the Epicureans. To identify Epicureanism with Cyrenaicism is a complete misunderstanding. It is true that pleasure is the summum bonum of Epicurus, but his conception of that pleasure is profoundly modified by the Socratic doctrine of prudence and the eudaemonism of Aristotle. The true hedonist will aim at a life of enduring rational happiness; pleasure is the end of life, but true pleasure can be obtained only under the guidance of reason. Self-control in the choice of pleasures with a view to reducing pain to a minimum is indispensable. “Of all this, the beginning, and the greatest good, is prudence.” The negative side of Epicurean hedonism was developed to such an extent by some members of the school (see Hegesias) that the ideal life is held to be rather indifference to pain than positive enjoyment. This pessimistic attitude is far removed from the positive hedonism of Aristippus.
Between the hedonism of the ancients and that of modern philosophers there lies a great gulf. Practically speaking ancient hedonism advocated the happiness of the individual: the modern hedonism of Hume, Bentham and Mill is based on a wider conception of life. The only real happiness is the happiness of the community, or at least of the majority: the criterion is society, not the individual. Thus we pass from Egoistic to Universalistic hedonism, Utilitarianism, Social Ethics, more especially in relation to the still broader theories of evolution. These theories are confronted by the problem of reconciling and adjusting the claims of the individual with those of society. One of the most important contributions to the discussion is that of Sir Leslie Stephen (Science of Ethics), who elaborated a theory of the “social organism” in relation to the individual. The end of the evolution process is the production of a “social tissue” which will be “vitally efficient.” Instead, therefore, of the criterion of “the greatest happiness of the greatest number,” Stephen has that of the “health of the organism.” Life is not “a series of detached acts, in each of which a man can calculate the sum of happiness or misery attainable by different courses.” Each action must be regarded as directly bearing upon the structure of society.
A criticism of the various hedonistic theories will be found in the article Ethics (ad fin.). See also, beside works quoted under Cyrenaics, Epicurus, &c., and the general histories of philosophy, J. S. Mackenzie, Manual of Ethics (3rd ed., 1897); J. H. Muirhead, Elements of Ethics (1892); J. Watson, Hedonistic Theories (1895); J. Martineau, Types of Ethical Theory (2nd ed., 1886); F. H. Bradley, Ethical Studies (1876); H. Sidgwick, Methods of Ethics (6th ed., 1901); Jas. Seth, Ethical Principles (3rd ed., 1898); other works quoted under Ethics.
HEEL. (1) (O. Eng. héla, cf. Dutch hiel; a derivative of O. Eng. hóh, hough, hock), that part of the foot in man which is situated
below and behind the ankle; by analogy, the calcaneal part of the tarsus in other vertebrates. The heel proper in digitigrades
and ungulates is raised off the ground and is commonly known as
the “knee” or “hock,” while the term “heel” is applied to the
hind hoofs. (2) (A variant of the earlier hield; cf. Dutch hellen,
for helden), to turn over to one side, especially of a ship. It is
this word probably, in the sense of “tip-up,” used particularly
of the tilting or tipping of a cask or barrel of liquor, that explains
the origin of the expression “no heel-taps,” a direction to the
drinkers of a toast to drain their glasses and leave no dregs
remaining. “Tap” is a common word for liquor, and a cask
is said to be “heeled” when it is tipped and only dregs or
muddy liquor are left. This suits the actual sense of the phrase
better than the explanations which connect it with tapping the
“heel” or bottom of the glass (see Notes and Queries, 4th series,
vols. xi.-xii., and 5th series, vol. i.).
HEEM, JAN DAVIDSZ VAN (or Johannes de), (c.1600–c.1683),
Dutch painter. He was, if not the first, certainly the greatest
painter of still life in Holland; no artist of his class combined
more successfully perfect reality of form and colour with brilliancy
and harmony of tints. No object of stone or silver, no flower
humble or gorgeous, no fruit of Europe or the tropics, no twig
or leaf, with which he was not familiar. Sometimes he merely
represented a festoon or a nosegay. More frequently he worked
with a purpose to point a moral or illustrate a motto. Here
the snake lies coiled under the grass, there a skull rests on
blooming plants. Gold and silver tankards or cups suggest
the vanity of earthly possessions; salvation is allegorized in a
chalice amidst blossoms, death as a crucifix inside a wreath.
Sometimes de Heem painted alone, sometimes in company with
men of his school, Madonnas or portraits surrounded by festoons
of fruit or flowers. At one time he signed with initials, at others
with Johannes, at others again with the name of his father
joined to his own. At rare intervals he condescended to a date,
and when he did the work was certainly of the best. De Heem
entered the gild of Antwerp in 1635–1636, and became a burgher
of that city in 1637. He steadily maintained his residence till
1667, when he moved to Utrecht, where traces of his presence
are preserved in records of 1668, 1669 and 1670. It is not known
when he finally returned to Antwerp, but his death is recorded
in the gild books of that place. A very early picture, dated
1628, in the gallery of Gotha, bearing the signature of Johannes
in full, shows that de Heem at that time was familiar with the
technical habits of execution peculiar to the youth of Albert
Cuyp. In later years he completely shook off dependence,
and appears in all the vigour of his own originality.
Out of 100 pictures or more to be met with in European galleries scarcely eighteen are dated. The earliest after that of Gotha is a chased tankard, with a bottle, a silver cup, and a lemon on a marble table, dated 1640, in the museum of Amsterdam. A similar work of 1645, with the addition of fruit and flowers and a distant landscape, is in Lord Radnor’s collection at Longford. A chalice in a wreath, with the radiant host amidst wheatsheaves, grapes and flowers, is a masterpiece of 1648 in the Belvedere of Vienna. A wreath round a Madonna of life size, dated 1650, in the museum of Berlin, shows that de Heem could paint brightly and harmoniously on a large scale. In the Pinakothek at Munich is the celebrated composition of 1653, in which creepers, beautifully commingled with gourds and blackberries, twigs of orange, myrtle and peach, are enlivened by butterflies, moths and beetles. A landscape with a blooming rose tree, a jug of strawberries, a selection of fruit, and a marble bust of Pan, dated 1655, is in the Hermitage at St Petersburg; an allegory of abundance in a medallion wreathed with fruit and flowers, in the gallery of Brussels, is inscribed with de Heem’s monogram, the date of 1668, and the name of an obscure artist called Lambrechts. All these pieces exhibit the master in full possession of his artistic faculties.
Cornelius de Heem, the son of Johannes, was in practice as a flower painter at Utrecht in 1658, and was still active in his profession in 1671 at the Hague. His pictures are not equal to those of his father, but they are all well authenticated, and most of them in the galleries of the Hague, Dresden, Cassel, Vienna and Berlin. In the Staedel at Frankfort is a fruit piece, with pot-herbs and a porcelain jug, dated 1658; another, dated 1671, is in the museum of Brussels. David de Heem, another member of the family, entered the gild of Utrecht in 1668 and that of Antwerp in 1693. The best piece assigned to him is a table with a lobster, fruit and glasses, in the gallery of Amsterdam; others bear his signature in the museums of Florence, St Petersburg and Brunswick. It is well to guard against the fallacy that David de Heem above mentioned is the father of Jan de Heem. We should also be careful not to make two persons of the first artist, who sometimes signs Johannes, sometimes Jan Davidsz or J. D. Heem.
HEEMSKERK, JOHAN VAN (1597–1656), Dutch poet, was
born at Amsterdam in 1597. He was educated as a child at
Bayonne, and entered the university of Leiden in 1617. In
1621 he went abroad on the grand tour, leaving behind him his
first volume of poems, Minnekunst (The Art of Love), which
appeared in 1622. He was absent from Holland four years. He
was made master of arts at Bourges in 1623, and in 1624 visited
Hugo Grotius in Paris. On his return in 1625 he published
Minnepligt (The Duty of Love), and began to practise as an
advocate in the Hague. In 1628 he was sent to England in his
legal capacity by the Dutch East India Company, to settle the
dispute respecting Amboyna. In the same year he published
