstenbund Hertzberg made many enemies, prominent among whom was the king’s brother, Prince Henry. Though theFürstenbundfailed to effect a reform of the empire, it at any rate prevented the fulfilment of Joseph II.’s old desire for the incorporation of Bavaria with Austria. The last act of state in which Hertzberg took part under Frederick the Greatwas the commercial treaty concluded in 1785 between Prussia and the United States.

With Frederick, especially in his later years, Hertzberg stood in very intimate personal relations and was often the king’s guest at Sans-Souci. Under Frederick William II. his influential position at the court of Berlin was at first unshaken. The king at once received him with favour, as is clearly proved by Hertzberg’s elevation to the rank of count in 1786; and Mirabeau would never have attacked him with such violence in hisSecret History of the Court of Berlin, which appeared in 1788, if he had not seen in him the most powerful man after the king. In this attack Mirabeau seems to have been influenced by Hertzberg’s personal enemies at the court. Hertzberg’s political system remained on the whole the same under Frederick William II. as it had been under his predecessor. It was mainly characterized by a sharp opposition to the house of Habsburg and by a desire to win for Prussia the support of England, a policy supported by him in important memoirs of the years 1786 and 1787. His diplomacy was directed also against Austria’s old ally, France. Hence it was chiefly owing to Hertzberg that in 1787, in spite of the king’s unwillingness at first, Prussia intervened in Holland in support of the stadtholder William V. against the democratic French party (seeHolland:History). The success of this intervention, which was the practical realization of a plan very characteristic of Hertzberg, marks the culminating point in his career.

But the opposition between him and the new king, which had already appeared at the time of the conclusion of the triple alliance between Holland, England and Prussia, became more marked in the following years, when Hertzberg, relying upon this alliance, and in conscious imitation of Frederick II.’s policy at the time of the first partition of Poland, sought to take advantage of the entanglement of Austria with Russia in the war with Turkey to secure for Prussia an extension of territory by diplomatic intervention. According to his plan, Prussia was to offer her mediation at the proper moment, and in the territorial readjustments that the peace would bring, was to receive Danzig and Thorn as her portion. Beyond this he aimed at preventing the restoration of the hegemony of Austria in the Empire, and secretly cherished the hope of restoring Frederick the Great’s Russian alliance.

With a curious obstinacy he continued to pursue these aims even when, owing to military and diplomatic events, they were already partly out of date. His personal position became increasingly difficult, as deep-rooted differences between him and the king were revealed during these diplomatic campaigns. Hertzberg wished to effect everything by peaceful means, while Frederick William II. was for a time determined on war with Austria. As regards Polish policy, too, their ideas came into conflict, Hertzberg having always been openly opposed to the total annihilation of the Polish kingdom. The same is true of the attitude of king and minister towards Great Britain. At the conferences at Reichenbach in the summer of 1790, this opposition became more and more acute, and Hertzberg was only with difficulty persuaded to come to an agreement merely on the basis of thestatusquo, as demanded by Pitt. The king’s renunciation of any extension of territory was in Hertzberg’s eyes impolitic, and this view of his was later endorsed by Bismarck. A letter which came to the eyes of the king, in which Hertzberg severely criticized the king’s foreign policy, and especially his plans for attacking Russia, led to his dismissal on the 5th of July 1791. He afterwards made several attempts to exert an influence over foreign affairs, but in vain. The king showed himself more and more personally hostile to the ex-minister, and in later years pursued Hertzberg, now quite embittered, with every kind of petty persecution, even ordering his letters to be opened.

Even in his literary interests Hertzberg found an adversary in the ungrateful king, for Frederick William, to give one instance, made it so difficult for him to use the archives that in the end Hertzberg entirely gave up the attempt. He found, however, some recompense for all his disillusionment and discouragement in learning, and, Wilhelm von Humboldt excepted, he was the most learned of all the Prussian ministers. As a member of the Berlin Academy especially, and, from 1786 onwards, as its curator, Hertzberg carried on a great and valuable activity in the world of learning. His yearly reports dealt with history, statistics and political science. The most interesting is that of 1784:Sur la forme des gouvernements, et quelle est la meilleure. This is directed exclusively against the absolute system (following Montesquieu), upholds a limited monarchy, and is in favour of extending to the peasants the right to be represented in the diet. He spoke for the last time in 1793 on Frederick the Great and the advantages of monarchy. After 1783 these discourses caused a great sensation, since Hertzberg introduced into them a review of the financial situation, which in the days of absolutism seemed an unprecedented innovation. Besides this, Hertzberg exerted himself as an academician to change the strongly French character of the Academy and make it into a truly German institution. He showed a keen interest in the old German language and literature. A special “German deputation” was set aside at the Academy and entrusted with the drawing up of a German grammar and dictionary. He also stood in very close relations with many of the German poets of the time, and especially with Daniel Schubart. Among the German historians in whom he took a great interest, he had the greatest esteem for Pufendorf. He was equally concerned in the improvement of the state of education. In 1780 he boldly took up the defence of German literature, which had been disparaged by Frederick the Great in his famous writingDe la littérature allemande.

Hertzberg’s frank and honourable nature little fitted him to be a successful diplomatist; but the course of history has justified many of his aims and ideals, and in Prussia his memory is honoured. He died at Berlin on the 22nd of May 1795.

Authorities.—(1) By Hertzberg himself: TheMémoires de l’Académiefrom 1780 on contain Hertzberg’s discourses. The most noteworthy of them were printed in 1787. Here too is to be found:Histoire de la dissertation[du roi]sur la littérature allemande; see alsoRecueil des déductions, &c., qui ont été rédigés ... pour la cour de Prusse par le ministre(3 vols., 1789-1795); and an “Autobiographical Sketch” published by Höpke in Schmidt’sZeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, i. (1843). (2) Works dealing specially with Hertzberg: Mirabeau,Histoire secrète de la cour de Berlin(1788); P. F. Weddigen,Hertzbergs Leben(Bremen, 1797); E. L. Posselt,Hertzbergs Leben(Tübingen, 1798); H. Lehmann, inNeustettiner Programm(1862); E. Fischer, inStaatsanzeiger(1873); M. Duncker, inHistorische Zeitschrift(1877); Paul Bailleu, inHistorische Zeitschrift(1879); andAllgemeine deutsche Biographie(1880); H. Petrich,Pommersche Lebensbilderi. (1880); G. Dressler,Friedrich II. und Hertzberg in ihrer Stellung zu den holländischen Wirren, Breslauer Dissertation (1882); K. Krauel,Hertzberg als Minister Friedrich Wilhelms II. (Berlin, 1899); F. K. Wittichen, inHistorische Vierteljahrschrift, 9 (1906); A. Th. Preuss,Ewald Friedrich, Graf von Hertzberg(Berlin, 1909). (3) General works: F. K. Wittichen,Preussen und England, 1785-1788(Heidelberg, 1902); F. Luckwaldt,Die englisch-preussische Allianz von 1788 in den Forschungen zur brandenburgisch-preussischen Geschichte, Bd. 15, and in theDelbrückfestschrift(Berlin, 1908); L. Sevin,System der preussischen Geheimpolitik1790-1791 (Heidelberger Dissertation, 1903); P. Wittichen,Die polnische Politik Preussens 1788-1790(Berlin, 1899); F. Andreae,Preussische und russische Politik in Polen1787-1789 (Berliner Dissertation, 1905); also W. Wenck,Deutschland vor 100 Jahren(2 vols., 1887, 1890); A. Harnack,Geschichte der preussischen Akademie(4 vols., 1899); Consentius,Preussische Jahrbücher(1904); J. Hashagen, “Hertzbergs Verhältnis zur deutschen Literatur,” inZeitschrift für deutsche Philologiefor 1903.

(J. Hn.)

HERTZEN, ALEXANDER(1812-1870), Russian author, was born at Moscow, a very short time before the occupation of that city by the French. His father, Ivan Yakovlef, after a personal interview with Napoleon, was allowed to leave, when the invaders arrived, as the bearer of a letter from the French to the Russian emperor. His family attended him to the Russian lines. Then the mother of the infant Alexander (a young German Protestant of Jewish extraction from Stuttgart, according to A. von Wurzbach), only seventeen years old, and quite unable to speak Russian, was forced to seek shelter for some time in a peasant’s hut. A year later the family returned to Moscow, where Hertzen passed his youth—remaining there, after completing his studies at the university, till 1834, when he was arrested and tried on acharge of having assisted, with some other youths, at a festival during which verses by Sokolovsky, of a nature uncomplimentary to the emperor, were sung. The special commission appointed to try the youthful culprits found him guilty, and in 1835 he was banished to Viatka. There he remained till the visit to that city of the hereditary grand-duke (afterwards Alexander II.), accompanied by the poet Joukofsky, led to his being allowed to quit Viatka for Vladimir, where he was appointed editor of the official gazette of that city. In 1840 he obtained a post in the ministry of the interior at St Petersburg; but in consequence of having spoken too frankly about a death due to a police officer’s violence, he was sent to Novgorod, where he led an official life, with the title of “state councillor,” till 1842. In 1846 his father died, leaving him by his will a very large property. Early in 1847 he left Russia, never to return. From Italy, on hearing of the revolution of 1848, he hastened to Paris, whence he afterwards went to Switzerland. In 1852 he quitted Geneva for London, where he settled for some years. In 1864 he returned to Geneva, and after some time went to Paris, where he died on the 21st of January 1870.

His literary career began in 1842 with the publication of an essay, in Russian, onDilettantism in Science, under the pseudonym of “Iskander,” the Turkish form of his Christian name—convicts, even when pardoned, not being allowed in those days to publish under their own names. His second work, also in Russian, was hisLetters on the Study of Nature(1845-1846). In 1847 appeared, his novelKto Vinovat?(Whose Fault?), and about the same time were published in Russian periodicals the stories which were afterwards collected and printed in London in 1854, under the title ofPrervannuie Razskazui(Interrupted Tales). In 1850 two works appeared, translated from the Russian manuscript,Vom anderen Ufer(From another Shore) andLettres de France et d’Italie. In French appeared also his essayDu Développement des idées révolutionnaires en Russie, and hisMemoirs, which, after being printed in Russian, were translated under the title ofLe Monde russe et la Révolution(3 vols., 1860-1862), and were in part translated into English asMy Exile to Siberia(2 vols., 1855). From a literary point of view his most important work isKto Vinovat?a story describing how the domestic happiness of a young tutor, who marries the unacknowledged daughter of a Russian sensualist of the old type, dull, ignorant and genial, is troubled by a Russian sensualist of the new school, intelligent, accomplished and callous, without there being any possibility of saying who is most to be blamed for the tragic termination. But it was as a political writer that Hertzen gained the vast reputation which he at one time enjoyed. Having founded in London his “Free Russian Press,” of the fortunes of which, during ten years, he gave an interesting account in a book published (in Russian) in 1863, he issued from it a great number of Russian works, all levelled against the system of government prevailing in Russia. Some of these were essays, such as hisBaptized Property, an attack on serfdom; others were periodical publications, thePolyarnaya Zvyezda(or Polar Star), theKolokol(or Bell), and theGolosa iz Rossii(or Voices from Russia). TheKolokolsoon obtained an immense circulation, and exercised an extraordinary influence. For three years, it is true, the founders of the “Free Press” went on printing, “not only without selling a single copy, but scarcely being able to get a single copy introduced into Russia”; so that when at last a bookseller bought ten shillings’ worth ofBaptized Property, the half-sovereign was set aside by the surprised editors in a special place of honour. But the death of the emperor Nicholas in 1855 produced an entire change. Hertzen’s writings, and the journals he edited, were smuggled wholesale into Russia, and their words resounded throughout that country, as well as all over Europe. Their influence became overwhelming. Evil deeds long hidden, evil-doers who had long prospered, were suddenly dragged into light and disgrace. His bold and vigorous language aptly expressed the thoughts which had long been secretly stirring Russian minds, and were now beginning to find a timid utterance at home. For some years his influence in Russia was a living force, the circulation of his writings was a vocation zealously pursued. Stories tell how on one occasion a merchant, who had bought several cases of sardines at Nijni-Novgorod, found that they contained forbidden print instead of fish, and at another time a supposititious copy of theKolokolwas printed for the emperor’s special use, in which a telling attack upon a leading statesman, which had appeared in the genuine number, was omitted. At length the sweeping changes introduced by Alexander II. greatly diminished the need for and appreciation of Hertzen’s assistance in the work of reform. The freedom he had demanded for the serfs was granted, the law-courts he had so long denounced were remodelled, trial by jury was established, liberty was to a great extent conceded to the press. It became clear that Hertzen’s occupation was gone. When the Polish insurrection of 1863 broke out, and he pleaded the insurgents’ cause, his reputation in Russia received its death-blow. From that time it was only with the revolutionary party that he was in full accord.

In 1873 a collection of his works in French was commenced in Paris. A volume of posthumous works, in Russian, was published at Geneva in 1870. HisMemoirssupply the principal information about his life, a sketch of which appears also in A. von Wurzbach’sZeitgenossen, pt. 7 (Vienna, 1871). See also theRevue des deux mondesfor July 15 and Sept. 1, 1854.Kto Vinovat?has been translated into German under the title ofWer ist schuld?in Wolffsohn’sRusslands Novellendichter, vol. iii. The title ofMy Exile in Siberiais misleading; he was never in that country.

(W. R. S.-R.)

HERULI,a Teutonic tribe which figures prominently in the history of the migration period. The name does not occur in writings of the first two centuriesA.D.Where the original home of the Heruli was situated is never clearly stated. Jordanes says that they had been expelled from their territories by the Danes, from which it may be inferred that they belonged either to what is now the kingdom of Denmark, or the southern portion of the Jutish peninsula. They are mentioned first in the reign of Gallienus (260-268), when we find them together with the Goths ravaging the coasts of the Black Sea and the Aegean. Shortly afterwards, inA.D.289, they appear in the region about the mouth of the Rhine. During the 4th century they frequently served together with the Batavi in the Roman armies. In the 5th century we again hear of piratical incursions by the Heruli in the western seas. At the same time they had a kingdom in central Europe, apparently in or round the basin of the Elbe. Together with the Thuringi and Warni they were called upon by Theodoric the Ostrogoth about the beginning of the 6th century to form an alliance with him against the Frankish king Clovis, but very shortly afterwards they were completely overthrown in war by the Langobardi. A portion of them migrated to Sweden, where they settled among the Götar, while others crossed the Danube and entered the Roman service, where they are frequently mentioned later in connexion with the Gothic wars. After the middle of the 6th century, however, their name completely disappears. It is curious that in English, Frankish and Scandinavian works they are never mentioned, and there can be little doubt that they were known, especially among the western Teutonic peoples, by some other name. Probably they are identical either with the North Suabi or with the Iuti. The name Heruli itself is identified by many with the A.S.eorlas(nobles), O.S.erlos(men), the singular of which (erilaz) frequently occurs in the earliest Northern inscriptions, apparently as a title of honour. The Heruli remained heathen until the overthrow of their kingdom, and retained many striking primitive customs. When threatened with death by disease or old age, they were required to call in an executioner, who stabbed them on the pyre. Suttee was also customary. They were entirely devoted to warfare and served not only in the Roman armies, but also in those of all the surrounding nations. They disdained the use of helmets and coats of mail, and protected themselves only with shields.

See Georgius Syncellus; MamertinusPaneg. Maximi; Ammianus Marcellinus; Zosimus i. 39; Idatius,Chronica; Jordanes,De origine Getarum; Procopius, esp.Bellum Goticum, ii. 14 f.;Bellum Persicum, ii. 25; Paulus Diaconus,Hist. Langobardorum, i. 20; K. Zeuss,Die Deutschen und die Nachbarstämme, pp. 476 ff. (Munich, 1837).

(F. G. M. B.)

HERVÁS Y PANDURO, LORENZO(1735-1809), Spanish philologist, was born at Horcajo (Cuenca) on the 10th of May 1735. He joined the Jesuits on the 29th of September 1745 and in course of time became successively professor of philosophy and humanities at the seminaries of Madrid and Murcia. When the Jesuit order was banished from Spain in 1767, Hervás settled at Forli, and devoted himself to the first part of hisIdea dell’ Universo(22 vols., 1778-1792). Returning to Spain in 1798, he published his famousCatálogo de las lenguas de las naciones conocidas(6 vols., 1800-1805), in which he collected the philological peculiarities of three hundred languages and drew up grammars of forty languages. In 1802 he was appointed librarian of the Quirinal Palace in Rome, where he died on the 24th of August 1809. Max Müller credits him with having anticipated Humboldt, and with making “one of the most brilliant discoveries in the history of the science of language” by establishing the relation between the Malay and Polynesian family of speech.

HERVEY, JAMES(1714-1758), English divine, was born at Hardingstone, near Northampton, on the 26th of February 1714, and was educated at the grammar school of Northampton, and at Lincoln College, Oxford. Here he came under the influence of John Wesley and the Oxford methodists; ultimately, however, while retaining his regard for the men and his sympathy with their religious aims, he adopted a thoroughly Calvinistic creed, and resolved to remain in the Anglican Church. Having taken orders in 1737, he held several curacies, and in 1752 succeeded his father in the family livings of Weston Favell and Collingtree. He was never robust, but was a good parish priest and a zealous writer. His style is often bombastic, but he displays a rare appreciation of natural beauty, and his simple piety made him many friends. His earliest work,Meditations and Contemplations, said to have been modelled on Robert Boyle’sOccasional Reflexions on various Subjects, within fourteen years passed through as many editions.Theron and Aspasio, or a series of Letters upon the most important and interesting Subjects, which appeared in 1755, and was equally well received, called forth some adverse criticism even from Calvinists, on account of tendencies which were considered to lead to antinomianism, and was strongly objected to by Wesley in hisPreservative against unsettled Notions in Religion. Besides carrying into England the theological disputes to which theMarrow of Modern Divinityhad given rise in Scotland, it also led to what is known as the Sandemanian controversy as to the nature of saving faith. Hervey died on the 25th of December 1758.

A “new and complete” edition of hisWorks, with a memoir, appeared in 1797. See alsoCollection of the Letters of James Hervey, to which is prefixed an account of his Life and Death, by Dr Birch (1760).

HERVEY DE SAINT DENYS, MARIE JEAN LÉON,Marquis d’(1823-1892), French Orientalist and man of letters, was born in Paris in 1823. He devoted himself to the study of Chinese, and in 1851 published hisRecherches sur l’agriculture et l’horticulture des Chinois, in which he dealt with the plants and animals that might be acclimatized in the West. At the Paris Exhibition of 1867 he acted as commissioner for the Chinese exhibits; in 1874 he succeeded Stanislas Julien in the chair of Chinese at the Collège de France; and in 1878 he was elected a member of the Académie des Inscriptions et de Belles-Lettres. His works includePoésies de l’époque des T’ang(1862), translated from the Chinese;Ethnographie des peuples étrangers à la Chine, translated from Ma-Touan-Lin (1876-1883);Li-Sao(1870), from the Chinese;Mémoires sur les doctrines religieuse; de Confucius et de l’école des lettres(1887); and translations of some Chinese stories not of classical interest but valuable for the light they throw on oriental custom. Hervey de Saint Denys also translated some works from the Spanish, and wrote a history of the Spanish drama. He died in Paris on the 2nd of November 1892.

HERVEY OF ICKWORTH, JOHN HERVEY,Baron(1696-1743), English statesman and writer, eldest son of John, 1st earl of Bristol, by his second marriage, was born on the 13th of October 1696. He was educated at Westminster school and at Clare Hall, Cambridge, where he took his M.A. degree in 1715. In 1716 his father sent him to Paris, and thence to Hanover to pay his court to George I. He was a frequent visitor at the court of the prince and princess of Wales at Richmond, and in 1720 he married Mary Lepell, who was one of the princess’s ladies-in-waiting, and a great court beauty. In 1723 he received the courtesy title of Lord Hervey on the death of his half-brother Carr, and in 1725 he was elected M.P. for Bury St Edmunds. He had been at one time on very friendly terms with Frederick, prince of Wales, but from 1731 he quarrelled with him, apparently because they were rivals in the favour of Anne Vane. These differences probably account for the scathing picture he draws of the prince’s callous conduct. Hervey had been hesitating between William Pulteney (afterwards earl of Bath) and Walpole, but in 1730 he definitely took sides with Walpole, of whom he was thenceforward a faithful adherent. He was assumed by Pulteney to be the author ofSedition and Defamation display’d with a Dedication to the patrons of The Craftsman(1731). Pulteney, who, up to this time, had been a firm friend of Hervey, replied withA Proper Reply to a late Scurrilous Libel, and the quarrel resulted in a duel from which Hervey narrowly escaped with his life. Hervey is said to have denied the authorship of both the pamphlet and its dedication, but a note on the MS. at Ickworth, apparently in his own hand, states that he wrote the latter. He was able to render valuable service to Walpole from his influence over the queen. Through him the minister governed Queen Caroline and indirectly George II. Hervey was vice-chamberlain in the royal household and a member of the privy council. In 1733 he was called to the House of Lords by writ in virtue of his father’s barony. In spite of repeated requests he received no further preferment until after 1740, when he became lord privy seal. After the fall of Sir Robert Walpole he was dismissed (July 1742) from his office. An excellent political pamphlet,Miscellaneous Thoughts on the present Posture of Foreign and Domestic Affairs, shows that he still retained his mental vigour, but he was liable to epilepsy, and his weak appearance and rigid diet were a constant source of ridicule to his enemies. He died on the 5th of August 1743. He predeceased his father, but three of his sons became successively earls of Bristol.

Hervey wrote detailed and brutally frank memoirs of the court of George II. from 1727 to 1737. He gave a most unflattering account of the king, and of Frederick, prince of Wales, and their family squabbles. For the queen and her daughter, Princess Caroline, he had a genuine respect and attachment, and the princess’s affection for him was commonly said to be the reason for the close retirement in which she lived after his death. The MS. of Hervey’s memoirs was preserved by the family, but his son, Augustus John, 3rd earl of Bristol, left strict injunctions that they should not be published until after the death of George III. In 1848 they were published under the editorship of J. W. Croker, but the MS. had been subjected to a certain amount of mutilation before it came into his hands. Croker also softened in some cases the plainspokenness of the original. Hervey’s bitter account of court life and intrigues resembles in many points the memoirs of Horace Walpole, and the two books corroborate one another in many statements that might otherwise have been received with suspicion.

Until the publication of theMemoirsHervey was chiefly known as the object of savage satire on the part of Pope, in whose works he figured as Lord Fanny, Sporus, Adonis and Narcissus. The quarrel is generally put down to Pope’s jealousy of Hervey’s friendship with Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. In the first of theImitations of Horace, addressed to William Fortescue, “Lord Fanny” and “Sappho” were generally identified with Hervey and Lady Mary, although Pope denied the personal intention. Hervey had already been attacked in theDunciadand theBathos, and he now retaliated. There is no doubt that he had a share in theVerses to the Imitator of Horace(1732) and it is possible that he was the sole author. In theLetter from a nobleman at Hampton Court to a Doctor of Divinity(1733), he scoffed at Pope’s deformity and humble birth. Pope’s reply was aLetter to a Noble Lord, dated November 1733, and the portrait of Sporus in theEpistle to Dr Arbuthnot(1735), which forms the prologue tothe satires. Many of the insinuations and insults contained in it are borrowed from Pulteney’s libel. The malicious caricature of Sporus does Hervey great injustice, and he is not much better treated by Horace Walpole, who in reporting his death in a letter (14th of August 1743) to Horace Mann, said he had outlived his last inch of character. Nevertheless his writings prove him to have been a man of real ability, condemned by Walpole’s tactics and distrust of able men to spend his life in court intrigue, the weapons of which, it must be owned, he used with the utmost adroitness. His wife Lady Hervey [Molly Lepell] (1700-1768), of whom an account is to be found in Lady Louisa Stuart’sAnecdotes, was a warm partisan of the Stuarts. She retained her wit and charm throughout her life, and has the distinction of being the recipient of English verses by Voltaire.

See Hervey’sMemoirs of the Court of George II., edited by J. W. Croker (1848); and an article by G. F. Russell Barker in theDict. Nat. Biog.(vol. xxvi., 1891). Besides theMemoirshe wrote numerous political pamphlets, and some occasional verses.

HERVIEU, PAUL(1857- ), French dramatist and novelist, was born at Neuilly (Seine) on the 2nd of November 1857. He was called to the bar in 1877, and, after serving some time in the office of the president of the council, he qualified for the diplomatic service, but resigned on his nomination in 1881 to a secretaryship in the French legation in Mexico. He contributed novels, tales and essays to the chief Parisian papers and reviews, and published a series of clever novels, includingL’Inconnu(1887),Flirt(1890),L’Exorcisée(1891),Peints par eux-mêmes(1893), an ironical study written in the form of letters, andL’Armature(1895), dramatized in 1905 by Eugène Brieux. But his most important work consists of a series of plays:Les Paroles restent(Vaudeville, 17th of November 1892);Les Tenailles(Théâtre Français, 28th of September 1895);La Loi de l’homme(Théâtre Français, 15th of February 1897);La Course du flambeau(Vaudeville, 17th of April 1901);Point de lendemain(Odéon, 18th of October 1901), a dramatic version of a story by Vivaut Denon;L’Ênigme(Théâtre Français, 5th of November 1901);Théroigne de Méricourt(Théâtre Sarah Bernhardt, 23rd of September 1902);Le Dédale(Théâtre Français, 19th of December 1903), andLe Réveil(Théâtre Français, 18th of December 1905). These plays are built upon a severely logical method, the mechanism of which is sometimes so evident as to destroy the necessary sense of illusion. The closing words ofLa Course du flambeau—“Pour ma fille, j’ai tué ma mère”—are an example of his selection of a plot representing an extreme theory. The riddle inL’Éngime(staged at Wyndham’s Theatre, London, March 1st 1902, asCaesar’s Wife) is, however, worked out with great art, andLe Dédale, dealing with the obstacles to the remarriage of a divorced woman, is reckoned among the masterpieces of the modern French stage. He was elected to the French Academy in 1900.

See A. Binet, inL’Année psychologique, vol. x. Hervieu’sThéâtrewas published, by Lemerre (3 vols., 1900-1904).

HERWARTH VON BITTENFELD, KARL EBERHARD(1796-1884), Prussian general field-marshal, came of an aristocratic family which had supplied many distinguished officers to the Prussian army. He entered the Guard infantry in 1811, and served through the War of Liberation (1813-15), distinguishing himself at Lützen and Paris. During the years of peace he rose slowly to high command. In the Berlin revolution of 1848 he was on duty at the royal palace as colonel of the 1st Guards. Major-general in 1852, and lieutenant-general in 1856, he received the grade of general of infantry and the command of the VIIth (Westphalian) Army Corps in 1860. In the Danish War of 1864 he succeeded to the command of the Prussians when Prince Frederick Charles became commander-in-chief of the Allies, and it was under his leadership that the Prussians forced the passage into Alsen on the 29th of June. In the war of 1866 Herwarth commanded the “Army of the Elbe” which overran Saxony and invaded Bohemia by the valley of the Elbe and Iser. His troops won the actions of Hühnerwasser and Münchengrätz, and at Königgrätz formed the right wing of the Prussian army. Herwarth himself directed the battle against the Austrian left flank. In 1870 he was not employed in the field, but was in charge of the scarcely less important business of organizing and forwarding all the reserves and material required for the armies in France. In 1871 his great services were recognized by promotion to the rank of field-marshal. The rest of his life was spent in retirement at Bonn, where he died in 1884. Since 1889 the 13th (1st Westphalian) Infantry has borne his name.

SeeG. F. M. Herwarth von Bittenfeld(Münster, 1896).

HERWEGH, GEORG(1817-1875), German political poet, was born at Stuttgart on the 31st of May 1817, the son of a restaurant keeper. He was educated at the gymnasium of his native city, and in 1835 proceeded to the university of Tübingen as a theological student, where, with a view to entering the ministry, he entered the protestant theological seminary. But the strict discipline was distasteful; he broke the rules and was expelled in 1836. He next studied law, but having gained the interest of August Lewald (1793-1871) by his literary ability, he returned to Stuttgart, where Lewald obtained for him ajournalisticpost. Called out for military service, he had hardly joined his regiment when he committed an act of flagrant insubordination, and fled to Switzerland to avoid punishment. Here he published hisGedichte eines Lebendigen(1841), a volume of political poems, which gave expression to the fervent aspirations of the German youth of the day. The work immediately rendered him famous, and although confiscated, it soon ran through several editions. The idea of the book was a refutation of the opinions of Prince Pückler-Muskau (q.v.) in hisBriefe eines Verstorbenen. He next proceeded to Paris and in 1842 returned to Germany, visiting Jena, Leipzig, Dresden and Berlin—a journey which was described as being a “veritable triumphal progress.” His military insubordination appears to have been forgiven and forgotten, for in Berlin King Frederick William IV. had him introduced to him and used the memorable words: “ich liebe eine gesinnungsvolle Opposition” (“I admire an opposition, when dictated by principle.”) Herwegh next returned to Paris, where he published in 1844 the second volume of hisGedichte eines Lebendigen, which, like the first volume, was confiscated by the German police. At the head of a revolutionary column of German working men, recruited in Paris, Herwegh took an active part in the South German rising in 1848; but his raw troops were defeated on the 27th of April at Schopfheim in Baden and, after a very feeble display of heroism, he just managed to escape to Switzerland, where he lived for many years on the proceeds of his literary productions. He was later (1866) permitted to return to Germany, and died at Lichtenthal near Baden-Baden on the 7th of April 1875. A monument was erected to his memory there in 1904. Besides the above-mentioned works, Herwegh publishedEinundzwanzig Bogen aus der Schweiz(1843), and translations into German of A. de Lamartine’s works and of seven of Shakespeare’s plays. Posthumously appearedNeue Gedichte(1877).

Herwegh’s correspondence was published by his son Marcel in 1898. See also Johannes Scherr,Georg Herwegh; literarische und politische Blätter(1843); and the article by Franz Muncker in theAllgemeine deutsche Biographie.

HERZBERG,a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hanover, situated under the south-western declivity of the Harz, on the Sieber, 25 m. N.W. from Nordhausen by the railway to Osterode-Hildesheim. Pop. (1905) 3896. It contains an Evangelical and a Roman Catholic church, and a botanical garden, and has manufactures of cloth and cigars, and weaving and dyeing works. The breeding of canaries is extensively carried on here and in the district. On a hill to the south-west of the town lies the castle of Herzberg, which in 1157 came into the possession of Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony, and afterwards was one of the residences of a branch of the house of Brunswick.

HERZBERG,a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Saxony, on the Schwarze Elster, 25 m. S. from Jüterbog by the railway Berlin-Röderau-Dresden. It has a church (Evangelical) dating from the 13th century and a medieval town hall. Its industries include the founding and turning of metal, agricultural machinery and boot-making. Pop. (1905) 4043.

HERZL, THEODOR(1860-1904), founder of modern political Zionism (q.v.), was born in Budapest on the 2nd of May 1860,and died at Edlach on the 3rd of July 1904. The greater part of his career was associated with Vienna, where he acquired high repute as a literary journalist. He was also a dramatist, and apart from his prominence as a Jewish Nationalist would have found a niche in the temple of fame. All his other claims to renown, however, sink into insignificance when compared with his work as the reviver of Jewish hopes for a restoration to political autonomy. Herzl was stirred by sympathy for the misery of Jews under persecution, but he was even more powerfully moved by the difficulties experienced under conditions of assimilation. Modern anti-Semitism, he felt, was both like and unlike the medieval. The old physical attacks on the Jews continued in Russia, but there was added the reluctance of several national groups in Europe to admit the Jews to social equality. Herzl believed that the humanitarian hopes which inspired men at the end of the 18th and during the larger part of the 19th centuries had failed. The walls of the ghettos had been cast down, but the Jews could find no entry into the comity of nations. The new nationalism of 1848 did not deprive the Jews of political rights, but it denied them both the amenities of friendly intercourse and the opportunity of distinction in the university, the army and the professions. Many Jews questioned this diagnosis, and refused to see in the new anti-Semitism (q.v.) which spread over Europe in 1881 any more than a temporary reaction against the cosmopolitanism of the French Revolution. In 1896 Herzl published his famous pamphlet “Der Judenstaat.” Holding that the only alternatives for the Jews were complete merging by intermarriage or self-preservation by a national re-union, he boldly advocated the second course. He did not at first insist on Palestine as the new Jewish home, nor did he attach himself to religious sentiment. The expectation of a Messianic restoration to the Holy Land has always been strong, if often latent, in the Jewish consciousness. But Herzl approached the subject entirely on its secular side, and his solution was economic and political rather than sentimental. He was a strong advocate for the complete separation of Church and State. The influence of Herzl’s pamphlet, the progress of the movement he initiated, the subsequent modifications of his plans, are told at length in the articleZionism.

His proposals undoubtedly roused an extraordinary enthusiasm, and though he almost completely failed to win to his cause the classes, he rallied the masses with sensational success. He unexpectedly gained the accession of many Jews by race who were indifferent to the religious aspect of Judaism, but he quite failed to convince the leaders of Jewish thought, who from first to last remained (with such conspicuous exceptions as Nordau and Zangwill) deaf to his pleading. The orthodox were at first cool because they had always dreamed of a nationalism inspired by messianic ideals, while the liberals had long come to dissociate those universalistic ideals from all national limitations. Herzl, however, succeeded in assembling several congresses at Basel (beginning in 1897), and at these congresses were enacted remarkable scenes of enthusiasm for the cause and devotion to its leader. At all these assemblies the same ideal was formulated: “the establishing for the Jewish people a publicly and legally assured home in Palestine.” Herzl’s personal charm was irresistible. Among his political opponents he had some close personal friends. His sincerity, his eloquence, his tact, his devotion, his power, were recognized on all hands. He spent his whole strength in the furtherance of his ideas. Diplomatic interviews, exhausting journeys, impressive mass meetings, brilliant literary propaganda—all these methods were employed by him to the utmost limit of self-denial. In 1901 he was received by the sultan; the pope and many European statesmen gave him audiences. The British government was ready to grant land for an autonomous settlement in East Africa. This last scheme was fatal to Herzl’s peace of mind. Even as a temporary measure, the choice of an extra-Palestinian site for the Jewish state was bitterly opposed by many Zionists; others (with whom Herzl appears to have sympathized) thought that as Palestine was, at all events momentarily, inaccessible, it was expedient to form a settlement elsewhere. Herzl’s health had been failing and he did not long survive the initiation of the somewhat embittered “territorial” controversy. He died in the summer of 1904, amid the consternation of supporters and the deep grief of opponents of his Zionistic aims.

Herzl was beyond question the most influential Jewish personality of the 19th century. He had no profound insight into the problem of Judaism, and there was no lasting validity in his view that the problem—the thousands of years’ old mystery—could be solved by a retrogression to local nationality. But he brought home to Jews the perils that confronted them; he compelled many a “semi-detached” son of Israel to rejoin the camp; he forced the “assimilationists” to realize their position and to define it; his scheme gave a new impulse to “Jewish culture,” including the popularization of Hebrew as a living speech; and he effectively roused Jews all the world over to an earnest and vital interest in their present and their future. Herzl thus left an indelible mark on his time, and his renown is assured whatever be the fate in store for the political Zionism which he founded and for which he gave his life.

Back to Index Next