youthful Hezekiah at his succession or is to be associated with the later widespread attempt to remove the Assyrian yoke.[1]
The brief account of the Assyrian invasion, Hezekiah’s submission, and the payment of tribute in 2 Kings xviii. 14-16, supplements the Assyrian record by the statement that Sennacherib besieged Lachish, a fact which is confirmed by a bas-relief (now in the British Museum) depicting the king in the act of besieging that town.[2] This thoroughly historical fragment is followed by two narratives which tell how the king sent an official from Lachish to demand the submission of Hezekiah and conclude with the unexpected deliverance of Jerusalem. Both these stories appear to belong to a biography of Isaiah, and, like the similar biographies of Elijah and Elisha, are open to the suspicion that historical facts have been subordinated to idealize the work of the prophet. See Kings, Books of.
The narratives are (a) 2 Kings xviii. 13, 17-xix. 8; cf. Isa. xxxvi. 1–xxxvii. 8, and (b) xix. 9b-35; cp. Isa. xxxvii. 9-36 (2 Chron. xxxii. 9 sqq. is based on both), and Jerusalem’s deliverance is attributed to a certain rumour (xix. 7), to the advance of Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia (v. 9), and to a remarkable pestilence (v. 35) which finds an echo in a famous story related, not without some confusion of essential facts, by Herodotus (ii. 141; cf. Josephus Antiq. x. i. 5).[3] It is difficult to decide whether xix. 9a belongs to the first or second of these narratives; and whether the “rumour” refers to the approach of Tirhakah, or rather to the serious troubles which had arisen in Babylonia. It is equally difficult to determine whether Tirhakah actually appeared on the scene in 701, and the precise application of the term Muṣri (Mizraim) is much debated. Unless the two narratives are duplicates of the same event, it may be urged that Sennacherib’s attack upon Arabia (apparently about 689) involved an invasion of Judah, by which time Egypt was in a position to be of material assistance (cf. Isa. xxx. 1-5, xxxi. 1-3?). This theory of a second campaign (first suggested by Sir Henry Rawlinson) has been contested, although it is pointed out that Sennacherib at all events did not invade Egypt, and that 2 Kings xix. 24 (Isa. xxxvii. 25) can only refer to his successor. The allusion to the murder of Sennacherib (xix. 36 sq.)[4] points to the year 681, but it is uncertain to which of the above narratives it belongs. On the whole, the question must be left open, and with it both the problem of the extension of the name Muṣri and Mizraim outside Egypt in the Assyrian and Hebrew records of this period and the true historical background of a number of the Isaianic prophecies. It is quite possible that later events which belong to the time of the Egyptian supremacy and the wars of Esarhaddon have been confused with the history of Sennacherib’s invasion.
It is not certain whether Hezekiah’s conflict with the Philistines as far as Gaza or his preparations to secure for Jerusalem a good water supply (xviii. 8, xx. 20; 2 Chron. xxxii. 30; Ecclus. xlviii. 17 sq.)[5] should precede or follow the events which have been discussed. On the other hand, the reforms which the compiler of the book has attributed to the early part of the reign were doubtless much later (2 Kings xviii. 1-8). Not the fall of Samaria, but the crisis of 701, is the earliest date that could safely be chosen, and the extent of these reforms must not be overestimated. They are related in terms that imply an acquaintance with the great “Deuteronomic” movement (see Deuteronomy), and are magnified further with characteristic detail by the chronicler (2 Chron. xxix.-xxxi.). The most remarkable was the destruction of a brazen serpent, the cult of which was traditionally traced back to the time of Moses (Num. xxi. 9).[6] This persistence of serpent-cult, and the idolatry (necromancy, tree-worship) which the contemporary prophets denounce, do not support the view that the apparently radical reforms of Hezekiah were extensive or permanent, and Jer. xxvi. 17-19 (which suggests that Micah had a greater influence than Isaiah) throws another light upon the conditions during his reign. Hezekiah was succeeded by his son Manasseh (q.v.).
See further W. R. Smith, Prophets, 359-364, and Hebrew Religion. According to Prov. xxv. 1, Hezekiah was a patron of literature (see Proverbs). The hymn which is ascribed to the king (Isa. xxxviii. 9-20, wanting in 2 Kings) is of post-exilic origin (see Cheyne, Introd. to Isaiah, 222 sq.), but is further proof of the manner in which the Judaean king was idealized in subsequent ages, partly, perhaps, in the belief that the deliverance of Jerusalem was the reward for his piety. For special discussions, see Stade, Zeits. d. alttest. Wissenschaft, 1886, pp. 173 sqq.; Winckler, Alttest. Untersuch., 26 sqq.; Schrader, Cuneiform Inscr. and Old Test. (on 2 Kings, l.c.); Driver, Isaiah, his Life and Times, pp. 43-83; A. Jeremias, Alte Test. 304-310; Nagel, Zug d. Sanherib gegen Jerus. (Leipzig, 1903, conservative); and especially Prášek, Sanherib’s “Feldzüge gegen Juda” (Mitteil. d. Vorderasiat. Gesell., 1903, pp. 113-158), K. Fullerton, Bibliotheca sacra, 1906, pp. 577–634, A. Alt, Israel u. Ägypten (Leipzig, 1909); also the bibliography to Isaiah. (S. A. C.)
HIATUS (Lat. for gaping, or gap), a break in continuity,
whether in speech, thought or events, a lacuna. In anatomy
the term is used for an opening or foramen, as the hiatus Fallopii,
a foramen of the temporal bone. In logic a hiatus occurs when
a step or link in reasoning is wanting; and in grammar it is the
pause made for the sake of euphony in pronouncing two successive
vowels, which are not separated by a consonant.
HIAWATHA (“he makes rivers”), a legendary chief (c. 1450)
of the Onondaga tribe of North American Indians. The formation
of the League of Six Nations, known as the Iroquois, is
attributed to him by Indian tradition. In his miraculous
character Hiawatha is the incarnation of human progress and
civilization. He teaches agriculture, navigation, medicine and
the arts, conquering by his magic all the powers of nature which
war against man.
See J. N. B. Hewitt, in Amer. Anthrop. for April 1892.
HIBBING, a village of St Louis county, Minnesota, U.S.A.,
75 m. N.W. of Duluth. Pop. (1900) 2481; (1905 state census)
6566, of whom 3537 were foreign-born (1169 Finns, 516 Swedes,
498 Canadians, 323 Austrians and 314 Norwegians); (1910) 8832.
Hibbing is served by the Great Northern and the Duluth,
Missabe & Northern railways. It lies in the midst of the great
Mesabi iron-ore deposits of the state; in 1907 forty iron mines
were in operation within 10 m. of the village. Lumbering and
farming are also important industries. The village owns and
operates the water-works and electric-lighting plant. Hibbing
was settled in 1892 and was incorporated in 1893.
HIBERNACULUM (Lat. for winter quarters), in botany a
term for a winter bud; in botanic gardens, the winter quarters
for plants; in zoology, the winter bud of a polyzoan.
HIBERNATION (winter sleep), the dormant condition in
which certain animals pass the winter in cold latitudes. Aestivation
(summer sleep) is the similar condition in which other
species pass periods of heat or drought in warm latitudes. The
origins of these kindred phenomena are probably to be sought
in the regularly recurrent failure of food supply or of other
factors essential to existence due to the seasonal onset of cold
in the one case and of excessively dry hot weather in the other.
They are means whereby certain non-migratory species are
enabled to live through unfavourable climatic conditions which
would end fatally in starvation or desiccation were the animals
to maintain their normal state of activity.
I. The Physiology of Hibernation. Hibernation and Aestivation.—The physiology of hibernation, as exemplified in mammalia, has been worked out in detail by several observers in the case of some European species, notably bats, hedgehogs, dormice and marmots. Of the physiology of aestivation nothing definite appears to have been ascertained. It seems probable, however, from observations upon the dormant animals that the physiological accompaniments of winter and summer sleep are to all intents and purposes the same. The state of hibernation,
- ↑ For the early date (between 720 and 710), Winckler, Alttest. Unt. 139 sqq., Burney, Kings, 350 sq.; Driver; Küchler, &c.; for the later, Whitehouse, Isaiah, 29 sq., in agreement with Schrader, Wellhausen, W. R. Smith, Cheyne, M‘Curdy, Paton, &c.
- ↑ Isa. x. 28-32 may perhaps refer to this invasion. Allusions to the Assyrian oppression are found in Isa. x. 5-15, xiv. 24-27, xvii. 12-14; and to internal Judaean intrigues perhaps in Isa. xxii. 15-18, xxix. 15. For a picture of the ruins in Jerusalem, see Isa. xxii. 9-11. But see further Isaiah (Book).
- ↑ See, on the story, Griffith, in D. Hogarth’s Authority and Archaeology, p. 167, n. 1.
- ↑ The house of Nisroch should probably be that of the god Nusku; see also Driver in Hogarth, op. cit. p. 109; Winckler, op. cit. p. 84.
- ↑ It is commonly believed that Hezekiah constructed the conduit of Siloam, famous for its Hebrew inscription (see Inscriptions, Jerusalem). But Isa. viii. 6, would seem to show that the pool was already in existence, and, for palaeographical details, see Pal. Explor. Fund, Quart. Stat. (1909), pp. 289, 305 sqq.
- ↑ The name Nehushtan (2 Kings xviii. 4, cp. nāhāsh, “serpent”) is obscure: see the commentaries.
