Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Franciscans" to "French Language" / Volume 11, Slice 1

Previous
Various

THE

ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

 

ELEVENTH EDITION

 
FIRST edition, published in three volumes, 1768-1771.
SECOND ” ” ten ” 1777-1784.
THIRD ” ” eighteen ” 1788-1797.
FOURTH ” ” twenty ” 1801-1810.
FIFTH ” ” twenty ” 1815-1817.
SIXTH ” ” twenty ” 1823-1824.
SEVENTH ” ” twenty-one ” 1830-1842.
EIGHTH ” ” twenty-two ” 1853-1860.
NINTH ” ” twenty-five ” 1875-1889.
TENTH ” ninth edition and eleven supplementary volumes, 1902-1903.
ELEVENTH ” published in twenty-nine volumes, 1910-1911.
 
 

COPYRIGHT

in all countries subscribing to the
Bern Convention

by

THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS AND SCHOLARS

of the

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

 

All rights reserved

 

THE

ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

A

DICTIONARY

OF

ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE AND GENERAL

INFORMATION

ELEVENTH EDITION

VOLUME XI

FRANCISCANS to GIBSON

 

New York

EncyclopÆdia Britannica, Inc.

342 Madison Avenue

 

Copyright, in the United States of America, 1910,
by
The EncyclopÆdia Britannica Company.

 

VOLUME XI SLICE I

Franciscans to French Language

 

Articles in This Slice

FRANCISCANS FREDERICK I. (king of Prussia)
FRANCK FREDERICK II. (king of Prussia)
FRANCK, CÉSAR FREDERICK III. (king of Prussia)
FRANCK, SEBASTIAN FREDERICK III. (king of Sicily)
FRANCKE, AUGUST HERMANN FREDERICK I. (elector of Brandenburg)
FRANCKEN FREDERICK I. (elector of the Rhine)
FRANCO-GERMAN WAR FREDERICK II. (elector of the Rhine)
FRANÇOIS DE NEUFCHÂTEAU, NICOLAS LOUIS FREDERICK III. (elector of the Rhine)
FRANCONIA FREDERICK IV. (elector of the Rhine)
FRANCS-ARCHERS FREDERICK V. (elector of the Rhine)
FRANCS-TIREURS FREDERICK I. (duke of Saxony)
FRANEKER FREDERICK II. (duke of Saxony)
FRANK, JAKOB FREDERICK III. (elector of Saxony)
FRANK-ALMOIGN FREDERICK (Maryland, U.S.A.)
FRANKEL, ZECHARIAS FREDERICK AUGUSTUS I.
FRANKENBERG FREDERICK AUGUSTUS II.
FRANKENHAUSEN FREDERICK CHARLES (FRIEDRICH KARL NIKOLAUS)
FRANKENSTEIN FREDERICK HENRY
FRANKENTHAL FREDERICK LOUIS
FRANKENWALD FREDERICK WILLIAM I.
FRANKFORT (Indiana, U.S.A.) FREDERICK WILLIAM II.
FRANKFORT (Kentucky, U.S.A.) FREDERICK WILLIAM III.
FRANKFORT-ON-MAIN FREDERICK WILLIAM IV.
FRANKFORT-ON-ODER FREDERICK WILLIAM (elector of Brandenburg)
FRANKINCENSE FRÉDÉRICK-LEMAÎTRE, ANTOINE LOUIS PROSPER
FRANKING FREDERICKSBURG
FRANKL, LUDWIG AUGUST FREDERICTON
FRANKLAND, SIR EDWARD FREDONIA
FRANKLIN, BENJAMIN FREDRIKSHALD
FRANKLIN, SIR JOHN FREDRIKSTAD
FRANKLIN, WILLIAM BUEL FREE BAPTISTS
FRANKLIN (district of Canada) FREEBENCH
FRANKLIN (Massachusetts, U.S.A.) FREE CHURCH FEDERATION
FRANKLIN (New Hampshire, U.S.A.) FREE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
FRANKLIN (Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND
FRANKLIN (Tennessee, U.S.A.) FREEDMEN’S BUREAU
FRANKLIN (freeman) FREEHOLD (New Jersey, U.S.A.)
FRANKLINITE FREEHOLD (law)
FRANK-MARRIAGE FREELAND
FRANKPLEDGE FREEMAN, EDWARD AUGUSTUS
FRANKS, SIR AUGUSTUS WOLLASTON FREEMAN
FRANKS FREEMASONRY
FRANZ, ROBERT FREEPORT
FRANZÉN, FRANS MIKAEL FREE PORTS
FRANZENSBAD FREE REED VIBRATOR
FRANZ JOSEF LAND FREESIA
FRANZOS, KARL EMIL FREE SOIL PARTY
FRASCATI FREE-STONE
FRASER, ALEXANDER CAMPBELL FREETOWN
FRASER, JAMES FREE TRADE
FRASER, JAMES BAILLIE FREGELLAE
FRASER, SIR WILLIAM AUGUSTUS FREIBERG
FRASER (river) FREIBURG
FRASERBURGH FREIBURG IM BREISGAU
FRASERVILLE FREIDANK
FRATER FREIENWALDE
FRATERNITIES, COLLEGE FREIESLEBENITE
FRATICELLI FREIGHT
FRAUD FREILIGRATH, FERDINAND
FRAUENBURG FREIND, JOHN
FRAUENFELD FREINSHEIM, JOHANN
FRAUENLOB FREIRE, FRANCISCO JOSÉ
FRAUNCE, ABRAHAM FREISCHÜTZ
FRAUNHOFER, JOSEPH VON FREISING
FRAUSTADT FRÉJUS
FRAYSSINOUS, DENIS ANTOINE LUC FRELINGHUYSEN, FREDERICK THEODORE
FRÉCHETTE, LOUIS HONORÉ FREMANTLE
FREDEGOND FRÉMIET, EMMANUEL
FREDERIC, HAROLD FRÉMONT, JOHN CHARLES
FREDERICIA FREMONT (Nebraska, U.S.A.)
FREDERICK (name) FREMONT (Ohio, U.S.A.)
FREDERICK I. (Roman emperor) FRÉMY, EDMOND
FREDERICK II. (Roman emperor) FRENCH, DANIEL CHESTER
FREDERICK III. (Roman emperor) FRENCH, NICHOLAS
FREDERICK III. (German king) FRENCH CONGO
FREDERICK II. (king of Denmark and Norway) FRENCH GUINEA
FREDERICK III. (king of Denmark and Norway) FRENCH LANGUAGE
FREDERICK VIII. (king of Denmark)  
 

INITIALS USED IN VOLUME XI. TO IDENTIFY INDIVIDUAL
CONTRIBUTORS,1 WITH THE HEADINGS OF THE
ARTICLES IN THIS VOLUME SO SIGNED.

 
A. B. R. Alfred Barton Rendle, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S., F.L.S.
Keeper, Department of Botany, British Museum. Author of Text Book on Classification of Flowering Plants; &c.		 Fruit.
A. B. W. K. Sir Alexander Blackie William Kennedy, LL.D., F.R.S.
Emeritus Professor of Engineering, University College, London. Consulting Engineer to Board of Ordnance.		 Friction.
A. Ca. Arthur Cayley, LL.D., F.R.S.
See the biographical article, Cayley, Arthur.		 Gauss.
A. E. H. L. Augustus Edward Hough Love, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S.
Sedleian Professor of Natural Philosophy in the University of Oxford. Hon. Fellow of Queen’s College; formerly Fellow of St John’s College, Cambridge. Secretary to the London Mathematical Society.

Function: Functions of Real Variables.
A. E. S. Arthur Everett Shipley, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S.
Master of Christ’s College, Cambridge. Reader in Zoology, Cambridge University. Joint-editor of the Cambridge Natural History.		 Gastrotricha.
A. Ge. Sir Archibald Geikie, LL.D.
See the biographical article, Geikie, Sir A.		 Geology.
A. Go.* Rev. Alexander Gordon, MA.
Lecturer on Church History in the University of Manchester.

Franck, Sebastian;

Gallars.
A. G. B.* Hon. Archibald Graeme Bell, M.Inst.C.E.
Director of Public Works and Inspector of Mines, Trinidad. Member of Executive and Legislative Councils, Inst.C.E.

Georgetown, British Guiana.
A. G. D. Arthur George Doughty, C.M.G., M.A., Litt.D., F.R., Hist.S.
Dominion Archivist of Canada. Member of the Geographical Board of Canada. Author of The Cradle of New France; &c. Joint-editor of Documents relating to the Constitutional History of Canada.

Frontenac et Palluau.
A. H. Sm. Arthur Hamilton Smith, M.A., F.S.A.
Keeper of the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities in the British Museum. Member of the Imperial German Archaeological Institute. Author of Catalogue of Greek Sculpture in the British Museum; &c.

Gem: II. (in part).
A. M.* Rev. Allen Menzies, D.D.
Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism, University of St Andrews. Author of History of Religion; &c. Editor of Review of Theology and Philosophy.

Free Church of Scotland (in part).
A. M. C. Agnes Mary Clerke.
See the biographical article, Clerke, Agnes M.		 Galileo.
A. N. Alfred Newton, F.R.S.
See the biographical article, Newton, Alfred.

Frigate-Bird;

Gadwall;

Gannet;

Gare Fowl.
A. N. B. Alfred Neave Brayshaw, LL.B.
Author of Bible Notes on the Hebrew Prophets.

Friends, Society of.
A. N. W. Alfred North Whitehead, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S.
Fellow and Lecturer in Mathematics, Trinity College, Cambridge. Author of A Treatise on Universal Algebra; &c.

Geometry: VI. (in part) and VII.
A. R. C. Alexander Ross Clarke, C.B., F.R.S.
Colonel, Royal Engineers. Royal Medallist, Royal Society, 1887. In charge of the trigonometrical operations of the Ordnance Survey, 1854-1881.

Geodesy (in part).
A. S. M. Alexander Stuart Murray, LL.D.
See the biographical article, Murray, Alexander Stuart.

Gem: II. (in part).
A. W. H.* Arthur William Holland.
Formerly Scholar of St John’s College, Oxford. Bacon Scholar of Gray’s Inn, 1900.

Frederick II., Roman Emperor;

French Revolution: Republican Calendar;

Germany: History (in part) and Bibliography.
A. W. W. Adolphus William Ward, Litt.D., LL.D.
See the biographical article, Ward, A. W.

Garrick, David (in part).
B. A. W. R. Hon. Bertrand Arthur William Russell, M.A., F.R.S.
Formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Author of Foundations of Geometry; Principles of Mathematics; &c.

Geometry: VI. (in part).
B. S. P. Bertha Surtees Philpotts, M.A. (Dublin).
Formerly Librarian of Girton College, Cambridge.

Germany: Archaeology.
C. B.* Charles BÉmont, Litt.D. (Oxon.).
See the biographical article, BÉmont, C.

Fustel De Coulanges;

Gascony.
C. D. W. Hon. Carroll Davidson Wright.
See the biographical article, Wright, Hon. Carroll Davidson.

Friendly Societies: United States.
C. E.* Charles Everitt, M.A., F.C.S., F.G.S., F.R.A.S.
Sometime Scholar of Magdalen College, Oxford.

Geometry: History.
C. F. A. Charles Francis Atkinson.
Formerly Scholar of Queen’s College, Oxford. Captain, 1st City of London (Royal Fusiliers). Author of The Wilderness and Cold Harbour.

Franco-German War (in part);

French Revolutionary Wars: Military Operations;

Germany: Army;

Gibraltar: History.
C. H. Ha. Carlton Huntley Hayes, M.A., Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of History in Columbia University, New York City. Member of the American Historical Association.		 Gelasius II.
C. K. S. Clement King Shorter.
Editor of The Sphere. Author of Sixty Years of Victorian Literature; Immortal Memories; The BrontËs, Life and Letters; &c.		 Gaskell, Elizabeth.
C. Mi. Chedomille Mijatovich.
Senator of the Kingdom of Servia. Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the King of Servia to the Court of St James’s, 1895-1900 and 1902-1903.		 Garashanin.
C. M. K. Sir Charles Malcolm Kennedy, K.C.M.G., C.B. (1831-1908).
Head of Commercial Department, Foreign Office, 1872-1893. Lecturer on International Law, University College, Bristol. Commissioner in the Levant, 1870-1871, at Paris, 1872-1886. Plenipotentiary, Treaty of the Hague, 1882. Editor of Kennedy’s Ethnological and Linguistic Essays; Diplomacy and International Law.		 Free Ports.
C. Pf. Christian Pfister, D.-Ès.-L.
Professor at the Sorbonne, Paris. Chevalier of the Legion of Honour. Author of Études sur le rÈgne de Robert le Pieux; Le DuchÉ mÉrovingien d’Alsace et la legende de Sainte-Odile.

Franks;

Fredegond;

Germanic Laws, Early.
C. R. B. Charles Raymond Beazley, M.A., D.Litt., F.R.G.S., F.R.Hist.S.
Professor of Modern History in the University of Birmingham. Formerly Fellow of Merton College, Oxford, and University Lecturer in the History of Geography. Lothian Prizeman, Oxford, 1889. Lowell Lecturer, Boston, 1908. Author of Henry the Navigator; The Dawn of Modern Geography; &c.

Gerard of Cremona.
C. R. C. Claude Regnier Conder, LL.D.
Colonel, Royal Engineers. Formerly in command of Survey of Palestine. Author of The City of Jerusalem; The Bible and the East; The Hittites and their Language; &c.

Galilee (in part);

Galilee, Sea of (in part).
C. T.* Rev. Charles Taylor, M.A., D.D., LL.D. (1840-1908).
Formerly Master of St John’s College, Cambridge. Vice-Chancellor, Cambridge University, 1887-1888. Author of Geometrical Conies; &c.

Geometrical Continuity.
C. We. Cecil Weatherly.
Formerly Scholar of Queen’s College, Oxford. Barrister-at-Law.		 Gate.
C. W. W. Sir Charles William Wilson, K.C.B., K.C.M.G., F.R.S. (1836-1907).
Major-General, Royal Engineers. Secretary to the North American Boundary Commission, 1858-1862. British Commissioner on the Servian Boundary Commission. Director-General of the Ordnance Survey, 1886-1894. Director-General of Military Education, 1895-1898. Author of From Korti to Khartoum; Life of Lord Clive; &c.

Galilee, Sea of (in part).
D. C. Dugald Clerk, M.Inst.C.E., F.R.S.
Director of the National Gas Engine Co., Ltd. Inventor of the Clerk Cycle Gas Engine.		 Gas Engine.
D. F. T. Donald Francis Tovey.
Balliol College, Oxford. Author of Essays in Musical Analysis, comprising The Classical Concerto, The Goldberg Variations, and analyses of many other classical works.		 Fugue.
D. H. David Hannay.
Formerly British Vice-consul at Barcelona. Author of Short History of Royal Navy, 1217-1688; Life of Emilio Castelar; &c.

French Revolutionary Wars: Naval Operations.
E. Br. Ernest Barker, M.A.
Fellow of, and Lecturer in Modern History at, St John’s College, Oxford. Formerly Fellow and Tutor of Merton College. Craven Scholar, 1895.

Fulk, King of Jerusalem.
E. B. El. Edwin Bailey Elliott, M.A., F.R.S., F.R.A.S.
Waynflete Professor of Pure Mathematics, and Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. Formerly Fellow of Queen’s College, Oxford. President of London Mathematical Society, 1896-1898. Author of Algebra of Quantics; &c.		 Geometry, IV.
E. C. B. Right Rev. Edward Cuthbert Butler; O.S.B., D.Litt. (Dublin).
Abbot of Downside Abbey, Bath. Author of “The Lausiac History of Palladius” in Cambridge Texts and Studies.		 Franciscans; Friar.
E. E. Lady Eastlake.
See the biographical article, Eastlake, Sir C. L.		 Gibson, John.
E. G. Edmund Gosse, LL.D.
See the biographical article, Gosse, Edmund.

Fryxell; Garland, John.
E. J. D. Edward Joseph Dent, M.A., Mus.Bac.
Formerly Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge.		 Galuppi.
E. O.* Edmund Owen, M.B., F.R.C.S., LL.D., D.Sc.
Consulting Surgeon to St Mary’s Hospital, London, and to the Children’s Hospital, Great Ormond Street; late Examiner in Surgery at the Universities of Cambridge, Durham and London. Author of A Manual of Anatomy for Senior Students.		 Gastric Ulcer.
E. Pr. Edgar Prestage.
Special Lecturer in Portuguese Literature in the University of Manchester. Commendador Portuguese Order of S. Thiago. Corresponding Member of Lisbon Royal Academy of Sciences and Lisbon Geographical Society; &c.		 GarÇÃo; Garrett.
E. W. B. Sir Edward William Brabrook, C.B., F.S.A.
Barrister-at-Law, Lincoln’s Inn. Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, 1891-1904. Author of Building Societies; Provident Societies and Industrial Welfare; Institutions of Thrift; &c.

Friendly Societies.
F. C. C. Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, M.A., D.Th. (Geissen).
Fellow of the British Academy. Formerly Fellow of University College, Oxford. Author of The Ancient Armenian Texts of Aristotle; Myth, Magic and Morals; &c.		 Funeral Rites.
F. C. M. Francis Charles Montague, M.A.
Astor Professor of European History, University College, London. Formerly Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. Author of Limits of Individual Liberty; chapters in Cambridge Modern History; &c.

French Revolution.
F. F.* Sir James Fortescue-Flannery, Bart., M.P., M.Inst.C.E.
Ex-President of the Institute of Marine Engineers. M.P. for the Maldon Division of Essex, 1910. M.P. for the Shipley Division of Yorkshire, 1895-1906.

Fuel: Liquid.
F. G. M. B. Frederick George Meeson Beck, M.A.
Fellow and Lecturer in Classics, Clare College, Cambridge.

Germany: Ethnography and Early History.
F. H. B. Francis Henry Butler, M.A.
Worcester College, Oxford. Associate of Royal School of Mines.

Frankincense; Galls.
F. J. H. Francis John Haverfield, M.A., LL.D., F.S.A.
Camden Professor of Ancient History in the University of Oxford. Fellow of Brasenose College. Fellow of the British Academy. Formerly Censor, Student, Tutor and Librarian of Christ Church, Oxford. Ford’s Lecturer, 1906-1907. Author of Monographs on Roman History, especially Roman Britain; &c.		 Gaul.
F. N. M. Colonel Frederic Natusch Maude, C.B.
Lecturer in Military History, Manchester University. Author of War and the World’s Policy; The Leipzig Campaign; The Jena Campaign.

Franco-German War (in part).
F. R. C. Frank R. Cana.
Author of South Africa from the Great Trek to the Union.

French Congo;

German East Africa;

German South-West Africa.
F. R. H. Friedrich Robert Helmert, Ph.D., D.Ing.
Professor of Geodesy, University of Berlin.

Geodesy (in part).
F. S. Francis Storr.
Editor of the Journal of Education, London. Officer d’AcadÉmie (Paris).

Games, Classical.
F. W. R.* Frederick William Rudler, I.S.O., F.G.S.
Curator and Librarian of the Museum of Practical Geology, London, 1879-1902. President of the Geologists’ Association, 1887-1889.		 Garnet;
Gem: I.
G. E. Rev. George Edmundson, M.A., F.R.Hist.S.
Formerly Fellow and Tutor of Brasenose College, Oxford. Ford’s Lecturer, 1909.

Gelderland (Duchy).
G. L. Georg Lunge.
See the biographical article. Lunge, G.

Fuel: Gaseous;

Gas: Manufacture, II.
G. Sa. George Saintsbury, D.C.L., LL.D.
See the biographical article, Saintsbury, G.

French Literature;

Gautier.
G. W. T. Rev. Griffiths Wheeler Thatcher, M.A., B.D.
Warden of Camden College, Sydney, N.S.W. Formerly Tutor in Hebrew and Old Testament History at Mansfield College, Oxford.		 Ghazālī.
H. B. Hilary Bauermann, F.G.S. (d. 1909).
Formerly Lecturer on Metallurgy at the Ordnance College, Woolwich. Author of A Treatise on the Metallurgy of Iron.

Fuel: Solid.
H. B. W. Horace Bolingbroke Woodward, F.R.S., F.G.S.
Late Assistant Director, Geological Survey of England and Wales. Wollaston Medallist, Geological Society. Author of The History of the Geological Society of London; &c.		 Gaudry.
H. Ch. Hugh Chisholm, M.A.
Formerly Scholar of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. Editor of the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica; Co-editor of the 10th edition.

Gambetta;

Garnett, Richard;

George IV. (in part).
H. C. L. Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge.
See the biographical article, Lodge, Henry Cabot.		 Gallatin.
H. F. Ba. Henry Frederick Baker, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S.
Fellow and Lecturer of St John’s College, Cambridge. Cayley Lecturer in Mathematics in the University. Author of Abel’s Theorem and the Allied Theory; &c.

Function: Functions of Complex Variables.
H. L. C. Hugh Longbourne Callendar, F.R.S., LL.D.
Professor of Physics, Royal College of Science, London. Formerly Professor of Physics in MacGill College, Montreal, and in University College, London.		 Fusion.
H. M.* Hugh Mitchell.
Barrister-at-Law, Inner Temple.

Gibraltar (in part).
H. M. W. H. Marshall Ward, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (d. 1905).
Formerly Professor of Botany, Cambridge. President of the British Mycological Society. Author of Timber and Some of its Diseases; The Oak; Sach’s Lectures on the Physiology of Plants; Diseases in Plants; &c.

Fungi (in part).
H. N. Henry Nicol.

French Language (in part).
H. R. M. Hugh Robert Mill, D.Sc., LL.D.
Director of British Rainfall Organization. Editor of British Rainfall. Formerly President of the Royal Meteorological Society. Hon. Member of Vienna Geographical Society. Hon. Corresponding Member of Geographical Societies of Paris, Berlin, Budapest, St Petersburg, Amsterdam, &c. Author of The Realm of Nature; The International Geography; &c.		 Geography.
H. W. C. D. Henry William Carless Davis, M.A.
Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College, Oxford. Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, 1895-1902. Author of England under the Normans and Angevins; Charlemagne.

Geoffrey, Archbishop of York;

Geoffrey of Monmouth;

Gerard;

Gervase of Canterbury;

Gervase of Tilbury.
H. W. S. H. Wickham Steed.
Correspondent of The Times at Rome (1897-1902) and Vienna.		 Garibaldi.
I. A. Israel Abrahams, M.A.
Reader in Talmudic and Rabbinic Literature in the University of Cambridge. Formerly President, Jewish Historical Society of England. Author of A Short History of Jewish Literature; Jewish Life in the Middle Ages; Judaism; &c.

Frank, Jakob;

Frankel, Zecharias;

Frankl, Ludwig A.;

Friedmann, Meir;

Gaon; Geiger (in part);

Gersonides.
J. A. F. John Ambrose Fleming, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S.
Pender Professor of Electrical Engineering in the University of London. Fellow of University College, London. Formerly Fellow of St John’s College, Cambridge, and Lecturer on Applied Mechanics in the University. Author of Magnets and Electric Currents.		 Galvanometer.
J. A. H. John Allen Howe, B.Sc.
Curator and Librarian of the Museum of Practical Geology, London. Author of The Geology of Building Stones.

Fuller’s Earth.
J. B. B. John Bagnall Bury, LL.D., D.C.L.
See the biographical article, Bury, J. B.

Gibbon, Edward.
J. B. McM. John Bach McMaster, LL.D.
Professor of American History in the University of Pennsylvania. Author of A History of the People of the United States; &c.

Garfield, James Abram.
J. Ga. James Gairdner, LL.D., C.B.
See the biographical article, Gairdner, J.

Gardiner, Stephen.
J. G. C. A. John George Clark Anderson, M.A.
Censor and Tutor of Christ Church, Oxford. Formerly Fellow of Lincoln College; Craven Fellow, Oxford, 1896. Conington Prizeman, 1893.		 Galatia.
J. G. R. John George Robertson, M.A., Ph.D.
Professor of German, University of London. Author of History of German Literature; Schiller after a Century; &c.

Freiligrath;

German Literature.
J. Hn. Justus Hashagen, Ph.D.
Privat-dozent in Medieval and Modern History, University of Bonn. Author of Das Rheinland und die franzÖsische Herrschaft.

Frederick Augustus I. and II.;

Frederick William I.
J. H. Gr. John Hilton Grace, M.A., F.R.S.
Lecturer in Mathematics at Peterhouse and Pembroke College, Cambridge. Fellow of Peterhouse.

Geometry, V.
J. H. H. John Henry Hessels, M.A.
Author of Gutenberg: an Historical Investigation.		 Fust.
J. H. R. John Horace Round, M.A., LL.D. (Edin.).
Author of Feudal England; Studies in Peerage and Family History; Peerage and Pedigree; &c.

Geoffrey De Montbray.
J. Hl. R. John Holland Rose, M.A., Litt.D.
Christ’s College, Cambridge. Lecturer on Modern History to the Cambridge University Local Lectures Syndicate. Author of Life of Napoleon I.; Napoleonic Studies; The Development of the European Nations; The Life of Pitt; &c.		 Gardane.
J. Mt. James Moffatt, M.A., D.D.
Jowett Lecturer, London, 1907. Author of Historical New Testament; &c.

Galatians, Epistle to the.
J. P.-B. James George Joseph Penderel-Brodhurst.
Editor of the Guardian (London).		 Furniture.
J. Si. James Sime, M.A. (1843-1895).
Author of A History of Germany; &c.

Frederick the Great (in part).
J. S. Bl. John Sutherland Black, M.A., LL.D.
Assistant Editor 9th edition Encyclopaedia Britannica. Joint-editor of the Encyclopaedia Biblica.

Free Church of Scotland (in part).
J. S. F. John Smith Flett, D.Sc., F.G.S.
Petrographer to the Geological Survey. Formerly Lecturer on Petrology in Edinburgh University. Neill Medallist of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Bigsby Medallist of the Geological Society of London.

Fulgurite;

Gabbro.
J. T. Be. John T. Bealby.
Joint-author of Stanford’s Europe. Formerly Editor of the Scottish Geographical Magazine. Translator of Sven Hedin’s Through Asia, Central Asia and Tibet; &c.

Georgia (Russia), (in part).
J. T. C. Joseph Thomas Cunningham, M.A., F.Z.S.
Lecturer on Zoology at the South-Western Polytechnic, London. Formerly Fellow of University College, Oxford. Assistant Professor of Natural History in the University of Edinburgh. Naturalist to the Marine Biological Association.		 Gastropoda.
J. V. B. James Vernon Bartlet, M.A., D.D. (St. Andrews).
Professor of Church History, Mansfield College, Oxford. Author of The Apostolic Age; &c.		 Frommel.
J. Ws. John Weathers, F.R.H.S.
Lecturer on Horticulture to the Middlesex County Council. Author of Practical Guide to Garden Plants; French Market Gardening; &c.

Fruit and Flower Farming (in part).
J. W. He. James Wycliffe Headlam, M.A.
Staff Inspector of Secondary Schools under the Board of Education. Formerly Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge. Professor of Greek and Ancient History at Queen’s College, London. Author of Bismarck and the Foundation of the German Empire; &c.

Frederick III. of Prussia;

Germany: History (in part).
K. S. Kathleen Schlesinger.
Author of The Instruments of the Orchestra; &c. Editor of the Portfolio of Musical Archaeology.

Free Reed Vibrator;

Geige.
L. D. Louis Duchesne.
See the biographical article, Duchesne, L. M. O.

Gelasius I.
L. H.* Louis Halphen, D.-Ès.-L.
Principal of the course of the Faculty of Letters in the University of Bordeaux. Author of Le ComtÉ d’Anjou au XIe siÈcle; Recueil des actes angevines; &c.

Fulk Nerra;

Geoffrey, Count of Anjou;

Geoffrey Plantaganet.
L. J. S. Leonard James Spencer, M.A.
Assistant in Department of Mineralogy, British Museum. Formerly Scholar of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, and Harkness Scholar. Editor of the Mineralogical Magazine.		 Galena.
L. V. Linda Mary Villari.
See the biographical article, Villari, Pasquale.

Frederick III. King of Sicily.
M. G. Moses Gaster, Ph.D.
Chief Rabbi of the Sephardic communities of England. Vice-President, Zionist Congress, 1898, 1899, 1900. Ilchester Lecturer at Oxford on Slavonic and Byzantine Literature, 1886 and 1891. President, Folk-lore Society of England. Vice-President, Anglo-Jewish Association. Author of History of Rumanian Popular Literature; A New Hebrew Fragment of Ben-Sira; The Hebrew Version of the Secretum Secretorum of Aristotle.		 Ghica.
M. N. T. Marcus Niebuhr Tod, M.A.
Fellow and Tutor of Oriel College, Oxford. University Lecturer in Epigraphy. Joint-author of Catalogue of the Sparta Museum.		 Gerousia.
O. Ba. Oswald Barron, F.S.A.
Editor of The Ancestor, 1902-1905. Hon. Genealogist to Standing Council of the Honourable Society of the Baronetage.

Genealogy: Modern.
O. H. Olaus Magnus Friedrich Henrici, Ph.D., LL.D., F.R.S.
Professor of Mechanics and Mathematics in the Central Technical College of the City and Guilds of London Institute. Author of Vectors and Rotors; Congruent Figures; &c.

Geometry, I., II., and III.
P. A. Paul Daniel AlphandÉry.
Professor of the History of Dogma, École pratique des hautes Études, Sorbonne, Paris. Author of Les IdÉes morales chez les hÉtÉrodoxes latines au dÉbut du XIIIe siÈcle.		 Fraticelli.
P. A. A. Philip A. Ashworth, M.A., Doc.Juris.
New College, Oxford. Barrister-at-Law. Translator of H. R. von Gneist’s History of the English Constitution.

Germany: Geography.
P. Gi. Peter Giles, M.A., LL.D., Litt.D.
Fellow and Classical Lecturer of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and University Reader in Comparative Philology. Formerly Secretary of the Cambridge Philological Society. Author of Manual of Comparative Philology; &c.		 G.
P. La. Philip Lake, M.A., F.G.S.
Lecturer on Physical and Regional Geography in Cambridge University. Formerly of the Geological Survey of India. Author of Monograph of British Cambrian Trilobites. Translator and editor of Kayser’s Comparative Geology.

Germany: Geology.
P. M. Paul Meyer.
See the biographical article, Meyer, M. P. H.

French Language (in part).
R. Ad. Robert Adamson, LL.D.
See the biographical article. Adamson, Robert.

Gassendi (in part).
R. A. S. M. Robert Alexander Stewart Macalister, M.A., F.S.A.
St John’s College, Cambridge. Director of Excavations for the Palestine Exploration Fund.

Gadara; Galilee (in part);

Galilee, Sea of (in part);

Gerasa; Gerizim;

Gezer; Gibeon.
R. Ca. Robert Carruthers, LL.D. (1799-1878).
Editor of the Inverness Courier, 1828-1878. Part-editor of Chambers’s Cyclopaedia of English Literature; Lecturer at the Philosophical Institution, Edinburgh. Author of History of Huntingdon; Life of Pope.

Garrick, David (in part).
R. H. Q. Rev. Robert Hebert Quick, M.A., (1831-1891).
Formerly Lecturer on Education, University of Cambridge. Author of Essays on Educational Reformers.		 Froebel.
R. L.* Richard Lydekker, F.R.S., F.Z.S., F.G.S.
Member of the Staff of the Geological Survey of India, 1874-1882. Author of Catalogues of Fossil Mammals, Reptiles and Birds in British Museum; The Deer of all Lands; &c.

Galago; Galeopithecus;

Ganodonta; Gelada;

Gibbon.
R. N. B. Robert Nisbet Bain (d. 1909).
Assistant Librarian, British Museum, 1883-1909. Author of Scandinavia, the Political History of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, 1513-1900; The First Romanovs, 1613 to 1725; Slavonic Europe, the Political History of Poland and Russia from 1469 to 1796; &c.

Frederick II. and III. of Denmark and Norway.

Gedymin.
R. Pr. Robert Priebsch, Ph.D.
Professor of German Philology, University of London. Author of Deutsche Handschriften in England; &c.

German Language.
R. P. S. R. PhenÉ Spiers, F.S.A., F.R.I.B.A.
Formerly Master of the Architectural School, Royal Academy, London. Past President of Architectural Association. Associate and Fellow of King’s College, London. Corresponding Member of the Institute of France. Editor of Fergusson’s History of Architecture. Author of Architecture: East and West; &c.		 Garnier, J.
R. We. Richard Webster, M.A. (Princeton).
Formerly Fellow in Classics, Princeton University. Editor of The Elegies of Maximianus; &c.

Franklin, Benjamin.
S. A. C. Stanley Arthur Cook, M.A.
Editor for Palestine Exploration Fund. Lecturer in Hebrew and Syriac, and formerly Fellow, Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. Examiner in Hebrew and Aramaic, London University, 1904-1908. Council of Royal Asiatic Society, 1904-1905. Author of Glossary of Aramaic Inscriptions; The Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi; Critical Notes on Old Testament History; Religion of Ancient Palestine, &c.

Genealogy: Biblical;

Genesis.
St. C. Viscount St Cyres.
See the biographical article, Iddesleigh, 1st Earl of.		 Gallicanism.
S. R. G. Samuel Rawson Gardiner, LL.D., D.C.L.
See the biographical article, Gardiner, S. R.

George I., II., III.;

George IV. (in part).
T. As. Thomas Ashby, M.A., D.Litt. (Oxon.).
Director of British School of Archaeology at Rome. Formerly Scholar at Christ Church, Oxford. Craven Fellow, 1897, Conington Prizeman, 1906. Member of the Imperial German Archaeological Institute.

Frascati Fregellae;

Frascati; Fregellae;

Fucino, Lago Di; Fulginiae;

Fusaro, Lago; Gabii;

Gaeta; Gallipoli (Italy);

Gela; Genoa.
T. Ba. Sir Thomas Barclay, M.P.
Member of the Institute of International Law. Member of the Supreme Council of the Congo Free State. Officer of the Legion of Honour. Author of Problems of International Practice and Diplomacy; &c. M.P. for Blackburn, 1910.

Geneva Convention.
T. C. H. Thomas Callan Hodson.
Registrar, East London College, University of London. Late Indian Civil Service. Author of The Metheis; &c.		 Genna.
T. E. H. Thomas Erskine Holland, K.C., D.C.L., LL.D.
Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. Professor of International Law and Diplomacy in the University of Oxford, 1874-1910. Fellow of the British Academy. Bencher of Lincoln’s Inn. Author of Studies in International Law; The Elements of Jurisprudence; Alberici Gentilis de jure belli; The Laws of War on Land; Neutral Duties in a Maritime War; &c.		 Gentili.
T. G. S. Thomas Gaskell Shearman (d. 1900).
Author of The Single Tax; Natural Taxation; Distribution of Wealth; &c.		 George, Henry.
T. H. H.* Colonel Sir Thomas Hungerford Holdich, K.C.M.G., K.C.I.E., D.Sc.
Superintendent Frontier Surveys, India, 1892-1898. Gold Medallist, R.G.S. (London), 1887. Author of The Indian Borderland; The Countries of the King’s Award; India; Tibet; &c.		 Ganges.
T. M. L. Rev. Thomas Martin Lindsay, D.D.
Principal and Professor of Church History, United Free Church College, Glasgow. Author of Life of Luther; &c.

Gerson (in part).
V. B. L. Vivian Byam Lewes, F.I.C., F.C.S.
Professor of Chemistry, Royal Naval College, Greenwich. Chief Superintending Gas Examiner to City of London.

Gas: Manufacture, I.
V. H. B. Vernon Herbert Blackman, M.A., D.Sc.
Professor of Botany in the University of Leeds. Formerly Fellow of St John’s College, Cambridge.

Fungi (in part).
W. A. B. C. Rev. William Augustus Brevoort Coolidge, M.A., F.R.G.S., Ph.D. (Bern).
Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. Professor of English History, St David’s College, Lampeter, 1880-1881. Author of Guide du Haut DauphinÉ; The Range of the TÖdi; Guide to Grindelwald; Guide to Switzerland; The Alps in Nature and in History; &c. Editor of The Alpine Journal, 1880-1881; &c.

Frauenfeld; Frejus;

Fribourg;

Gap; Garda, Lake of;

Gemmi Pass; Geneva;

Geneva, Lake of.
W. A. P. Walter Alison Phillips, M.A.
Formerly Exhibitioner of Merton College and Senior Scholar of St John’s College, Oxford. Author of Modern Europe; &c.

Frederick II. of Prussia (in part);

Gentleman;

Gentz, Friedrich;

Germany: History (in part).
W. Ba. William Bacher, Ph.D.
Professor of Biblical Science at the Rabbinical Seminary, Budapest.		 Gamaliel.
W. Be. Sir Walter Besant.
See the biographical article, Besant, Sir W.		 Froissart.
W. C. Sir William Crookes, F.R.S.
See the biographical article, Crookes, Sir William.

Gem, Artificial.
W. Cu. The Ven. William Cunningham, M.A., D.D.
Archdeacon of Ely. Birkbeck Lecturer in Ecclesiastical History, Trinity College, Cambridge. Fellow of the British Academy. Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Author of Growth of English Industry and Commerce; &c.

Free Trade.
W. E. D. William Ernest Dalby, M.A., M.Inst.C.E., M.I.M.E.
Professor of Civil and Mechanical Engineering at the City and Guilds of London Institute Central Technical College, South Kensington. Formerly University Demonstrator in the Engineering Department of Cambridge University. Author of The Balancing of Engines; Valves and Valve Gear Mechanism; &c.

Friction (in part).
W. Fr. William Fream, LL.D. (d. 1906).
Formerly Lecturer on Agricultural Entomology, University of Edinburgh, and Agricultural Correspondent of The Times.

Fruit and Flower Farming (in part).
W. F. C. William Feilden Craies, M.A.
Barrister-at-Law, Inner Temple. Lecturer on Criminal Law, King’s College, London. Editor of Archbold’s Criminal Pleading (23rd edition).

Game Laws;

Gaming and Wagering.
W. Hu. Rev. William Hunt, M.A., Litt.D.
President of the Royal Historical Society 1905-1909. Author of History of English Church, 597-1066; The Church of England in the Middle Ages; Political History of England, 1760-1801; &c.

Freeman, Edward A.;

Froude;

Gardiner, Samuel Rawson.
W. J. H.* William James Hughan.
Past S.G.D. of the Grand Lodge of England. Author of Origin of the English Rite of Freemasonry.		 Freemasonry.
W. L. F. Walter Lynwood Fleming, M.A., Ph.D.
Professor of History in Louisiana State University. Author of Documentary History of Reconstruction; &c.

Freedmen’s Bureau.
W. L. G. William Lawson Grant, M.A.
Professor of Colonial History, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada. Formerly Beit Lecturer in Colonial History, Oxford University. Editor of Acts of the Privy Council (Canadian Series).

Gait, Sir Alexander T.
W. M. R. William Michael Rossetti.
See the biographical article, Rossetti, Dante G.

Fuseli; Gaddi;

Gainsborough;

Ghirlandajo, Domenico;

Ghirlandajo, Ridolfo.
W. R. B.* William Raimond Baird, LL.D.
Author of Manual of American College Fraternities; &c. Editor of The Beta Theta Pi.

Fraternities, College.
W. S. P. Walter Sutherland Parker.
Deputy Chairman, Fur Section, London Chamber of Commerce.		 Fur.

1 A complete list, showing all individual contributors, appears in the final volume.

 
 

PRINCIPAL UNSIGNED ARTICLES

Franz Josef Land.

Free Church Federation.

French Guinea.

French West Africa.

Friedland.

Frisian Islands.

Frisians.

Fronde, The.

Fuero.

Furnace.

Galapagos Islands.

Galicia.

Galway.

Gambia.

Gawain.

Gelatin.

Genius.

Gentian.

Gentianaceae.

George, Saint.

George Junior Republic.

Georgia (U.S.A.).

Geraniaceae.

Geranium.

German Baptist Brethren.

German Catholics.

Gettysburg.

Geyser.

Ghazni.

Ghent.

Ghor.

Giant.
 
 

FRANCISCANS (otherwise called Friars Minor, or Minorites; also the Seraphic Order; and in England Grey Friars, from the colour of the habit, which, however, is now brown rather than grey), a religious order founded by St Francis of Assisi (q.v.). It was in 1206 that St Francis left his father’s house and devoted himself to a life of poverty and to the service of the poor, the sick and the lepers; and in 1209 that he felt the call to add preaching to his other ministrations, and to lead a life in the closest imitation of Christ’s life. Within a few weeks disciples began to join themselves to him; the condition was that they should dispose of all their possessions. When their number was twelve Francis led the little flock to Rome to obtain the pope’s sanction for their undertaking. Innocent III. received them kindly, but with some misgivings as to the feasibility of the proposed manner of life; these difficulties were overcome, and the pope accorded a provisional approval by word of mouth: they were to become clerics and to elect a superior. Francis was elected and made a promise of obedience to the pope, and the others promised obedience to Francis.

This formal inauguration of the institute was in 1209 or (as seems more probable) 1210. Francis and his associates were first known as “Penitents of Assisi,” and then Francis chose the title of “Minors.” On their return to Assisi they obtained from the Benedictine abbey on Mount Subasio the use of the little chapel of St Mary of the Angels, called the Portiuncula, in the plain below Assisi, which became the cradle and headquarters of the order. Around the Portiuncula they built themselves huts of branches and twigs, but they had no fixed abode; they wandered in pairs over the country, dressed in the ordinary clothes of the peasants, working in the fields to earn their daily bread, sleeping in barns or in the hedgerows or in the porches of the churches, mixing with the labourers and the poor, with the lepers and the outcasts, ever joyous—the “joculatores” or “jongleurs” of God—ever carrying out their mission of preaching to the lowly and to the wretched religion and repentance and the kingdom of God. The key-note of the movement was the imitation of the public life of Christ, especially the poverty of Christ. Francis and his disciples were to aim at possessing nothing, absolutely nothing, so far as was compatible with life; they were to earn their bread from day to day by the work of their hands, and only when they could not do so were they to beg; they were to make no provision for the morrow, lay by no store, accumulate no capital, possess no land; their clothes should be the poorest and their dwellings the meanest; they were forbidden to receive or to handle money. On the other hand they were bound only to the fast observed in those days by pious Christians, and were allowed to eat meat—the rule said they should eat whatever was set before them; no austerities were imposed, beyond those inseparable from the manner of life they lived.

Thus the institute in its original conception was quite different from the monastic institute, Benedictine or Canon Regular. It was a confraternity rather than an order, and there was no formal novitiate, no organization. But the number of brothers increased with extraordinary rapidity, and the field of work soon extended itself beyond the neighbourhood of Assisi and even beyond Umbria—within three or four years there were settlements in Perugia, Cortona, Pisa, Florence and elsewhere, and missions to the Saracens and Moors were attempted by Francis himself. About 1217 Franciscan missions set out for Germany, France, Spain, Hungary and the Holy Land; and in 1219 a number of provinces were formed, each governed by a provincial minister. These developments, whereby the little band of Umbrian apostles had grown into an institute spread all over Europe and even penetrating to the East, and numbering thousands of members, rendered impossible the continuance of the original free organization whereby Francis’s word and example were the sufficient practical rule of life for all: it was necessary as a condition of efficiency and even of existence and permanence that some kind of organization should be provided. From an early date yearly meetings or chapters had been held at the Portiuncula, at first attended by the whole body of friars; but as the institute extended this became unworkable, and after 1219 the chapter consisted only of the officials, provincial ministers and others. During Francis’s absence in the East (1219-1220) a deliberate movement was initiated by the two vicars whom he had left in charge of the order, towards assimilating it to the monastic orders. Francis hurried back, bringing with him Elias of Cortona, the provincial minister of Syria, and immediately summoned an extraordinary general chapter (September 1220). Before it met he had an interview on the situation with Cardinal Hugolino of Ostia (afterwards Gregory IX.), the great friend and supporter of both Francis and Dominic, and he went to Honorius III. at Orvieto and begged that Hugolino should be appointed the official protector of the order. The request was granted, and a bull was issued formally approving the order of Friars Minor, and decreeing that before admission every one must pass a year’s novitiate, and that after profession it was not lawful to leave the order. By this bull the Friars Minor were constituted an order in the technical sense of the word. When the chapter assembled, Francis, no doubt from a genuine feeling that he was not able to govern a great world-wide order, practically abdicated the post of minister-general by appointing a vicar, and the policy of turning the Friars Minor into a great religious order was consistently pursued, especially by Elias, who a year later became Francis’s vicar.

St Francis’s attitude towards this change is of primary importance for the interpretation of Franciscan history. There can be little doubt that his affections never altered from his first love, and that he looked back regretfully on the “Umbrian idyll” that had passed away; on the other hand, there seems to be no reason for doubting that he saw that the methods of the early days were now no longer possible, and that he acquiesced in the inevitable. This seems to be Professor Goetz’s view, who holds that Sabatier’s picture of Francis’s agonized sadness at witnessing the destruction of his great creation going on under his eyes, has no counterpart in fact, and who rejects the view that the changes were forced on Francis against his better judgment by Hugolino and Elias (see “Note on Sources” at end of article Francis of Assisi; also Elias of Cortona); Goetz holds that the only conflict was the inevitable one between an unrealizable ideal and its practical working among average men. But there does seem to be evidence that Francis deplored tendencies towards a departure from the severe simplicity of life and from the strict observance of poverty which he considered the ground-idea of his institute. In the final redaction of his Rule made in 1223 and in his Testament, made after it, he again clearly asserts his mind on these subjects, especially on poverty; and in the Testament he forbids any glosses in the interpretation of the Rule, declaring that it is to be taken simply as it stands. Sabatier’s view as to the difference between the “First Rule” and that of 1223 is part of his general theory, and is, to say the least, a grave exaggeration. No doubt the First Rule, which is fully four times as long, gives a better picture of St Francis’s mind and character; the later Rule has been formed from the earlier by the elimination of the frequent scripture texts and the edificatory element; but the greater portion of it stood almost verbally in the earlier.

On Francis’s death in 1226 the government of the order rested in the hands of Elias until the chapter of 1227. At this chapter Elias was not elected minister-general; the building of the great basilica and monastery at Assisi was so manifest a violation of St Francis’s ideas and precepts that it produced a reaction, and John Parenti became St Francis’s first successor. He held fast to St Francis’s ideas, but was not a strong man. At the chapter of 1230 a discussion arose concerning the binding force of St Francis’s Testament, and the interpretation of certain portions of the Rule, especially concerning poverty, and it was determined to submit the questions to Pope Gregory IX., who had been St Francis’s friend and had helped in the final redaction of the Rule. He issued a bull, Quo elongati, which declared that as the Testament had not received the sanction of the general chapter it was not binding on the order, and also allowed trustees to hold and administer money for the order. John Parenti and those who wished to maintain St Francis’s institute intact were greatly disturbed by these relaxations; but a majority of the chapter of 1232, by a sort of coup d’etat, proclaimed Elias minister-general, and John retired, though in those days the office was for life. Under Elias the order entered on a period of extraordinary extension and prosperity: the number of friars in all parts of the world increased wonderfully, new provinces were formed, new missions to the heathen organized, the Franciscans entered the universities and vied with the Dominicans as teachers of theology and canon law, and as a body they became influential in church and state. With all this side of Elias’s policy the great bulk of the order sympathized; but his rule was despotic and tyrannical and his private life was lax—at least according to any Franciscan standard, for no charge of grave irregularity was ever brought against him. And so a widespread movement against his government arose, the backbone of which was the university element at Paris and Oxford, and at a dramatic scene in a chapter held in the presence of Gregory IX. Elias was deposed (1239).

The story of these first years after St Francis’s death is best told by Ed. Lempp, FrÈre Élie de Cortone (1901) (but see the warning at the end of the article Elias of Cortona).

At this time the Franciscans were divided into three parties: there were the Zealots, or Spirituals, who called for a literal observance of St Francis’s Rule and Testament; they deplored all the developments since 1219, and protested against turning the institute into an order, the frequentation of the universities and the pursuit of learning; in a word, they wished to restore the life to what it had been during the first few years—the hermitages and the huts of twigs, and the care of the lepers and the nomadic preaching. The Zealots were few in number but of great consequence from the fact that to them belonged most of the first disciples and the most intimate companions of St Francis. They had been grievously persecuted under Elias—Br. Leo and others had been scourged, several had been imprisoned, one while trying to escape was accidentally killed, and Br. Bernard, the “first disciple,” passed a year in hiding in the forests and mountains hunted like a wild beast. At the other extreme was a party of relaxation, that abandoned any serious effort to practise Franciscan poverty and simplicity of life. Between these two stood the great middle party of moderates, who desired indeed that the Franciscans should be really poor and simple in their manner of life, and really pious, but on the other hand approved of the development of the Order on the lines of other orders, of the acquisition of influence, of the cultivation of theology and other sciences, and of the frequenting of the universities.

The questions of principle at issue in these controversies is reasonably and clearly stated, from the modern Capuchin standpoint, in the “Introductory Essay” to The Friars and how they came to England, by Fr. Cuthbert (1903).

The moderate party was by far the largest, and embraced nearly all the friars of France, England and Germany. It was the Moderates and not the Zealots that brought about Elias’s deposition, and the next general ministers belonged to this party. Further relaxations of the law of poverty, however, caused a reaction, and John of Parma, one of the Zealots, became minister-general, 1247-1257. Under him the more extreme of the Zealots took up and exaggerated the theories of the Eternal Gospel of the Calabrian Cistercian abbot Joachim of Fiore (Floris); some of their writings were condemned as heretical, and John of Parma, who was implicated in these apocalyptic tendencies, had to resign. He was succeeded by St Bonaventura (1257-1274), one of the best type of the middle party. He was a man of high character, a theologian, a mystic, a holy man and a strong ruler. He set himself with determination to effect a working compromise, and proceeded with firmness against the extremists on both sides. But controversy and recrimination and persecution had stiffened the more ardent among the Zealots into obstinate fanatics—some of them threw themselves into a movement that may best be briefly described as a recrudescence of Montanism (see Émile Gebhart’s Italie mystique, 1899, cc. v. and vi.), and developed into a number of sects, some on the fringe of Catholic Christianity and others beyond its pale. But the majority of the Zealot party, or Spirituals, did not go so far, and adopted as the principle of Franciscan poverty the formula “a poor and scanty use” (usus pauper et tenuis) of earthly goods, as opposed to the “moderate use” advocated by the less strict party. The question thus posed came before the Council of Vienne, 1312, and was determined, on the whole, decidedly in favour of the stricter view. Some of the French Zealots were not satisfied and formed a semi-schismatical body in Provence; twenty-five of them were tried before the Inquisition, and four were burned alive at Marseilles as obstinate heretics, 1318. After this the schism in the Order subsided. But the disintegrating forces produced by the Great Schism and by the other disorders of the 14th century caused among the Franciscans the same relaxations and corruptions, and also the same reactions and reform movements, as among the other orders.

The chief of these reforms was that of the Observants, which began at Foligno about 1370. The Observant reform was on the basis of the “poor and scanty use” of worldly goods, but it was organized as an order and its members freely pursued theological studies; thus it did not represent the position of the original Zealot party, nor was it the continuation of it. The Observant reform spread widely throughout Italy and into France, Spain and Germany. The great promoters of the movement were St Bernardine of Siena and St John Capistran. The council of Constance, 1415, allowed the French Observant friaries to be ruled by a vicar of their own, under the minister-general, and the same privilege was soon accorded to other countries. By the end of the middle ages the Observants had some 1400 houses divided into 50 provinces. This movement produced a “half-reform” among the Conventuals or friars of the mitigated observance; it also called forth a number of lesser imitations or congregations of strict observance.

After many attempts had been made to bring about a working union among the many observances, in 1517 Leo X. divided the Franciscan order into two distinct and independent bodies, each with its own minister-general, its own provinces and provincials and its own general chapter: (1) The Conventuals, who were authorized to use the various papal dispensations in regard to the observance of poverty, and were allowed to possess property and fixed income, corporately, like the monastic orders; (2) The Observants, who were bound to as close an observance of St Francis’s Rule in regard to poverty and all else as was practically possible.

At this time a great number of the Conventuals went over to the Observants, who have ever since been by far the more numerous and influential branch of the order. Among the Observants in the course of the sixteenth century arose various reforms, each striving to approach more and more nearly to St Francis’s ideal; the chief of these reforms were the Alcantarines in Spain (St Peter of Alcantara, St Teresa’s friend, d. 1562), the Riformati in Italy and the Recollects in France: all of these were semi-independent congregations. The Capuchins (q.v.), established c. 1525, who claim to be the reform which approaches nearest in its conception to the original type, became a distinct order of Franciscans in 1619. Finally Leo XIII. grouped the Franciscans into three bodies or orders—the Conventuals; the Observants, embracing all branches of the strict observance, except the Capuchins; and the Capuchins—which together constitute the “First Order.” For the “Second Order,” or the nuns, see Clara, St, and Clares, Poor; and for the “Third Order” see Tertiaries. Many of the Tertiaries live a fully monastic life in community under the usual vows, and are formed into Congregations of Regular Tertiaries, both men and women. They have been and are still very numerous, and give themselves up to education, to the care of the sick and of orphans and to good works of all kinds.

No order has had so stormy an internal history as the Franciscans; yet in spite of all the troubles and dissensions and strivings that have marred Franciscan history, the Friars Minor of every kind have in each age faithfully and zealously carried on St Francis’s great work of ministering to the spiritual needs of the poor. Always recruited in large measure from among the poor, they have ever been the order of the poor, and in their preaching and missions and ministrations they have ever laid themselves out to meet the needs of the poor. Another great work of the Franciscans throughout the whole course of their history has been their missions to the Mahommedans, both in western Asia and in North Africa, and to the heathens in China, Japan and India, and North and South America; a great number of the friars were martyred. The news of the martyrdom of five of his friars in Morocco was one of the joys of St Francis’s closing years. Many of these missions exist to this day. In the Universities, too, the Franciscans made themselves felt alongside of the Dominicans, and created a rival school of theology, wherein, as contrasted with the Aristotelianism of the Dominican school, the Platonism of the early Christian doctors has been perpetuated.

The Franciscans came to England in 1224 and immediately made foundations in Canterbury, London and Oxford; by the middle of the century there were fifty friaries and over 1200 friars in England; at the Dissolution there were some 66 Franciscan friaries, whereof some six belonged to the Observants (for list see Catholic Dictionary and F. A. Gasquet’s English Monastic Life, 1904). Though nearly all the English houses belonged to what has been called the “middle party,” as a matter of fact they practised great poverty, and the commissioners of Henry VIII. often remark that the Franciscan Friary was the poorest of the religious houses of a town. The English province was one of the most remarkable in the order, especially in intellectual achievement; it produced Friar Roger Bacon, and, with the single exception of St Bonaventure, all the greatest doctors of the Franciscan theological school—Alexander Hales, Duns Scotus and Occam.

The Franciscans have always been the most numerous by far of the religious orders; it is estimated that about the period of the Reformation the Friars Minor must have numbered nearly 100,000. At the present day the statistics are roughly (including lay-brothers): Observants, 15,000, Conventuals, 1500; to these should be added 9500 Capuchins, making the total number of Franciscan friars about 26,000. There are various houses of Observants and Capuchins in England and Ireland; and the old Irish Conventuals survived the penal times and still exist.

There have been four Franciscan popes: Nicholas IV. (1288-1292), Sixtus IV. (1471-1484), Sixtus V. (1585-1590), Clement XIV. (1769-1774); the three last were Conventuals.

The great source for Franciscan history is Wadding’s Annales; it has been many times continued, and now extends in 25 vols. fol. to the year 1622. The story is also told by Helyot, Hist. des ordres religieux (1714), vol. vii. Abridgments, with references to recent literature, will be found in Max Heimbucher, Orden und Kongregationen (1896), i. §§ 37-51; in Wetzer und Welte, Kirchenlexicon (2nd ed.), articles “Armut (III.),” “Franciscaner orden” (this article contains the best account of the inner history and the polity of the order up to 1886); in Herzog, RealencyklopÄdie (3rd ed.), articles “Franz von Assisi” (fullest references to literature up to 1899), “Fraticellen.” Of modern critical studies on Franciscan origins, K. MÜller’s AnfÄnge des Minoritenordens und der Bussbruderschaften (1885), and various articles by F. Ehrle in Archiv fÜr Litteratur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters and Zeitschrift fÜr Katholische Theologie, deserve special mention. Eccleston’s charming chronicle of “The Coming of the Friars Minor into England” has been translated into English by the Capuchin Fr. Cuthbert, who has prefixed an Introductory Essay giving by far the best account in English of “the Spirit and Genius of the Franciscan Friars” (The Friars and how they came to England, 1903). Fuller information on the English Franciscans will be found in A. G. Little’s Grey Friars in Oxford (Oxford Hist. Soc., 1892).

(E. C. B.)

FRANCK. The name of Franck has been given indiscriminately but improperly to painters of the school of Antwerp who belong to the families of Francken (q.v.) and Vrancx (q.v.). One artist truly entitled to be called Franck is Gabriel, who entered the gild of Antwerp in 1605, became its president in 1636 and died in 1639. But his works cannot now be traced.

FRANCK, CÉSAR (1822-1890), French musical composer, a Belgian by birth, who came of German stock, was born at LiÉge on the 10th of December 1822. Though one of the most remarkable of modern composers, CÉsar Franck laboured for many years in comparative obscurity. After some preliminary studies at LiÉge he came to Paris in 1837 and entered the conservatoire. He at once obtained the first prize for piano, transposing a fugue at sight to the astonishment of the professors, for he was only fifteen. He won the prize for the organ in 1841, after which he settled down in the French capital as teacher of the piano. His earliest compositions date from this period, and include four trios for piano and strings, besides several piano pieces. Ruth, a biblical cantata was produced with success at the Conservatoire in 1846. An opera entitled Le Valet de ferme was written about this time, but has never been performed. For many years Franck led a retired life, devoting himself to teaching and to his duties as organist, first at Saint-Jean-Saint-FranÇois, then at Ste Clotilde, where he acquired a great reputation as an improviser. He also wrote a mass, heard in 1861, and a quantity of motets, organ pieces and other works of a religious character.

Franck was appointed professor of the organ at the Paris conservatoire, in succession to Benoist, his old master, in 1872, and the following year he was naturalized a Frenchman. Until then he was esteemed as a clever and conscientious musician, but he was now about to prove his title to something more. A revival of his early oratorio, Ruth, had brought his name again before the public, and this was followed by the production of RÉdemption, a work for solo, chorus and orchestra, given under the direction of M. Colonne on the 10th of April 1873. The unconventionality of the music rather disconcerted the general public, but the work nevertheless made its mark, and Franck became the central figure of an enthusiastic circle of pupils and adherents whose devotion atoned for the comparative indifference of the masses. His creative power now manifested itself in a series of works of varied kinds, and the name of Franck began gradually to emerge from its obscurity. The following is an enumeration of his subsequent compositions: Rebecca (1881), a biblical idyll for solo, chorus and orchestra; Les BÉatitudes, an oratorio composed between 1870 and 1880, perhaps his greatest work; the symphonic poems, Les Éolides (1876), Le Chasseur maudit (1883), Les Djinns (1884), for piano and orchestra; Psyche (1888), for orchestra and chorus; symphonic variations for piano and orchestra (1885); symphony in D (1889); quintet for piano and strings (1880); sonata for piano and violin (1886); string quartet (1889); prelude, choral and fugue for piano (1884); prelude, aria and finale for piano (1889); various songs, notably “La Procession” and “Les Cloches du Soir.” Franck also composed two four-act operas, Hulda and Ghiselle, both of which were produced at Monte Carlo after his death, which took place in Paris on the 8th of November 1890. The second of these was left by the master in an unfinished state, and the instrumentation was completed by several of his pupils.

CÉsar Franck’s influence on younger French composers has been very great. Yet his music is German in character rather than French. A more sincere, modest, self-respecting composer probably never existed. In the centre of the brilliant French capital he was able to lead a laborious existence consecrated to his threefold career of organist, teacher and composer. He never sought to gain the suffrages of the public by unworthy concessions, but kept straight on his path, ever mindful of an ideal to be reached and never swerving therefrom. A statue was erected to the memory of CÉsar Franck in Paris on the 22nd of October 1904, the occasion producing a panegyric from Alfred Bruneau, in which he speaks of the composer’s works as “cathedrals in sound.”

FRANCK, or Frank [latinized Francus], SEBASTIAN (c. 1499-c. 1543), German freethinker, was born about 1499 at DonauwÖrth, whence he constantly styled himself Franck von WÖrd. He entered the university of Ingoldstadt (March 26, 1515), and proceeded thence to the Dominican College, incorporated with the university, at Heidelberg. Here he met his subsequent antagonists, Bucer and Frecht, with whom he seems to have attended the Augsburg conference (October 1518) at which Luther declared himself a true son of the Church. He afterwards reckoned the Leipzig disputation (June-July 1519) and the burning of the papal bull (December 1520) as the beginning of the Reformation. Having taken priest’s orders, he held in 1524 a cure in the neighbourhood of Augsburg, but soon (1525) went over to the Reformed party at Nuremberg and became preacher at Gustenfelden. His first work (finished September 1527) was a German translation with additions (1528) of the first part of the Diallage, or Conciliatio locorum Scripturae, directed against Sacramentarians and Anabaptists by Andrew Althamer, then deacon of St Sebald’s at Nuremberg. On the 17th of March 1528 he married Ottilie Beham, a gifted lady, whose brothers, pupils of Albrecht DÜrer, had got into trouble through Anabaptist leanings. In the same year he wrote a very popular treatise against drunkenness. In 1529 he produced a free version (Klagbrief der armen DÜrftigen in England) of the famous Supplycacyon of the Beggers, written abroad (1528?) by Simon Fish. Franck, in his preface, says the original was in English; elsewhere he says it was in Latin; the theory that his German was really the original is unwarrantable. Advance in his religious ideas led him to seek the freer atmosphere of Strassburg in the autumn of 1529. To his translation (1530) of a Latin Chronicle and Description of Turkey, by a Transylvanian captive, which had been prefaced by Luther, he added an appendix holding up the Turks as in many respects an example to Christians, and presenting, in lieu of the restrictions of Lutheran, Zwinglian and Anabaptist sects, the vision of an invisible spiritual church, universal in its scope. To this ideal he remained faithful. At Strassburg began his intimacy with Caspar Schwenkfeld, a congenial spirit. Here, too, he published, in 1531, his most important work, the Chronica, Zeitbuch und Geschichtsbibel, largely a compilation on the basis of the Nuremberg Chronicle (1493), and in its treatment of social and religious questions connected with the Reformation, exhibiting a strong sympathy with heretics, and an unexampled fairness to all kinds of freedom in opinion. It is too much to call him “the first of German historians”; he is a forerunner of Gottfried Arnold, with more vigour and directness of purpose. Driven from Strassburg by the authorities, after a short imprisonment in December 1531, he tried to make a living in 1532 as a soapboiler at Esslingen, removing in 1533 for a better market to Ulm, where (October 28, 1534) he was admitted as a burgess.

His Weltbuch, a supplement to his Chronica, was printed at TÜbingen in 1534; the publication, in the same year, of his Paradoxa at Ulm brought him into trouble with the authorities. An order for his banishment was withdrawn on his promise to submit future works for censure. Not interpreting this as applying to works printed outside Ulm, he published in 1538 at Augsburg his Guldin Arch (with pagan parallels to Christian sentiments) and at Frankfort his Germaniae chronicon, with the result that he had to leave Ulm in January 1539. He seems henceforth to have had no settled abode. At Basel he found work as a printer, and here, probably, it was that he died in the winter of 1542-1543. He had published in 1539 his KriegbÜchlein des Friedens (pseudonymous), his Schrifftliche und ganz grÜndliche Auslegung des 64 Psalms, and his Das verbÜtschierte mit sieben Siegeln verschlossene Buch (a biblical index, exhibiting the dissonance of Scripture); in 1541 his SpruchwÖrter (a collection of proverbs, several times reprinted with variations); in 1542 a new edition of his Paradoxa; and some smaller works.

Franck combined the humanist’s passion for freedom with the mystic’s devotion to the religion of the spirit. His breadth of human sympathy led him to positions which the comparative study of religions has made familiar, but for which his age was unprepared. Luther contemptuously dismissed him as a “devil’s mouth.” Pastor Frecht of Nuremberg pursued him with bitter zeal. But his courage did not fail him, and in his last year, in a public Latin letter, he exhorted his friend John Campanus to maintain freedom of thought in face of the charge of heresy.

See Hegler, in Hauck’s RealencyklopÄdie (1899); C. A. Hase, Sebastian Franck von WÖrd (1869); J. F. Smith, in Theological Review (April 1874); E. Tausch, Sebastian Franck von DonauwÖrth und seine Lehrer (1893).

(A. Go.*)

FRANCKE, AUGUST HERMANN (1663-1727), German Protestant divine, was born on the 22nd of March 1663 at LÜbeck. He was educated at the gymnasium in Gotha, and afterwards at the universities of Erfurt, Kiel, where he came under the influence of the pietist Christian Kortholt (1633-1694), and Leipzig. During his student career he made a special study of Hebrew and Greek; and in order to learn Hebrew more thoroughly, he for some time put himself under the instructions of Rabbi Ezra Edzardi at Hamburg. He graduated at Leipzig, where in 1685 he became a Privatdozent. A year later, by the help of his friend P. Anton, and with the approval and encouragement of P. J. Spener, he founded the Collegium Philobiblicum, at which a number of graduates were accustomed to meet for the systematic study of the Bible, philologically and practically. He next passed some months at LÜneburg as assistant or curate to the learned superintendent, C. H. Sandhagen (1639-1697), and there his religious life was remarkably quickened and deepened. On leaving LÜneburg he spent some time in Hamburg, where he became a teacher in a private school, and made the acquaintance of Nikolaus Lange (1659-1720). After a long visit to Spener, who was at that time a court preacher in Dresden, he returned to Leipzig in the spring of 1689, and began to give Bible lectures of an exegetical and practical kind, at the same time resuming the Collegium Philobiblicum of earlier days. He soon became popular as a lecturer; but the peculiarities of his teaching almost immediately aroused a violent opposition on the part of the university authorities; and before the end of the year he was interdicted from lecturing on the ground of his alleged pietism. Thus it was that Francke’s name first came to be publicly associated with that of Spener, and with pietism. Prohibited from lecturing in Leipzig, Francke in 1690 found work at Erfurt as “deacon” of one of the city churches. Here his evangelistic fervour attracted multitudes to his preaching, including Roman Catholics, but at the same time excited the anger of his opponents; and the result of their opposition was that after a ministry of fifteen months he was commanded by the civil authorities (27th of September 1691) to leave Erfurt within forty-eight hours. The same year witnessed the expulsion of Spener from Dresden.

In December, through Spener’s influence, Francke accepted an invitation to fill the chair of Greek and oriental languages in the new university of Halle, which was at that time being organized by the elector Frederick III. of Brandenburg; and at the same time, the chair having no salary attached to it, he was appointed pastor of Glaucha in the immediate neighbourhood of the town. He afterwards became professor of theology. Here, for the next thirty-six years, until his death on the 8th of June 1727, he continued to discharge the twofold office of pastor and professor with rare energy and success. At the very outset of his labours he had been profoundly impressed with a sense of his responsibility towards the numerous outcast children who were growing up around him in ignorance and crime. After a number of tentative plans, he resolved in 1695 to institute what is often called a “ragged school,” supported by public charity. A single room was at first sufficient, but within a year it was found necessary to purchase a house, to which another was added in 1697. In 1698 there were 100 orphans under his charge to be clothed and fed, besides 500 children who were taught as day scholars. The schools grew in importance and are still known as the Francke’sche Stiftungen. The education given was strictly religious. Hebrew was included, while the Greek and Latin classics were neglected; the Homilies of Macarius took the place of Thucydides. The same principle was consistently applied in his university teaching. Even as professor of Greek he had given great prominence in his lectures to the study of the Scriptures; but he found a much more congenial sphere when, in 1698, he was appointed to the chair of theology. Yet his first courses of lectures in that department were readings and expositions of the Old and New Testament; and to this, as also to hermeneutics, he always attached special importance, believing that for theology a sound exegesis was the one indispensable requisite. “Theologus nascitur in scripturis,” he used to say; but during his occupancy of the theological chair he lectured at various times upon other branches of theology also. Amongst his colleagues were Paul Anton (1661-1730), Joachim J. Breithaupt (1658-1732) and Joachim Lange (1670-1744),—men like-minded with himself. Through their influence upon the students, Halle became a centre from which pietism (q.v.) became very widely diffused over Germany.

His principal contributions to theological literature were: Manuductio ad lectionem Scripturae Sacrae (1693); Praelectiones hermeneuticae (1717); Commentatio de scopo librorum Veteris et Novi Testamenti (1724); and Lectiones paraeneticae (1726-1736). The Manuductio was translated into English in 1813, under the title A Guide to the Reading and Study of the Holy Scriptures. An account of his orphanage, entitled Segensvolle Fussstapfen, &c. (1709), which subsequently passed through several editions, has also been partially translated, under the title The Footsteps of Divine Providence: or, The bountiful Hand of Heaven defraying the Expenses of Faith. See H. E. F. Guericke’s A. H. Francke (1827), which has been translated into English (The Life of A. H. Francke, 1837); Gustave Kramer’s BeitrÄge zur Geschichte A. H. Francke’s (1861), and Neue BeitrÄge (1875); A. Stein, A. H. Francke (3rd ed., 1894); article in Herzog-Hauck’s RealencyklopÄdie (ed. 1899); Knuth, Die Francke’schen Stiftungen (2nd ed., 1903).

FRANCKEN. Eleven painters of this family cultivated their art in Antwerp during the 16th and 17th centuries. Several of these were related to each other, whilst many bore the same Christian name in succession. Hence unavoidable confusion in the subsequent classification of paintings not widely differing in style or execution. When Franz Francken the first found a rival in Franz Francken the second, he described himself as the “elder,” in contradistinction to his son, who signed himself the “younger.” But when Franz the second was threatened with competition from Franz the third, he took the name of “the elder,” whilst Franz the third adopted that of Franz “the younger.”

It is possible, though not by any means easy, to sift the works of these artists. The eldest of the Franckens, Nicholas of Herenthals, died at Antwerp in 1596, with nothing but the reputation of having been a painter. None of his works remain. He bequeathed his art to three children. Jerom Francken, the eldest son, after leaving his father’s house, studied under Franz Floris, whom he afterwards served as an assistant, and wandered, about 1560, to Paris. In 1566 he was one of the masters employed to decorate the palace of Fontainebleau, and in 1574 he obtained the appointment of court painter from Henry III., who had just returned from Poland and visited Titian at Venice. In 1603, when Van Mander wrote his biography of Flemish artists, Jerom Francken was still in Paris living in the then aristocratic Faubourg St Germain. Among his earliest works we should distinguish a “Nativity” in the Dresden museum, executed in co-operation with Franz Floris. Another of his important pieces is the “Abdication of Charles V.” in the Amsterdam museum. Equally interesting is a “Portrait of a Falconer,” dated 1558, in the Brunswick gallery. In style these pieces all recall Franz Floris. Franz, the second son of Nicholas of Herenthals, is to be kept in memory as Franz Francken the first. He was born about 1544, matriculated at Antwerp in 1567, and died there in 1616. He, too, studied under Floris, and never settled abroad, or lost the hard and gaudy style which he inherited from his master. Several of his pictures are in the museum of Antwerp; one dated 1597 in the Dresden museum represents “Christ on the Road to Golgotha,” and is signed by him as D. Õ (Den ouden) F. Franck. Ambrose, the third son of Nicholas of Herenthals, has bequeathed to us more specimens of his skill than Jerom or Franz the first. He first started as a partner with Jerom at Fontainebleau, then he returned to Antwerp, where he passed for his gild in 1573, and he lived at Antwerp till 1618. His best works are the “Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes” and the “Martyrdom of St Crispin,” both large and ambitious compositions in the Antwerp museum. In both these pieces a fair amount of power is displayed, but marred by want of atmosphere and shadow or by hardness of line and gaudiness of tone. There is not a trace in the three painters named of the influence of the revival which took place under the lead of Rubens. Franz Francken the first trained three sons to his profession, the eldest of whom, though he practised as a master of gild at Antwerp from 1600 to 1610, left no visible trace of his labours behind. Jerom the second took service with his uncle Ambrose. He was born in 1578, passed for his gild in 1607, and in 1620 produced that curious picture of “Horatius Cocles defending the Sublician Bridge” which still hangs in the Antwerp museum. The third son of Franz Francken the first is Franz Francken the second, who signed himself in pictures till 1616 “the younger,” from 1630 till his death “the elder” F. Francken. These pictures are usually of a small size, and are found in considerable numbers in continental collections. Franz Francken the second was born in 1581. In 1605 he entered the gild, of which he subsequently became the president, and in 1642 he died. His earliest composition is the “Crucifixion” in the Belvedere at Vienna, dated 1606. His latest compositions as “the younger” F. Francken are the “Adoration of the Virgin” (1616) in the gallery of Amsterdam, and the “Woman taken in Adultery” (1628) in Dresden. From 1616 to 1630 many of his pieces are signed F. Francken; then come the “Seven Works of Charity” (1630) at Munich, signed “the elder F. F.,” the “Prodigal Son” (1633) at the Louvre, and other almost countless examples. It is in F. Francken the second’s style that we first have evidence of the struggle which necessarily arose when the old customs, hardened by Van Orley and Floris, or Breughel and De Vos, were swept away by Rubens. But F. Francken the second, as before observed, always clung to small surfaces; and though he gained some of the freedom of the moderns, he lost but little of the dryness or gaudiness of the earlier Italo-Flemish revivalists. F. Francken the third, the last of his name who deserves to be recorded, passed in the Antwerp gild in 1639 and died at Antwerp in 1667. His practice was chiefly confined to adding figures to the architectural or landscape pieces of other artists. As Franz Pourbus sometimes put in the portrait figures for Franz Francken the second, so Franz Francken the third often introduced the necessary personages into the works of Pieter Neefs the younger (museums of St Petersburg, Dresden and the Hague). In a “Moses striking the Rock,” dated 1654, of the Augsburg gallery, this last of the Franckens signs D. Õ (Den ouden) F. Franck. In the pictures of this artist we most clearly discern the effects of Rubens’s example.

FRANCO-GERMAN WAR (1870-1871). The victories of Prussia in 1866 over the Austrians and their German allies (see Seven Weeks’ War) rendered it evident to the statesmen and soldiers of France that a struggle between the two nations could only be a question of time. Army reforms were at once undertaken, and measures were initiated in France to place the armament and equipment of the troops on a level with the requirements of the times. The chassepot, a new breech-loading rifle, immensely superior to the Prussian needle-gun, was issued; the artillery trains were thoroughly overhauled, and a new machine-gun, the mitrailleuse, from which much was expected, introduced. Wide schemes of reorganization (due mainly to Marshal Niel) were set in motion, and, since these required time to mature, recourse was had to foreign alliances in the hope of delaying the impending rupture. In the first week of June 1870, General Lebrun, as a confidential agent of the emperor Napoleon III., was sent to Vienna to concert a plan of joint operations with Austria against Prussia. Italy was also to be included in the alliance, and it was agreed that in case of hostilities the French armies should concentrate in northern Bavaria, where the Austrians and Italians were to join them, and the whole immense army thus formed should march via Jena on Berlin. To what extent Austria and Italy committed themselves to this scheme remains uncertain, but that the emperor Napoleon believed in their bona fides is beyond doubt.

Whether the plan was betrayed to Prussia is also uncertain, and almost immaterial, for Moltke’s plans were based on an accurate estimate of the time it would take Austria to mobilize and on the effect of a series of victories on French soil. At any rate Moltke was not taken into Bismarck’s confidence in the affair of Ems in July 1870, and it is to be presumed that the chancellor had already satisfied himself that the schemes of operations prepared by the chief of the General Staff fully provided against all eventualities. These schemes were founded on Clausewitz’s view of the objects to be pursued in a war against France—in the first place the defeat of the French field armies and in the second the occupation of Paris. On these lines plans for the strategic deployment of the Prussian army were prepared by the General Staff and kept up to date year by year as fresh circumstances (e.g. the co-operation of the minor German armies) arose and new means of communication came into existence. The campaign was actually opened on a revise of 1868-1869, to which was added, on the 6th of May 1870, a secret memorandum for the General Staff.

Under the German organization then existing the preliminary to all active operations was of necessity full and complete mobilization. Then followed transport by road and rail to the line selected for the “strategic deployment,” and it was essential that no part of these operations should be disturbed by action on the part of the enemy. But no such delay imposed itself of necessity upon the French, and a vigorous offensive was so much Strategic deployment of the German armies. in harmony with their traditions that the German plan had to be framed so as to meet such emergencies. On the whole, Moltke concluded that the enemy could not undertake this offensive before the eighth day after mobilization. At that date about five French army corps (150,000 men) could be collected near Metz, and two corps (70,000) near Strassburg; and as it was six days’ march from Metz to the Rhine, no serious attack could be delivered before the fourteenth day, by which day it could be met by superior forces near Kirchheimbolanden. Since, however, the transport of the bulk of the Prussian forces could not begin till the ninth day, their ultimate line of detrainment need not be fixed until the French plans were disclosed, and, as it was important to strike at the earliest moment possible, the deployment was provisionally fixed to be beyond the Rhine on the line Wittlich-Neunkirchen-Landau. Of the thirteen North German corps three had to be left behind to guard the eastern frontier and the coast, one other, the VIII., was practically on the ground already and could concentrate by road, and the remaining nine were distributed to the nine through railway lines available. These ten corps were grouped in three armies, and as the French might violate Belgian neutrality or endeavour to break into southern Germany, two corps (Prussian Guard and Saxon XII. corps) were temporarily held back at a central position around Mainz, whence they could move rapidly up or down the Rhine valley. If Belgian neutrality remained unmolested, the reserve would join the III. army on the left wing, giving it a two to one superiority over its adversary; all three armies would then wheel to the right and combine in an effort to force the French army into a decisive battle on the Saar on or about the twenty-third day. As in this wheel the army on the right formed the pivot and was required only to stand fast, two corps only were allotted to it; two corps for the present formed the III. army, and the remaining five were assigned to the II. army in the centre.

When (16th-17th July) the South German states decided to throw in their lot with the rest, their three corps were allotted to the III. army, the Guards and Saxons to the II. army, whilst the three corps originally left behind were finally distributed one to each army, so that up to the investment of Metz the order of battle was as follows:

Headquarters:
The king of Prussia (General v. Moltke, chief of staff).
I. Army:
General v. Steinmetz
(C. of S., v. Sperling)		 (I. corps, v. Manteuffel)
VII.   ” v. Zastrow
VIII.   ” v. Goeben
(1st) and 3rd cavalry divisions
    Total 85,000
II. Army:
Prince Frederick Charles
(C. of S., v. Stiehle)		 Guard Pr. August of WÜrttemberg
(II. corps, v. Fransecky)
III.   ”   v. Alvensleben II.
IV.   ”   v. Alvensleben I.
IX.   ”   v. Manstein
X.   ”   v. Voigts-Rhetz
XII.   ”   (Saxons) crown prince of Saxony
5th and 6th cavalry divisions
    Total 210,000
III. Army:
crown prince of Prussia
(C. of S., v. Blumenthal)		 V. corps, v. Kirchbach
(VI.)   ”   v. TÜmpling
XI.   ”   v. Bose
I. Bavarian, v. der Tann
II.   ”   v. Hartmann
WÜrttemberg div. v. Werder
Baden div.
(2nd) and 4th cavalry divisions
    Total 180,000
      ———
    Grand Total 475,000
(The units within brackets were those at first retained in Germany.)

On the French side no such plan of operations was in existence when on the night of the 15th of July Krieg mobil was telegraphed all over Prussia. An outline scheme had indeed been prepared as a basis for agreement with Austria and Positions of the French forces. Italy, but practically no details were fixed, and the troops were without transport and supplies. Nevertheless, since speed was the essence of the contract, the troops were hurried up without waiting for their reserves, and delivered, as Moltke had foreseen, just where the lie of the railways and convenience of temporary supply dictated, and the Prussian Intelligence Department was able to inform Moltke on the 22nd of July (seventh day of mobilization) that the French stood from right to left in the following order, on or near the frontier:

1st corps Marshal MacMahon, duke of Magenta, Strassburg
5th corps General de Failly, SaargemÜnd and Bitche
2nd corps General Frossard, St Avold
4th corps General de Ladmirault, Thionville
     With, behind them:
3rd corps Marshal Bazaine, Metz
Guard General Bourbaki, Nancy
6th corps Marshal Canrobert, ChÂlons
7th corps General FÉlix Douay, Belfort

If therefore they began a forward movement on the 23rd (eighth day) the case foreseen by Moltke had arisen, and it became necessary to detrain the II. army upon the Rhine. Without waiting for further confirmation of this intelligence, Moltke, with the consent of the king, altered the arrangements accordingly, a decision which, though foreseen, exercised the gravest influence on the course of events. As it happened this decision was premature, for the French could not yet move. Supply trains had to be organized by requisition from the inhabitants, and even arms and ammunition procured for such reserves as had succeeded in joining. Nevertheless, by almost superhuman exertions on the part of the railways and administrative services, all essential deficiencies were made good, and by the 28th of July (13th day) the troops had received all that was absolutely indispensable and might well have been led against the enemy, who, thanks to Moltke’s premature action, were for the moment at a very serious disadvantage. But the French generals were unequal to their responsibilities. It is now clear that, had the great Napoleon and his marshals been in command, they would have made light of the want of cooking pots, cholera belts, &c., and, by a series of rapid marches, would have concentrated odds of at least three to one upon the heads of the Prussian columns as they struggled through the defiles of the Hardt, and won a victory whose political results might well have proved decisive.

To meet this pressing danger, which came to his knowledge during the course of the 29th, Moltke sent a confidential staff officer, Colonel v. Verdy du Vernois, to the III. army to impress upon the crown prince the necessity of an immediate advance to distract the enemy’s attention from the I. and II. armies; but, like the French generals, the crown prince pleaded that he could not move until his trains were complete. Fortunately for the Germans, the French intelligence service not only failed to inform the staff of this extraordinary opportunity, but it allowed itself to be hypnotized by the most amazing rumours. In imagination they saw armies of 100,000 men behind every forest, and, to guard against these dangers, the French troops were marched and counter-marched along the frontiers in the vain hope of discovering an ideal defensive position which should afford full scope to the power of their new weapons.

As these delays were exerting a most unfavourable effect on public opinion not only in France but throughout Europe, the emperor decided on the 1st of August to initiate a movement towards the Saar, chiefly as a guarantee of good faith to the Austrians and Italians.

On this day the French corps held the following positions from right to left:

1st corps Hagenau
2nd corps Forbach
3rd corps St Avold
4th corps Bouzonville
5th corps Bitche
6th corps ChÂlons
7th corps Belfort and Colmar
Guard near Metz

The French 2nd corps was directed to advance on the following morning direct on SaarbrÜcken, supported on the flanks by two divisions from the 5th and 3rd corps. The order was duly carried out, and the Prussians (one battalion, two squadrons and a Action of SaarbrÜcken. battery), seeing the overwhelming numbers opposed to them, fell back fighting and vanished to the northward, having given a very excellent example of steadiness and discipline to their enemy.1 The latter contented themselves by occupying SaarbrÜcken and its suburb St Johann, and here, as far as the troops were concerned, the incident closed. Its effect, however, proved far-reaching. The Prussian staff could not conceive that nothing lay behind this display of five whole divisions, and immediately took steps to meet the expected danger. In their excitement, although they had announced the beginning of the action to the king’s headquarters at Mainz, they forgot to notify the close and its results, so that Moltke was not in possession of the facts till noon on the 3rd of August. Meanwhile, Steinmetz, left without instructions and fearing for the safety of the II. army, the heads of whose columns were still in the defiles of the Hardt, moved the I. army from the neighbourhood of Merzig obliquely to his left front, so as to strike the flank of the French army if it continued its march towards Kaiserslautern, in which direction it appeared to be heading.

Whilst this order was in process of execution, Moltke, aware that the II. army was behind time in its march, issued instructions to Steinmetz for the 4th of August which entailed a withdrawal to the rear, the idea being that both Moltke, Prince Frederick Charles and Steinmetz. armies should, if the French advanced, fight a defensive battle in a selected position farther back. Steinmetz obeyed, though bitterly resenting the idea of retreat. This movement, further, drew his left across the roads reserved for the right column of the II. army, and on receipt of a peremptory order from Prince Frederick Charles to evacuate the road, Steinmetz telegraphed for instructions direct to the king, over Moltke’s head. In reply he received a telegram from Moltke, ordering him to clear the road at once, and couched in terms which he considered as a severe reprimand. An explanatory letter, meant to soften the rebuke, was delayed in transmission and did not reach him till too late to modify the orders he had already issued. It must be remembered that Steinmetz at the front was in a better position to judge the apparent situation than was Moltke at Mainz, and that all through the day of the 5th of August he had received intelligence indicating a change of attitude in the French army.

The news of the German victory at Weissenburg on the 4th (see below) had in fact completely paralysed the French headquarters, and orders were issued by them during the course of the 5th to concentrate the whole army of the Battle of Spicheren. Rhine on the selected position of Cadenbronn. As a preliminary, Frossard’s corps withdrew from SaarbrÜcken and began to entrench a position on the Spicheren heights, 3000 yds. to the southward. Steinmetz, therefore, being quite unaware of the scheme for a great battle on the Saar about the 12th of August, felt that the situation would best be met, and the letter of his instructions strictly obeyed, by moving his whole command forward to the line of the Saar, and orders to this effect were issued on the evening of the 5th. In pursuance of these orders, the advance guard of the 14th division (Lieutenant General von Kameke) reached SaarbrÜcken about 9 A.M. on the 6th, where the Germans found to their amazement that the bridges were intact. To secure this advantage was the obvious duty of the commander on the spot, and he at once ordered his troops to occupy a line of low heights beyond the town to serve as a bridge-head. As the leading troops deployed on the heights Frossard’s guns on the Spicheren Plateau opened fire, and the advanced guard battery replied. The sound of these guns unchained the whole fighting instinct carefully developed by a long course of Prussian manoeuvre training. Everywhere, generals and troops hurried towards the cannon thunder. Kameke, even more in the dark than Steinmetz as to Moltke’s intentions and the strength of his adversaries, attacked at once, precisely as he would have done at manoeuvres, and in half an hour his men were committed beyond recall. As each fresh unit reached the field it was hurried into action where its services were most needed, and each fresh general as he arrived took a new view of the combat and issued new orders. On the other side, Frossard, knowing the strength of his position, called on his neighbours for support, and determined to hold his ground. Victory seemed certain. There were sufficient troops within easy reach to have ensured a crushing numerical superiority. But the other generals had not been trained to mutual support, and thought only of their own immediate security, and their staffs were too inexperienced to act upon even good intentions; and, finding himself in the course of the afternoon left to his own devices, Frossard began gradually to withdraw, even before the pressure of the 13th German division on his left flank (about 8 P.M.) compelled his retirement. When darkness ended the battle the Prussians were scarcely aware of their victory. Steinmetz, who had reached the field about 6 P.M., rode back to his headquarters without issuing any orders, while the troops bivouacked where they stood, the units of three army corps being mixed up in almost inextricable confusion. But whereas out of 42,900 Prussians with 120 guns, who in the morning lay within striking distance of the enemy, no fewer than 27,000, with 78 guns were actually engaged; of the French, out of 64,000 with 210 guns only 24,000 with 90 guns took part in the action.

Meanwhile on the German left wing the III. army had begun its advance. Early on the 4th of August it crossed the frontier and fell upon a French detachment under Abel Douay, which had been placed near Weissenburg, partly to Action of Weissenburg. cover the Pigeonnier pass, but principally to consume the supplies accumulated in the little dismantled fortress, as these could not easily be moved. Against this force of under 4000 men of all arms, the Germans brought into action successively portions of three corps, in all over 25,000 men with 90 guns. After six hours’ fighting, in which the Germans lost some 1500 men, the gallant remnant of the French withdrew deliberately and in good order, notwithstanding the death of their leader at the critical moment. The Germans were so elated by their victory over the enemy, whose strength they naturally overestimated, that they forgot to send cavalry in pursuit, and thus entirely lost touch with the enemy.

Next day the advance was resumed, the two Bavarian corps moving via Mattstall through the foothills of the Vosges, the V. corps on their left towards Preuschdorf, and the XI. farther to the left again, through the wooded plain of the Rhine valley. The 4th cavalry division scouted in advance, and army headquarters moved to Sulz. About noon the advanced patrols discovered MacMahon’s corps in position on the left bank of the Sauer (see WÖrth: Battle of). As his army was dispersed over a wide area, the crown prince determined to devote the 6th to concentrating the troops, and, probably to avoid alarming the enemy, ordered the cavalry to stand fast.

At night the outposts of the I. Bavarians and V. corps on the Sauer saw the fires of the French encampment and heard the noise of railway traffic, and rightly conjectured the approach of reinforcements. MacMahon had in fact determined to stand in the very formidable position he had selected, and he counted on receiving support both from the 7th corps (two divisions of which were being railed up from Colmar) and from the 5th corps, which lay around Bitche. It was also quite possible, and the soundest strategy, to withdraw the bulk of the troops then facing the German I. and II. armies to his support, and these would reach him by the 8th. He was therefore justified in accepting battle, though it was to his interest to delay it as long as possible.

At dawn on the 6th of August the commander of the V. corps outposts noticed certain movements in the French lines, and to clear up the situation brought his guns into action. As at Spicheren, the sound of the guns set the whole Battle of WÖrth. machinery of battle in motion. The French artillery immediately accepted the Prussian challenge. The I. Bavarians, having been ordered to be ready to move if they heard artillery fire, immediately advanced against the French left, encountering presently such a stubborn resistance that parts of their line began to give way. The Prussians of the V. corps felt that they could not abandon their allies, and von Kirchbach, calling on the XI. corps for support, attacked with the troops at hand. When the crown prince tried to break off the fight it was too late. Both sides were feeding troops into the firing line, as and where they could lay hands on them. Up to 2 P.M. the French fairly held their own, but shortly afterwards their right yielded to the overwhelming pressure of the XI. corps, and by 3.30 it was in full retreat. The centre held on for another hour, but in its turn was compelled to yield, and by 4.30 all organized resistance was at an end. The dÉbris of the French army was hotly pursued by the German divisional squadrons towards Reichshofen, where serious panic showed itself. When at this stage the supports sent by de Failly from Bitche came on the ground they saw the hopelessness of intervention, and retired whence they had come. Fortunately for the French, the German 4th cavalry division, on which the pursuit should have devolved, had been forgotten by the German staff, and did not reach the front before darkness fell. Out of a total of 82,000 within reach of the battlefield, the Germans succeeded in bringing into action 77,500. The French, who might have had 50,000 on the field, deployed only 37,000, and these suffered a collective loss of no less than 20,100; some regiments losing up to 90% and still retaining some semblance of discipline and order.

Under cover of darkness the remnants of the French army escaped. When at length the 4th cavalry division had succeeded in forcing a way through the confusion of the battlefield, all touch with the enemy had been lost, and being without firearms the troopers were checked by the French stragglers in the woods and the villages, and thus failed to establish the true line of retreat of the French. Ultimately the latter, having gained the railway near LunÉville, disappeared from the German front altogether, and all trace of them was lost until they were discovered, about the 26th of August, forming part of the army of ChÂlons, whither they had been conveyed by rail via Paris. This is a remarkable example of the strategical value of railways to an army operating in its own country.

In the absence of all resistance, the III. army now proceeded to carry out the original programme of marches laid down in Moltke’s memorandum of the 6th of May, and marching on a broad front through a fertile district it reached the line of the Moselle in excellent order about the 17th of August, where it halted to await the result of the great battle of Gravelotte-St Privat.

We return now to the I. army at SaarbrÜcken. Its position on the morning of the 7th of August gave cause for the gravest anxiety. At daylight a dense fog lay over the country, and through the mist sounds of heavy firing came Movements on the Saar. from the direction of Forbach, where French stragglers had rallied during the night. The confusion on the battlefield was appalling, and the troops in no condition to go forward. Except the 3rd, 5th and 6th cavalry divisions no closed troops were within a day’s march; hence Steinmetz decided to spend the day in reorganizing his infantry, under cover of his available cavalry. But the German cavalry and staff were quite new to their task. The 6th cavalry division, which had bivouacked on the battlefield, sent on only one brigade towards Forbach, retaining the remainder in reserve. The 5th, thinking that the 6th had already undertaken all that was necessary, withdrew behind the Saar, and the 3rd, also behind the Saar, reported that the country in its front was unsuited to cavalry movements, and only sent out a few officers’ patrols. These were well led, but were too few in number, and their reports were consequently unconvincing.

In the course of the day Steinmetz became very uneasy, and ultimately he decided to concentrate his army by retiring the VII. and VIII. corps behind the river on to the I. (which had arrived near Saarlouis), thus clearing the SaarbrÜcken-Metz road for the use of the II. army. But at this moment Prince Frederick Charles suddenly modified his views. During the 6th of August his scouts had reported considerable French forces near Bitche (these were the 5th, de Failly’s corps), and early in the morning of the 7th he received a telegram from Moltke informing him that MacMahon’s beaten army was retreating on the same place (the troops observed were in fact those which had marched to MacMahon’s assistance). The prince forthwith deflected the march of the Guards, IV. and X. corps, towards Rohrbach, whilst the IX. and XII. closed up to supporting distance behind them. Thus, as Steinmetz moved away to the west and north, Frederick Charles was diverging to the south and east, and a great gap was opening in the very centre of the German front. This was closed only by the III. corps, still on the battle-field, and by portions of the X. near SaargemÜnd,2 whilst within striking distance lay 130,000 French troops, prevented only by the incapacity of their chiefs from delivering a decisive counter-stroke.

Fortunately for the Prussians, Moltke at Mainz took a different view. Receiving absolutely no intelligence from the front during the 7th, he telegraphed orders to the I. and II. armies (10.25 P.M.) to halt on the 8th, and impressed on Steinmetz the necessity of employing his cavalry to clear up the situation. The I. army had already begun the marches ordered by Steinmetz. It was now led back practically to its old bivouacs amongst the unburied dead. Prince Frederick Charles only conformed to Moltke’s order with the III. and X. corps; the remainder executed their concentration towards the south and east.

During the night of the 7th of August Moltke decided that the French army must be in retreat towards the Moselle and forthwith busied himself with the preparation of fresh tables of march for the two armies, his object being to swing up the left wing to outflank the enemy from the south. This work, and the transfer of headquarters to Homburg, needed time, hence no fresh orders were issued to either army, and neither commander would incur the responsibility of moving without any. The I. army therefore spent a fourth night in bivouac on the battlefield. But Constantin von Alvensleben, commanding the III. corps, a man of very different stamp from his colleagues, hearing at first hand that the French had evacuated St Avold, set his corps in motion early in the morning of the 10th August down the St Avold-Metz road, reached St Avold and obtained conclusive evidence that the French were retreating.

During the 9th the orders for the advance to the Moselle were issued. These were based, not on an exact knowledge of where the French army actually stood, but on the opinion Advance to the Moselle. Moltke had formed as to where it ought to have been on military grounds solely, overlooking the fact that the French staff were not free to form military decisions but were compelled to bow to political expediency.

Actually on the 7th of August the emperor had decided to attack the Germans on the 8th with the whole Rhine Army, but this decision was upset by alarmist reports from the beaten army of MacMahon. He then decided to retreat to the Moselle, as Moltke had foreseen, and there to draw to himself the remnants of MacMahon’s army (now near LunÉville). At the same time he assigned the executive command over the whole Rhine Army to Marshal Bazaine. This retreat was begun during the course of the 8th and 9th of August; but on the night of the 9th urgent telegrams from Paris induced the emperor to suspend the movement, and during the 10th the whole army took up a strong position on the French Nied.

Meanwhile the II. German army had received its orders to march in a line of army corps on a broad front in the general direction of Pont-À-Mousson, well to the south of Metz. The I. army was to follow by short marches in Échelon on the right; only the III. corps was directed on Falkenberg, a day’s march farther towards Metz along the St Avold-Metz road. The movement was begun on the 10th, and towards evening the French army was located on the right front of the III. corps. This entirely upset Moltke’s hypothesis, and called for a complete modification of his plans, as the III. corps alone could not be expected to resist the impact of Bazaine’s five corps. The III. corps therefore received orders to stand fast for the moment, and the remainder of the II. army was instructed to wheel to the right and concentrate for a great battle to the east of Metz on the 16th or 17th.

Before, however, these orders had been received the sudden retreat of the French completely changed the situation. The Germans therefore continued their movement towards the Moselle. On the 13th the French took up a fresh position 5 m. to the east of Metz, where they were located by the cavalry and the advanced guards of the I. army.

Again Moltke ordered the I. army to observe and hold the enemy, whilst the II. was to swing round to the north. The cavalry was to scout beyond the Moselle and intercept all communication with the heart of France (see Metz). Battle of Colombey-Borny. By this time the whole German army had imbibed the idea that the French were in full retreat and endeavouring to evade a decisive struggle. When therefore during the morning of the 14th their outposts observed signs of retreat in the French position, their impatience could no longer be restrained; as at WÖrth and Spicheren, an outpost commander brought up his guns, and at the sound of their fire, every unit within reach spontaneously got under arms (battle of Colombey-Borny). In a short time, with or without orders, the I., VII., VIII. and IX. corps were in full march to the battle-field. But the French too turned back to fight, and an obstinate engagement ensued, at the close of which the Germans barely held the ground and the French withdrew under cover of the Metz forts.

Still, though the fighting had been indecisive, the conviction of victory remained with the Germans, and the idea of a French retreat became an obsession. To this idea Moltke gave expression in his orders issued early on the 15th, in which he laid down that the “fruits of the victory” of the previous evening could only be reaped by a vigorous pursuit towards the passages of the Meuse, where it was hoped the French might yet be overtaken. This order, however, did not allow for the hopeless inability of the French staff to regulate the movement of congested masses of men, horses and vehicles, such as were now accumulated in the streets and environs of Metz. Whilst Bazaine had come to no definite decision whether to stand and fight or continue to retreat, and was merely drifting under the impressions of the moment, the Prussian leaders, in particular Prince Frederick Charles, saw in imagination the French columns in rapid orderly movement towards the west, and calculated that at best they could not be overtaken short of Verdun.

In this order of ideas the whole of the II. army, followed on its right rear by two-thirds of the I. army (the I. corps being detached to observe the eastern side of the fortress), were pushed on towards the Moselle, the cavalry far in advance towards the Meuse, whilst only the 5th cavalry division was ordered to scout towards the Metz-Verdun road, and even that was disseminated over far too wide an area.

Later in the day (15th) Frederick Charles sent orders to the III. corps, which was on the right flank of his long line of columns and approaching the Moselle at Corny and NovÉant, to march via Gorze to Mars-la-Tour on the Metz-Verdun road; to the X. corps, strung out along the road from Thiaucourt to Pont-À-Mousson, to move to Jarny; and for the remainder to push on westward to seize the Meuse crossings. No definite information as to the French army reached him in time to modify these instructions.

Meanwhile the 5th (Rheinbaben’s) cavalry division, at about 3 P.M. in the afternoon, had come into contact with the French cavalry in the vicinity of Mars-la-Tour, and gleaned intelligence enough to show that no French infantry had as yet reached Rezonville. The commander of the X. corps at Thiaucourt, informed of this, became anxious for the security of his flank during the next day’s march and decided to push out a strong flanking detachment under von Caprivi, to support von Rheinbaben and maintain touch with the III. corps marching on his right rear.

Von Alvensleben, to whom the 6th cavalry division had meanwhile been assigned, seems to have received no local intelligence whatsoever; and at daybreak on the 16th he began his march in two columns, the 6th division on Mars-la-Tour, the 5th Battle of Vionville-Mars-la-Tour. towards the Rezonville-Vionville plateau. And shortly after 9.15 A.M. he suddenly discovered the truth. The entire French army lay on his right flank, and his nearest supports were almost a day’s march distant. In this crisis he made up his mind at once to attack with every available man, and to continue to attack, in the conviction that his audacity would serve to conceal his weakness. All day long, therefore, the Brandenburgers of the III. corps, supported ultimately by the X. corps and part of the IX., attacked again and again. The enemy was thrice their strength, but very differently led, and made no adequate use of his superiority (battle of Vionville-Mars-la Tour).

Meanwhile Prince Frederick Charles, at Pont-À-Mousson, was still confident in the French retreat to the Meuse, and had even issued orders for the 17th on that assumption. Firing had been heard since 9.15 A.M., and about noon Alvensleben’s first report had reached him, but it was not till after 2 that he realized the situation. Then, mounting his horse, he covered the 15 m. to Flavigny over crowded and difficult roads within the hour, and on his arrival abundantly atoned for his strategic errors by his unconquerable determination and tactical skill. When darkness put a stop to the fighting, he considered the position. Cancelling all previous orders, he called all troops within reach to the battle-field and resigned himself to wait for them. The situation was indeed critical. The whole French army of five corps, only half of which had been engaged, lay in front of him. His own army lay scattered over an area of 30 m. by 20, and only some 20,000 fresh troops—of the IX. corps—could The 17th of August. reach the field during the forenoon of the 17th. He did not then know that Moltke had already intervened and had ordered the VII., VIII. and II. corps3 to his assistance. Daylight revealed the extreme exhaustion of both men and horses. The men lay around in hopeless confusion amongst the killed and wounded, each where sleep had overtaken him, and thus the extent of the actual losses, heavy enough, could not be estimated. Across the valley, bugle sounds revealed the French already alert, and presently a long line of skirmishers approached the Prussian position. But they halted just beyond rifle range, and it was soon evident that they were only intended to cover a further withdrawal. Presently came the welcome intelligence that the reinforcements were well on their way.

About noon the king and Moltke drove up to the ground, and there was an animated discussion as to what the French would do next. Aware of their withdrawal from his immediate front, Prince Frederick Charles reverted to his previous idea and insisted that they were in full retreat towards the north, and that their entrenchments near Point du Jour and St Hubert (see map in article Metz) were at most a rearguard position. Moltke was inclined to the same view, but considered the alternative possibility of a withdrawal towards Metz, and about 2 P.M. orders were issued to meet these divergent opinions. The whole army was to be drawn up at 6 A.M. on the 18th in an Échelon facing north, so as to be ready for action in either direction. The king and Moltke then drove to Pont-À-Mousson, and the troops bivouacked in a state of readiness. The rest of the 17th was spent in restoring order in the shattered III. and X. corps, and by nightfall both corps were reported fit for action. Strangely enough, there were no organized cavalry reconnaissances, and no intelligence of importance was collected during the night of the 17th-18th.

Early on the 18th the troops began to move into position in the following order from left to right: XII. (Saxons), Guards, IX., VIII. and VII. The X. and III. were retained in reserve.

The idea of the French retreat was still uppermost in the prince’s mind, and the whole army therefore moved north. But between 10 and 11 A.M. part of the truth—viz. that the French had their backs to Metz and stood in battle order Battle of Gravelotte-Saint Privat. from St Hubert northwards—became evident, and the II. army, pivoting on the I., wheeled to the right and moved eastward. Suddenly the IX. corps fell right on the centre of the French line (Amanvillers), and a most desperate encounter began, superior control, as before, ceasing after the guns had opened fire. Prince Frederick Charles, however, a little farther north, again asserted his tactical ability, and about 7 P.M. he brought into position no less than five army corps for the final attack. The sudden collapse of French resistance, due to the frontal attack of the Guards (St Privat) and the turning movement of the Saxons (Roncourt), rendered the use of this mass unnecessary, but the resolution to use it was there. On the German right (I. army), about Gravelotte, all superior leading ceased quite early in the afternoon, and at night the French still showed an unbroken front. Until midnight, when the prince’s victory was reported, the suspense at headquarters was terrible. The I. army was exhausted, no steps had been taken to ensure support from the III. army, and the IV. corps (II. army) lay inactive 30 m. away.

This seems a fitting place to discuss the much-disputed point of Bazaine’s conduct in allowing himself to be driven back into Metz when fortune had thrown into his hands the great opportunity of the 16th and 17th of August. He Bazaine in Metz. had been appointed to command on the 10th, but the presence of the emperor, who only left the front early on the 16th, and their dislike of Bazaine, exercised a disturbing influence on the headquarters staff officers. During the retreat to Metz the marshal had satisfied himself as to the inability of his corps commanders to handle their troops, and also as to the ill-will of the staff. In the circumstances he felt that a battle in the open field could only end in disaster; and, since it was proved that the Germans could outmarch him, his army was sure to be overtaken and annihilated if he ventured beyond the shelter of the fortress. But near Metz he could at least inflict very severe punishment on his assailants, and in any case his presence in Metz would neutralize a far superior force of the enemy for weeks or months. What use the French government might choose to make of the breathing space thus secured was their business, not his; and subsequent events showed that, had they not forced MacMahon’s hand, the existence of the latter’s nucleus army of trained troops might have prevented the investment of Paris. Bazaine was condemned by court-martial after the war, but if the case were reheard to-day it is certain that no charge of treachery could be sustained.

On the German side the victory at St Privat was at once followed up by the headquarters. Early on the 19th the investment of Bazaine’s army in Metz was commenced. A new army, the Army of the Meuse (often called the IV.), was as soon as possible formed of all troops not required for the maintenance of the investment, and marched off under the command of the crown prince of Saxony to discover and destroy the remainder of the French field army, which at this moment was known to be at ChÂlons.

The operations which led to the capture of MacMahon’s army in Sedan call for little explanation. Given seven corps, each capable of averaging 15 m. a day for a week in succession, opposed to four corps only, shaken by defeat Campaign of Sedan. and unable as a whole to cover more than 5 m. a day, the result could hardly be doubtful. But Moltke’s method of conducting operations left his opponent many openings which could only be closed by excessive demands on the marching power of the men. Trusting only to his cavalry screen to secure information, he was always without any definite fixed point about which to manoeuvre, for whilst the reports of the screen and orders based thereon were being transmitted, the enemy was free to move, and generally their movements were dictated by political expediency, not by calculable military motives.

Thus whilst the German army, on a front of nearly 50 m., was marching due west on Paris, MacMahon, under political pressure, was moving parallel to them, but on a northerly route, to attempt the relief of Metz.

So unexpected was this move and so uncertain the information which called attention to it, that Moltke did not venture to change at once the direction of march of the whole army, but he directed the Army of the Meuse northward on Damvillers and ordered Prince Frederick Charles to detach two corps from the forces investing Metz to reinforce it. For the moment, therefore, MacMahon’s move had succeeded, and the opportunity existed for Bazaine to break out. But at the critical moment the hopeless want of real efficiency in MacMahon’s army compelled the latter so to delay his advance that it became evident to the Germans that there was no longer any necessity for the III. army to maintain the direction towards Paris, and that the probable point of contact between the Meuse army and the French lay nearer to the right wing of the III. army than to Prince Frederick Charles’s investing force before Metz.

The detachment from the II. army was therefore countermanded, and the whole III. army changed front to the north, while the Meuse army headed the French off from the east. The latter came into contact with the head of the French columns, during the 29th, about Nouart, and on the 30th at Buzancy (battle of Beaumont); and the French, yielding to the force of numbers combined with superior moral, were driven north-westward upon Sedan (q.v.), right across the front of the III. army, which was now rapidly coming up from the south.

During the 31st the retreat practically became a rout, and the morning of the 1st of September found the French crowded around the little fortress of Sedan, with only one line of retreat to the north-west still open. By 11 A.M. the XI. corps (III. army) had already closed that line, and about noon the Saxons (Army of the Meuse) moving round between the town and the Belgian frontier joined hands with the XI., and the circle of investment was complete. The battle of Sedan was closed about 4.15 P.M. by the hoisting of the white flag. Terms were agreed upon during the night, and the whole French army, with the emperor, passed into captivity.

(F. N. M.)

Thus in five weeks one of the French field armies was imprisoned in Metz, the other destroyed, and the Germans were free to march upon Paris. This seemed easy. There could be no organized opposition to their progress,4 and Paris, Later operations. if not so defenceless as in 1814, was more populous. Starvation was the best method of attacking an overcrowded fortress, and the Parisians were not thought to be proof against the deprivation of their accustomed luxuries. Even Moltke hoped that by the end of October he would be “shooting hares at Creisau,” and with this confidence the German III. and IV. armies left the vicinity of Sedan on the 4th of September. The march called for no more than good staff arrangements, and the two armies arrived before Paris a fortnight later and gradually encircled the place—the III. army on the south, the IV. on the north side—in the last days of September. Headquarters were established at Versailles. Meanwhile the Third Empire had fallen, giving place on the 4th of September to a republican Government of National Defence, which made its appeal to, and evoked, the spirit of 1792. Henceforward the French nation, which had left the conduct of the war to the regular army and had been little more than an excited spectator, took the burden upon itself.

The regular army, indeed, still contained more than 500,000 men (chiefly recruits and reservists), and 50,000 sailors, marines, douaniers, &c., were also available. But the Garde Mobile, framed by Marshal Niel in 1868, doubled this figure, and the addition of the Garde Nationale, called into existence on the 15th of September, and including all able-bodied men of from 31 to 60 years of age, more than trebled it. The German staff had of course to reckon on the Garde Mobile, and did so beforehand, but they wholly underestimated both its effective members and its willingness, while, possessing themselves a system in which all the military elements of the German nation stood close behind the troops of the active army, they ignored the potentialities of the Garde Nationale.

Meanwhile, both as a contrast to the events that centred on Paris and because in point of time they were decided for the most part in the weeks immediately following Sedan, we must briefly allude to the sieges conducted by the Germans—Paris (q.v.), Metz (q.v.) and Belfort (q.v.) excepted. Old and ruined as many of them were, the French fortresses possessed considerable importance in the eyes of the Germans. Strassburg, in particular, the key of Alsace, the standing menace to South Germany and the most conspicuous of the spoils of Louis XIV.’s Raubkriege, was an obvious target. Operations were begun on the 9th of August, three days after WÖrth, General v. Werder’s corps (Baden troops and Prussian Landwehr) making the siege. The French commandant, General Uhrich, surrendered after a stubborn resistance on the 28th of September. Of the smaller fortresses many, being practically unarmed and without garrisons, capitulated at once. Toul, defended by Major Huck with 2000 mobiles, resisted for forty days, and drew upon itself the efforts of 13,000 men and 100 guns. Verdun, commanded by General GuÉrin de Waldersbach, held out till after the fall of Metz. Some of the fortresses lying to the north of the Prussian line of advance on Paris, e.g. MÉziÈres, resisted up to January 1871, though of course this was very largely due to the diminution of pressure caused by the appearance of new French field armies in October. On the 9th of September a strange incident took place at the surrender of Laon. A powder magazine was blown up by the soldiers in charge and 300 French and a few German soldiers were killed by the explosion. But as the Germans advanced, their lines of communication were thoroughly organized, and the belt of country between Paris and the Prussian frontier subdued and garrisoned. Most of these fortresses were small town enceintes, dating from Vauban’s time, and open, under the new conditions of warfare, to concentric bombardment from positions formerly out of range, upon which the besieger could place as many guns as he chose to employ. In addition they were usually deficient in armament and stores and garrisoned by newly-raised troops. Belfort, where the defenders strained every nerve to keep the besiegers out of bombarding range, and Paris formed the only exceptions to this general rule.

The policy of the new French government was defined by Jules Favre on the 6th of September. “It is for the king of Prussia, who has declared that he is making war on the Empire and not on France, to stay his hand; we The “DÉfense Nationale.” shall not cede an inch of our territory or a stone of our fortresses.” These proud words, so often ridiculed as empty bombast, were the prelude of a national effort which re-established France in the eyes of Europe as a great power, even though provinces and fortresses were ceded in the peace that that effort proved unable to avert. They were translated into action by LÉon Gambetta, who escaped from Paris in a balloon on the 7th of October, and established the headquarters of the defence at Tours, where already the “Delegation” of the central government—which had decided to remain in Paris—had concentrated the machinery of government. Thenceforward Gambetta and his principal assistant de Freycinet directed the whole war in the open country, co-ordinating it, as best they could with the precarious means of communication at their disposal, with Trochu’s military operations in and round the capital. His critics—Gambetta’s personality was such as to ensure him numerous enemies among the higher civil and military officials, over whom, in the interests of La Patrie, he rode rough-shod—have acknowledged the fact, which is patent enough in any case, that nothing but Gambetta’s driving energy enabled France in a few weeks to create and to equip twelve army corps, representing thirty-six divisions (600,000 rifles and 1400 guns), after all her organized regular field troops had been destroyed or neutralized. But it is claimed that by undue interference with the generals at the front, by presuming to dictate their plans of campaign, and by forcing them to act when the troops were unready, Gambetta and de Freycinet nullified the efforts of themselves and the rest of the nation and subjected France to a humiliating treaty of peace. We cannot here discuss the justice or injustice of such a general condemnation, or even whether in individual instances Gambetta trespassed too far into the special domain of the soldier. But even the brief narrative given below must at least suggest to the reader the existence amongst the generals and higher officials of a dead weight of passive resistance to the Delegation’s orders, of unnecessary distrust of the qualities of the improvised troops, and above all of the utter fear of responsibility that twenty years of literal obedience had bred. The closest study of the war cannot lead to any other conclusion than this, that whether or not Gambetta as a strategist took the right course in general or in particular cases, no one else would have taken any course whatever.

On the approach of the enemy Paris hastened its preparations for defence to the utmost, while in the provinces, out of reach of the German cavalry, new army corps were rapidly organized out of the few constituted regular units not involved in the previous catastrophes, the depot troops and the mobile national guard. The first-fruits of these efforts were seen in Beauce, where early in October important masses of French troops prepared not only to bar the further progress of the invader but actually to relieve Paris. The so-called “fog of war”—the armed inhabitants, francs-tireurs, sedentary national guard and volunteers—prevented the German cavalry from venturing far out from the infantry camps around Paris, and behind this screen the new 15th army corps assembled on the Loire. But an untimely demonstration of force alarmed the Germans, all of whom, from Moltke downwards, had hitherto disbelieved in the existence of the French new formations, and the still unready 15th corps found itself the target of an expedition of the I. Bavarian corps, which drove the defenders out of Orleans after a sharp struggle, while at the same time another expedition swept the western part of Beauce, sacked ChÂteaudun as a punishment for its brave defence, and returned via Chartres, which was occupied.

After these events the French forces disappeared from German eyes for some weeks. D’Aurelle de Paladines, the commander of the “Army of the Loire” (15th and 16th corps), improvised a camp of instruction at Salbris in Sologne, several marches out of reach, and subjected his raw troops to a stern rÉgime of drill and discipline. At the same time an “Army of the West” began to gather on the side of Le Mans. This army was almost imaginary, yet rumours of its existence and numbers led the German commanders into the gravest errors, for they soon came to suspect that the main army lay on that side and not on the Loire, and this mistaken impression governed the German dispositions up to the very eve of the decisive events around Orleans in December. Thus when at last D’Aurelle took the offensive from Tours (whither he had transported his forces, now 100,000 strong) against the position of the I. Bavarian corps near Orleans, he found his task easy. The Bavarians, outnumbered and unsupported, were defeated with heavy losses in the battle of Coulmiers (November 9), and, had it not been for the inexperience, want of combination, and other technical weaknesses of the French, they would have been annihilated. What the results of such a victory as Coulmiers might have been, had it been won by a fully organized, smoothly working army of the same strength, it is difficult to overestimate. As it was, the retirement of the Bavarians rang the alarm bell all along the line of the German positions, and that was all.

Then once again, instead of following up its success, the French army disappeared from view. The victory had emboldened the “fog of war” to make renewed efforts, and resistance to the pressure of the German cavalry grew day by day. The Bavarians were reinforced by two Prussian divisions and by all available cavalry commands, and constituted as an “army detachment” under the grand-duke Friedrich Franz of Mecklenburg-Schwerin to deal with the Army of the Loire, the strength of which was far from being accurately known. Meantime the capitulation of Metz on the 28th of October had set free the veterans of Prince Frederick Charles, the best troops in the German army, for field operations. The latter were at first misdirected to the upper Seine, and yet another opportunity arose for the French to raise the siege of Paris. But D’Aurelle utilized the time he had gained in strengthening the army and in imparting drill and discipline to the new units which gathered round the original nucleus of the 15th and 16th corps. All this was, however, unknown and even unsuspected at the German headquarters, and the invaders, feeling the approaching crisis, became more than uneasy as to their prospects of maintaining the siege of Paris.

At this moment, in the middle of November, the general situation was as follows: the German III. and Meuse armies, investing Paris, had had to throw off important detachments to protect the enterprise, which they had The Orleans campaign. undertaken on the assumption that no further field armies of the enemy were to be encountered. The maintenance of their communications with Germany, relatively unimportant when the struggle took place in the circumstances of field warfare, had become supremely necessary, now that the army had come to a standstill and undertaken a great siege, which required heavy guns and constant replenishment of ammunition and stores. The rapidity of the German invasion had left no time for the proper organization and full garrisoning of these communications, which were now threatened, not merely by the Army of the Loire, but by other forces assembling on the area protected by Langres and Belfort. The latter, under General Cambriels, were held in check and no more by the Baden troops and reserve units (XIV. German corps) under General Werder, and eventually without arousing attention they were able to send 40,000 men to the Army of the Loire. This army, still around Orleans, thus came to number perhaps 150,000 men, and opposed to it, about the 14th of November, the Germans had only the Army Detachment of about 40,000, the II. army being still distant. It was under these conditions that the famous Orleans campaign took place. After many vicissitudes of fortune, and with many misunderstandings between Prince Frederick Charles, Moltke and the grand-duke, the Germans were ultimately victorious, thanks principally to the brilliant fighting of the X. corps at Beaune-la-Rolande (28th of November), which was followed by the battle of Loigny-Poupry on the 2nd of December and the second capture of Orleans after heavy fighting on the 4th of December.

The result of the capture of Orleans was the severance of the two wings of the French army, henceforward commanded respectively by Chanzy and Bourbaki. The latter fell back at once and hastily, though not closely pursued, to Bourges. But Chanzy, opposing the Detachment between Beaugency and the Forest of Marchenoir, was of sterner metal, and in the five days’ general engagement around Beaugency (December 7-11) the Germans gained little or no real advantage. Indeed their solitary material success, the capture of Beaugency, was due chiefly to the fact that the French there were subjected to conflicting orders from the military and the governmental authorities. Chanzy then abandoned little but the field of battle, and on the grand-duke’s representations Prince Frederick Charles, leaving a mere screen to impose upon Bourbaki (who allowed himself to be deceived and remained inactive), hurried thither with the II. army. After that Chanzy was rapidly driven north-westward, though always presenting a stubborn front. The Delegation left Tours and betook itself to Bordeaux, whence it directed the government for the rest of the war. But all this continuous marching and fighting, and the growing severity of the weather, compelled Prince Frederick Charles to call a halt for a few days. About the 19th of December, therefore, the Germans (II. army and Detachment) were closed up in the region of Chartres, Orleans, Auxerre and Fontainebleau, Chanzy along the river Sarthe about Le Mans and Bourbaki still passive towards Bourges.

During this, as during other halts, the French government and its generals occupied themselves with fresh plans of campaign, the former with an eager desire for results, the latter (Chanzy excepted) with many misgivings. Ultimately, and fatally, it was decided that Bourbaki, whom nothing could move towards Orleans, should depart for the south-east, with a view to relieving Belfort and striking perpendicularly against the long line of the Germans’ communications. This movement, bold to the point of extreme rashness judged by any theoretical rules of strategy, seems to have been suggested by de Freycinet. As the execution of it fell actually into incapable hands, it is difficult to judge what would have been the result had a Chanzy or a Faidherbe been in command of the French. At any rate it was vicious in so far as immediate advantages were sacrificed to hopes of ultimate success which Gambetta and de Freycinet did wrong to base on Bourbaki’s powers of generalship. Late in December, for good or evil, Bourbaki marched off into Franche-ComtÉ and ceased to be a factor in the Loire campaign. A mere calculation of time and space sufficed to show the German headquarters that the moment had arrived to demolish the stubborn Chanzy.

Prince Frederick Charles resumed the interrupted offensive, pushing westward with four corps and four cavalry divisions which converged on Le Mans. There on the 10th, 11th and 12th of January 1871 a stubbornly contested Le Mans. battle ended with the retreat of the French, who owed their defeat solely to the misbehaviour of the Breton mobiles. These, after deserting their post on the battlefield at a mere threat of the enemy’s infantry, fled in disorder and infected with their terrors the men in the reserve camps of instruction, which broke up in turn. But Chanzy, resolute as ever, drew off his field army intact towards Laval, where a freshly raised corps joined him. The prince’s army was far too exhausted to deliver another effective blow, and the main body of it gradually drew back into better quarters, while the grand duke departed for the north to aid in opposing Faidherbe. Some idea of the strain to which the invaders had been subjected may be gathered from the fact that army corps, originally 30,000 strong, were in some cases reduced to 10,000 and even fewer bayonets. And at this moment Bourbaki was at the head of 120,000 men! Indeed, so threatening seemed the situation on the Loire, though the French south of that river between Gien and Blois were mere isolated brigades, that the prince hurried back from Le Mans to Orleans to take personal command. A fresh French corps, bearing the number 25, and being the twenty-first actually raised during the war, appeared in the field towards Blois. Chanzy was again at the head of 156,000 men. He was about to take the offensive against the 40,000 Germans left near Le Mans when to his bitter disappointment he received the news of the armistice. “We have still France,” he had said to his staff, undeterred by the news of the capitulation of Paris, but now he had to submit, for even if his improvised army was still cheerful, there were many significant tokens that the people at large had sunk into apathy and hoped to avoid worse terms of peace by discontinuing the contest at once.

So ended the critical period of the “DÉfense nationale.” It may be taken to have lasted from the day of Coulmiers to the last day of Le Mans, and its central point was the battle of Beaune-la-Rolande. Its characteristics were, on the German side, inadequacy of the system of strategy practised, which became palpable as soon as the organs of reconnaissance met with serious resistance, misjudgment of and indeed contempt for the fighting powers of “new formations,” and the rise of a spirit of ferocity in the man in the ranks, born of his resentment at the continuance of the war and the ceaseless sniping of the franc-tireur’s rifle and the peasant’s shot-gun. On the French side the continual efforts of the statesmen to stimulate the generals to decisive efforts, coupled with actual suggestions as to the plans of the campaign to be followed (in default, be it said, of the generals themselves producing such plans), and the professional soldiers’ distrust of half-trained troops, acted and reacted upon one another in such a way as to neutralize the powerful, if disconnected and erratic, forces that the war and the Republic had unchained. As for the soldiers themselves, their most conspicuous qualities were their uncomplaining endurance of fatigues and wet bivouacs, and in action their capacity for a single great effort and no more. But they were unreliable in the hands of the veteran regular general, because they were heterogeneous in recruiting, and unequal in experience and military qualities, and the French staff in those days was wholly incapable of moving masses of troops with the rapidity demanded by the enemy’s methods of war, so that on the whole it is difficult to know whether to wonder more at their missing success or at their so nearly achieving it.

The decision, as we have said, was fought out on the Loire and the Sarthe. Nevertheless the glorious story of the “DÉfense nationale” includes two other important campaigns—that of Faidherbe in the north and that of Bourbaki in the east.

In the north the organization of the new formations was begun by Dr Testelin and General Farre. Bourbaki held the command for a short time in November before proceeding to Tours, but the active command in field Faidherbe’s campaign. operations came into the hands of Faidherbe, a general whose natural powers, so far from being cramped by years of peace routine and court repression, had been developed by a career of pioneer warfare and colonial administration. General Farre was his capable chief of staff. Troops were raised from fugitives from Metz and Sedan, as well as from depot troops and the Garde Mobile, and several minor successes were won by the national troops in the Seine valley, for here, as on the side of the Loire, mere detachments of the investing army round Paris were almost powerless. But the capitulation of Metz came too soon for the full development of these sources of military strength, and the German I. army under Manteuffel, released from duty at Metz, marched north-eastward, capturing the minor fortresses on its way. Before Faidherbe assumed command, Farre had fought several severe actions near Amiens, but, greatly outnumbered, had been defeated and forced to retire behind the Somme. Another French general, Briand, had also engaged the enemy without success near Rouen. Faidherbe assumed the command on the 3rd of December, and promptly moved forward. A general engagement on the little river Hallue (December 23), east-north-east of Amiens, was fought with no decisive results, but Faidherbe, feeling that his troops were only capable of winning victories in the first rush, drew them off on the 24th. His next effort, at BapaÛme (January 2-3, 1871), was more successful, but its effects were counterbalanced by the surrender of the fortress of PÉronne (January 9) and the consequent establishment of the Germans on the line of the Somme. Meanwhile the Rouen troops had been contained by a strong German detachment, and there was no further chance of succouring Paris from the north. But Faidherbe, like Chanzy, was far from despair, and in spite of the deficiencies of his troops in equipment (50,000 pairs of shoes, supplied by English contractors, proved to have paper soles), he risked a third great battle at St Quentin (January 19). This time he was severely defeated, though his loss in killed and wounded was about equal to that of the Germans, who were commanded by Goeben. Still the attempt of the Germans to surround him failed and he drew off his forces with his artillery and trains unharmed. The Germans, who had been greatly impressed by the solidity of his army, did not pursue him far, and Faidherbe was preparing for a fresh effort when he received orders to suspend hostilities.

The last episode is Bourbaki’s campaign in the east, with its mournful close at Pontarlier. Before the crisis of the last week of November, the French forces under General CrÉmer, Cambriels’ successor, had been so far successful in minor enterprises that, as mentioned above, the right wing of the Loire army, severed from the left by the battle of Orleans and subsequently held inactive at Bourges and Nevers, was ordered to Franche ComtÉ to take the offensive against the XIV. corps and other German troops there, to relieve Belfort and to strike a blow across the invaders’ line of communications. But there were many delays in execution. The staff work, which was at no time satisfactory in the French armies of 1870, was complicated by the snow, the bad state of the roads, and the mountainous nature of the country, and Bourbaki, a brave general of division in action, but irresolute and pretentious as a commander in chief, was not the man to cope with the situation. Only the furious courage and patient endurance of hardships of the rank and file, and the good qualities of some of the generals, such as Clinchant, CrÉmer and Billot, and junior staff officers such as Major BrugÈre (afterwards generalissimo of the French army), secured what success was attained.

Werder, the German commander, warned of the imposing concentration of the French, evacuated Dijon and DÔle just in time to avoid the blow and rapidly drew together his forces behind the Ognon above Vesoul. A furious The campaign in the East. attack on one of his divisions at Villersexel (January 9) cost him 2000 prisoners as well as his killed and wounded, and Bourbaki, heading for Belfort, was actually nearer to the fortress than the Germans. But at the crisis more time was wasted, Werder (who had almost lost hope of maintaining himself and had received both encouragement and stringent instructions to do so) slipped in front of the French, and took up a long weak line of defence on the river Lisaine, almost within cannon shot of Belfort. The cumbrous French army moved up and attacked him there with 150,000 against 60,000 (January 15-17, 1871). It was at last repulsed, thanks chiefly to Bourbaki’s inability to handle his forces, and, to the bitter disappointment of officers and men alike, he ordered a retreat, leaving Belfort to its fate.

Ere this, so urgent was the necessity of assisting Werder, Manteuffel had been placed at the head of a new Army of the South. Bringing two corps from the I. army opposing Faidherbe and calling up a third from the armies around Paris, and a fourth from the II. army, Manteuffel hurried southward by Langres to the SaÔne. Then, hearing of Werder’s victory on the Lisaine, he deflected the march so as to cut off Bourbaki’s retreat, drawing off the left flank guard of the latter (commanded with much Éclat and little real effect by Garibaldi) by a sharp feint attack on Dijon. The pressure of Werder in front and Manteuffel in flank gradually forced the now thoroughly disheartened French forces towards the Swiss frontier, and Bourbaki, realizing at once the ruin of his army and his own incapacity to re-establish its efficiency, shot himself, though not fatally, on the 26th of January. Clinchant, his successor, acted promptly enough to remove the immediate danger, but on the 29th he was informed of the armistice without at the same time being told that Belfort and the eastern theatre of war had been on Jules Favre’s demand expressly excepted from its operation.5 Thus the French, the leaders distracted by doubts and the worn-out soldiers fully aware that the war was practically over, stood still, while Manteuffel completed his preparations for hemming them in. On the 1st of February General Clinchant led his troops into Switzerland, where they were disarmed, interned and well cared for by the authorities of the neutral state. The rearguard fought a last action with the advancing Germans before passing the frontier. On the 16th, by order of the French government, Belfort capitulated, but it was not until the 11th of March that the Germans took possession of Bitche, the little fortress on the Vosges, where in the early days of the war de Failly had illustrated so signally the want of concerted action and the neglect of opportunities which had throughout proved the bane of the French armies.

The losses of the Germans during the whole war were 28,000 dead and 101,000 wounded and disabled, those of the French, 156,000 dead (17,000 of whom died, of sickness and wounds, as prisoners in German hands) and 143,000 wounded and disabled. 720,000 men surrendered to the Germans or to the authorities of neutral states, and at the close of the war there were still 250,000 troops on foot, with further resources not immediately available to the number of 280,000 more. In this connexion, and as evidence of the respective numerical yields of the German system working normally and of the French improvised for the emergency, we quote from Berndt (Zahl im Kriege) the following comparative figures:—

End of July French 250,000, Germans 384,000 under arms.
Middle of November ” 600,000 ” 425,000 ”
After the surrender of Paris and the
  disarmament of Bourbaki’s army		 ” 534,000 ” 835,000 ”

The date of the armistice was the 28th of January, and that of the ratification of the treaty of Frankfurt the 23rd of May 1871.

Bibliography.—The literature of the war is ever increasing in volume, and the following list only includes a very short selection made amongst the most important works.

General.—German official history, Der deutsch-franzÖsische Krieg (Berlin, 1872-1881; English and French translations); monographs of the German general staff (Kriegsgesch. Einzelschriften); Moltke, Gesch. des deutsch-franzÖs. Krieges (Berlin, 1891; English translation) and Gesammelte Schriften des G. F. M. Grafen v. Moltke (Berlin, 1900-  ); French official history, La Guerre de 1870-1871 (Paris, 1902-  ) (the fullest and most accurate account); P. Lehautcourt (General Palat), Hist. de la guerre de 1870-1871 (Paris, 1901-1907); v. Verdy du Vernois, Studien Über den Krieg ... auf Grundlage 1870-1871 (Berlin, 1892-1896); G. Cardinal von Widdern, Kritische Tage 1870-1871 (French translation, JournÉes critiques). Events preceding the war are dealt with in v. Bernhardi, Zwischen zwei Kriegen; Baron Stoffel, Rapports militaires 1866-1870 (Paris, 1871; English translation); G. Lehmann, Die Mobilmachung 1870-1871 (Berlin, 1905).

For the war in Lorraine: Prince Kraft of Hohenlohe-Ingelfingen, Briefe Über Strategie (English translation, Letters on Strategy); F. Foch, Conduite de la guerre, pt. ii.; H. Bonnal, Manoeuvre de Saint Privat (Paris, 1904-1906); Maistre, Spicheren (Paris, 1908); v. Schell, Die Operationen der I. Armee unter Gen. von Steinmetz (Berlin, 1872; English translation); F. Hoenig, Taktik der Zukunft (English translation), and 24 Stunden Moltke’schen Strategie (Berlin, 1892; English and French translations).

For the war in Alsace and Champagne: H. Kunz, Schlacht von WÖrth (Berlin, 1891), and later works by the same author; H. Bonnal, FrÖschweiler (Paris, 1899); Hahnke, Die Operationen des III. Armee bis Sedan (Berlin, 1873; French translation).

For the war in the Provinces: v. der Goltz, LÉon Gambetta und seine Armeen (Berlin, 1877); Die Operationen der II. Armee an die Loire (Berlin, 1875); Die sieben Tage von Le Mans (Berlin, 1873); Kunz, Die Zusammensetzung der franzÖs. Provinzialheeren; de Freycinet, La Guerre en province (Paris, 1871); L. A. Hale, The People’s War (London, 1904); Hoenig, Volkskrieg an die Loire (Berlin, 1892); Blume, Operationen v. Sedan bis zum Ende d. Kriegs (Berlin, 1872; English translation); v. Schell, Die Operationen der I. Armee unter Gen. v. Goeben (Berlin, 1873; English translation); Count Wartensleben, Feldzug der Nordarmee unter Gen. v. Manteuffel (Berlin, 1872), Operationen der Sudarmee (Berlin, 1872; English translation); Faidherbe, Campagne de l’armÉe du nord (Paris, 1872).

For the sieges: Frobenius, Kriegsgesch. Beispiele d. Festungskriegs aus d. deutsch.-franz. Kg. (Berlin, 1899-1900); Goetze, TÄtigkeit der deutschen Ingenieuren (Berlin, 1871; English translation).

The most useful bibliography is that of General Palat (“P. Lehautcourt”).

(C. F. A.)

1 This was the celebrated “baptÊme de feu” of the prince imperial.

2 The II. corps had not yet arrived from Germany.

3 Of the I. army the I. corps was retained on the east side of Metz. The II. corps belonged to the II. army, but had not yet reached the front.

4 The 13th corps (Vinoy), which had followed MacMahon’s army at some distance, was not involved in the catastrophe of Sedan, and by good luck as well as good management evaded the German pursuit and returned safely to Paris.

5 Jules Favre, it appears, neglected to inform Gambetta of the exception.

FRANÇOIS DE NEUFCHÂTEAU, NICOLAS LOUIS, Count (1750-1828), French statesman and poet, was born at Saffais near RoziÈres in Lorraine on the 17th of April 1750, the son of a school-teacher. He studied at the Jesuit college of NeufchÂteau in the Vosges, and at the age of fourteen published a volume of poetry which obtained the approbation of Rousseau and of Voltaire. NeufchÂteau conferred on him its name, and he was elected member of some of the principal academies of France. In 1783 he was named procureur-gÉnÉral to the council of Santo Domingo. He had previously been engaged on a translation of Ariosto, which he finished before his return to France five years afterwards, but it perished during the shipwreck which occurred during his voyage home. After the Revolution he was elected deputy supplÉant to the National Assembly, was charged with the organization of the Department of the Vosges, and was elected later to the Legislative Assembly, of which he first became secretary and then president. In 1793 he was imprisoned on account of the political sentiments, in reality very innocent, of his drama Pamela ou la vertu rÉcompensÉe (ThÉÂtre de la Nation, 1st August 1793), but was set free a few days afterwards at the revolution of the 9th Thermidor. In 1797 he became minister of the interior, in which office he distinguished himself by the thoroughness of his administration in all departments. It is to him that France owes its system of inland navigation. He inaugurated the museum of the Louvre, and was one of the promoters of the first universal exhibition of industrial products. From 1804 to 1806 he was president of the Senate, and in that capacity the duty devolved upon him of soliciting Napoleon to assume the title of emperor. In 1808 he received the dignity of count. Retiring from public life in 1814, he occupied himself chiefly in the study of agriculture, until his death on the 10th of January 1828.

FranÇois de NeufchÂteau had very multifarious accomplishments, and interested himself in a great variety of subjects, but his fame rests chiefly on what he did as a statesman for the encouragement and development of the industries of France. His maturer poetical productions did not fulfil the promise of those of his early years, for though some of his verses have a superficial elegance, his poetry generally lacks force and originality. He had considerable qualifications as a grammarian and critic, as is witnessed by his editions of the Provinciales and PensÉes of Pascal (Paris, 1822 and 1826) and Gil Blas (Paris, 1820). His principal poetical works are PoÉsies diverses (1765); Ode sur les parlements (1771); Nouveaux Contes moraux (1781); Les Vosges (1796); Fables et contes (1814); and Les Tropes, ou les figures de mots (1817). He was also the author of a large number of works on agriculture.

See Recueil des lettres, circulaires, discours et autres actes publics ÉmanÉs du Çte. FranÇois pendant ses deux exercices du ministÈre de l’intÉrieur (Paris, An. vii.-viii., 2 vols.); Notice biographique sur M. le comte FranÇois de NeufchÂteau (1828), by A. F. de Sillery; H. Bonnelier, MÉmoires sur FranÇois de NeufchÂteau (Paris, 1829); J. Lamoureux, Notice historique et littÉraire sur la vie et les Écrits de FranÇois de NeufchÂteau (Paris, 1843); E. Meaume, Étude historique et biographique sur les Lorrains rÉvolutionnaires: Palissot, GrÉgoire, FranÇois de NeufchÂteau (Nancy, 1882); Ch. Simian, FranÇois de NeufchÂteau et les expositions (Paris, 1889).

FRANCONIA (Ger. Franken), the name of one of the stem-duchies of medieval Germany. It stretched along the valley of the Main from the Rhine to Bohemia, and was bounded on the north by Saxony and Thuringia, and on the south by Swabia and Bavaria. It also included a district around Mainz, Spires and Worms, on the left bank of the Rhine. The word Franconia, first used in a Latin charter of 1053, was applied like the words France, Francia and Franken, to a portion of the land occupied by the Franks.

About the close of the 5th century this territory was conquered by Clovis, king of the Salian Franks, was afterwards incorporated with the kingdom of Austrasia, and at a later period came under the rule of Charlemagne. After the treaty of Verdun in 843 it became the centre of the East Frankish or German kingdom, and in theory remained so for a long period, and was for a time the most important of the duchies which arose on the ruins of the Carolingian empire. The land was divided into counties, or gauen, which were ruled by counts, prominent among whom were members of the families of Conradine and Babenberg, by whose feuds it was frequently devastated. Conrad, a member of the former family, who took the title of “duke in Franconia” about the year 900, was chosen German king in 911 as the representative of the foremost of the German races. Conrad handed over the chief authority in Franconia to his brother Eberhard, who remained on good terms with Conrad’s successor Henry I. the Fowler, but rose against the succeeding king, Otto the Great, and was killed in battle in 939, when his territories were divided. The influence of Franconia began to decline under the kings of the Saxon house. It lacked political unity, had no opportunities for extension, and soon became divided into Rhenish Franconia (Francia rhenensis, Ger. Rheinfranken) and Eastern Franconia (Francia orientalis, Ger. Ostfranken). The most influential family in Rhenish Franconia was that of the Salians, the head of which early in the 10th century was Conrad the Red, duke of Lorraine, and son-in-law of Otto the Great. This Conrad, his son Otto and his grandson Conrad are sometimes called dukes of Franconia, and in 1024 his great-grandson Conrad, also duke of Franconia, was elected German king as Conrad II. and founded the line of Franconian or Salian emperors. Rhenish Franconia gradually became a land of free towns and lesser nobles, and under the earlier Franconian emperors sections passed to the count palatine of the Rhine, the archbishop of Mainz, the bishops of Worms and Spires and other clerical and lay nobles; and the name Franconia, or Francia orientalis as it was then called, was confined to the eastern portion of the duchy. Clerical authority was becoming predominant in this region. A series of charters dating from 822 to 1025 had granted considerable powers to the bishops of WÜrzburg, who, by the time of the emperor Henry II., possessed judicial authority over the whole of eastern Franconia. The duchy was nominally retained by the emperors in their own hands until 1115, when the emperor Henry V., wishing to curb the episcopal influence in this neighbourhood, appointed his nephew Conrad of Hohenstaufen as duke of Franconia. Conrad’s son Frederick took the title of duke of Rothenburg instead of duke of Franconia, but in 1196, on the death of Conrad of Hohenstaufen, son of the emperor Frederick I., the title fell into disuse. Meanwhile the bishop of WÜrzburg had regained his former power in the duchy, and this was confirmed in 1168 by the emperor Frederick I.

The title remained in abeyance until the early years of the 15th century, when it was assumed by John II., bishop of WÜrzburg, and retained by his successors until the bishopric was secularized in 1802. The greater part of the lands were united with Bavaria, and the name Franconia again fell into abeyance. It was revived in 1837, when Louis I., king of Bavaria, gave to three northern portions of his kingdom the names of Upper, Middle and Lower Franconia. In 1633 Bernhard, duke of Saxe-Weimar, hoping to create a principality for himself out of the ecclesiastical lands, had taken the title of duke of Franconia, but his hopes were destroyed by his defeat at NÖrdlingen in 1634. When Germany was divided into circles by the emperor Maximilian I. in 1500, the name Franconia was given to that circle which included the eastern part of the old duchy. The lands formerly comprised in the duchy of Franconia are now divided between the kingdoms of Bavaria and WÜrttemberg, the grand-duchies of Baden and Hesse, and the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau.

See J. G. ab Eckhart, Commentarii de rebus Franciae orientalis et episcopatus Wirceburgensis (WÜrzburg, 1729); F. Stein, Geschichte Frankens (Schweinfurt, 1885-1886); T. Henner, Die herzogliche Gewalt der BischÖfe von WÜrzburg (WÜrzburg, 1874).

FRANCS-ARCHERS. The institution of the francs-archers was the first attempt at the formation of regular infantry in France. They were created by the ordinance of Montils-les-Tours on the 28th of August 1448, which prescribed that in each parish an archer should be chosen from among the most apt in the use of arms; this archer to be exempt from the taille and certain obligations, to practise shooting with the bow on Sundays and feast-days, and to hold himself ready to march fully equipped at the first signal. Under Charles VII. the francs-archers distinguished themselves in numerous battles with the English, and assisted the king to drive them from France. During the succeeding reigns the institution languished, and finally disappeared in the middle of the 16th century. The francs-archers were also called francs-taupins.

See Daniel, Histoire de la milice franÇaise (1721); and E. Boutaric, Institutions militaires de la France avant les armÉes permanentes (1863).

FRANCS-TIREURS (“Free-Shooters”), irregular troops, almost exclusively infantry, employed by the French in the war of 1870-1871. They were originally rifle clubs or unofficial military societies formed in the east of France at the time of the Luxemburg crisis of 1867. The members were chiefly concerned with the practice of rifle-shooting, and were expected in war to act as light troops. As under the then system of conscription the greater part of the nation’s military energy was allowed to run to waste, the francs-tireurs were not only popular, but efficient workers in their sphere of action. As they wore no uniforms, were armed with the best existing rifles and elected their own officers, the government made repeated attempts to bring the societies, which were at once a valuable asset to the armed strength of France and a possible menace to internal order, under military discipline. This was strenuously resisted by the societies, to their sorrow as it turned out, for the Germans treated captured francs-tireurs as irresponsible non-combatants found with arms in their hands and usually exacted the death penalty. In July 1870, at the outbreak of the war, the societies were brought under the control of the minister of war and organized for field service, but it was not until the 4th of November—by which time the levÉe en masse was in force—that they were placed under the orders of the generals in the field. After that they were sometimes organized in large bodies and incorporated in the mass of the armies, but more usually they continued to work in small bands, blowing up culverts on the invaders’ lines of communication, cutting off small reconnoitring parties, surprising small posts, &c. It is now acknowledged, even by the Germans, that though the francs-tireurs did relatively little active mischief, they paralysed large detachments of the enemy, contested every step of his advance (as in the Loire campaign), and prevented him from gaining information, and that their soldierly qualities improved with experience. Their most celebrated feats were the blowing up of the Moselle railway bridge at Fontenoy on the 22nd of January 1871 (see Les Chasseurs des Vosges by Lieut.-Colonel St Étienne, Toul, 1906), and the heroic defence of ChÂteaudun by Lipowski’s Paris corps and the francs-tireurs of Cannes and Nantes (October 18, 1870). It cannot be denied that the original members of the rifle clubs were joined by many bad characters, but the patriotism of the majority was unquestionable, for little mercy was shown by the Germans to those francs-tireurs who fell into their hands. The severity of the German reprisals is itself the best testimony to the fear and anxiety inspired by the presence of active bands of francs-tireurs on the flanks and in rear of the invaders.

FRANEKER, a town in the province of Friesland, Holland, 5 m. E. of Harlingen on the railway and canal to Leeuwarden. Pop. (1900) 7187. It was at one time a favourite residence of the Frisian nobility, many of whom had their castles here, and it possessed a celebrated university, founded by the Frisian estates in 1585. This was suppressed by Napoleon I. in 1811, and the endowments were diverted four years later to the support of an athenaeum, and afterwards of a gymnasium, with which a physiological cabinet and a botanical garden are connected. Franeker also possesses a town hall (1591), which contains a planetarium, made by one Eise Eisinga in 1774-1881. The fine observatory was founded about 1780. The church of St Martin (1420) contains several fine tombs of the 15th-17th centuries. The industries of the town include silk-weaving, woollen-spinning, shipbuilding and pottery-making. It is also a considerable market for agricultural produce.

FRANK, JAKOB (1726-1791), a Jewish theologian, who founded in Poland, in the middle of the 18th century, a sect which emanated from Judaism but ended by merging with Christianity. The sect was the outcome of the Messianic mysticism of Sabbetai Zebi. It was an antinomian movement in which the authority of the Jewish law was held to be superseded by personal freedom. The Jewish authorities, alarmed at the moral laxity which resulted from the emotional rites of the Frankists, did their utmost to suppress the sect. But the latter, posing as an anti-Talmudic protest in behalf of a spiritual religion, won a certain amount of public sympathy. There was, however, no deep sincerity in the tenets of the Frankists, for though in 1759 they were baptized en masse, amid much pomp, the Church soon became convinced that Frank was not a genuine convert. He was imprisoned on a charge of heresy, but on his release in 1763 the empress Maria Theresa patronized him, regarding him as a propagandist of Christianity among the Jews. He thenceforth lived in state as baron of Offenbach, and on his death (1791) his daughter Eva succeeded him as head of the sect. The Frankists gradually merged in the general Christian body, the movement leaving no permanent trace in the synagogue.

(I. A.)

FRANK-ALMOIGN (libera eleemosyna, free alms), in the English law of real property, a species of spiritual tenure, whereby a religious corporation, aggregate or sole, holds lands of the donor to them and their successors for ever. It was a tenure dating from Saxon times, held not on the ordinary feudal conditions, but discharged of all services except the trinoda necessitas. But “they which hold in frank-almoign are bound of right before God to make orisons, prayers, masses and other divine services for the souls of their grantor or feoffor, and for the souls of their heirs which are dead, and for the prosperity and good life and good health of their heirs which are alive. And therefore they shall do no fealty to their lord, because that this divine service is better for them before God than any doing of fealty” (Litt. s. 135). It was the tenure by which the greater number of the monasteries and religious houses held their lands; it was expressly exempted from the statute 12 Car. II. c. 24 (1660), by which the other ancient tenures were abolished, and it is the tenure by which the parochial clergy and many ecclesiastical and eleemosynary foundations hold their lands at the present day. As a form of donation, however, it came to an end by the passing of the statute Quia Emptores, for by that statute no new tenure of frank-almoign could be created, except by the crown.

See Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, where the history of frank-almoign is given at length.

FRANKEL, ZECHARIAS (1801-1875), Jewish theologian, one of the founders of the Breslau school of “historical Judaism.” This school attempts to harmonize critical treatment of the documents of religion with fidelity to traditional beliefs and observances. For a time at least, the compromise succeeded in staying the disintegrating effects of the liberal movement in Judaism. Frankel was the author of several valuable works, among them Septuagint Studies, an Introduction to the Mishnah (1859), and a similar work on the Palestinian Talmud (1870). He also edited the Monatsschrift, devoted to Jewish learning on modern lines. But his chief claim to fame rests on his headship of the Breslau Seminary. This was founded in 1854 for the training of rabbis who should combine their rabbinic studies with secular courses at the university. The whole character of the rabbinate has been modified under the influence of this, the first seminary of the kind.

(I. A.)

FRANKENBERG, a manufacturing town of Germany, in the kingdom of Saxony, on the Zschopau, 7 m. N.E. of Chemnitz, on the railway Niederwiesa-Rosswein. Pop. (1905) 13,303. The principal buildings are the large Evangelical parish church, restored in 1874-1875, and the town-hall. Its industries include I extensive woollen, cotton and silk weaving, dyeing, the manufacture of brushes, furniture and cigars, iron-founding and machine building. It is well provided with schools, including one of weaving.

FRANKENHAUSEN, a town of Germany, in the principality of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, on an artificial arm of the Wipper, a tributary of the Saale, 36 m. N.N.E. of Gotha. Pop. (1905) 6534. It consists of an old and a new town, the latter mostly rebuilt since a destructive fire in 1833, and has an old chÂteau of the princes of Schwarzburg, three Protestant churches, a seminary for teachers, a hospital and a modern town-hall. Its industries include the manufacture of sugar, cigars and buttons, and there are brine springs, with baths, in the vicinity. At Frankenhausen a battle was fought on the 15th of May 1525, in which the insurgent peasants under Thomas MÜnzer were defeated by the allied princes of Saxony and Hesse.

FRANKENSTEIN, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Silesia, on the Pausebach, 35 m. S. by W. of Breslau. Pop. (1905) 7890. It is still surrounded by its medieval walls, has two Evangelical and three Roman Catholic churches, among the latter the parish church with a curious overhanging tower, and a monastery. The industries include the manufacture of artificial manures, bricks, beer and straw hats. There are also mills for grinding the magnesite found in the neighbourhood.

FRANKENTHAL, a town of Germany, in the Bavarian Palatinate, on the Isenach, connected with the Rhine by a canal 3 m. in length, 6 m. N.W. from Mannheim, and on the railways Neunkirchen-Worms and Frankenthal-Grosskarlbach. Pop. (1905) 18,191. It has two Evangelical and a Roman Catholic church, a fine medieval town-hall, two interesting old gates, remains of its former environing walls, several public monuments, including one to the veterans of the Napoleonic wars, and a museum. Its industries include the manufacture of machinery, casks, corks, soap, dolls and furniture, iron-founding and bell-founding—the famous “Kaiserglocke” of the Cologne cathedral was cast here. Frankenthal was formerly famous for its porcelain factory, established here in 1755 by Paul Anton Hannong of Strassburg, who sold it in 1762 to the elector palatine Charles Theodore. Its fame is mainly due to the modellers Konrad Link (1732-1802) and Johann Peter Melchior (d. 1796) (who worked at Frankenthal between 1779 and 1793). The best products of this factory are figures and groups representing contemporary life, or allegorical subjects in the rococo taste of the period, and they are surpassed only by those of the more famous factory at Meissen. In 1795 the factory was sold to Peter von Reccum, who removed it to GrÜnstadt.

Frankenthal (Franconodal) is mentioned as a village in the 8th century. A house of Augustinian canons established here in 1119 by Erkenbert, chamberlain of Worms, was suppressed in 1562 by the elector palatine Frederick III., who gave its possessions to Protestant refugees from the Netherlands. In 1577 this colony received town rights from the elector John Casimir, whose successor fortified the place. From 1623 until 1652, save for two years, it was occupied by the Spaniards, and in 1688-1689 it was stormed and burned by the French, the fortifications being razed. In 1697 it was reconstituted as a town, and under the elector Charles Theodore it became the capital of the Palatinate. From 1798 to 1814 it was incorporated in the French department of Mont Tonnerre.

See Wille, Stadt u. Festung Frankenthal wÄhrend des dreissigjÄhrigen Krieges (Heidelberg, 1877); Hildenbrand, Gesch. der Stadt Frankenthal (1893). For the porcelain see Heuser, Frankenthaler Gruppen und Figuren (Spires, 1899).

FRANKENWALD, a mountainous district of Germany, forming the geological connexion between the Fichtelgebirge and the Thuringian Forest. It is a broad well-wooded plateau, running for about 30 m. in a north-westerly direction, descending gently on the north and eastern sides towards the Saale, but more precipitously to the Bavarian plain in the west, and attaining its highest elevation in the Kieferle near Steinheid (2900 ft.). Along the centre lies the watershed between the basins of the Main and the Saale, belonging to the systems of the Rhine and Elbe respectively. The principal tributaries of the Main from the Frankenwald are the Rodach and Hasslach, and of the Saale, the Selbitz.

See H. Schmid, FÜhrer durch den Frankenwald (Bamberg, 1894); Meyer, ThÜringen und der Frankenwald (15th ed., Leipzig, 1900), and GÜmbel, Geognostische Beschreibung des Fichtelgebirges mit dem Frankenwald (Gotha, 1879).

FRANKFORT, a city and the county-seat of Clinton county, Indiana, U.S.A., 40 m. N.W. of Indianapolis. Pop. (1890) 5919; (1900) 7100 (144 foreign-born); (1910) 8634. Frankfort is served by the Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville, the Lake Erie & Western, the Vandalia, and the Toledo, St Louis & Western railways, and by the Indianapolis & North-Western Traction Interurban railway (electric). The city is a division point on the Toledo, St Louis & Western railway, which has large shops here. Frankfort is a trade centre for an agricultural and lumbering region; among its manufactures are handles, agricultural implements and foundry products. The first settlement in the neighbourhood was made in 1826; in 1830 the town was founded, and in 1875 it was chartered as a city. The city limits were considerably extended immediately after 1900.

FRANKFORT, the capital city of Kentucky, U.S.A., and the county-seat of Franklin county, on the Kentucky river, about 55 m. E. of Louisville. Pop. (1890) 7892; (1900) 9487, of whom 3316 were negroes; (1910 census) 10,465. The city is served by the Chesapeake & Ohio, the Louisville & Nashville, and the Frankfort & Cincinnati railways, by the Central Kentucky Traction Co. (electric), and by steamboat lines to Cincinnati, Louisville and other river ports. It is built among picturesque hills on both sides of the river, and is in the midst of the famous Kentucky “blue grass region” and of a rich lumber-producing region. The most prominent building is the Capitol, about 400 ft. long and 185 ft. wide, built of granite and white limestone in the Italian Renaissance style, with 70 large Ionic columns, and a dome 205 ft. above the terrace line, supported by 24 other columns. The Capitol was built in 1905-1907 at a cost of more than $2,000,000; in it are housed the state library and the library of the Kentucky State Historical Society. At Frankfort, also, are the state arsenal, the state penitentiary and the state home for feeble-minded children, and just outside the city limits is the state coloured normal school. The old capitol (first occupied in 1829) is still standing. In Franklin cemetery rest the remains of Daniel Boone and of Theodore O’Hara (1820-1867), a lawyer, soldier, journalist and poet, who served in the U.S. army in 1846-1848 during the Mexican War, took part in filibustering expeditions to Cuba, served in the Confederate army, and is best known as the author of “The Bivouac of the Dead,” a poem written for the burial in Frankfort of some soldiers who had lost their lives at Buena Vista. Here also are the graves of Richard M. Johnson, vice-president of the United States in 1837-1841, and the sculptor Joel T. Hart (1810-1877). The city has a considerable trade with the surrounding country, in which large quantities of tobacco and hemp are produced; its manufactures include lumber, brooms, chairs, shoes, hemp twine, canned vegetables and glass bottles. The total value of the city’s factory product in 1905 was $1,747,338, being 31.6% more than in 1900. Frankfort (said to have been named after Stephen Frank, one of an early pioneer party ambushed here by Indians) was founded in 1786 by General James Wilkinson, then deeply interested in trade with the Spanish at New Orleans, and in the midst of his Spanish intrigues. In 1792 the city was made the capital of the state. In 1862, during the famous campaign in Kentucky of General Braxton Bragg (Confederate) and General D. C. Buell (Federal), Frankfort was occupied for a short time by Bragg, who, just before being forced out by Buell, took part in the inauguration of Richard J. Hawes, chosen governor by the Confederates of the state. Hawes, however, never discharged the duties of his office. During the bitter contest for the governorship in 1900 between William Goebel (Democrat) and William S. Taylor (Republican), each of whom claimed the election, Goebel was assassinated at Frankfort. (See also Kentucky.) Frankfort received a city charter in 1839.

FRANKFORT-ON-MAIN (Ger. Frankfurt am Main), a city of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau, principally on the right bank of the Main, 24 m. above its confluence with the Rhine at Mainz, and 16 m. N. from Darmstadt. Always a place of great trading importance, long the place of election for the German kings, and until 1866, together with Hamburg, Bremen and LÜbeck, one of the four free cities of Germany, it still retains its position as one of the leading commercial centres of the German empire. Its situation in the broad and fertile valley of the Main, the northern horizon formed by the soft outlines of the Taunus range, is one of great natural beauty, the surrounding country being richly clad with orchard and forest.

Frankfort is one of the most interesting, as it is also one of the wealthiest, of German cities. Apart from its commercial importance, its position, close to the fashionable watering-places of Homburg, Nauheim and Wiesbaden, has rendered it “cosmopolitan” in the best sense of the term. The various stages in the development of the city are clearly indicated in its general plan and the surviving names of many of its streets. The line of the original 12th century walls and moat is marked by the streets of which the names end in -graben, from the Hirschgraben on the W. to the Wollgraben on the E. The space enclosed by these and by the river on the S. is known as the “old town” (Altstadt). The so-called “new town” (Neustadt), added in 1333, extends to the Anlagen, the beautiful gardens and promenades laid out (1806-1812) on the site of the 17th century fortifications, of which they faithfully preserve the general ground plan. Of the medieval fortifications the picturesque Eschenheimer Tor, a round tower 155 ft. high, dating from 1400 to 1428, the Rententurm (1456) on the Main and the Kuhhirtenturm (c. 1490) in Sachsenhausen, are the sole remains. Since the demolition of the fortifications the city has greatly expanded. Sachsenhausen on the south bank of the river, formerly the seat of a commandery of the Teutonic Order (by treaty with Austria in 1842 all property and rights of the order in Frankfort territory were sold to the city, except the church and house), is now a quarter of the city. In other directions also the expansion has been rapid; the village of Bornheim was incorporated in Frankfort in 1877, the former Hessian town of Bockenheim in 1895, and the suburbs of Niederrad, Oberrad and Seckbach in 1900.

The main development of the city has been to the north of the river, which is crossed by numerous bridges and flanked by fine quays and promenades. The Altstadt, though several broad streets have been opened through it, still preserves many of its narrow alleys and other medieval features. The Judengasse (Ghetto), down to 1806 the sole Jews’ quarter, has been pulled down, with the exception of the ancestral house of the Rothschild family—No. 148—which has been restored and retains its ancient faÇade. As the Altstadt is mainly occupied by artisans and petty tradesmen, so the Neustadt is the principal business quarter of the city, containing the chief public buildings and the principal hotels. The main arteries of the city are the Zeil, a broad street running from the Friedberger Anlage to the Rossmarkt and thence continued, by the Kaiserstrasse, through the fine new quarter built after 1872, to the magnificent principal railway station; and the Steinweg and Goethestrasse, which lead by the Bockenheimer Tor to the Bockenheimer Landstrasse, a broad boulevard intersecting the fashionable residential suburb to the N.W.

Churches.—The principal ecclesiastical building in Frankfort is the cathedral (Dom). Built of red sandstone, with a massive tower terminating in a richly ornamented cupola and 300 ft. in height, it is the most conspicuous object in the city. This building, in which the Roman emperors were formerly elected and, since 1562, crowned, was founded in 852 by King Louis the German, and was later known as the Salvator Kirche. After its reconstruction (1235-1239), it was dedicated to St Bartholomew. From this period date the nave and the side aisles; the choir was completed in 1315-1338 and the long transepts in 1346-1354. The cloisters were rebuilt in 1348-1447, and the electoral chapel, on the south of the choir, was completed in 1355. The tower was begun in 1415, but remained unfinished. On the 15th of August 1867 the tower and roof were destroyed by fire and considerable damage was done to the rest of the edifice. The restoration was immediately taken in hand, and the whole work was finished in 1881, including the completion of the tower, according to the plans of the 15th century architect, Hans von Ingelheim. In the interior is the tomb of the German king GÜnther of Schwarzburg, who died in Frankfort in 1349, and that of Rudolph, the last knight of Sachsenhausen, who died in 1371. Among the other Roman Catholic churches are the Leonhardskirche, the Liebfrauenkirche (church of Our Lady) and the Deutschordenskirche (14th century) in Sachsenhausen. The Leonhardskirche (restored in 1882) was begun in 1219, it is said on the site of the palace of Charlemagne. It was originally a three-aisled basilica, but is now a five-aisled Hallenkirche; the choir was added in 1314. It has two Romanesque towers. The Liebfrauenkirche is first mentioned in 1314 as a collegiate church; the nave was consecrated in 1340. The choir was added in 1506-1509 and the whole church thoroughly restored in the second half of the 18th century, when the tower was built (1770). Of the Protestant churches the oldest is the Nikolaikirche, which dates from the 13th century; the fine cast-iron spire erected in 1843 had to be taken down in 1901. The Paulskirche, the principal Evangelical (Lutheran) church, built between 1786 and 1833, is a red sandstone edifice of no architectural pretensions, but interesting as the seat of the national parliament of 1848-1849. The Katharinenkirche, built 1678-1681 on the site of an older building, is famous in Frankfort history as the place where the first Protestant sermon was preached in 1522. Among the more noteworthy of the newer Protestant churches are the Peterskirche (1892-1895) in the North German Renaissance style, with a tower 256 ft. high, standing north from the Zeil, the Christuskirche (1883) and the Lutherkirche (1889-1893). An English church, in Early English Gothic style, situated adjacent to the Bockenheimer Landstrasse, was completed and consecrated in 1906.

Of the five synagogues, the chief (or Hauptsynagoge), lying in the BÖrnestrasse, is an attractive building of red sandstone in the Moorish-Byzantine style.

Public Buildings.—Of the secular buildings in Frankfort, the RÖmer, for almost five hundred years the Rathaus (town hall) of the city, is of prime historical interest. It lies on the RÖmerberg, a square flanked by curious medieval houses. It is first mentioned in 1322, was bought with the adjacent hostelry in 1405 by the city and rearranged as a town hall, and has since, from time to time, been enlarged by the purchase of adjoining patrician houses, forming a complex of buildings of various styles and dates surmounted by a clock tower. The faÇade was rebuilt (1896-1898) in late Gothic style. It was here, in the Wahlzimmer (or election-chamber) that the electors or their plenipotentiaries chose the German kings, and here in the Kaisersaal (emperors’ hall) that the coronation festival was held, at which the new king or emperor dined with the electors after having shown himself from the balcony to the people. The Kaisersaal retained its antique appearance until 1843, when, as also again in 1904, it was restored and redecorated; it is now furnished with a series of modern paintings representing the German kings and Roman emperors from Charlemagne to Francis II., in all fifty-two, and a statue of the first German emperor, William I. New municipal buildings adjoining the “RÖmer” on the north side were erected in 1900-1903 in German Renaissance style, with a handsome tower 220 ft. high; beneath it is a public wine-cellar, and on the first storey a grand municipal hall. The palace of the princes of Thurn and Taxis in the Eschenheimer Gasse was built (1732-1741) from the designs of Robert de Cotte, chief architect to Louis XIV. of France. From 1806 to 1810 it was the residence of Karl von Dalberg, prince-primate of the Confederation of the Rhine, with whose dominions Frankfort had been incorporated by Napoleon. From 1816 to 1866 it was the seat of the German federal diet. It is now annexed to the principal post office (built 1892-1894), which lies close to it on the Zeil. The Saalhof, built on the site of the palace erected by Louis the Pious in 822, overlooking the Main, has a chapel of the 12th century, the substructure dating from Carolingian times. This is the oldest building in Frankfort. The faÇade of the Saalhof in the Saalgasse dates from 1604, the southern wing with the two gables from 1715 to 1717. Of numerous other medieval buildings may be mentioned the Leinwandhaus (linendrapers’ hall), a 15th century building reconstructed in 1892 as a municipal museum. In the Grosser Hirschgraben is the Goethehaus, a 16th century building which came into the possession of the Goethe family in 1733. Here Goethe lived from his birth in 1749 until 1775. In 1863 the house was acquired by the Freies deutsche Hochstift and was opened to the public. It has been restored, from Goethe’s account of it in Dichtung und Wahrheit, as nearly as possible to its condition in the poet’s day, and is now connected with a Goethemuseum (1897), with archives and a library of 25,000 volumes representative of the Goethe period of German literature.

Literary and Scientific Institutions.—Few cities of the same size as Frankfort are so richly endowed with literary, scientific and artistic institutions, or possess so many handsome buildings appropriated to their service. The opera-house, erected near the Bockenheimer Tor in 1873-1880, is a magnificent edifice in the style of the Italian Renaissance and ranks among the finest theatres in Europe. There are also a theatre (Schauspielhaus) in modern Renaissance style (1899-1902), devoted especially to drama, a splendid concert hall (Saalbau), opened in 1861, and numerous minor places of theatrical entertainment. The public picture gallery in the Saalhof possesses works by Hans Holbein, GrÜnewald, Van Dyck, Teniers, Van der Neer, Hans von Kulmbach, Lucas Cranach and other masters. The StÄdel Art Institute (StÄdel’sches Kunstinstitut) in Sachsenhausen, founded by the banker J. F. StÄdel in 1816, contains a picture gallery and a cabinet of engravings extremely rich in works of German art. The municipal library, with 300,000 volumes, boasts among its rarer treasures a Gutenberg Bible printed at Mainz between 1450 and 1455, another on parchment dated 1462, the Institutiones Justiniani (Mainz, 1468), the Theuerdank, with woodcuts by Hans SchÄufelein, and numerous valuable autographs. It also contains a fine collection of coins. The Bethmann Museum owes its celebrity principally to Dannecker’s “Ariadne,” but it also possesses the original plaster model of Thorwaldsen’s “Entrance of Alexander the Great into Babylon.” There may also be mentioned the Industrial Art Exhibition of the Polytechnic Association and two conservatories of music. Among the scientific institutions the first place belongs to the Senckenberg’sches naturhistorische Museum, containing valuable collections of birds and shells. Next must be mentioned the Kunstgewerbe (museum of arts and crafts) and the Musical Museum, with valuable MSS. and portraits. Besides the municipal library (Stadtbibliothek) mentioned above there are three others of importance, the Rothschild, the Senckenberg and the Jewish library (with a well-appointed reading-room). There are numerous high-grade schools, musical and other learned societies and excellent hospitals. The last include the large municipal infirmary and the Senckenberg’sches Stift, a hospital and almshouses founded by a doctor, Johann C. Senckenberg (d. 1772). The Royal Institute for experimental therapeutics (KÖnigl. Institut fÜr experimentelle Therapie), moved to Frankfort in 1899, attracts numerous foreign students, and is especially concerned with the study of bacteriology and serums.

Bridges.—Seven bridges (of which two are railway) cross the Main. The most interesting of these is the Alte MainbrÜcke, a red sandstone structure of fourteen arches, 815 ft. long, dating from the 14th century. On it are a mill, a statue of Charlemagne and an iron crucifix surmounted by a gilded cock. The latter commemorates, according to tradition, the fowl which was the first living being to cross the bridge and thus fell a prey to the devil, who in hope of a nobler victim had sold his assistance to the architect. Antiquaries, however, assert that it probably marks the spot where criminals were in olden times flung into the river. Other bridges are the ObermainbrÜcke of five iron arches, opened in 1878; an iron foot (suspension) bridge, the UntermainbrÜcke; the WilhelmsbrÜcke, a fine structure, which from 1849 to 1890 served as a railway bridge and was then opened as a road bridge; and two new iron bridges at Gutleuthof and Niederrad (below the city), which carry the railway traffic from the south to the north bank of the Main, where all lines converge in a central station of the Prussian state railways. This station, which was built in 1883-1888 and has replaced the three stations belonging to private companies, which formerly stood in juxtaposition on the Anlagen (or promenades) near the Mainzer Tor, lies some half-mile to the west. The intervening ground upon which the railway lines and buildings stood was sold for building sites, the sum obtained being more than sufficient to cover the cost of the majestic central terminus (the third largest in the world), which, in addition to spacious and handsome halls for passenger accommodation, has three glass-covered spans of 180 ft. width each. Yet the exigencies of traffic demand further extensions, and another large station was in 1909 in process of construction at the east end of the city, devised to receive the local traffic of lines running eastward, while a through station for the north to south traffic was projected on a site farther west of the central terminus.

Frankfort lies at the junction of lines of railway connecting it directly with all the important cities of south and central Germany. Here cross and unite the lines from Berlin to Basel, from Cologne to WÜrzburg and Vienna, from Hamburg and Cassel, and from Dresden and Leipzig to France and Switzerland. The river Main has been dredged so as to afford heavy barge traffic with the towns of the upper Main and with the Rhine, and cargo boats load and unload alongside its busy quays. A well-devised system of electric tramways provides for local communication within the city and with the outlying suburbs.

Trade, Commerce and Industries.—Frankfort has always been more of a commercial than an industrial town, and though of late years it has somewhat lost its pre-eminent position as a banking centre it has counterbalanced the loss in increased industrial development. The suburbs of Sachsenhausen and Bockenheim have particularly developed considerable industrial activity, especially in publishing and printing, brewing and the manufacture of quinine. Other sources of employment are the cutting of hair for making hats, the production of fancy goods, type, machinery, soap and perfumery, ready-made clothing, chemicals, electro-technical apparatus, jewelry and metal wares. Market gardening is extensively carried on in the neighbourhood and cider largely manufactured. There are two great fairs held in the town,—the Ostermesse, or spring fair, and the Herbstmesse, or autumn fair. The former, which was the original nucleus of all the commercial prosperity of the city, begins on the second Wednesday before Easter; and the latter on the second Wednesday before the 8th of September. They last three weeks, and the last day save one, called the Nickelchestag, is distinguished by the influx of people from the neighbouring country. The trade in leather is of great and growing importance. A horse fair has been held twice a year since 1862 under the patronage of the agricultural society; and the wool market was reinstituted in 1872 by the German Trade Society (Deutscher Handelsverein). Frankfort has long been famous as one of the principal banking centres of Europe, and is now only second to Berlin, in this respect, among German cities, and it is remarkable for the large business that is done in government stock. In the 17th century the town was the seat of a great book-trade; but it has long been distanced in this department by Leipzig. The Frankfurter Journal was founded in 1615, the Postzeitung in 1616, the Neue Frankfurter Zeitung in 1859, and the Frankfurter Presse in 1866.

Of memorial monuments the largest and most elaborate in Frankfort is that erected in 1858 in honour of the early German printers. It was modelled by Ed. von der Launitz and executed by Herr von Kreis. The statues of Gutenberg, Fust and SchÖffer form a group on the top; an ornamented frieze presents medallions of a number of famous printers; below these are figures representing the towns of Mainz, Strassburg, Venice and Frankfort; and on the corners of the pedestal are allegorical statues of theology, poetry, science and industry. The statue of Goethe (1844) in the Goetheplatz is by Ludwig von Schwanthaler. The Schiller statue, erected in 1863, is the work of a Frankfort artist, Johann Dielmann. A monument in the Bockenheim Anlage, dated 1837, preserves the memory of Guiollett, the burgomaster, to whom the town is mainly indebted for the beautiful promenades which occupy the site of the old fortifications; and similar monuments have been reared to Senckenberg (1863), Schopenhauer, Klemens Brentano the poet and Samuel Thomas SÖmmerring (1755-1830), the anatomist and inventor of an electric telegraph. In the Opernplatz is an equestrian statue of the emperor Wilhelm I. by Buscher.

Cemeteries.—The new cemetery (opened in 1828) contains the graves of Arthur Schopenhauer and Feuerbach, of Passavant the biographer of Raphael, Ballenberger the artist, Hessemer the architect, SÖmmerring, and Johann Friedrich BÖhmer the historian. The Bethmann vault attracts attention by three bas-reliefs from the chisel of Thorwaldsen; and the Reichenbach mausoleum is a vast pile designed by Hessemer at the command of William II. of Hesse, and adorned with sculptures by Zwerger and von der Lausitz. In the Jewish section, which is walled off from the rest of the burying-ground, the most remarkable tombs are those of the Rothschild family.

Parks.—In addition to the park in the south-western district, Frankfort possesses two delightful pleasure grounds, which attract large numbers of visitors, the Palmengarten in the west and the zoological garden in the east of the city. The former is remarkable for the collection of palms purchased in 1868 from the deposed duke Adolph of Nassau.

Government.—The present municipal constitution of the city dates from 1867 and presents some points of difference from the ordinary Prussian system. Bismarck was desirous of giving the city, in view of its former freedom, a more liberal constitution than is usual in ordinary cases. Formerly fifty-four representatives were elected, but provision was made (in the constitution) for increasing the number, and they at present number sixty-four, elected for six years. Every two years a third of the number retire, but they are eligible for re-election. These sixty-four representatives elect twenty town-councillors, ten of whom receive a salary and ten do not. The chief burgomaster (OberbÜrgermeister) is nominated by the emperor for twelve years, and the second burgomaster must receive the emperor’s approval.

Since 1885 the city has been supplied with water of excellent quality from the Stadtwald, Goldstein and Hinkelstein, and the favourable sanitary condition of the town is seen in the low death rate.

Population.—The population of Frankfort has steadily increased since the beginning of the 19th century; it amounted in 1817 to 41,458; (1840) 55,269; (1864) 77,372; (1871) 59,265; (1875) 103,136; (1890) 179,985; and (1905), including the incorporated suburban districts, 334,951, of whom 175,909 were Protestants, 88,457 Roman Catholics and 21,974 Jews.

History.—Excavations around the cathedral have incontestably proved that Frankfort-on-Main (Trajectum ad Moenum) was a settlement in Roman times and was probably founded in the 1st century of the Christian era. It may thus be accounted one of the earliest German—the so-called “Roman”—towns. Numerous places in the valley of the Main are mentioned in chronicles anterior to the time that Frankfort is first noticed. Disregarding popular tradition, which connects the origin of the town with a legend that Charlemagne, when retreating before the Saxons, was safely conducted across the river by a doe, it may be asserted that the first genuine historical notice of the town occurs in 793, when Einhard, Charlemagne’s biographer, tells us that he spent the winter in the villa Frankonovurd. Next year there is mention more than once of a royal palace here, and the early importance of the place is indicated by the fact that in this year it was chosen as the seat of the ecclesiastical council by which image-worship was condemned. The name Frankfort is also found in several official documents of Charlemagne’s reign; and from the notices that occur in the early chronicles and charters it would appear that the place was the most populous at least of the numerous villages of the Main district. During the Carolingian period it was the seat of no fewer than 16 imperial councils or colloquies. The town was probably at first built on an island in the river. It was originally governed by the royal officer or actor dominicus, and down even to the close of the Empire it remained a purely imperial or royal town. It gradually acquired various privileges, and by the close of the 14th century the only mark of dependence was the payment of a yearly tax. Louis the Pious dwelt more frequently at Frankfort than his father Charlemagne had done, and about 823 he built himself a new palace, the basis of the later Saalhof. In 822 and 823 two great diets were held in the palace, and at the former there were present deputies from the eastern Slavs, the Avars and the Normans. The place continued to be a favourite residence with Louis the German, who died there in 876, and was the capital of the East Frankish kingdom. By the rest of the Carolingian kings it was less frequently visited, and this neglect was naturally greater during the period of the Saxon and Salic emperors from 919 to 1137. Diets, however, were held in the town in 951, 1015, 1069 and 1109, and councils in 1000 and 1006. From a privilege of Henry IV., in 1074, granting the city of Worms freedom from tax in their trade with several royal cities, it appears that Frankfort was even then a place of some commercial importance.

Under the Hohenstaufens many brilliant diets were held within its walls. That of 1147 saw, also, the first election of a German king at Frankfort, in the person of Henry, son of Conrad III. But as the father outlived the son, it was Frederick I., Barbarossa, who was actually the first reigning king to be elected here (in 1152). With the beginning of the 13th century the municipal constitution appears to have taken definite shape. The chief official was the royal bailiff (Schultheiss), who is first mentioned in 1193, and whose powers were subsequently enlarged by the abolition, in 1219, of the office of the royal Vogt or advocatus. About this time a body of SchÖffen (scabini, jurats), fourteen in number, was formed to assist in the control of municipal affairs, and with their appointment the first step was taken towards civic representative government. Soon, however, the activity of the SchÖffen became specifically confined to the determination of legal disputes, and in their place a new body (Collegium) of counsellors—Ratmannen—also fourteen in number, was appointed for the general administration of local matters. In 1311, the two burgomasters, now chiefs of the municipality, take the place of the royal Schultheiss. In the 13th century, the Frankfort Fair, which is first mentioned in 1150, and the origin of which must have been long anterior to that date, is referred to as being largely frequented. No fewer than 10 new churches were erected in the years from 1220 to 1270. It was about the same period, probably in 1240, that the Jews first settled in the town. In the contest which Louis the Bavarian maintained with the papacy Frankfort sided with the emperor, and it was consequently placed under an interdict for 20 years from 1329 to 1349. On Louis’ death it refused to accept the papal conditions of pardon, and only yielded to Charles IV., the papal nominee, when GÜnther of Schwarzburg thought it more prudent to abdicate in his favour. Charles granted the city a full amnesty, and confirmed its liberties and privileges.

By the famous Golden Bull of 1356 Frankfort was declared the seat of the imperial elections, and it still preserves an official contemporaneous copy of the original document as the most precious of the eight imperial bulls in its possession. From the date of the bull to the close of the Empire Frankfort retained the position of “Wahlstadt,” and only five of the two-and-twenty monarchs who ruled during that period were elected elsewhere. In 1388-1389 Frankfort assisted the South German towns in their wars with the princes and nobles (the StÄdtekrieg), and in a consequent battle with the troops of the Palatinate, the town banner was lost and carried to Kronberg, where it was long preserved as a trophy. On peace being concluded in 1391, the town had to pay 12,562 florins, and this brought it into great financial difficulties. In the course of the next 50 years debt was contracted to the amount of 126,772 florins. The diet at Worms in 1495 chose Frankfort as the seat of the newly instituted imperial chamber, or “Reichskammergericht,” and it was not till 1527 that the chamber was removed to Spires. At the Reformation Frankfort heartily joined the Protestant party, and in consequence it was hardly treated both by the emperor Charles V. and by the archbishop of Mainz. It refused to subscribe the Augsburg Recess, but at the same time it was not till 1536 that it was persuaded to join the League of Schmalkalden. On the failure of this confederation it opened its gates to the imperial general BÜren on the 29th of December 1546, although he had passed by the city, which he considered too strong for the forces under his command. The emperor was merciful enough to leave it in possession of its privileges, but he inflicted a fine of 80,000 gold gulden, and until October 1547 the citizens had to endure the presence of from 8000 to 10,000 soldiers. This resulted in a pestilence which not only lessened the population, but threatened to give the death-blow to the great annual fairs; and at the close of the war it was found that it had cost the city no less than 228,931 gulden. In 1552 Frankfort was invested for three weeks by Maurice of Saxony, who was still in arms against the emperor Charles V., but it continued to hold out till peace was concluded between the principal combatants. Between 1612 and 1616 occurred the great Fettmilch insurrection, perhaps the most remarkable episode in the internal history of Frankfort. The magistracy had been acquiring more and more the character of an oligarchy; all power was practically in the hands of a few closely-related families; and the gravest peculation and malversation took place without hindrance. The ordinary citizens were roused to assert their rights, and they found a leader in Vincenz Fettmilch, who carried the contest to dangerous excesses, but lacked ability to bring it to a successful issue. An imperial commission was ultimately appointed, and the three principal culprits and several of their associates were executed in 1616. It was not till 1801 that the last mouldering head of the Fettmilch company dropped unnoticed from the Rententurm, the old tower near the bridge. In the words of Dr Kriegk, Geschichte von Frankfurt, (1871), the insurrection completely destroyed the political power of the gilds, gave new strength to the supremacy of the patriciate, and brought no further advantage to the rest of the citizens than a few improvements in the organization and administration of the magistracy. The Jews, who had been attacked by the popular party, were solemnly reinstated by imperial command in all their previous privileges, and received full compensation for their losses.

During the Thirty Years’ War Frankfort did not escape. In 1631 Gustavus Adolphus garrisoned it with 600 men, who remained in possession till they were expelled four years later by the imperial general Lamboy. In 1792 the citizens had to pay 2,000,000 gulden to the French general Custine; and in 1796 KlÉber exacted 8,000,000 francs. The independence of Frankfort was brought to an end in 1806, on the formation of the Confederation of the Rhine; and in 1810 it was made the capital of the grand-duchy of Frankfort, which had an area of 3215 sq. m. with 302,100 inhabitants, and was divided into the four districts of Frankfort, Aschaffenburg, Fulda and Hanau. On the reconstitution of Germany in 1815 it again became a free city, and in the following year it was declared the seat of the German Confederation. In April 1833 occurred what is known as the Frankfort Insurrection (Frankfurter Attentat), in which a number of insurgents led by Georg Bunsen attempted to break up the diet. The city joined the German Zollverein in 1836. During the revolutionary period of 1848 the people of Frankfort, where the united German parliament held its sessions, took a chief part in political movements, and the streets of the town were more than once the scene of conflict. In the war of 1866 they were on the Austrian side. On the 16th of July the Prussian troops, under General Vogel von Falkenstein, entered the town, and on the 18th of October it was formally incorporated with the Prussian state. A fine of 6,000,000 florins was exacted. In 1871 the treaty which concluded the Franco-German War was signed in the Swan Hotel by Prince Bismarck and Jules Favre, and it is consequently known as the peace of Frankfort.

Authorities.—F. Rittweger, Frankfurt im Jahre 1848 (1898); R. Jung, Das historische Archiv der Stadt Frankfurt (1897); A. Horne, Geschichte von Frankfurt (4th ed., 1903); H. Grotefend, Quellen zur FrankfÜrter Geschichte (Frankfort, 1884-1888); J. C. von Fichard, Die Entstehung der Reichsstadt Frankfurt (Frankfort, 1819); G. L. Kriegk, Geschichte von Frankfurt (Frankfort, 1871); J. F. BÖhmer, Urkundenbuch der Reichsstadt Frankfurt (new ed., 1901); B. Weber, Zur Reformationsgeschichte der freien Reichsstadt Frankfurt (1895); O. Speyer, Die Frankfurter Revolution 1612-1616 (1883); and L. Woerl, Guide to Frankfort (Leipzig, 1898).

FRANKFORT-ON-ODER, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Brandenburg, 50 m. S.E. from Berlin on the main line of railway to Breslau and at the junction of lines to CÜstrin, Posen and Grossenhain. Pop. (1905) 64,943. The town proper lies on the left bank of the river Oder and is connected by a stone bridge (replacing the old historical wooden structure) 900 ft. long, with the suburb of Damm. The town is agreeably situated and has broad and handsome streets, among them the “Linden,” a spacious avenue. Above, on the western side, and partly lying on the site of the old ramparts, is the residential quarter, consisting mainly of villas and commanding a fine prospect of the Oder valley. Between this suburb and the town lies the park, in which is a monument to the poet Ewald Christian von Kleist, who died here of wounds received in the battle of Kunersdorf. Among the more important public buildings must be noticed the Evangelical Marienkirche (Oberkirche), a handsome brick edifice of the 13th century with five aisles, the Roman Catholic church, the Rathhaus dating from 1607, and bearing on its southern gable the device of a member of the Hanseatic League, the government offices and the theatre. The university of Frankfort, founded in 1506 by Joachim I., elector of Brandenburg, was removed to Breslau in 1811, and the academical buildings are now occupied by a school. To compensate it for the loss of its university, Frankfort-on-Oder was long the seat of the court of appeal for the province, but of this it was deprived in 1879. There are several handsome public monuments, notably that to Duke Leopold of Brunswick, who was drowned in the Oder while attempting to save life, on the 27th of April 1785. The town has a large garrison, consisting of nearly all arms. Its industries are considerable, including the manufacture of machinery, metal ware, chemicals, paper, leather and sugar. Situated on the high road from Berlin to Silesia, and having an extensive system of water communication by means of the Oder and its canals to the Vistula and the Elbe, and being an important railway centre, it has a lively export trade, which is further fostered by its three annual fairs, held respectively at Reminiscere (the second Sunday in Lent), St Margaret’s day and at Martinmas. In the neighbourhood are extensive coal fields.

Frankfort-on-the-Oder owes its origin and name to a settlement of Franconian merchants here, in the 13th century, on land conquered by the margrave of Brandenburg from the Wends. In 1253 it was raised to the rank of a town by the margrave John I. and borrowed from Berlin the Magdeburg civic constitution. In 1379 it received from King Sigismund, then margrave of Brandenburg, the right to free navigation of the Oder; and from 1368 to about 1450 it belonged to the Hanseatic League. The university, which is referred to above, was opened by the elector Joachim I. in 1506, was removed in 1516 to Kottbus and restored again to Frankfort in 1539, at which date the Reformation was introduced. It was dispersed during the Thirty Years’ War and again restored by the Great Elector, but finally transferred to Breslau in 1811.

Frankfort has suffered much from the vicissitudes of war. In the 15th century it successfully withstood sieges by the Hussites (1429 and 1432), by the Poles (1450) and by the duke of Sagan (1477). In the Thirty Years’ War it was successively taken by Gustavus Adolphus (1631), by Wallenstein (1633), by the elector of Brandenburg (1634), and again by the Swedes, who held it from 1640 to 1644. During the Seven Years’ War it was taken by the Russians (1759). In 1812 it was occupied by the French, who remained till March 1813, when the Russians marched in.

See K. R. Hausen, Geschichte der UniversitÄt und Stadt Frankfurt (1806), and Bieder und Gurnik, Bilder aus der Geschichte der Stadt Frankfurt-an-der-Oder (1898).

FRANKINCENSE,1 or Olibanum2 (Gr. λιβανωτός, later θύος; Lat., tus or thus; Heb., lebonah;3 Ar., lubān;4 Turk., ghyunluk; Hind., ganda-birosa5), a gum-resin obtained from certain species of trees of the genus Boswellia, and natural order Burseraceae. The members of the genus are possessed of the following characters:—Bark often papyraceous; leaves deciduous, compound, alternate and imparipinnate, with leaflets serrate or entire; flowers in racemes or panicles, white, green, yellowish or pink, having a small persistent, 5-dentate calyx, 5 petals, 10 stamens, a sessile 3 to 5-chambered ovary, a long style, and a 3-lobed stigma; fruit trigonal or pentagonal; and seed compressed. Sir George Birdwood (Trans. Lin. Soc. xxvii., 1871) distinguishes five species of Boswellia: (A) B. thurifera, Colebr. (B. glabra and B. serrata, Roxb.), indigenous to the mountainous tracts of central India and the Coromandel coast, and B. papyrifera (PlÖsslea floribunda, Endl.) of Abyssinia, which, though both thuriferous, are not known to yield any of the olibanum of commerce; and (B) B. Frereana (see Elemi, vol. x. p. 259), B. Bhua-Dajiana, and B. Carterii, the “Yegaar,” “Mohr Add,” and “Mohr Madow” of the Somali country, in East Africa, the last species including a variety, the “Maghrayt d’Sheehaz” of Hadramaut, Arabia, all of which are sources of true frankincense or olibanum. The trees on the Somali coast are described by Captain G. B. Kempthorne as growing, without soil, out of polished marble rocks, to which they are attached by a thick oval mass of substance resembling a mixture of lime and mortar: the purer the marble the finer appears to be the growth of the tree. The young trees, he states, furnish the most valuable gum, the older yielding merely a clear glutinous fluid resembling copal varnish.6 To obtain the frankincense a deep incision is made in the trunk of the tree, and below it a narrow strip of bark 5 in. in length is peeled off. When the milk-like juice (“spuma pinguis,” Pliny) which exudes has hardened by exposure to the atmosphere, the incision is deepened. In about three months the resin has attained the required degree of consistency. The season for gathering lasts from May until the first rains in September. The large clear globules are scraped off into baskets, and the inferior quality that has run down the tree is collected separately. The coast of south Arabia is yearly visited by parties of Somalis, who pay the Arabs for the privilege of collecting frankincense.7 In the interior of the country about the plain of Dhofār,8 during the south-west monsoon, frankincense and other gums are gathered by the Beni Gurrah Bedouins, and might be obtained by them in much larger quantities; their lawlessness, however, and the lack of a safe place of exchange or sale are obstacles to the development of trade. (See C. Y. Ward, The Gulf of Aden Pilot, p. 117, 1863.) Much as formerly in the region of Sakhalites in Arabia (the tract between Ras Makalla and Ras Agab),9 described by Arrian, so now on the sea-coast of the Somali country, the frankincense when collected is stored in heaps at various stations. Thence, packed in sheep- and goat-skins, in quantities of 20 to 40 ℔, it is carried on camels to Berbera, for shipment either to Aden, Makalla and other Arabian ports, or directly to Bombay.10 At Bombay, like gum-acacia, it is assorted, and is then packed for re-exportation to Europe, China and elsewhere.11 Arrian relates that it was an import of Barbarike on the Sinthus (Indus). The idea held by several writers, including Niebuhr, that frankincense was a product of India, would seem to have originated in a confusion of that drug with benzoin and other odoriferous substances, and also in the sale of imported frankincense with the native products of India. The gum resin of Boswellia thurifera was described by Colebrooke (in Asiatick Researches, ix. 381), and after him by Dr J. Fleming (Ib. xi. 158), as true frankincense, or olibanum; from this, however, it differs in its softness, and tendency to melt into a mass12 (Birdwood, loc. cit., p. 146). It is sold in the village bazaars of Khandeish in India under the name of Dup-Salai, i.e. incense of the “Salai tree”; and according to Mr F. Porter Smith, M.B. (Contrib. towards the Mat. Med. and Nat. Hist, of China, p. 162, Shanghai, 1871), is used as incense in China. The last authority also mentions olibanum as a reputed natural product of China. Bernhard von Breydenbach,13 Ausonius, Florus and others, arguing, it would seem, from its Hebrew and Greek names, concluded that olibanum came from Mount Lebanon; and Chardin (Voyage en Perse, &c., 1711) makes the statement that the frankincense tree grows in the mountains of Persia, particularly Caramania.

Frankincense, or olibanum, occurs in commerce in semi-opaque, round, ovate or oblong tears or irregular lumps, which are covered externally with a white dust, the result of their friction against one another. It has an amorphous internal structure, a dull fracture; is of a yellow to yellowish-brown hue, the purer varieties being almost colourless, or possessing a greenish tinge, and has a somewhat bitter aromatic taste, and a balsamic odour, which is developed by heating. Immersed in alcohol it becomes opaque, and with water it yields an emulsion. It contains about 72% of resin soluble in alcohol (Kurbatow); a large proportion of gum soluble in water, and apparently identical with gum arabic; and a small quantity of a colourless inflammable essential oil, one of the constituents of which is the body oliben, C10H16. Frankincense burns with a bright white flame, leaving an ash consisting mainly of calcium carbonate, the remainder being calcium phosphate, and the sulphate, chloride and carbonate of potassium (Braconnot).14 Good frankincense, Pliny tells us, is recognized by its whiteness, size, brittleness and ready inflammability. That which occurs in globular drops is, he says, termed “male frankincense”; the most esteemed, he further remarks, is in breast-shaped drops, formed each by the union of two tears.15 The best frankincense, as we learn from Arrian,16 was formerly exported from the neighbourhood of Cape Elephant in Africa (the modern Ras Fiel); and A. von Kremer, in his description of the commerce of the Red Sea (Aegypten, &c., p. 185, ii. Theil, Leipzig, 1863), observes that the African frankincense, called by the Arabs “asli,” is of twice the value of the Arabian “luban.” Captain S. B. Miles (loc. cit., p. 64) states that the best kind of frankincense, known to the Somali as “bedwi” or “sheheri,” comes from the trees “Mohr Add” and “Mohr Madow” (vide supra), and from a taller species of Boswellia, the “Boido,” and is sent to Bombay for exportation to Europe; and that an inferior “mayeti,” the produce of the “Yegaar,” is exported chiefly to Jeddah and Yemen ports.17 The latter may possibly be what Niebuhr alludes to as “Indian frankincense.”18 Garcias da Horta, in asserting the Arabian origin of the drug, remarks that the term “Indian” is often applied by the Arabs to a dark-coloured variety.19

According to Pliny (Nat. Hist. xiv. 1; cf. Ovid, Fasti i. 337 sq.), frankincense was not sacrificially employed in Trojan times. It was used by the ancient Egyptians in their religious rites, but, as Herodotus tells us (ii. 86), not in embalming. It constituted a fourth part of the Jewish incense of the sanctuary (Ex. xxx. 34), and is frequently mentioned in the Pentateuch. With other spices it was stored in a great chamber of the house of God at Jerusalem (1 Chron. ix. 29, Neh. xiii. 5-9). On the sacrificial use and import of frankincense and similar substances see Incense.

In the Red Sea regions frankincense is valued not only for its sweet odour when burnt, but as a masticatory; and blazing lumps of it are not infrequently used for illumination instead of oil lamps. Its fumes are an excellent insectifuge. As a medicine it was in former times in high repute. Pliny (Nat. Hist. xxv. 82) mentions it as an antidote to hemlock. Avicenna (ed. Plempii, lib. ii. p. 161, Lovanii, 1658, fol.) recommends it for tumours, ulcers of the head and ears, affections of the breast, vomiting, dysentery and fevers. In the East frankincense has been found efficacious as an external application in carbuncles, blind boils and gangrenous sores, and as an internal agent is given in gonorrhoea. In China it was an old internal remedy for leprosy and struma, and is accredited with stimulant, tonic, sedative, astringent and vulnerary properties. It is not used in modern medicine, being destitute of any special virtues. (See Waring, Pharm. of India, p. 443, &c.; and F. Porter Smith, op. cit., p. 162.)

Common frankincense or thus, Abietis resina, is the term applied to a resin which exudes from fissures in the bark of the Norway spruce fir, Abies excelsa, D.C.; when melted in hot water and strained it constitutes “Burgundy pitch,” Pix abietina. The concreted turpentine obtained in the United States by making incisions in the trunk of a species of pine, Pinus australis, is also so designated. It is commercially known as “scrape,” and is similar to the French “galipot” or “barras.” Common frankincense is an ingredient in some ointments and plasters, and on account of its pleasant odour when burned has been used in incense as a substitute for olibanum. (See FlÜckiger and Hanbury, Pharmacographia.) The “black frankincense oil” of the Turks is stated by Hanbury (Science Papers, p. 142, 1876) to be liquid storax.

(F. H. B.)

1 Stephen Skinner, M.D. (Etymologicon linguae Anglicanae, Lond., 1671), gives the derivation: “Frankincense, Thus, q.d. Incensum (i.e. Thus Libere) seu Liberaliter, ut in sacris officiis par est, adolendum.”

2 “Sic olibanum dixere pro thure ex Graeco ὁ λίβανος” (Salmasius, C. S. Plinianae exercitationes, t. ii. p. 926, b. F., Traj. ad Rhen., 1689 fol.). So also Fuchs (Op. didact. pars. ii. p. 42, 1604 fol.), “Officinis non sine risu eruditorum, Graeco articulo adjecto, Olibanus vocatur.” The term olibano was used in ecclesiastical Latin as early as the pontificate of Benedict IX., in the 11th century. (See Ferd. Ughellus, Italia sacra, tom. i. 108, D., Ven., 1717 fol.)

3 So designated from its whiteness (J. G. Stuckius, Sacror. et sacrific. gent. descrip., p. 79, Lugd. Bat., 1695, fol.; Kitto, Cycl. Bibl. Lit. ii. p. 806, 1870); cf. Laben, the Somali name for cream (R. F. Burton, First Footsteps in E. Africa, p. 178, 1856).

4 Written Louan by Garcias da Horta (Aromat. et simpl. medicament. hist., C. Clusii Atrebatis Exoticorum lib. sept., p. 157, 1605, fol.), and stated to have been derived by the Arabs from the Greek name, the term less commonly used by them being Conder: cf. Sanskrit Kunda. According to Colebrooke (in Asiatick Res. ix. p. 379, 1807), the Hindu writers on Materia Medica use for the resin of Boswellia thurifera the designation Cunduru.

5 A term applied also to the resinous exudation of Pinus longifolia (see Dr E. J. Waring, Pharmacopoeia of India, p. 52, Lond., 1868).

6 See “Appendix,” vol. i. p. 419 of Sir W. C. Harris’s Highland of Aethiopia (2nd ed., Lond., 1844); and Trans. Bombay Geog. Soc. xiii. (1857), p. 136.

7 Cruttenden, Trans. Bombay Geog. Soc. vii. (1846), p. 121; S. B. Miles, J. Geog. Soc. (1872).

8 Or Dhafār. The incense of “Dofar” is alluded to by Camoens, Os Lusiadas, x. 201.

9 H. J. Carter, “Comparative Geog. of the South-East Coast of Arabia,” in J. Bombay Branch of R. Asiatic Soc. iii. (Jan. 1851), p. 296; and MÜller, Geog. Graeci Minores, i. p. 278 (Paris, 1855).

10 J. Vaughan, Pharm. Journ. xii. (1853) pp. 227-229; and Ward, op. cit. p. 97.

11 Pereira, Elem. of Mat. Med. ii. pt. 2, p. 380 (4th ed., 1847).

12 “Boswellia thurifera,” ... says Waring (Pharm. of India, p. 52), “has been thought to yield East Indian olibanum, but there is no reliable evidence of its so doing.”

13 “Libanus igitur est mons redolentie & summe aromaticitatis. nam ibi herbe odorifere crescunt. ibi etiam arbores thurifere coalescunt quarum gummi electum olibanum a medicis nuncupatur.”—Perigrinatio, p. 53 (1502, fol.).

14 See, on the chemistry of frankincense, Braconnot, Ann. de chimie, lxviii. (1808) pp. 60-69; Johnston, Phil. Trans. (1839), pp. 301-305; J. Stenhouse, Ann. der Chem. und Pharm. xxxv. (1840) p. 306; and A. Kurbatow, Zeitsch. fÜr Chem. (1871), p. 201.

15 “Praecipua autem gratia est mammoso, cum haerente lacryma priore consecuta alia miscuit se” (Nat. Hist. xii. 32). One of the Chinese names for frankincense, JÚ-hiang, “milk-perfume,” is explained by the Pen Ts’au (xxxiv. 45), a Chinese work, as being derived from the nipple-like form of its drops. (See E. Bretschneider, On the Knowledge possessed by the Ancient Chinese of the Arabs, &c., p. 19, Lond., 1871.)

16 The Voyage of Nearchus, loc. cit.

17 Vaughan (Pharm. Journ. xii. 1853) speaks of the Arabian Lubān, commonly called Morbat or Shaharree Luban, as realizing higher prices in the market than any of the qualities exported from Africa. The incense of “Esher,” i.e. Shihr or Shehr, is mentioned by Marco Polo, as also by Barbosa. (See Yule, op. cit. ii. p. 377.) J. Raymond Wellsted (Travels to the City of the Caliphs, p. 173, Lond., 1840) distinguishes two kinds of frankincense—“Meaty,” selling at $4 per cwt., and an inferior article fetching 20% less.

18 “Es scheint, dass selber die Araber ihr eignes RÄuchwerk nicht hoch schÄtzen; denn die Vornehmen in Jemen brauchen gemeiniglich indianisches RÄuchwerk, ja eine grosse Menge Mastix von der Insel Scio” (Beschreibung von Arabien, p. 143, Kopenh., 1772).

19 “De Arabibus minus mirum, qui nigricantem colorem, quo Thus Indicum praeditum esse vult Dioscorides [lib. i. c. 70], Indum plerumque vocent, ut ex Myrobalano nigro quem Indum appellant, patet” (op. sup. cit. p. 157).

FRANKING, a term used for the right of sending letters or postal packages free (Fr. franc) of charge. The privilege was claimed by the House of Commons in 1660 in “a Bill for erecting and establishing a Post Office,” their demand being that all letters addressed to or sent by members during the session should be carried free. The clause embodying this claim was struck out by the Lords, but with the proviso in the Act as passed for the free carriage of all letters to and from the king and the great officers of state, and also the single inland letters of the members of that present parliament during that session only. It seems, however, that the practice was tolerated until 1764, when by an act dealing with postage it was legalized, every peer and each member of the House of Commons being allowed to send free ten letters a day, not exceeding an ounce in weight, to any part of the United Kingdom, and to receive fifteen. The act did not restrict the privilege to letters either actually written by or to the member, and thus the right was very easily abused, members sending and receiving letters for friends, all that was necessary being the signature of the peer or M.P. in the corner of the envelope. Wholesale franking grew usual, and M.P.’s supplied their friends with envelopes already signed to be used at any time. In 1837 the scandal had become so great that stricter regulations came into force. The franker had to write the full address, to which he had to add his name, the post-town and the day of the month; the letter had to be posted on the day written or the following day at the latest, and in a post-town not more than 20 m. from the place where the peer or M.P. was then living. On the 10th of January 1840 parliamentary franking was abolished on the introduction of the uniform penny rate.

In the United States the franking privilege was first granted in January 1776 to the soldiers engaged in the American War of Independence. The right was gradually extended till it included nearly all officials and members of the public service. By special acts the privilege was bestowed on presidents and their widows. By an act of the 3rd of March 1845, franking was limited to the president, vice-president, members and delegates in Congress and postmasters, other officers being required to keep quarterly accounts of postage and pay it from their contingent funds. In 1851 free exchange of newspapers was re-established. By an act of the 3rd of March 1863 the privilege was granted the president and his private secretary, the vice-president, chiefs of executive departments, such heads of bureaus and chief clerks as might be designated by the postmaster-general for official letters only; senators and representatives in Congress for all correspondence, senders of petitions to either branch of the legislature, and to publishers of newspapers for their exchanges. There was a limit as to weight. Members of Congress could also frank, in matters concerning the federal department of agriculture, “seeds, roots and cuttings,” the weight to be fixed by the postmaster-general. This act remained in force till the 31st of January 1873, when franking was abolished. Since 1875, by sundry acts, franking for official correspondence, government publications, seeds, &c., has been allowed to congressmen, ex-congressmen (for 9 months after the close of their term), congressmen-elect and other government officials. By special acts of 1881, 1886, 1902, 1909, respectively, the franking privilege was granted to the widows of Presidents Garfield, Grant, McKinley and Cleveland.

FRANKL, LUDWIG AUGUST (1810-1894), Austrian poet. He took part in the revolution of 1848, and his poems on liberty had considerable vogue. His lyrics are among his best work. He was secretary of the Jewish community in Vienna, and did a lasting service to education by his visit to the Orient in 1856. He founded the first modern Jewish school (the Von LÄmmel Schule) in Jerusalem. His brilliant volumes Nach Jerusalem describing his eastern tour have been translated into English, as is the case with many of his poems. His collected poems appeared in three volumes in 1880.

(I. A.)

FRANKLAND, SIR EDWARD (1825-1899), English chemist, was born at Churchtown, near Lancaster, on the 18th of January 1825. After attending the grammar school at Lancaster he spent six years as an apprentice to a druggist in that town. In 1845 he went to London and entered Lyon Playfair’s laboratory, subsequently working under R. W. Bunsen at Marburg. In 1847 he was appointed science-master at Queenwood school, Hampshire, where he first met J. Tyndall, and in 1851 first professor of chemistry at Owens College, Manchester. Returning to London six years later he became lecturer in chemistry at St Bartholomew’s hospital, and in 1863 professor of chemistry at the Royal Institution. From an early age he engaged in original research with great success.

Analytical problems, such as the isolation of certain organic radicals, attracted his attention to begin with, but he soon turned to synthetical studies, and he was only about twenty-five years of age when an investigation, doubtless suggested by the work of his master, Bunsen, on cacodyl, yielded the interesting discovery of the organo-metallic compounds. The theoretical deductions which he drew from the consideration of these bodies were even more interesting and important than the bodies themselves. Perceiving a molecular isonomy between them and the inorganic compounds of the metals from which they may be formed, he saw their true molecular type in the oxygen, sulphur or chlorine compounds of those metals, from which he held them to be derived by the substitution of an organic group for the oxygen, sulphur, &c. In this way they enabled him to overthrow the theory of conjugate compounds, and they further led him in 1852 to publish the conception that the atoms of each elementary substance have a definite saturation capacity, so that they can only combine with a certain limited number of the atoms of other elements. The theory of valency thus founded has dominated the subsequent development of chemical doctrine, and forms the groundwork upon which the fabric of modern structural chemistry reposes.

In applied chemistry Frankland’s great work was in connexion with water-supply. Appointed a member of the second royal commission on the pollution of rivers in 1868, he was provided by the government with a completely-equipped laboratory, in which, for a period of six years, he carried on the inquiries necessary for the purposes of that body, and was thus the means of bringing to light an enormous amount of valuable information respecting the contamination of rivers by sewage, trade-refuse, &c., and the purification of water for domestic use. In 1865, when he succeeded A. W. von Hofmann at the School of Mines, he undertook the duty of making monthly reports to the registrar-general on the character of the water supplied to London, and these he continued down to the end of his life. At one time he was an unsparing critic of its quality, but in later years he became strongly convinced of its general excellence and wholesomeness. His analyses were both chemical and bacteriological, and his dissatisfaction with the processes in vogue for the former at the time of his appointment caused him to spend two years in devising new and more accurate methods. In 1859 he passed a night on the very top of Mont Blanc in company with John Tyndall. One of the purposes of the expedition was to discover whether the rate of combustion of a candle varies with the density of the atmosphere in which it is burnt, a question which was answered in the negative. Other observations made by Frankland at the time formed the starting-point of a series of experiments which yielded far-reaching results. He noticed that at the summit the candle gave a very poor light, and was thereby led to investigate the effect produced on luminous flames by varying the pressure of the atmosphere in which they are burning. He found that pressure increases luminosity, so that hydrogen, for example, the flame of which in normal circumstances gives no light, burns with a luminous flame under a pressure of ten or twenty atmospheres, and the inference he drew was that the presence of solid particles is not the only factor that determines the light-giving power of a flame. Further, he showed that the spectrum of a dense ignited gas resembles that of an incandescent liquid or solid, and he traced a gradual change in the spectrum of an incandescent gas under increasing pressure, the sharp lines observable when it is extremely attenuated broadening out to nebulous bands as the pressure rises, till they merge in the continuous spectrum as the gas approaches a density comparable with that of the liquid state. An application of these results to solar physics in conjunction with Sir Norman Lockyer led to the view that at least the external layers of the sun cannot consist of matter in the liquid or solid forms, but must be composed of gases or vapours. Frankland and Lockyer were also the discoverers of helium. In 1868 they noticed in the solar spectrum a bright yellow line which did not correspond to any substance then known, and which they therefore attributed to the then hypothetical element, helium.

Sir Edward Frankland, who was made a K.C.B. in 1897, died on the 9th of August 1899 while on a holiday at Golaa, Gudbrandsdalen, Norway.

A memorial lecture delivered by Professor H. E. Armstrong before the London Chemical Society on the 31st of October 1901 contained many personal details of Frankland’s life, together with a full discussion of his scientific work; and a volume of Autobiographical Sketches was printed for private circulation in 1902. His original papers, down to 1877, were collected and published in that year as Experimental Researches in Pure, Applied and Physical Chemistry.

FRANKLIN, BENJAMIN (1706-1790), American diplomat, statesman and scientist, was born on the 17th of January 1706 in a house in Milk Street, opposite the Old South church, Boston, Massachusetts. He was the tenth son of Josiah Franklin, and the eighth child and youngest son of ten children borne by Abiah Folger, his father’s second wife. The elder Franklin was born at Ecton in Northamptonshire, England, where the strongly Protestant Franklin family may be traced back for nearly four centuries. He had married young and had migrated from Banbury to Boston, Massachusetts, in 1685. Benjamin could not remember when he did not know how to read, and when eight years old he was sent to the Boston grammar school, being destined by his father for the church as a tithe of his sons. He spent a year there and a year in a school for writing and arithmetic, and then at the age of ten he was taken from school to assist his father in the business of a tallow-chandler and soapboiler. In his thirteenth year he was apprenticed to his half-brother James, who was establishing himself in the printing business, and who in 1721 started the New England Courant, one of the earliest newspapers in America.

Benjamin’s tastes had at first been for the sea rather than the pulpit; now they inclined rather to intellectual than to other pleasures. At an early age he had made himself familiar with The Pilgrim’s Progress, with Locke, On the Human Understanding, and with a volume of The Spectator. Thanks to his father’s excellent advice, he gave up writing doggerel verse (much of which had been printed by his brother and sold on the streets) and turned to prose composition. His success in reproducing articles he had read in The Spectator led him to write an article for his brother’s paper, which he slipped under the door of the printing shop with no name attached, and which was printed and attracted some attention. After repeated successes of the same sort Benjamin threw off his disguise and contributed regularly to the Courant. When, after various journalistic indiscretions, James Franklin in 1722 was forbidden to publish the Courant, it appeared with Benjamin’s name as that of the publisher and was received with much favour, chiefly because of the cleverness of his articles signed “Dr Janus,” which, like those previously signed “Mistress Silence Dogood,” gave promise of “Poor Richard.” But Benjamin’s management of the paper, and particularly his free-thinking, displeased the authorities; the relations of the two brothers gradually grew unfriendly, possibly, as Benjamin thought, because of his brother’s jealousy of his superior ability; and Benjamin determined to quit his brother’s employ and to leave New England. He made his way first to New York City, and then (October 1723) to Philadelphia, where he got employment with a printer named Samuel Keimer.1

A rapid composer and a workman full of resource, Franklin was soon recognized as the master spirit of the shop. Sir William Keith (1680-1749), governor of the province, urged him to start in business for himself, and when Franklin had unsuccessfully appealed to his father for the means to do so, Keith promised to furnish him with what he needed for the equipment of a new printing office and sent him to England to buy the materials. Keith had repeatedly promised to send a letter of credit by the ship on which Franklin sailed, but when the Channel was reached and the ship’s mails were examined no such letter was found. Franklin reached London in December 1724, and found employment first at Palmer’s, a famous printing house in Bartholomew Close, and afterwards at Watts’s Printing House. At Palmer’s he had set up a second edition of Wollaston’s Religion of Nature Delineated. To refute this book and to prove that there could be no such thing as religion, he wrote and printed a small pamphlet, A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain, which brought him some curious acquaintances, and of which he soon became thoroughly ashamed. After a year and a half in London, Franklin was persuaded by a friend named Denham, a Quaker merchant, to return with him to America and engage in mercantile business; he accordingly gave up printing, but a few days before sailing he received a tempting offer to remain and give lessons in swimming—his feats as a swimmer having given him considerable reputation—and he says that he might have consented “had the overtures been sooner made.” He reached Philadelphia in October 1726, but a few months later Denham died, and Franklin was induced by large wages to return to his old employer Keimer; with Keimer he quarrelled repeatedly, thinking himself ill used and kept only to train apprentices until they could in some degree take his place. In 1728 Franklin and Hugh Meredith, a fellow-worker at Keimer’s, set up in business for themselves; the capital being furnished by Meredith’s father. In 1730 the partnership was dissolved, and Franklin, through the financial assistance of two friends, secured the sole management of the printing house. In September 1729 he bought at a merely nominal price The Pennsylvania Gazette, a weekly newspaper which Keimer had started nine months before to defeat a similar project of Franklin’s, and which Franklin conducted until 1765. Franklin’s superior management of the paper, his new type, “some spirited remarks” on the controversy between the Massachusetts assembly and Governor Burnet, brought his paper into immediate notice, and his success both as a printer and as a journalist was assured and complete. In 1731 he established in Philadelphia one of the earliest circulating libraries in America (often said to have been the earliest), and in 1732 he published the first of his Almanacks, under the pseudonym of Richard Saunders. These “Poor Richard’s Almanacks” were issued for the next twenty-five years with remarkable success, the annual sale averaging 10,000 copies, and far exceeding the sale of any other publication in the colonies.

Beginning in 1733 Franklin taught himself enough French, Italian, Spanish and Latin to read these languages with some ease. In 1736 he was chosen clerk of the General Assembly, and served in this capacity until 1751. In 1737 he had been appointed postmaster at Philadelphia, and about the same time he organized the first police force and fire company in the colonies; in 1749, after he had written Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pensilvania, he and twenty-three other citizens of Philadelphia formed themselves into an association for the purpose of establishing an academy, which was opened in 1751, was chartered in 1753, and eventually became the University of Pennsylvania; in 1727 he organized a debating club, the “Junto,” in Philadelphia, and later he was one of the founders of the American Philosophical Society (1743; incorporated 1780); he took the lead in the organization of a militia force, and in the paving of the city streets, improved the method of street lighting, and assisted in the founding of a city hospital (1751); in brief, he gave the impulse to nearly every measure or project for the welfare and prosperity of Philadelphia undertaken in his day. In 1751 he became a member of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, in which he served for thirteen years. In 1753 he and William Hunter were put in charge of the post service of the colonies, which he brought in the next ten years to a high state of efficiency and made a financial success; this position he held until 1774. He visited nearly every post office in the colonies and increased the mail service between New York and Philadelphia from once to three times a week in summer, and from twice a month to once a week in winter. When war with France appeared imminent in 1754, Franklin was sent to the Albany Convention, where he submitted his plan for colonial union (see Albany, N.Y.). When the home government sent over General Edward Braddock2 with two regiments of British troops, Franklin undertook to secure the requisite number of horses and waggons for the march against Ft. Duquesne, and became personally responsible for payment to the Pennsylvanians who furnished them. Notwithstanding the alarm occasioned by Braddock’s defeat, the old quarrel between the proprietors of Pennsylvania and the assembly prevented any adequate preparations for defence; “with incredible meanness” the proprietors had instructed their governors to approve no act for levying the necessary taxes, unless the vast estates of the proprietors were by the same act exempted. So great was the confidence in Franklin in this emergency that early in 1756 the governor of Pennsylvania placed him in charge of the north-western frontier of the province, with power to raise troops, issue commissions and erect blockhouses; and Franklin remained in the wilderness for over a month, superintending the building of forts and watching the Indians. In February 1757 the assembly, “finding the proprietary obstinately persisted in manacling their deputies with instructions inconsistent not only with the privileges of the people, but with the service of the crown, resolv’d to petition the king against them,” and appointed Franklin as their agent to present the petition. He arrived in London on the 27th of July 1757, and shortly afterwards, when, at a conference with Earl Granville, president of the council, the latter declared that “the King is the legislator of the colonies,” Franklin in reply declared that the laws of the colonies were to be made by their assemblies, to be passed upon by the king, and when once approved were no longer subject to repeal or amendment by the crown. As the assemblies, said he, could not make permanent laws without the king’s consent, “neither could he make a law for them without theirs.” This opposition of views distinctly raised the issue between the home government and the colonies. As to the proprietors Franklin succeeded in 1760 in securing an understanding that the assembly should pass an act exempting from taxation the unsurveyed waste lands of the Penn estate, the surveyed waste lands being assessed at the usual rate for other property of that description. Thus the proprietors finally acknowledged the right of the assembly to tax their estates.

The success of Franklin’s first foreign mission was, therefore, substantial and satisfactory. During this sojourn of five years in England he had made many valuable friends outside of court and political circles, among whom Hume, Robertson and Adam Smith were conspicuous. In 1759, for his literary and more particularly his scientific attainments, he received the freedom of the city of Edinburgh and the degree of doctor of laws from the university of St Andrews. He had been made a Master of Arts at Harvard and at Yale in 1753, and at the college of William and Mary in 1756; and in 1762 he received the degree of D.C.L. at Oxford. While in England he had made active use of his remarkable talent for pamphleteering. In the clamour for peace following the death of George II. (25th of October 1760), he was for a vigorous prosecution of the war with France; he had written what purported to be a chapter from an old book written by a Spanish Jesuit, On the Meanes of Disposing the Enemie to Peace, which had a great effect; and in the spring of 1760 there had been published a more elaborate paper written by Franklin with the assistance of Richard Jackson, agent of Massachusetts and Connecticut in London, entitled The Interest of Great Britain Considered with Regard to Her Colonies, and the Acquisitions of Canada and Guadeloupe (1760). This pamphlet answered the argument that it would be unsafe to keep Canada because of the added strength that would thus be given to any possible movement for independence in the English colonies, by urging that so long as Canada remained French there could be no safety for the English colonies in North America, nor any permanent peace in Europe. Tradition reports that this pamphlet had considerable weight in determining the ministry to retain Canada.

Franklin sailed again for America in August 1762, hoping to be able to settle down in quiet and devote the remainder of his life to experiments in physics. This quiet was interrupted, however, by the “Paxton Massacre” (Dec. 14, 1763)—the slaughter of a score of Indians (children, women and old men) at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, by some young rowdies from the town of Paxton, who then marched upon Philadelphia to kill a few Christian Indians there. Franklin, appealed to by the governor, raised a troop sufficient to frighten away the “Paxton boys,” and for the moment there seemed a possibility of an understanding between Franklin and the proprietors. But the question of taxing the estates of the proprietors came up in a new form, and a petition from the assembly was drawn by Franklin, requesting the king “to resume the government” of Pennsylvania. In the autumn election of 1764 the influence of the proprietors was exerted against Franklin, and by an adverse majority of 25 votes in 4000 he failed to be re-elected to the assembly. The new assembly sent Franklin again to England as its special agent to take charge of another petition for a change of government, which, however, came to nothing. Matters of much greater consequence soon demanded Franklin’s attention.

Early in 1764 Lord Grenville had informed the London agents of the American colonies that he proposed to lay a portion of the burden left by the war with France upon the shoulders of the colonists by means of a stamp duty, unless some other tax equally productive and less inconvenient were proposed. The natural objection of the colonies, as voiced, for example, by the assembly of Pennsylvania, was that it was a cruel thing to tax colonies already taxed beyond their strength, and surrounded by enemies and exposed to constant expenditures for defence, and that it was an indignity that they should be taxed by a parliament in which they were not represented; at the same time the Pennsylvania assembly recognized it as “their duty to grant aid to the crown, according to their abilities, whenever required of them in the usual manner.” To prevent the introduction of the Stamp Act, which he characterized as “the mother of mischief,” Franklin used every effort, but the bill was easily passed, and it was thought that the colonists would soon be reconciled to it. Because he, too, thought so, and because he recommended John Hughes, a merchant of Philadelphia, for the office of distributor of stamps, Franklin himself was denounced—he was even accused of having planned the Stamp Act—and his family in Philadelphia was in danger of being mobbed. Of Franklin’s examination, in February 1766, by the House in Committee of the Whole, as to the effects of the Stamp Act, Burke said that the scene reminded him of a master examined by a parcel of schoolboys, and George Whitefield said: “Dr Franklin has gained immortal honour by his behaviour at the bar of the House. His answer was always found equal to the questioner. He stood unappalled, gave pleasure to his friends and did honour to his country.”3 Franklin compared the position of the colonies to that of Scotland in the days before the union, and in the same year (1766) audaciously urged a similar union with the colonies before it was too late. The knowledge of colonial affairs gained from Franklin’s testimony, probably more than all other causes combined, determined the immediate repeal of the Stamp Act. For Franklin this was a great triumph, and the news of it filled the colonists with delight and restored him to their confidence and affection. Another bill (the Declaratory Act), however, was almost immediately passed by the king’s party, asserting absolute supremacy of parliament over the colonies, and in the succeeding parliament, by the Townshend Acts of 1767, duties were imposed on paper, paints and glass imported by the colonists; a tax was imposed on tea also. The imposition of these taxes was bitterly resented in the colonies, where it quickly crystallized public opinion round the principle of “No taxation without representation.” In spite of the opposition in the colonies to the Declaratory Act, the Townshend Acts and the tea tax, Franklin continued to assure the British ministry and the British public of the loyalty of the colonists. He tried to find some middle ground of reconciliation, and kept up his quiet work of informing England as to the opinions and conditions of the colonies, and of moderating the attitude of the colonies toward the home government; so that, as he said, he was accused in America of being too much an Englishman, and in England of being too much an American. He was agent now, not only of Pennsylvania, but also of New Jersey, of Georgia and of Massachusetts. Hillsborough, who became secretary of state for the colonies in 1768, refused to recognize Franklin as agent of Massachusetts, because the governor of Massachusetts had not approved the appointment, which was by resolution of the assembly. Franklin contended that the governor, as a mere agent of the king, could have nothing to do with the assembly’s appointment of its agent to the king; that “the King, and not the King, Lords, and Commons collectively, is their sovereign; and that the King, with their respective Parliaments, is their only legislator.” Franklin’s influence helped to oust Hillsborough, and Dartmouth, whose name Franklin suggested, was made secretary In 1772 and promptly recognized Franklin as the agent of Massachusetts.

In 1773 there appeared in the Public Advertiser one of Franklin’s cleverest hoaxes, “An Edict of the King of Prussia,” proclaiming that the island of Britain was a colony of Prussia, having been settled by Angles and Saxons, having been protected by Prussia, having been defended by Prussia against France in the war just past, and never having been definitely freed from Prussia’s rule; and that, therefore, Great Britain should now submit to certain taxes laid by Prussia—the taxes being identical with those laid upon the American colonies by Great Britain. In the same year occurred the famous episode of the Hutchinson Letters. These were written by Thomas Hutchinson, Governor of Massachusetts, Andrew Oliver (1706-1774), his lieutenant-governor, and others to William Whately, a member of Parliament, and private secretary to George Grenville, suggesting an increase of the power of the governor at the expense of the assembly, “an abridgement of what are called English liberties,” and other measures more extreme than those undertaken by the government. The correspondence was shown to Franklin by a mysterious “member of parliament” to back up the contention that the quartering of troops in Boston was suggested, not by the British ministry, but by Americans and Bostonians. Upon his promise not to publish the letters Franklin received permission to send them to Massachusetts, where they were much passed about and were printed, and they were soon republished in English newspapers. The Massachusetts assembly on receiving the letters resolved to petition the crown for the removal of both Hutchinson and Oliver. The petition was refused and was condemned as scandalous, and Franklin, who took upon himself the responsibility for the publication of the letters, in the hearing before the privy council at the Cockpit on the 29th of January 1774 was insulted and was called a thief by Alexander Wedderburn (the solicitor-general, who appeared for Hutchinson and Oliver), and was removed from his position as head of the post office in the American colonies.

Satisfied that his usefulness in England was at an end, Franklin entrusted his agencies to the care of Arthur Lee, and on the 21st of March 1775 again set sail for Philadelphia. During the last years of his stay in England there had been repeated attempts to win him (probably with an under-secretaryship) to the British service, and in these same years he had done a great work for the colonies by gaining friends for them among the opposition, and by impressing France with his ability and the excellence of his case. Upon reaching America, he heard of the fighting at Lexington and Concord, and with the news of an actual outbreak of hostilities his feeling toward England seems to have changed completely. He was no longer a peacemaker, but an ardent war-maker. On the 6th of May, the day after his arrival in Philadelphia, he was elected by the assembly of Pennsylvania a delegate to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. In October he was elected a member of the Pennsylvania assembly, but, as members of this body were still required to take an oath of allegiance to the crown, he refused to serve. In the Congress he served on as many as ten committees, and upon the organization of a continental postal system, he was made postmaster-general, a position he held for one year, when (in 1776) he was succeeded by his son-in-law, Richard Bache, who had been his deputy. With Benjamin Harrison, John Dickinson, Thomas Johnson and John Jay he was appointed in November 1775 to a committee to carry on a secret correspondence with the friends of America “in Great Britain, Ireland and other parts of the world.” He planned an appeal to the king of France for aid, and wrote the instructions of Silas Deane who was to convey it. In April 1776 he went to Montreal with Charles Carroll, Samuel Chase and John Carroll, as a member of the commission which conferred with General Arnold, and attempted without success to gain the co-operation of Canada. Immediately after his return from Montreal he was a member of the committee of five appointed to draw up the Declaration of Independence, but he took no actual part himself in drafting that instrument, aside from suggesting the change or insertion of a few words in Jefferson’s draft. From July 16 to September 28 he acted as president of the Constitutional Convention of Pennsylvania.

With John Adams and Edward Rutledge he was selected by Congress to discuss with Admiral Howe (September 1776, at Staten Island) the terms of peace proposed by Howe, who had arrived in New York harbour in July 1776, and who had been an intimate friend of Franklin; but the discussion was fruitless, as the American commissioners refused to treat “back of this step of independency.” On the 26th of September in the same year Franklin was chosen as commissioner to France to join Arthur Lee, who was in London, and Silas Deane, who had arrived in France in June 1776. He collected all the money he could command, between £3000 and £4000, lent it to Congress before he set sail, and arrived at Paris on the 22nd of December. He found quarters at Passy,4 then a suburb of Paris, in a house belonging to Le Ray de Chaumont, an active friend of the American cause, who had influential relations with the court, and through whom he was enabled to be in the fullest communication with the French government without compromising it in the eyes of Great Britain.

At the time of Franklin’s arrival in Paris he was already one of the most talked about men in the world. He was a member of every important learned society in Europe; he was a member, and one of the managers, of the Royal Society, and was one of eight foreign members of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris. Three editions of his scientific works had already appeared in Paris, and a new edition had recently appeared in London. To all these advantages he added a political purpose—the dismemberment of the British empire—which was entirely congenial to every citizen of France. “Franklin’s reputation,” wrote John Adams with characteristic extravagance, “was more universal than that of Leibnitz or Newton, Frederick or Voltaire; and his character more esteemed and beloved than all of them.... If a collection could be made of all the gazettes of Europe, for the latter half of the 18th century, a greater number of panegyrical paragraphs upon le grand Franklin would appear, it is believed, than upon any other man that ever lived.” “Franklin’s appearance in the French salons, even before he began to negotiate,” says Friedrich Christoph Schlosser, “was an event of great importance to the whole of Europe.... His dress, the simplicity of his external appearance, the friendly meekness of the old man, and the apparent humility of the Quaker, procured for Freedom a mass of votaries among the court circles who used to be alarmed at its coarseness and unsophisticated truths. Such was the number of portraits,5 busts and medallions of him in circulation before he left Paris that he would have been recognized from them by any adult citizen in any part of the civilized world.”

Franklin’s position in France was a difficult one from the start, because of the delicacy of the task of getting French aid at a time when France was unready openly to take sides against Great Britain. But on the 6th of February 1778, after the news of the defeat and surrender of Burgoyne had reached Europe, a treaty of alliance and a treaty of amity and commerce between France and the United States were signed at Paris by Franklin, Deane and Lee. On the 28th of October this commission was discharged and Franklin was appointed sole plenipotentiary to the French court. Lee, from the beginning of the mission to Paris, seems to have been possessed of a mania of jealousy toward Franklin, or of misunderstanding of his acts, and he tried to undermine his influence with the Continental Congress. John Adams, when he succeeded Deane (recalled from Paris through Lee’s machinations) joined in the chorus of fault-finding against Franklin, dilated upon his social habits, his personal slothfulness and his complete lack of business-like system; but Adams soon came to see that, although careless of details, Franklin was doing what no other man could have done, and he ceased his harsher criticism. Even greater than his diplomatic difficulties were Franklin’s financial straits. Drafts were being drawn on him by all the American agents in Europe, and by the Continental Congress at home. Acting as American naval agent for the many successful privateers who harried the English Channel, and for whom he skilfully got every bit of assistance possible, open and covert, from the French government, he was continually called upon for funds in these ventures. Of the vessels to be sent to Paris with American cargoes which were to be sold for the liquidation of French loans to the colonies made through Beaumarchais, few arrived; those that did come did not cover Beaumarchais’s advances, and hardly a vessel came from America without word of fresh drafts on Franklin. After bold and repeated overtures for an exchange of prisoners—an important matter, both because the American frigates had no place in which to stow away their prisoners, and because of the maltreatment of American captives in such prisons as Dartmoor—exchanges began at the end of March 1779, although there were annoying delays, and immediately after November 1781 there was a long break in the agreement; and the Americans discharged from English prisons were constantly in need of money. Franklin, besides, was constantly called upon to meet the indebtedness of Lee and of Ralph Izard (1742-1804), and of John Jay, who in Madrid was being drawn on by the American Congress. In spite of the poor condition in Europe of the credit of the struggling colonies, and of the fact that France was almost bankrupt (and in the later years was at war), and although Necker strenuously resisted the making of any loans to the colonies, France, largely because of Franklin’s appeals, expended, by loan or gift to the colonies, or in sustenance of the French arms in America, a sum estimated at $60,000,000.

In 1781 Franklin, with John Adams, John Jay, Jefferson, who remained in America, and Henry Laurens, then a prisoner in England, was appointed on a commission to make peace with Great Britain. In the spring of 1782 Franklin had been informally negotiating with Shelburne, secretary of state for the home department, through the medium of Richard Oswald, a Scotch merchant, and had suggested that England should cede Canada to the United States in return for the recognition of loyalist claims by the states. When the formal negotiations began Franklin held closely to the instructions of Congress to its commissioners, that they should maintain confidential relations with the French ministers and that they were “to undertake nothing in the negotiations for peace or truce without their knowledge and concurrence,” and were ultimately to be governed by “their advice and opinion.” Jay and Adams disagreed with him on this point, believing that France intended to curtail the territorial aspirations of the Americans for her own benefit and for that of her ally, Spain. At last, after the British government had authorized its agents to treat with the commissioners as representatives of an independent power, thus recognizing American independence before the treaty was made, Franklin acquiesced in the policy of Jay. The preliminary treaty was signed by the commissioners on the 30th of November 1782, the final treaty on the 3rd of September 1783. Franklin had repeatedly petitioned Congress for his recall, but his letters were unanswered or his appeals refused until the 7th of March 1785, when Congress resolved that he be allowed to return to America; on the 10th of March Thomas Jefferson, who had joined him in August of the year before, was appointed to his place. Jefferson, when asked if he replaced Franklin, replied, “No one can replace him, sir; I am only his successor.” Before Franklin left Paris on the 12th of July 1785 he had made commercial treaties with Sweden (1783) and Prussia (1785; signed after Franklin’s departure by Jefferson and John Adams). Franklin arrived in Philadelphia on the 13th of September, disembarking at the same wharf as when he had first entered the city. He was immediately elected a member of the municipal council of Philadelphia, becoming its chairman; and was chosen president of the Supreme Executive Council (the chief executive officer) of Pennsylvania, and was re-elected in 1786 and 1787, serving from October 1785 to October 1788. In May 1787 he was elected a delegate to the Convention which drew up the Federal Constitution, this body thus having a member upon whom all could agree as chairman, should Washington be absent. He opposed over-centralization of government and favoured the Connecticut Compromise, and after the work of the Convention was done used his influence to secure the adoption of the Constitution.6 As president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, Franklin signed a petition to Congress (12th February 1790) for immediate abolition of slavery, and six weeks later in his most brilliant manner parodied the attack on the petition made by James Jackson (1757-1806) of Georgia, taking off Jackson’s quotations of Scripture with pretended texts from the Koran cited by a member of the Divan of Algiers in opposition to a petition asking for the prohibition of holding Christians in slavery. These were his last public acts. His last days were marked by a fine serenity and calm; he died in his own house in Philadelphia on the 17th of April 1790, the immediate cause being an abscess in the lungs. He was buried with his wife in the graveyard (Fifth and Arch Streets) of Christ Church, Philadelphia.

Physically Franklin was large, about 5 ft. 10 in. tall, with a well-rounded, powerful figure; he inherited an excellent constitution from his parents—“I never knew,” says he, “either my father or mother to have any sickness but that of which they dy’d, he at 89, and she at 85 years of age”—but injured it somewhat by excesses; in early life he had severe attacks of pleurisy, from one of which, in 1727, it was not expected that he would recover, and in his later years he was the victim of stone and gout. When he was sixteen he became a vegetarian for a time, rather to save money for books than for any other reason, and he always preached moderation in eating, though he was less consistent in his practice in this particular than as regards moderate drinking. He was always enthusiastically fond of swimming, and was a great believer in fresh air, taking a cold air bath regularly in the morning, when he sat naked in his bedroom beguiling himself with a book or with writing for a half-hour or more. He insisted that fresh, cold air was not the cause of colds, and preached zealously the “gospel of ventilation.” He was a charming talker, with a gay humour and a quiet sarcasm and a telling use of anecdote for argument. Henri Martin, the French historian, speaks of him as “of a mind altogether French in its grace and elasticity.” In 1730 he married Deborah Read, in whose father’s house he had lived when he had first come to Philadelphia, to whom he had been engaged before his first departure from Philadelphia for London, and who in his absence had married a ne’er-do-well, one Rogers, who had deserted her. The marriage to Franklin is presumed to have been a common law marriage, for there was no proof that Miss Read’s former husband was dead, nor that, as was suspected, a former wife, alive when Rogers married Miss Read, was still alive, and that therefore his marriage to Deborah was void. His “Debby,” or his “dear child,” as Franklin usually addressed her in his letters, received into the family, soon after her marriage, Franklin’s illegitimate son, William Franklin (1729-1813),7 with whom she afterwards quarrelled, and whose mother, tradition says, was Barbara, a servant in the Franklin household. Another illegitimate child became the wife of John Foxcroft of Philadelphia. Deborah, who was “as much dispos’d to industry and frugality as” her husband, was illiterate and shared none of her husband’s tastes for literature and science; her dread of an ocean voyage kept her in Philadelphia during Franklin’s missions to England, and she died in 1774, while Franklin was in London. She bore him two children, one a son, Francis Folger, “whom I have seldom since seen equal’d in everything, and whom to this day [thirty-six years after the child’s death] I cannot think of without a sigh,” who died (1736) when four years old of small-pox, not having been inoculated; the other was Sarah (1744-1808), who married Richard Bache (1737-1811), Franklin’s successor in 1776-1782 as postmaster-general. Franklin’s gallant relations with women after his wife’s death were probably innocent enough. Best known of his French amies were Mme HelvÉtius, widow of the philosopher, and the young Mme Brillon, who corrected her “Papa’s” French and tried to bring him safely into the Roman Catholic Church. With him in France were his grandsons, William Temple Franklin, William Franklin’s natural son, who acted as private secretary to his grandfather, and Benjamin Franklin Bache (1769-1798), Sarah’s son, whom he sent to Geneva to be educated, for whom he later asked public office of Washington, and who became editor of the Aurora, one of the leading journals in the Republican attacks on Washington.

Franklin early rebelled against New England Puritanism and spent his Sundays in reading and in study instead of attending church. His free-thinking ran its extreme course at the time of his publication in London of A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain (1725), which he recognized as one of the great errata of his life. He later called himself a deist, or theist, not discriminating between the terms. To his favourite sister he wrote: “There are some things in your New England doctrine and worship which I do not agree with; but I do not therefore condemn them, or desire to shake your belief or practice of them.” Such was his general attitude. He did not believe in the divinity of Christ, but thought “his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is like to see.” His intense practical-mindedness drew him away from religion, but drove him to a morality of his own (the “art of virtue,” he called it), based on thirteen virtues each accompanied by a short precept; the virtues were Temperance, Silence, Order, Resolution, Frugality, Industry, Sincerity, Justice, Moderation, Cleanliness, Tranquility, Chastity and Humility, the precept accompanying the last-named virtue being “Imitate Jesus and Socrates.” He made a business-like little notebook, ruled off spaces for the thirteen virtues and the seven days of the week, “determined to give a week’s strict attention to each of the virtues successively ... [going] thro’ a course compleate in thirteen weeks and four courses in a year,” marking for each day a record of his adherence to each of the precepts. “And conceiving God to be the fountain of wisdom,” he “thought it right and necessary to solicit His assistance for obtaining it,” and drew up the following prayer for daily use: “O powerful Goodness! bountiful Father! merciful Guide! Increase in me that wisdom which discovers my truest interest. Strengthen my resolution to perform what that wisdom dictates. Accept my kind offices to Thy other children, as the only return in my power for Thy continual favours to me.” He was by no means prone to overmuch introspection, his great interest in the conduct of others being shown in the wise maxims of Poor Richard, which were possibly too utilitarian but were wonderfully successful in instructing American morals. His Art of Virtue on which he worked for years was never completed or published in any form.

“Benjamin Franklin, Printer,” was Franklin’s own favourite description of himself. He was an excellent compositor and pressman; his workmanship, clear impressions, black ink and comparative freedom from errata did much to get him the public printing in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and the printing of the paper money8 and other public matters in Delaware. The first book with his imprint is The Psalms of David Imitated in the Language of the New Testament and apply’d to the Christian State and Worship. By I. Watts ..., Philadelphia: Printed by B. F. and H. M. for Thomas Godfrey, and Sold at his Shop, 1729. The first novel printed in America was Franklin’s reprint in 1744 of Pamela; and the first American translation from the classics which was printed in America was a version by James Logan (1674-1751) of Cato’s Moral Distichs (1735). In 1744 he published another translation of Logan’s, Cicero On Old Age, which Franklin thought typographically the finest book he had ever printed. In 1733 he had established a press in Charleston, South Carolina, and soon after did the same in Lancaster, Pa., in New Haven, Conn., in New York, in Antigua, in Kingston, Jamaica, and in other places. Personally he had little connexion with the Philadelphia printing office after 1748, when David Hall became his partner and took charge of it. But in 1753 he was eagerly engaged in having several of his improvements incorporated in a new press, and more than twenty years after was actively interested in John Walter’s scheme of “logography.” In France he had a private press in his house in Passy, on which he printed “bagatelles.” Franklin’s work as a publisher is for the most part closely connected with his work in issuing the Gazette and Poor Richard’s Almanack (a summary of the proverbs from which appeared in the number for 1758, and has often been reprinted—under such titles as Father Abraham’s Speech, and The Way to Wealth).9

Of much of Franklin’s work as an author something has already been said. Judged as literature, the first place belongs to his Autobiography, which unquestionably ranks among the few great autobiographies ever written. His style in its simplicity, facility and clearness owed something to De Foe, something to Cotton Mather, something to Plutarch, more to Bunyan and to his early attempts to reproduce the manner of the third volume of the Spectator; and not the least to his own careful study of word usage. From Xenophon’s Memorabilia he learned when a boy the Socratic method of argument. Swift he resembled in the occasional broadness of his humour, in his brilliantly successful use of sarcasm and irony,10 and in his mastery of the hoax. Balzac said of him that he “invented the lightning-rod, the hoax (’le canard’) and the republic.” Among his more famous hoaxes were the “Edict of the King of Prussia” (1773), already described; the fictitious supplement to the Boston Chronicle, printed on his private press at Passy in 1782, and containing a letter with an invoice of eight packs of 954 cured, dried, hooped and painted scalps of rebels, men, women and children, taken by Indians in the British employ; and another fictitious Letter from the Count de Schaumberg to the Baron Hohendorf commanding the Hessian Troops in America (1777)—the count’s only anxiety is that not enough men will be killed to bring him in moneys he needs, and he urges his officer in command in America “to prolong the war ... for I have made arrangements for a grand Italian opera, and I do not wish to be obliged to give it up.”11

Closely related to Franklin’s political pamphlets are his writings on economics, which, though undertaken with a political or practical purpose and not in a purely scientific spirit, rank him as the first American economist. He wrote in 1729 A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency, which argued that a plentiful currency will make rates of interest low and will promote immigration and home manufactures, and which did much to secure the further issue of paper money in Pennsylvania. After the British Act of 1750 forbidding the erection or the operating of iron or steel mills in the colonies, Franklin wrote Observations concerning the Increase of Mankind and the Peopling of Countries (1751); its thesis was that manufactures come to be common only with a high degree of social development and with great density of population, and that Great Britain need not, therefore, fear the industrial competition of the colonies, but it is better known for the estimate (adopted by Adam Smith) that the population of the colonies would double every quarter-century; and for the likeness to Malthus’s12 “preventive check” of its statement: “The greater the common fashionable expense of any rank of people the more cautious they are of marriage.” His Positions to be examined concerning National Wealth (1769) shows that he was greatly influenced by the French physiocrats after his visit to France in 1767. His Wail of a Protected Manufacturer voices a protest against protection as raising the cost of living; and he held that free trade was based on a natural right. He knew Kames, Hume and Adam Smith, and corresponded with Mirabeau, “the friend of Man.” Some of the more important of his economic theses, as summarized by W. A. Wetzel, are: that money as coin may have more than its bullion value; that natural interest is determined by the rent of land valued at the sum of money loaned—an anticipation of Turgot; that high wages are not inconsistent with a large foreign trade; that the value of an article is determined by the amount of labour necessary to produce the food consumed in making the article; that manufactures are advantageous but agriculture only is truly productive; and that when practicable (as he did not think it practicable at the end of the War of Independence) state revenue should be raised by direct tax.

Franklin as a scientist13 and as an inventor has been decried by experts as an amateur and a dabbler; but it should be remembered that it was always his hope to retire from public life and devote himself to science. In the American Philosophical Society (founded 1743) scientific subjects were much discussed. Franklin wrote a paper on the causes of earthquakes for his Gazette of the 15th of December 1737; and he eagerly collected material to uphold his theory that waterspouts and whirlwinds resulted from the same causes. In 1743, from the circumstance that an eclipse not visible in Philadelphia because of a storm had been observed in Boston, where the storm although north-easterly did not occur until an hour after the eclipse, he surmised that storms move against the wind along the Atlantic coast. In the year before (1742) he had planned the “Pennsylvania fire-place,” better known as the “Franklin stove,” which saved fuel, heated all the room, and had the same principle as the hot-air furnace; the stove was never patented by Franklin, but was described in his pamphlet dated 1744. He was much engaged at the same time in remedying smoking chimneys, and as late as 1785 wrote to Jan Ingenhousz, physician to the emperor of Austria, on chimneys and draughts; smoking street lamps he remedied by a simple contrivance. The study of electricity he took up in 1746 when he first saw a Leyden jar, in the manipulation of which he became expert and which he improved by the use of granulated lead in the place of water for the interior armatures; he recognized that condensation is due to the dielectric and not to the metal coatings. A note in his diary, dated the 7th of November 1749, shows that he had then conjectured that thunder and lightning were electrical manifestations; in the same year he planned the lightning-rod (long known as “Franklin’s rod”), which he described and recommended to the public in 1753, when the Copley medal of the Royal Society was awarded him for his discoveries. The famous experiment with the kite, proving lightning an electrical phenomenon, was performed by Franklin in June 1752. He overthrew entirely the “friction” theory of electricity and conceived the idea of plus and minus charges (1753); he thought the sea the source of electricity. On light Franklin wrote to David Rittenhouse in June 1784; the sum of his own conjectures was that the corpuscular theory of Newton was wrong, and that light was due to the vibration of an elastic aether. He studied with some care the temperature of the Gulf Stream. In navigation he suggested many new contrivances, such as water-tight compartments, floating anchors to lay a ship to in a storm, and dishes that would not upset during a gale; and beginning in 1757 made repeated experiments with oil on stormy waters. As a mathematician he devised various elaborate magic squares and novel magic circles, of which he speaks apologetically, because they are of no practical use. Always much interested in agriculture, he made an especial effort (like Robert R. Livingston) to promote the use of plaster of Paris as a fertiliser. He took a prominent part in aeronautic experiments during his stay in France. He made an excellent clock, which because of a slight improvement introduced by James Ferguson in 1757 was long known as Ferguson’s clock. In medicine Franklin was considered important enough to be elected to the Royal Medical Society of Paris in 1777, and an honorary member of the Medical Society of London in 1787. In 1784 he was on the committee which investigated Mesmer, and the report is a document of lasting scientific value. Franklin’s advocacy of vegetarianism, of sparing and simple diet, and of temperance in the use of liquors, and of proper ventilation has already been referred to. His most direct contribution to medicine was the invention for his own use of bifocal eyeglasses.

A summary of so versatile a genius is impossible. His services to America in England and France rank him as one of the heroes of the American War of Independence and as the greatest of American diplomats. Almost the only American scientist of his day, he displayed remarkably deep as well as remarkably varied abilities in science and deserved the honours enthusiastically given him by the savants of Europe.

Bibliography.—Franklin’s works were not collected in his own lifetime, and he made no effort to publish his writings. Experiments and Observations on Electricity (London, 1769) was translated into French by Barbeu Dubourg (Paris, 1773); Vaughan attempted a more complete edition, Political, Miscellaneous and Philosophical Pieces (London, 1779); an edition in three volumes appeared after Franklin’s death (London, 1806); what seemed the authentic Works, as it was under the care of Temple Franklin, was published at London (6 vols., 1817-1819; 3 vols., 1818) and with some additional matter at Philadelphia (6 vols., 1818). Sparks’s edition (10 vols., Boston, 1836-1842; revised, Philadelphia, 1858) also contained fresh matter; and there are further additions in the edition of John Bigelow (Philadelphia, 1887-1888; 5th ed., 1905) and in that by Albert Henry Smyth (10 vols., New York, 1905-1907). There are important Frankliniana, about 13,000 papers, in the possession of the American Philosophical Society, to which they were conveyed by the son of Temple Franklin’s executor, George Fox. Other papers which had been left to Fox lay for years in barrels in a stable garret; they were finally cleared out, their owner, Mary Fox, intending to send them to a paper mill. One barrel went to the mill. The others, it was found, contained papers belonging to Franklin, and this important collection was bought and presented to the university of Pennsylvania. The valuable Frankliniana collected by Henry Stevens were purchased by Congress in 1885. These MS. collections were first carefully gone over for the edition of the Works by A. H. Smyth. Franklin’s Autobiography was begun in 1771 as a private chronicle for his son, Governor William Franklin; the papers, bringing the story of his father’s life down to 1730, were lost by the governor during the War of Independence, and in 1783 came into the possession of Abel James, who restored them to Franklin and urged him to complete the sketch. He wrote a little in 1784, more in 1788, when he furnished a copy to his friend le Veillard, and a little more in 1790. The original manuscript was long in the possession of Temple Franklin, who spent years rearranging the matter in it and making over into politer English his grandfather’s plain-spokenness. So long was the publication delayed that it was generally believed that Temple Franklin had sold all the papers to the British government; a French version, MÉmoires de la vie privÉe (Paris, 1791), was retranslated into English twice in 1793 (London), and from one of these versions (by Robinson) still another French version was made (Paris, 1798). Temple Franklin, deciding to print, got from le Veillard the copy sent to him in 1788 (sending in return the original with autograph alterations and the final addition), and from the copy published (London, 1817) an edition supposed to be authentic and complete. The complete autograph of the biography, acquired by John Bigelow in 1867 from its French owners, upon collation with Temple Franklin’s edition showed that the latter contained 1200 emasculations and that it omitted entirely what had been written in 1790. Bigelow published the complete Autobiography with additions from Franklin’s correspondence and other writings in 1868; a second edition (3 vols., Philadelphia, 1888) was published under the title, The Life of Benjamin Franklin, Written by Himself.

In addition to the Autobiography see James Parton, Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin (2 vols., New York, 1864); John T. Morse, Jr., Benjamin Franklin (Boston, 1889, in the American Statesmen series); J. B. McMaster, Benjamin Franklin as a Man of Letters (Boston, 1887, in American Men of Letters series); Paul L. Ford, The Many-Sided Franklin (New York, 1899) and Franklin Bibliography (Brooklyn, 1889); E. E. Hale and E. E. Hale, Jr., Franklin in France (2 vols., Boston, 1888); J. H. A. Doniol, Histoire de la participation de la France a l’Établissement des États-Unis d’AmÉrique (Paris, 6 vols., 1886-1900); S. G. Fisher, The True Benjamin Franklin (Philadelphia, 1899); E. Robins, Benjamin Franklin (New York, 1898, in the American Men of Energy series); W. A. Wetzel, “Benjamin Franklin as an Economist,” No. 9, in series 13 of Johns Hopkins Studies in Historical and Political Science; and the prefaces and biographical matter in A. H. Smyth’s edition of the Works (New York, 10 vols., 1905-1907).

(R. We.)

1 Keimer and his sister had come the year before from London, where he had learned his trade; both were ardent members of the fanatic band of “French prophets.” He proposed founding a new sect with the help of Franklin, who after leaving his shop ridiculed him for his long square beard and for keeping the seventh day. Keimer settled in the Barbadoes about 1730; and in 1731 began to publish at Bridgetown the semi-weekly Barbadoes Gazette. Selections from it called Caribbeana (1741) and A Brand Plucked from the Burning, Exemplified in the Unparalleled Case of Samuel Keimer (1718) are from his pen. He died about 1738.

2 The meeting between Franklin, the type of the shrewd, cool provincial, and Braddock, a blustering, blundering, drinking British soldier, is dramatically portrayed by Thackeray in the 9th chapter of The Virginians.

3 Many questions (about 20 of the first 25) were put by his friends to draw out what he wished to be known.

4 The house is familiar from the drawing of it by Victor Hugo.

5 Many of these portraits bore inscriptions, the most famous of which was Turgot’s line, “Eripuit fulmen coelo sceptrumque tyrannis.”

6 Notably in a pamphlet comparing the Jews and the Anti-Federalists.

7 William Franklin served on the Canadian frontier with Pennsylvania troops, becoming captain in 1750; was in the post-office in 1754-1756; went to England with his father in 1758; was admitted to legal practice in 1758; in 1763, recommended by Lord Fairfax, became governor of New Jersey; he left the Whig for the Tory party; and in the War of Independence was a faithful loyalist, much to the pain and regret of his father, who, however, was reconciled to him in part in 1784. He was held as a prisoner from 1776 until exchanged in 1778; and lived four years in New York, and during the remainder of his life in England with an annual pension of £800 from the crown.

8 For the prevention of counterfeiting continental paper money Franklin long afterwards suggested the use on the different denominations of different leaves, having noted the infinite variety of leaf venation.

9 “Seventy-five editions of it have been printed in English, fifty-six in French, eleven in German and nine in Italian. It has been translated into Spanish, Danish, Swedish, Welsh, Polish, Gaelic, Russian, Bohemian, Dutch, Catalan, Chinese, modern Greek and phonetic writing. It has been printed at least four hundred times, and is to-day as popular as ever.”—P. L. Ford, in The Many-Sided Franklin (1899).

10 Both Swift and Franklin made sport of the typical astrologer almanack-maker.

11 Another hoax was Franklin’s parable against religious persecution thrown into Scriptural form and quoted by him as the fifty-first chapter of Genesis. In a paper on a “Proposed New Version of the Bible” he paraphrased a few verses of the first chapter of Job, making them a satiric attack on royal government; but the version may well rank with these hoaxes, and even modern writers have been taken in by it, regarding it as a serious proposal for a “modernized” version and decrying it as poor taste. Matthew Arnold, for example, declared this an instance in which Franklin was lacking in his “imperturbable common sense”; and J. B. McMaster, though devoting several pages to its discussion, very ingenuously declares it “beneath criticism.”

12 Malthus quoted Franklin in his first edition, but it was not until the second that he introduced the theory of the “preventive check.” Franklin noted the phenomenon with disapproval in his advocacy of increased population; Malthus with approval in his search for means to decrease population.

13 The title of philosopher as used in Franklin’s lifetime referred neither in England nor in France to him as author of moral maxims, but to him as a scientist—a “natural philosopher.”

FRANKLIN, SIR JOHN (1786-1847), English rear-admiral and explorer, was born at Spilsby, Lincolnshire, on the 16th of April 1786. His family was descended from a line of free-holders or “franklins” from whom some centuries earlier they had derived their surname; but the small family estate was sold by his father, who went into business. John, who was the fifth and youngest son and ninth child, was destined for the church. At the age of ten he was sent to school at St Ives, and soon afterwards was transferred to Louth grammar school, which he attended for two years. About this time his imagination was deeply impressed by a holiday walk of 12 m. which he made with a companion to look at the sea, and he determined to be a sailor. In the hope of dispelling this fancy his father sent him on a trial voyage to Lisbon in a merchantman; but it being found on his return that his wishes were unchanged he was entered as a midshipman on board the “Polyphemus,” and shortly afterwards took part in her in the hard-fought battle of Copenhagen (2nd of April 1801). Two months later he joined the “Investigator,” a discovery-ship commanded by his cousin Captain Matthew Flinders, and under the training of that able scientific officer was employed in the exploration and mapping of the coasts of Australia, where he acquired a correctness of astronomical observation and a skill in surveying which proved of eminent utility in his future career. He was on board the “Porpoise” when that ship and the “Cato” were wrecked (18th of August 1803) on a coral reef off the coast of Australia, and after this misfortune proceeded to China. Thence he obtained a passage to England in the “Earl Camden,” East Indiaman, commanded by Captain (afterwards Sir) Nathaniel Dance, and performed the duty of signal midshipman in the famous action of the 15th of February 1804 when Captain Dance repulsed a strong French squadron led by the redoubtable Admiral Linois. On reaching England he joined the “Bellerophon,” 74, and was in charge of the signals on board that ship during the battle of Trafalgar. Two years later he joined the “Bedford,” attaining the rank of lieutenant the year after, and served in her on the Brazil station (whither the “Bedford” went as part of the convoy which escorted the royal family of Portugal to Rio de Janeiro in 1808), in the blockade of Flushing, and finally in the disastrous expedition against New Orleans (1814), in which campaign he displayed such zeal and intelligence as to merit special mention in despatches.

On peace being established, Franklin turned his attention once more to the scientific branch of his profession, and sedulously extended his knowledge of surveying. In 1818 the discovery of a North-West Passage to the Pacific became again, after a long interval, an object of national interest, and Lieutenant Franklin was given the command of the “Trent” in the Arctic expedition, under the orders of Captain Buchan in the “Dorothea”. During a heavy storm the “Dorothea” was so much damaged by the pack-ice that her reaching England became doubtful, and, much to the chagrin of young Franklin, the “Trent” was compelled to convoy her home instead of being allowed to prosecute the voyage alone. This voyage, however, had brought Franklin into personal intercourse with the leading scientific men of London, and they were not slow in ascertaining his peculiar fitness for the command of such an enterprise. To calmness in danger, promptness and fertility of resource, and excellent seamanship, he added an ardent desire to promote science for its own sake, together with a love of truth that led him to do full justice to the merits of his subordinate officers, without wishing to claim their discoveries as a captain’s right. Furthermore, he possessed a cheerful buoyancy of mind, sustained by deep religious principle, which was not depressed in the most gloomy times. It was therefore with full confidence in his ability and exertions that, in 1819, he was placed in command of an expedition appointed to proceed overland from the Hudson Bay to the shores of the Arctic Sea, and to determine the trendings of that coast eastward of the Coppermine river. At this period the northern coast of the American continent was known at two isolated points only,—this, the mouth of the Coppermine river (which, as Franklin discovered, was erroneously placed four degrees of latitude too much to the north), and the mouth of the Mackenzie far to the west of it. Lieutenant Franklin and his party, consisting of Dr Richardson, Midshipmen George Back and Richard Hood, and a few ordinary boatmen, arrived at the depot of the Hudson’s Bay Company at the end of August 1819, and making an autumnal journey of 700 m. spent the first winter on the Saskatchewan. Owing to the supplies which had been promised by the North-West and Hudson’s Bay Companies not being forthcoming the following year, it was not until the summer of 1821 that the Coppermine was ascended to its mouth, and a considerable extent of sea-coast to the eastward surveyed. The return journey led over the region known as the Barren Ground, and was marked by the most terrible sufferings and privations and the tragic death of Lieutenant Hood. The survivors of the expedition reached York Factory in the month of June 1822, having accomplished altogether 5550 m. of travel. While engaged on this service Franklin was promoted to the rank of commander (1st of January 1821), and upon his return to England at the end of 1822 he obtained the post rank of captain and was elected a fellow of the Royal Society. The narrative of this expedition was published in the following year and became at once a classic of travel, and soon after he married Eleanor, the youngest daughter of William Porden, an eminent architect.

Early in 1825 he was entrusted with the command of a second overland expedition, and upon the earnest entreaty of his dying wife, who encouraged him to place his duty to his country before his love for her, he set sail without waiting to witness her end. Accompanied as before by Dr (afterwards Sir) John Richardson and Lieutenant (afterwards Sir) George Back, he descended the Mackenzie river in the season of 1826 and traced the North American coast as far as 149° 37′ W. long., whilst Richardson at the head of a separate party connected the mouths of the Coppermine and Mackenzie rivers. Thus between the years 1819 and 1827 he had added 1200 m. of coast-line to the American continent, or one-third of the whole distance from the Atlantic to the Pacific. These exertions were fully appreciated at home and abroad. He was knighted in 1829, received the honorary degree of D.C.L. from the university of Oxford, was awarded the gold medal of the Geographical Society of Paris, and was elected corresponding member of the Paris Academy of Sciences. The results of these expeditions are described by Franklin and Dr Richardson in two magnificent works published in 1824-1829. In 1828 he married his second wife, Jane, second daughter of John Griffin. His next official employment was on the Mediterranean station, in command of the “Rainbow,” and his ship soon became proverbial in the squadron for the happiness and comfort of her officers and crew. As an acknowledgment of the essential service which he rendered off Patras in the Greek War of Independence, he received the cross of the Redeemer of Greece from King Otto, and after his return to England he was created knight commander of the Guelphic order of Hanover.

In 1836 he accepted the lieutenant-governorship of Van Diemen’s Land (now Tasmania), and held that post till the end of 1843. His government was marked by several events of much interest, one of his most popular measures being the opening of the doors of the legislative council to the public. He also founded a college, endowing it largely from his private funds, and in 1838 established a scientific society at Hobart Town (now called the Royal Society of Tasmania), the meetings of which were held in Government House and its papers printed at his expense. In his time also the colony of Victoria was founded by settlers from Tasmania; and towards its close, transportation to New South Wales having been abolished, the convicts from every part of the British empire were sent to Tasmania. On an increase of the lieutenant-governor’s salary being voted by the colonial legislature, Sir John declined to derive any advantage from it personally, while he secured the augmentation to his successors. He welcomed eagerly the various expeditions for exploration and surveying which visited Hobart Town, conspicuous among these, and of especial interest to himself, being the French and English Antarctic expeditions of Dumont d’Urville and Sir James C. Ross—the latter commanding the “Erebus” and “Terror,” with which Franklin’s own name was afterwards to be so pathetically connected. A magnetic observatory fixed at Hobart Town, as a dependency of the central establishment under Colonel Sabine, was also an object of deep interest up to the moment of his leaving the colony. That his unflinching efforts for the social and political advancement of the colony were appreciated was abundantly proved by the affection and respect shown him by every section of the community on his departure; and several years afterwards the colonists showed their remembrance of his virtues and services by sending Lady Franklin a subscription of £1700 in aid of her efforts for the search and relief of her husband, and later still by a unanimous vote of the legislature for the erection of a statue in honour of him at Hobart Town.

Sir John found on reaching England that there was about to be a renewal of polar research, and that the confidence of the admiralty in him was undiminished, as was shown by his being offered the command of an expedition for the discovery of a North-West Passage to the Pacific. This offer he accepted. The prestige of Arctic service and of his former experiences attracted a crowd of volunteers of all classes, from whom were selected a body of officers conspicuous for talent and energy. Captain Crozier, who was second in command, had been three voyages with Sir Edward Parry, and had commanded the “Terror” in Ross’s Antarctic expedition. Captain Fitzjames, who was commander on board the “Erebus,” had been five times gazetted for brilliant conduct in the operations of the first China war, and in a letter which he wrote from Greenland has bequeathed some good-natured but masterly sketches of his brother officers and messmates on this expedition. Thus supported, with crews carefully chosen (some of whom had been engaged in the whaling service), victualled for three years, and furnished with every appliance then known, Franklin’s expedition, consisting of the “Erebus” and “Terror” (129 officers and men), with a transport ship to convey additional stores as far as Disco in Greenland, sailed from Greenhithe on the 19th of May 1845. The letters which Franklin despatched from Greenland were couched in language of cheerful anticipation of success, while those received from his officers expressed their glowing hope, their admiration of the seamanlike qualities of their commander, and the happiness they had in serving under him. The ships were last seen by a whaler near the entrance of Lancaster Sound, on the 26th of July, and the deep gloom which settled down upon their subsequent movements was not finally raised till fourteen years later.

Franklin’s instructions were framed in conjunction with Sir John Barrow and upon his own suggestions. The experience of Parry had established the navigability of Lancaster Sound (leading westwards out of Baffin Bay), whilst Franklin’s own surveys had long before satisfied him that a navigable passage existed along the north coast of America from the Fish river to Bering Strait. He was therefore directed to push through Lancaster Sound and its continuation, Barrow Strait, without loss of time, until he reached the portion of land on which Cape Walker is situated, or about long. 98° W., and from that point to pursue a course southward towards the American coast. An explicit prohibition was given against a westerly course beyond the longitude of 98° W., but he was allowed the single alternative of previously examining Wellington Channel (which leads out of Barrow Strait) for a northward route, if the navigation here were open.

In 1847, though there was no real public anxiety as to the fate of the expedition, preparations began to be made for the possible necessity of sending relief. As time passed, however, and no tidings reached England, the search began in earnest, and from 1848 onwards expedition after expedition was despatched in quest of the missing explorers. The work of these expeditions forms a story of achievement which has no parallel in maritime annals, and resulted in the discovery and exploration of thousands of miles of new land within the grim Arctic regions, the development of the system of sledge travelling, and the discovery of a second North-West Passage in 1850 (see Polar Regions). Here it is only necessary to mention the results so far as the search for Franklin was concerned. In this great national undertaking Lady Franklin’s exertions were unwearied, and she exhausted her private funds in sending out auxiliary vessels to quarters not comprised in the public search, and by her pathetic appeals roused the sympathy of the whole civilized world.

The first traces of the missing ships, consisting of a few scattered articles, besides three graves, were discovered at Franklin’s winter quarters (1845-1846) on Beechey Island, by Captain (afterwards Sir) Erasmus Ommanney of the “Assistance,” in August 1851, and were brought home by the “Prince Albert,” which had been fitted out by Lady Franklin. No further tidings were obtained until the spring of 1854, when Dr John Rae, then conducting a sledging expedition of the Hudson’s Bay Company from Repulse Bay, was told by the Eskimo that (as was inferred) in 1850 white men, to the number of about forty, had been seen dragging a boat southward along the west shore of King William’s Island, and that later in the same season the bodies of the whole party were found by the natives at a point a short distance to the north-west of Back’s Great Fish river, where they had perished from the united effects of cold and famine. The latter statement was afterwards disproved by the discovery of skeletons upon the presumed line of route; but indisputable proof was given that the Eskimo had communicated with members of the missing expedition, by the various articles obtained from them and brought home by Dr Rae. In consequence of the information obtained by Dr Rae, a party in canoes, under Messrs Anderson and Stewart, was sent by government down the Great Fish river in 1855, and succeeded in obtaining from the Eskimo at the mouth of the river a considerable number of articles which had evidently belonged to the Franklin expedition; while others were picked up on Montreal Island a day’s march to the northward. It was clear, therefore, that a party from the “Erebus” and “Terror” had endeavoured to reach the settlements of the Hudson’s Bay Company by the Fish river route, and that in making a southerly course it had been arrested within the channel into which the Great Fish river empties itself. The admiralty now decided to take no further steps to determine the exact fate of the expedition, and granted to Dr Rae the reward of £10,000 which had been offered in 1849 to whosoever should first succeed in obtaining authentic news of the missing men. It was therefore reserved for the latest effort of Lady Franklin to develop, not only the fate of her husband’s expedition but also the steps of its progress up to the very verge of success, mingled indeed with almost unprecedented disaster. With all her available means, and aided, as she had been before, by the subscriptions of sympathizing friends, she purchased and fitted out the little yacht “Fox,” which sailed from Aberdeen in July 1857. The command was accepted by Captain (afterwards Sir) Leopold M’Clintock, whose high reputation had been won in three of the government expeditions sent out in search of Franklin. Having been compelled to pass the first winter in Baffin Bay, it was not till the autumn of 1858 that the “Fox” passed down Prince Regent’s Inlet, and put into winter quarters at Port Kennedy at the eastern end of Bellot Strait, between North Somerset and Boothia Felix. In the spring of 1859 three sledging parties went out, Captain (afterwards Sir) Allen Young to examine Prince of Wales Island, Lieutenant (afterwards Captain) Hobson the north and west coasts of King William’s Island, and M’Clintock the east and south coasts of the latter, the west coast of Boothia, and the region about the mouth of Great Fish river. This splendid and exhaustive search added 800 m. of new coast-line to the knowledge of the Arctic regions, and brought to light the course and fate of the expedition. From the Eskimo in Boothia many relics were obtained, and reports as to the fate of the ships and men; and on the west and south coast of King William’s Island were discovered skeletons and remains of articles that told a terrible tale of disaster. Above all, in a cairn at Point Victory a precious record was discovered by Lieutenant Hobson that briefly told the history of the expedition up to April 25, 1848, three years after it set out full of hope. In 1845-1846 the “Erebus” and “Terror” wintered at Beechey Island on the S.W. coast of North Devon, in lat. 74° 43′ 28″ N., long. 91° 39′ 15″ W., after having ascended Wellington Channel to lat. 77° and returned by the west side of Cornwallis Island. This statement was signed by Graham Gore, lieutenant, and Charles F. des Voeux, mate, and bore date May 28, 1847. These two officers and six men, it was further told, left the ships on May 24, 1847 (no doubt for an exploring journey), at which time all was well.

Such an amount of successful work has seldom been accomplished by an Arctic expedition within any one season. The alternative course permitted Franklin by his instructions had been attempted but not pursued, and in the autumn of 1846 he had followed that route which was specially commended to him. But after successfully navigating Peel and Franklin Straits on his way southward, his progress had been suddenly and finally arrested by the obstruction of heavy (“palaeocrystic”) ice, which presses down from the north-west through M‘Clintock Channel (not then known to exist) upon King William’s Island. It must be remembered that in the chart which Franklin carried King William’s Island was laid down as a part of the mainland of Boothia, and he therefore could pursue his way only down its western coast. Upon the margin of the printed admiralty form on which this brief record was written was an addendum dated the 25th of April 1848, which extinguished all further hopes of a successful termination of this grand enterprise. The facts are best conveyed in the terse and expressive words in which they were written, and are therefore given verbatim: “April 25th, 1848. H.M. Ships ‘Terror’ and ‘Erebus’ were deserted on 22nd April, five leagues N.N.W. of this, having been beset since 12th September 1846. The officers and crews, consisting of 105 souls under the command of Captain F. R. M. Crozier, landed in lat. 69° 37′ 42″ N., long. 98° 41′ W. This paper was found by Lieut. Irving ... where it had been deposited by the late Commander Gore in June 1847. Sir John Franklin died on the 11th June 1847; and the total loss by deaths in the expedition has been to this date 9 officers and 15 men.” The handwriting is that of Captain Fitzjames, to whose signature is appended that of Captain Crozier, who also adds the words of chief importance, namely, that they would “start on to-morrow 26th April 1848 for Back’s Fish river.” A briefer record has never been told of so tragic a story.

All the party had without doubt been greatly reduced through want of sufficient food, and the injurious effects of three winters in these regions. They had attempted to drag with them two boats, besides heavily laden sledges, and doubtless had soon been compelled to abandon much of their burden, and leave one boat on the shore of King William’s Island, where it was found by M’Clintock, near the middle of the west coast, containing two skeletons. The route adopted was the shortest possible, but their strength and supplies had failed, and at that season of the year the snow-covered land afforded no subsistence. An old Eskimo woman stated that these heroic men “fell down and died as they walked,” and, as Sir John Richardson has well said, they “forged the last link of the North-West Passage with their lives.” From all that can be gathered, one of the ships must have been crushed in the ice and sunk in deep water, and the other, stranded on the shore of King William’s Island, lay there for years, forming a mine of wealth for the neighbouring Eskimo.

This is all we know of the fate of Franklin and his brave men. His memory is cherished as one of the most conspicuous of the naval heroes of Britain, and as one of the most successful and daring of her explorers. He is certainly entitled to the honour of being the first discoverer of the North-West Passage; the point reached by the ships having brought him to within a few miles of the known waters of America, and on the monument erected to him by his country, in Waterloo Place, London, this honour is justly awarded to him and his companions,—a fact which was also affirmed by the president of the Royal Geographical Society, when presenting their gold medal to Lady Franklin in 1860. On the 26th of October 1852 Franklin had been promoted to the rank of rear-admiral. He left an only daughter by his first marriage. Lady Franklin died in 1875 at the age of eighty-three, and a fortnight after her death a fine monument was unveiled in Westminster Abbey, commemorating the heroic deeds and fate of Sir John Franklin, and the inseparable connexion of Lady Franklin’s name with the fame of her husband. Most of the relics brought home by M‘Clintock were presented by Lady Franklin to the United Service Museum, while those given by Dr Rae to the admiralty are deposited in Greenwich hospital. In 1864-1869 the American explorer Captain Hall made two journeys in endeavouring to trace the remnant of Franklin’s party, bringing back a number of additional relics and some information confirmatory of that given by M’Clintock, and in 1878 Lieutenant F. Schwatka of the United States army and a companion made a final land search, but although accomplishing a remarkable record of travel discovered nothing which threw any fresh light on the history of the expedition.

See H. D. Traill, Life of Sir John Franklin (1896).

FRANKLIN, WILLIAM BUEL (1823-1903), Federal general in the American Civil War, was born at York, Pennsylvania, on the 27th of February 1823. He graduated at West Point, at the head of his class, in 1843, was commissioned in the Engineer Corps, U.S.A., and served with distinction in the Mexican War, receiving the brevet of first lieutenant for his good conduct at Buena Vista, in which action he was on the staff of General Taylor. After the war he was engaged in miscellaneous engineering work, becoming a first lieutenant in 1853 and a captain in 1857. Soon after the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861 he was made colonel of a regular infantry regiment, and a few days later brigadier-general of volunteers. He led a brigade in the first battle of Bull Run, and on the organization by McClellan of the Army of the Potomac he received a divisional command. He commanded first a division and then the VI. Corps in the operations before Richmond in 1862, earning the brevet of brigadier-general in the U.S. Army; was promoted major-general, U.S.V., in July 1862; commanded the VI. corps at South Mountain and Antietam; and at Fredericksburg commanded the “Left Grand Division” of two corps (I. and VI.). His part in the last battle led to charges of disobedience and negligence being preferred against him by the commanding general, General A. E. Burnside, on which the congressional committee on the conduct of the war reported unfavourably to Franklin, largely, it seems, because Burnside’s orders to Franklin were not put in evidence. Burnside had issued on the 23rd of January 1863 an order relieving Franklin from duty, and Franklin’s only other service in the war was as commander of the XIX. corps in the abortive Red River Expedition of 1864. In this expedition he received a severe wound at the action of Sabine Cross Roads (April 8, 1864), in consequence of which he took no further active part in the war. He served for a time on the retiring board, and was captured by the Confederates on the 11th of July 1864, but escaped the same night. In 1865 he was brevetted major-general in the regular army, and in 1866 he was retired. After the war General Franklin was vice-president of the Colt’s Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company, was president of the commission to lay out Long Island City, N.Y. (1871-1872), of the commission on the building of the Connecticut state house (1872-1873), and, from 1880 to 1899, of the board of managers of the national home for disabled volunteer soldiers; as a commissioner of the United States to the Paris Exposition of 1889 he was made a grand officer of the Legion of Honour; and he was for a time a director of the Panama railway. He died at Hartford, Connecticut, on the 8th of March 1903. He wrote a pamphlet, The Gatling Gun for Service Ashore and Afloat (1874).

See A Reply of Major-General William B. Franklin to the Report of the Joint Committee of Congress on the Conduct of the War (New York, 1863; 2nd ed., 1867), and Jacob L. Greene, Gen. W. B. Franklin and the Operations of the Left Wing at the Battle of Fredericksburg (Hartford, 1900).

FRANKLIN, an organized district of Canada, extending from the Arctic Circle to the North Pole. It was formed by order-in-council on the 2nd of October 1895, and includes numerous islands and peninsulas, such as Banks, Prince Albert, Victoria, Wollaston, King Edward and Baffin Land, Melville, Bathurst, Prince of Wales and Cockburn Islands. Of these, Baffin Land alone extends south of the Arctic Circle. The area is estimated at 500,000 sq. m., but the inhabitants consist of a few Indians, Eskimo and fur-traders. Musk-oxen, polar bears, foxes and other valuable fur-bearing animals are found in large numbers. The district is named after Sir John Franklin.

FRANKLIN, a township of Norfolk county, Massachusetts, U.S.A., with an area of 29 sq. m. of rolling surface. Pop. (1900) 5017, of whom 1250 were foreign-born; (1905, state census) 5244; (1910 census) 5641. The principal village, also named Franklin, is about 27 m. S.W. of Boston, and is served by the New York, New Haven & Hartford railway. Franklin has a public library (housed in the Ray memorial building and containing 7700 volumes in 1910) and is the seat of Dean Academy (Universalist; founded in 1865), a secondary school for boys and girls. Straw goods, felt, cotton and woollen goods, pianos and printing presses are manufactured here. The township was incorporated in 1778, previous to which it was a part of Wrentham (1673). It was the first of the many places in the United States named in honour of Benjamin Franklin (who later contributed books for the public library). Horace Mann was born here.

FRANKLIN, a city of Merrimack county, New Hampshire, U.S.A., at the confluence of the Pemigewasset and Winnepesaukee rivers to form the Merrimac; about 95 m. N.N.W. of Boston. Pop. (1890) 4085; (1900) 5846 (1323 foreign-born); (1910) 6132; area, about 14.4 sq. m. Franklin is served by the Concord Division of the Boston & Maine railway, with a branch to Bristol (13 m. N.W.) and another connecting at Tilton (about 5 m. E.) with the White Mountains Division. It contains the villages of Franklin, Franklin Falls, Webster Place and Lake City, the last a summer resort. The rivers furnish good water power, which is used in the manufacture of a variety of commodities, including foundry products, paper and pulp, woollen goods, hosiery, saws, needles and knitting machines. The water-works are owned and operated by the municipality. Here, in what was then a part of the town of Salisbury, Daniel Webster was born, and on the Webster farm is the New Hampshire orphans’ home, established in 1871. The town of Franklin was formed in 1828 by the union of portions of Salisbury, Sanbornton, Andover and Northfield. The earliest settlement within its limits was made in 1748 in the portion taken from Salisbury. Franklin was incorporated as a city in 1895.

FRANKLIN, a city and the county-seat of Venango county, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., at the confluence of French Creek and Allegheny river, about 55 m. S. by E. of Erie, in the N.W. part of the state. Pop. (1890) 6221; (1900) 7317 (489 being foreign-born); (1910) 9767. Franklin is served by the Erie, the Pennsylvania, the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern, and the Franklin & Clearfield railways. Its streets are broad and well paved and shaded, and there are two public parks, a public library and many handsome residences. Franklin is the centre of the chief oil region of the state, and from it great quantities of refined oil are shipped. Natural gas also abounds. The city’s manufacture include oil-well supplies, boilers, engines, steel castings, iron goods, lumber, bricks, asbestos goods, manifolding paper and flour. On the site of the present city the French built in 1754 a fortification, Fort Machault, which after the capture of Fort Duquesne by the English was a rallying place for Indians allied with the French. In 1759 the French abandoned and completely destroyed the fort; and in the following year the English built in the vicinity Fort Venango, which was captured by the Indians in 1763 during the Conspiracy of Pontiac, the whole garrison being massacred. In 1787 the United States built Fort Franklin (about 1 m. above the mouth of French Creek) as a protection against the Indians; in 1796 the troops were removed to a strongly built and well-fortified wooden building, known as “Old Garrison,” at the mouth of French Creek, and in 1803 they were permanently withdrawn from the neighbourhood. Franklin was laid out as a town in 1795, was incorporated as a borough in 1828, and was chartered as a city in 1868. Most of its growth dates from the discovery of oil in 1860.

FRANKLIN, a town and the county-seat of Williamson county, Tennessee, U.S.A., in the central part of the state, on the Harpeth river, and about 20 m. S.W. of Nashville. Pop. (1900) 2180; (1910) 2924. Franklin is served by the Louisville & Nashville railway. It is the seat of the Tennessee Female College and the Battle Ground Academy, and its chief objects of interest are the battle-ground, the Confederate cemetery and the Confederate monument. During the Civil War Franklin was the scene of a minor engagement on the 10th of April 1863, and of a battle, celebrated as one of the most desperately fought of the war, which took place on the 30th of November 1864. The Union general Schofield, who was slowly withdrawing to Nashville before the advance of General J. B. Hood’s army, which he was ordered to hold in check in order to give Thomas time to prepare for battle (see American Civil War, § 32), was unable immediately to cross the Harpeth river and was compelled to entrench his forces south of the town until his wagon trains and artillery could be sent over the stream by means of two small bridges. In the afternoon Schofield’s outposts and advanced lines were attacked by the Confederates in full strength, and instead of withdrawing as ordered they made a determined stand. Thus the assailants, carrying the advanced works by storm, rushed upon the main defences on the heels of the broken advanced guard, and a general engagement was brought on which lasted from 3.30 until nine o’clock in the evening. Against, it is said, thirteen separate assaults, all delivered with exceptional fury, Schofield managed to hold his position, and shortly before midnight he withdrew across the river in good order. The engagement was indecisive in its results, but the Union commander’s purpose, to hold Hood momentarily in check, was gained, and Hood’s effort to crush Schofield was unavailing. The losses were very heavy; Hood’s effective forces in the engagement numbered about 27,000, Schofield’s about 28,000; the Confederate losses (excluding cavalry) were about 6500, excluding the slightly wounded; six general officers were killed (including Major-General P. R. Cleburne, a brave Irishman who had been a corporal in the British army), six wounded, and one captured; the Union losses (excluding cavalry) were 2326. In two of the Confederate brigades all the general and field officers were killed or wounded.

See J. D. Cox, The Battle of Franklin (New York, 1897).

FRANKLIN, a word derived from the Late Lat. francus, free, and meaning primarily a freeman. Subsequently it was used in England to denote a land-holder who was of free but not of noble birth. Some of the older English writers occasionally use it to mean a liberal host. The Latin form of the word is franchilanus.

FRANKLINITE, a member of the spinel group of minerals, consisting of oxides of iron, manganese and zinc in varying proportions, (Fe, Zn, Mn)′(Fe, Mn)2″′O4. It occurs as large octahedral crystals often with rounded edges, and as granular masses. The colour is iron-black and the lustre metallic; hardness 6, specific gravity 5.2. It thus resembles magnetite in external characters, but is readily distinguished from this by the fact that it is only slightly magnetic. It is found in considerable amount, associated with zinc minerals (zincite and willemite) in crystalline limestone, at Franklin Furnace, New Jersey, where it is mined as an ore of zinc (containing 5 to 20% of the metal); after the extraction of the zinc, the residue is used in the manufacture of spiegeleisen (the mineral containing 15 to 20% of manganese oxides). Associated with franklinite at Franklin Furnace, and found also at some other localities, is another member of the spinel group, namely, gahnite or zinc-spinel, which is a zinc aluminate, ZnAl2O4, with a little of the zinc replaced by iron and manganese.

FRANK-MARRIAGE (liberum maritagium), in real property law, a species of estate tail, now obsolete. When a man was seized of land in fee simple, and gave it to a daughter on marriage, the daughter and her husband were termed the donees in frank-marriage, because they held the land granted to them and the heirs of their two bodies free from all manner of service, except fealty, to the donor or his heirs until the fourth degree of consanguinity from the donor was passed. This right of a freeholder so to give away his land at will was first recognized in the reign of Henry II., and became up to the reign of Elizabeth the most usual kind of settlement.

FRANKPLEDGE (Lat. francum plegium), an early English institution, consisting (as defined by Stubbs) of an association for mutual security whose members, according to Hallam, “were perpetual bail for each other.” The custom whereby the Inhabitants of a district were responsible for any crime or injury committed by one of their number is old and widespread; it prevailed in England before the Norman Conquest, and is an outcome of the earlier principle whereby this responsibility rested on kinship. Thus a law of Edgar (d. 975) says “and let every man so order that he have a borh (or surety), and let the borh then bring and hold him to every justice; and if any one then do wrong and run away, let the borh bear that which he ought to bear”; and a law of Canute about 1030 says “and that every one be brought into a hundred and in borh, and let the borh hold and lead him to every plea.” About this time these societies, each having its headman, were called frithborhs, or peace-borhs, and the Normans translated the Anglo-Saxon word by frankpledge. But the history of the frankpledge proper begins not earlier than the time of the Norman Conquest. The laws, which although called the laws of Edward the Confessor were not drawn up until about 1130, contain a clause about frithborhs which decrees that in every place societies of ten men shall be formed for mutual security and reparation. And before this date William the Conqueror had ordered that “every one who wishes to be regarded as free must be in a pledge, and that the pledge must hold and bring him to justice if he commits any offence”; and the laws of Henry I. ordered every person of substance over twelve years of age to be enrolled in a frankpledge. This association of ten, or as it often was at a later date of twelve men, was also called a tithing, or decima, and in the north of England was known as tenmanne tale.

The view of frankpledge (visus franciplegii), or the duty of ascertaining that the law with regard to frankpledges was complied with, was in the hands of the sheriffs, who held an itinerant court called the “sheriff’s tourn” for this and other purposes. This court was held twice a year, but in 1217 it was ordered that the view of frankpledge should only be taken once—at Michaelmas. Introduced at or before the time of Henry I., the view was regulated by the Assize of Clarendon of 1166 and by Magna Carta as reissued in 1217. Although the former of these lays stress upon the fact that the sheriff’s supervisory powers are universal many men did not attend his tourn. Some lords of manors and of hundreds held a court of their own for view of frankpledge, and in the 13th century it may be fairly said “of all the franchises, the royal rights in private hands, view of frankpledge is perhaps the commonest.” At the end of the same century the court for the view of frankpledge was generally known as the court leet, and was usually a manorial court in private hands. However, the principle of the frankpledge was still enforced. Thus Bracton says “every male of the age of twelve years, be he free be he serf, ought to be in frankpledge,” but he allows for certain exceptions.

As the word frankpledge denotes, these societies were originally concerned only with freemen; but the unfree were afterwards admitted, and during the 13th century the frankpledges were composed chiefly of villains. From petitions presented to parliament in 1376 it seems that the view of frankpledge was in active operation at this time, but it soon began to fall into disuse, and its complete decay coincides with the new ideas of government introduced by the Tudors. In a formal fashion courts leet for the view of frankpledge were held in the time of the jurist Selden, and a few of these have survived until the present day. Sir F. Palgrave has asserted that the view of frankpledge was unknown in that part of the country which had been included in the kingdom of Northumbria. This statement is open to question, but it is highly probable that the system was not so deeply rooted in this part of England as elsewhere. The machinery of the frankpledge was probably used by Henry II. when he introduced the jury of presentment; and commenting on this connexion F. W. Maitland says “the duty of producing one’s neighbour to answer accusations (the duty of the frankpledges) could well be converted into the duty of telling tales against him.” The system of frankpledge prevailed in some English boroughs. Sometimes a court for view of frankpledge, called in some places a mickleton, whereat the mayor or the bailiffs presided, was held for the whole borough; in other cases the borough was divided into wards, or into leets, each of which had its separate court.

See Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law (1895); G. Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, Band i. (1880); and W. Stubbs, Constitutional History, vol. i. (1897).

FRANKS, SIR AUGUSTUS WOLLASTON (1826-1897), English antiquary, was born on the 20th of March 1826, and was educated at Eton and at Trinity College, Cambridge. He early showed inclination for antiquarian pursuits, and in 1851 was appointed assistant in the Antiquities Department of the British Museum. Here, and as director of the Society of Antiquaries, an appointment he received in 1858, he made himself the first authority in England upon medieval antiquities of all descriptions, upon porcelain, glass, the manufactures of savage nations, and in general upon all Oriental curiosities and works of art later than the Classical period. In 1866 the British and medieval antiquities, with the ethnographical collections, were formed into a distinct department under his superintendence; and the Christy collection of ethnography in Victoria Street, London, prior to its amalgamation with the British Museum collections, was also under his care. He became vice-president and ultimately president of the Society of Antiquaries, and in 1878 declined the principal librarianship of the museum. He retired on his seventieth birthday, 1896, and died on the 21st of May 1897. His ample fortune was largely devoted to the collection of ceramics and precious objects of medieval art, most of which became the property of the nation, either by donation in his lifetime or by bequest at his death. Although chiefly a medieval antiquary, Franks was also an authority on classical art, especially Roman remains in Britain: he was also greatly interested in book-marks and playing-cards, of both of which he formed important collections. He edited Kemble’s Horae Ferales, and wrote numerous memoirs on archaeological subjects. Perhaps his most important work of this class is the catalogue of his own collection of porcelain.

FRANKS. The name Franks seems to have been given in the 4th century to a group of Germanic peoples dwelling north of the Main and reaching as far as the shores of the North Sea; south of the Main was the home of the Alamanni. The names of some of these tribes have come down to us. On the Tabula Peutingeriana appear the “Chamavi qui et Pranci,” which should doubtless read “qui et Franci”; these Chamavi apparently dwelt between the Yssel and the Ems. Later, we find them a little farther south, on the banks of the Rhine, in the district called Hamalant, and it is their customs which were brought together in the 9th century in the document known as the Lex Francorum Chamavorum. After the Chamavi we may mention the Attuarii or Chattuarii, who are referred to by Ammianus Marcellinus (xx. 10, 2): “Rheno exinde transmisso, regionem pervasit (Julianus) Francorum quos Atthuarios vocant.” Later, the pagus Attuariorum corresponds to the district of Emmerich and Xanten. It should be noted that this name occurs again in the middle ages in Burgundy, not far from Dijon; in all probability a detachment of this people had settled in that spot in the 5th or 6th century. The Bructeri, Ampsivarii and Chatti may also be classed among the Frankish tribes. They are mentioned in a celebrated passage of Sulpicius Alexander, which is cited by Gregory of Tours (Historia Francorum, ii. 9). Sulpicius shows the general Arbogast, a barbarian in the service of Rome, seeking to take vengeance on the Franks (392): “Collecto exercitu, transgressus Rhenum, Bricteros ripae proximos, pagum etiam quem Chamavi incolunt depopulatus est, nullo unquam occursante, nisi quod pauci ex Ampsivariis et Catthis Marcomere duce in ulterioribus collium jugis apparuere.” It is evidently this Marcomeres, the chief of these tribes, who is regarded by later historians as the father of the legendary Faramund (Pharamund) although in fact Marcomeres has nothing to do with the Salian Franks.

The earliest mention in history of the name Franks is the entry on the Tabula Peutingeriana, at least if we assume that the term “et Franci” is not a later emendation. The earliest occurrence of the name in any author is in the Vita Aureliani of Vopiscus (ch. vii.). When, in 241, Aurelian, who was then only a tribune, had just defeated some Franks in the neighbourhood of Mainz and was marching against the Persians, his troops sang the following refrain:

Mille Sarmatas, mille Francos, semel et semel occidimus;

Mille Persas, quaerimus.

All these Germanic tribes, which were known from the 3rd century onwards by the generic name of Franks, doubtless spoke a similar dialect and were governed by customs which must scarcely have differed from one another; but this was all they had in common. Each tribe was politically independent; they formed no confederations. Sometimes two or three tribes joined forces to wage a war; but, the struggle over, the bond was broken, and each tribe resumed its isolated life. Waitz holds with some show of probability that the Franks represent the ancient Istaevones of Tacitus, the Alamanni and the Saxons representing the Herminones and the Ingaevones.

Of all these Frankish tribes one especially was to become prominent, the tribe of the Salians. They are mentioned for the first time in 358, by Ammianus Marcellinus (xvii. 8, 3), who says that the Caesar Julian “petit primos omnium Francos, videlicet eos quos consuetudo Salios appellavit.” As to the origin of the name, it was long held to be derived from the river Yssel or Saal. It is more probable, however, that it arose from the fact that the Salians for a long period occupied the shores of the salt sea.1 The Salians inhabited the sea-coast, whereas the Ripuarians dwelt on the banks of the river Rhine.

The Salians, at the time when they are mentioned by Ammianus, occupied Toxandria, i.e. the region south of the Meuse, between that river and the Scheldt. Julian defeated them completely, but allowed them to remain in Toxandria, not, as of old, as conquerors, but as foederati of the Romans. They perhaps paid tribute, and they certainly furnished Rome with soldiers; Salii seniores and Salii juniores are mentioned in the Notitia dignitatum, and Salii appear among the auxilia palatina.

At the end of the 4th century and at the beginning of the 5th, when the Roman legions withdrew from the banks of the Rhine, the Salians installed themselves in the district as an independent people. The place-names became entirely Germanic; the Latin language disappeared; and the Christian religion suffered a check, for the Franks were to a man pagans. The Salians were subdivided into a certain number of tribes, each tribe placing at its head a king, distinguished by his long hair and chosen from the most noble family (Historia Francorum, ii. 9).

The most ancient of these kings, reigning over the principal tribe, who is known to us is Chlodio.2 According to Gregory of Tours Chlodio dwelt at a place called Dispargum, which it is impossible to identify. Towards 431 he crossed the great Roman road from Bavay to Cologne, which was protected by numerous forts and had long arrested the invasions of the barbarians. He then invaded the territory of Arras, but was severely defeated at Hesdin-le-Vieux by Aetius, the commander of the Roman army in Gaul. Chlodio, however, soon took his revenge. He explored the region of Cambrai, seized that town, and occupied all the country as far as the Somme. At this time Tournai became the capital of the Salian Franks.

After Chlodio a certain Meroveus (Merowech) was king of the Salian Franks. We do not know if he was the son of Chlodio; Gregory of Tours simply says that he belonged to Chlodio’s stock—“de hujus stirpe quidam Merovechum regem fuisse adserunt,”—and then only gives the fact at second hand. Perhaps the remarks of the Byzantine historian Priscus may refer to Meroveus. A king of the Franks having died, his two sons disputed the power. The elder journeyed into Pannonia to obtain support from Attila; the younger betook himself to the imperial court at Rome. “I have seen him,” writes Priscus; “he was still very young, and we all remarked his fair hair which fell upon his shoulders.” Aetius welcomed him warmly and sent him back a friend and foederatus. In any case, eventually, Franks fought (451) in the Roman ranks at the great battle of Mauriac (the Catalaunian Fields), which arrested the progress of Attila into Gaul; and in the Vita Lupi, which, though undoubtedly of later date, is a recension of an earlier document, the name of Meroveus appears among the combatants. Towards 457 Meroveus was succeeded by his son Childeric. At first Childeric was a faithful foederatus of the Romans, fighting for them against the Visigoths and the Saxons south of the Loire; but he soon sought to make himself independent and to extend his conquests. He died in 481 and was succeeded by his son Clovis, who conquered the whole of Gaul with the exception of the kingdom of Burgundy and Provence. Clovis made his authority recognized over the other Salian tribes (whose kings dwelt at Cambrai and other cities), and put an end to the domination of the Ripuarian Franks.

These Ripuarians must have comprised a certain number of Frankish tribes, such as the Ampsivarii and the Bructeri. They settled in the 5th century in compact masses on the left bank of the Rhine, but their progress was slow. It was not until the Christian writer Salvian (who was born about 400) had already reached a fairly advanced age that they were able to seize Cologne. The town, however, was recaptured and was not definitely in their possession until 463. The Ripuarians subsequently occupied all the country from Cologne to Trier. Aix-la-Chapelle, Bonn and ZÜlpich were their principal centres, and they even advanced southward as far as Metz, which appears to have resisted their attacks. The Roman civilization and the Latin language disappeared from the countries which they occupied; indeed it seems that the actual boundaries of the German and French languages nearly coincide with those of their dominion. In their southward progress the Ripuarians encountered the Alamanni, who, already masters of Alsace, were endeavouring to extend their conquests in all directions. There were numerous battles between the Ripuarians and the Alamanni; and the memory of one fought at ZÜlpich has come down to us. In this battle Sigebert, the king of the Ripuarians, was wounded in the knee and limped during the remainder of his life—hence his surname Claudus (the Lame). The Ripuarians long remained allies of Clovis, Sigebert’s son Chloderic fighting under the king of the Salian Franks at VouillÉ in 507. Clovis, however, persuaded Chloderic to assassinate his father, and then posed as Sigebert’s avenger, with the result that Chloderic was himself assassinated and the Ripuarians raised Clovis on the shield and chose him as king. Thus the Salian Franks united under their rule all the Franks on the left bank of the Rhine. During the reigns of Clovis’s sons they again turned their eyes on Germany, and imposed their suzerainty upon the Franks on the right bank. This country, north of the Main and the first residence of the Franks, then received the name of Francia Orientalis, and became the origin of one of the duchies into which Germany was divided in the 10th century—the duchy of Franconia (Franken).

The Franks were redoubtable warriors, and were generally of great stature. Their fair or red hair was brought forward from the crown of the head towards the forehead, leaving the nape of the neck uncovered; they shaved the face except the upper lip. They wore fairly close breeches reaching to the knee and a tunic fastened by brooches. Round the waist over the tunic was worn a leathern girdle having a broad iron buckle damascened with silver. From the girdle hung the single-edged missile axe or francisca, the scramasax or short knife, a poniard and such articles of toilet as scissors, a comb (of wood or bone), &c. The Franks also used a weapon called the framea (an iron lance set firmly in a wooden shaft), and bows and arrows. They protected themselves in battle with a large wooden or wicker shield, the centre of which was ornamented with an iron boss (umbo). Frankish arms and armour have been found in the cemeteries which abound throughout northern France, the warriors being buried fully armed.

See J. Grimm, Deutsche RechtsalterthÜmer (GÖttingen, 1828); K. MÜllenhoff, Deutsche Altertumskunde (Berlin, 1883-1900); E. von Wietersheim, Geschichte der VÖlkerwanderung, 2nd ed., ed. by F. Dahn (Leipzig, 1880-1881); G. Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, vol. i. (4th ed. revised by Zeumer); R. SchrÖder, “Die Ausbreitung der salischen Franken,” in Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, vol. xix.; K. Lamprecht, FrÄnkische Wanderungen und Ansiedelungen (Aix-la-Chapelle, 1882); W. Schultz, Deutsche Geschichte von der Urzeit bis zu den Karolingern, vol. ii. (Stuttgart, 1896); Fustel de Coulanges, Histoire des institutions politiques de l’ancienne France—l’invasion germanique (Paris, 1891). Also the articles Salic Law and Germanic Laws, Early.

(C. Pf.)

1 Their legends are connected with the sea, the name Meroveus signifying “sea-born.”

2 The chronicler Fredegarius and the author of the Liber historiae Francorum make Sunno and Marcomeres his predecessors, but in reality they were chiefs of other Frankish tribes. The author of the Liber also claims that Chlodio was the son of Pharamund, but this personage is quite legendary. In the Chronicon of Fredegarius it is already affirmed that the Franks are descended from the Trojans.

FRANZ, ROBERT (1815-1892), German composer, was born at Halle on the 28th of June 1815. One of the most gifted of German song writers, he suffered in early life, as many musicians have suffered, from the hostility of his parents to a musical career. He was twenty years old when, his father’s animosity conquered, he was allowed to live in Dessau to study organ-playing under Schneider. The two years of dry study under that famous teacher were advantageous chiefly in making him uncommonly intimate with the works of Bach and Handel, his knowledge of which he showed in his editions of the MatthÄus Passion, Magnificat, ten cantatas, and of the Messiah and L’Allegro, though some of these editions have long been a subject of controversy among musicians. In 1843 he published his first book of songs, which ultimately was followed by some fifty more books, containing in all about 250 songs. At Halle, Franz filled various public offices, including those of organist to the city, conductor of the Sing-akademie and of the Symphony concerts, and he was also a royal music-director and master of the music at the university. The first book of songs was warmly praised by Schumann and Liszt, the latter of whom wrote a lengthy review of it in Schumann’s paper, Die neue Zeitschrift, which later was published separately. Deafness had begun to make itself apparent as early as 1841, and Franz suffered also from a nervous disorder, which in 1868 compelled him to resign his offices. His future was then provided for by Liszt, Dr Joachim, Frau Magnus and others, who gave him the receipts of a concert tour, amounting to some 100,000 marks. Franz died on the 24th of October 1892. On his seventieth birthday he published his first and only pianoforte piece. It is easy to find here and there among his songs gems that are hardly less brilliant than the best of Schumann’s. Certainly no musician was ever more thoughtful and more painstaking. In addition to songs he wrote a setting for double choir of the 117th Psalm, and a four-part Kyrie; he also edited Astorga’s Stabat Mater and Durante’s Magnificat.

FRANZÉN, FRANS MIKAEL (1772-1847), Swedish poet, was born at UleÅborg in Finland on the 9th of February 1772. At thirteen he entered the university of Åbo, where he attended the lectures of H. G. Porthan (1739-1804), a pioneer in the study of Finnish history and legend. He graduated in 1789, and became “eloquentiae docens” in 1792. Three years later he started on a tour through Denmark, Germany, France and England, returning in 1796 to accept the office of university librarian at Åbo. In 1801 he became professor of history and ethics, and in 1808 was elected a member of the Swedish Academy. On the cession of Finland to Russia, FranzÉn removed to Sweden, where he was successively appointed parish priest of Kumla in the diocese of StrengnÄs (1810), minister of the Clara Church in Stockholm (1824) and bishop of HernÖsand (1831). He died at SÄbrÅ parsonage on the 14th of August 1847. From the autumn of 1793, when his Till en ung Flicka and Menniskans anlete were inserted by Kellgren in the Stockholmspost, FranzÉn grew in popular favour by means of many minor poems of singular simplicity and truth, as Till Selma, Den gamle knekten, Riddar St GÖran, De SmÅ blommorna, Modren vid vaggan, NyÅrsmorgonen and Stjernhimmelen. His songs Goda gosse glaset tÖm, SÖrj ej den gryende dagen fÖrut, Champagnevinet and BevÄringssÅng were widely sung, and in 1797 he won the prize of the Swedish Academy by his SÅng Öfver grefve Filip Creutz. Henceforth his muse, touched with the academic spirit, grew more reflective and didactic. His longer works, as Emili eller en afton i Lappland, and the epics Svante Sture eller mÖtet vid Alvastra, Kolumbus eller Amerikas upptÄckt and Gustaf Adolf i Tyskland (the last two incomplete), though rich in beauties of detail, are far inferior to his shorter pieces.

The poetical works of FranzÉn are collected under the title Skaldestycken (7 vols., 1824-1861); new ed., Samlade dikter, with a biography by A. A. GrafstrÖm (1867-1869); also a selection (Valda dikter) in 2 vols. (1871). His prose writings, Om svenska drottningar (Åbo, 1798; Örebro, 1823), Skrifter i obunden stil, vol. i. (1835), Predikningar (5 vols., 1841-1845) and Minnesteckningar, prepared for the Academy (3 vols., 1848-1860), are marked by faithful portraiture and purity of style. See B. E. MalmstrÖm, in the Handlingar of the Swedish Academy (1852, new series 1887), vol. ii.; S. A. Hollander, Minne af F. M. FranzÉn (Örebro, 1868); F. Cygnaeus, Teckningar ur F. M. FranzÉns lefnad (Helsingfors, 1872); and Gustaf Ljunggren, Svenska vitterhetens hÄfder efter Gustaf III.’s dÖd, vol. ii. (1876).

FRANZENSBAD, or Kaiser-Franzensbad, a town and watering-place of Bohemia, Austria, 152 m. W.N.W. of Prague by rail. Pop. (1900) 2330. It is situated at an altitude of about 1500 ft. between the spurs of the Fichtelgebirge, the BÖhmerwald and the Erzgebirge, and lies 4 m. N.W. of Eger. It possesses a large kursaal, several bathing establishments, a hospital for poor patients and several parks. There are altogether 12 mineral springs with saline, alkaline and ferruginous waters, of which the oldest and most important is the Franzensquelle. One of the springs gives off carbonic acid gas and another contains a considerable proportion of lithia salts. The waters, which have an average temperature between 50.2° F. and 54.5° F., are used both internally and externally, and are efficacious in cases of anaemia, nervous disorders, sexual diseases, specially for women, and heart diseases. Franzensbad is frequently resorted to as an after-cure by patients from Carlsbad and Marienbad. Another important part of the cure is the so-called moor or mud-baths, prepared from the peat of the Franzensbad marsh, which is very rich in mineral substances, like sulphates of iron, of soda and of potash, organic acids, salt, &c.

The first information about the springs dates from the 16th century, and an analysis of the waters was made in 1565. They were first used for bathing purposes in 1707. But the foundation of Franzensbad as a watering-place really dates from 1793, when Dr Adler built here the first Kurhaus, and the place received its name after the emperor Francis I.

See Dr Loimann, Franzensbad (3rd ed., Vienna, 1900).

FRANZ JOSEF LAND, an arctic archipelago lying E. of Spitsbergen and N. of Novaya Zemlya, extending northward from about 80° to 82° N., and between 42° and 64° E. It is described as a lofty glacier-covered land, reaching an extreme elevation of about 2400 ft. The glaciers front, with a perpendicular ice-wall, a shore of debris on which a few low plants are found to grow—poppies, mosses and the like. The islands are volcanic, the main geological formation being Tertiary or Jurassic basalt, which occasionally protrudes through the ice-cap in high isolated blocks near the shore. A connecting island-chain between Franz Josef Land and Spitzbergen is probable. The bear and fox are the only land mammals; insects are rare; but the avifauna is of interest, and the Jackson expedition distinguished several new species.

August Petermann expressed the opinion that Baffin may have sighted the west of Franz Josef Land in 1614, but the first actual discovery is due to Julius Payer, a lieutenant in the Austrian army, who was associated with Weyprecht in the second polar expedition fitted out by Count Wilczek on the ship “Tegetthof” in 1872. On the 13th of August 1873, the “Tegetthof” being then beset, high land was seen to the north-west. Later in the season Payer led expeditions to Hochstetter and Wilczek islands, and after a second winter in the ice-bound ship, a difficult journey was made northward through Austria Sound, which was reported to separate two large masses of land, Wilczek Land on the east from Zichy Land on the west, to Cape Fligely, in 82° 5′ N., where Rawlinson Sound branched away to the north-east. Cape Fligely was the highest latitude attained by Payer, and remained the highest attained in the Old World till 1895. Payer reported that from Cape Fligely land (Rudolf Land) stretched north-east to a cape (Cape Sherard Osborn), and mountain ranges were visible to the north, indicating lands beyond the 83rd parallel, to which the names King Oscar Land and Petermann Land were given. In 1879 De Bruyne sighted high land in the Franz Josef Land region, but otherwise it remained untouched until Leigh Smith, in the yacht “Eira,” explored the whole southern coast from 42° to 54° E. in 1881 and 1882, discovering many islands and sounds, and ascertaining that the coast of Alexandra Land, in the extreme west, trended to north-west and north.

After Leigh Smith came another pause, and no further mention is made of Franz Josef Land till 1894. In that year Mr Alfred Harmsworth (afterwards Lord Northcliffe) fitted out an expedition in the ship “Windward” under the leadership of Mr F. G. Jackson, with the object of establishing a permanent base from which systematic exploration should be carried on for successive years and, if practicable, a journey should be made to the Pole. Mr Jackson and his party landed at “Elmwood” (which was named from Lord Northcliffe’s seat in the Isle of Thanet), near Cape Flora, at the western extremity of Northbrook Island, on the 7th of September. After a preliminary reconnaissance to the north, which afterwards turned out to be vitally important, the summer of 1895 was spent in exploring the coast to the north-west by a boating expedition. This expedition visited many of the points seen by Leigh Smith, and discovered land, which it has been suggested may be the Gillies Land reported by the Dutch captain Gillies in 1707. In 1896 the Jackson-Harmsworth expedition worked northwards through an archipelago for about 70 m. and reached Cape Richthofen, a promontory 700 ft. high, whence an expanse of open water was seen to the northward, which received the name of Queen Victoria Sea. To the west, on the opposite side of a wide opening which was called the British Channel, appeared glacier-covered land, and an island lay to the northward. The island was probably the King Oscar Land of Payer. To north and north-east was the land which had been visited in the reconnaissance of the previous year, but beyond it a water-sky appeared in the supposed position of Petermann Land. Thus Zichy Land itself was resolved into a group of islands, and the outlying land sighted by Payer was found to be islands also. Meanwhile Nansen, on his southward journey, had approached Franz Josef Land from the north-east, finding only sea at the north end of Wilczek Land, and seeing nothing of Payer’s Rawlinson Sound, or of the north end of Austria Sound. Nansen wintered near Cape Norway, only a few miles from the spot reached by Jackson in 1895. He had finally proved that a deep oceanic basin lies to the north. On the 17th of June 1896 the dramatic meeting of Jackson and Nansen took place, and in the same year the “Windward” revisited “Elmwood” and brought Nansen home, the work of the Jackson-Harmsworth expedition being continued for another year. As the non-existence of land to the north had been proved, the attempt to penetrate northwards was abandoned, and the last season was devoted to a survey and scientific examination of the archipelago, especially to the west; this was carried out by Messrs Jackson, Armitage, R. Koettlitz, H. Fisher and W. S. Bruce.

Further light was thrown on the relations of Franz Josef Land and Spitsbergen during 1897 by the discoveries of Captain Robertson of Dundee, and Wyche’s Land was circumnavigated by Mr Arnold Pike and Sir Savile Crossley. The latter voyage was repeated in the following year by a German expedition under Dr Th. Lerner and Captain RÜdiger. In August 1898 an expedition under Mr Walter Wellman, an American, landed at Cape Tegetthof. Beginning a northward journey with sledges at the end of the winter, Wellman met with an accident which compelled him to return, but not before some exploration had been accomplished, and the eastern extension of the archipelago fairly well defined. In June 1899 H.R.H. the duke of Abruzzi started from Christiania in his yacht, the “Stella Polare,” to make the first attempt to force a ship into the newly discovered ocean north of Franz Josef Land. The “Stella Polare” succeeded in making her way through the British Channel to Crown Prince Rudolf Land, and wintered in Teplitz Bay, in 81° 33′ N. lat. The ship was nearly wrecked in the autumn, and the party had to spend most of the winter on shore, the duke of Abruzzi suffering severely from frost-bite. In March 1900 a sledge party of thirteen, under Captain Cagni, started northwards. They found no trace of Petermann Land, but with great difficulty crossed the ice to 86° 33′ N. lat., 20 m. beyond Nansen’s farthest, and 240 m. from the Pole. The party, with the exception of three, returned to the ship after an absence of 104 days, and the “Stella Polare” returned to TromsÖ in September 1900. In 1901-1902 the Baldwin-Ziegler expedition also attempted a northward journey from Franz Josef Land.

See Geographical Journal, vol. xi., February 1898; F. G. Jackson, A Thousand Days in the Arctic (1899).

FRANZOS, KARL EMIL (1848-1904), German novelist, was born of Jewish parentage on the 25th of October 1848 in Russian Podolia, and spent his early years at CzortkÓw in Galicia. His father, a district physician, died early, and the boy, after attending the gymnasium of Czernowitz, was obliged to teach in order to support himself and prepare for academic study. He studied law at the universities of Vienna and Graz, but after passing the examination for employment in the state judicial service abandoned this career and, becoming a journalist, travelled extensively in south-east Europe, and visited Asia Minor and Egypt. In 1877 he returned to Vienna, where from 1884 to 1886 he edited the Neue illustrierte Zeitung. In 1887 he removed to Berlin and founded the fortnightly review Deutsche Dichtung. Franzos died on the 28th of January 1904. His earliest collections of stories and sketches, Aus Halb-Asien, Land und Leute des Östlichen Europas (1876) and Die Juden von Barnow (1877) depict graphically the life and manners of the races of south-eastern Europe. Among other of his works may be mentioned the short stories, Junge Liebe (1878), Stille Geschichten (1880), and the novels Moschko von Parma (1880), Ein Kampf ums Recht (1882), Der PrÄsident (1884), Judith Trachtenberg (1890), Der Wahrheitsucher (1894).

FRASCATI, a town and episcopal see of Italy, in the province of Rome, 15 m. S.E. of Rome by rail, and also reached by electric tramway via Grottaferrata. Pop. (1901) 8453. The town is situated 1056 ft. above the sea-level, on the N. slopes of the outer crater ring of the Alban Hills, and commands a very fine view of the Campagna of Rome. The cathedral contains a memorial tablet to Charles Edward, the Young Pretender, whose body for some while rested here; his brother, Henry, Cardinal York, owned a villa at Frascati. The villas of the Roman nobility, with their beautiful gardens and fountains, are the chief attraction of Frascati. The earliest in date is the Villa Falconieri, planned by Cardinal Ruffini before 1550; the most important of the rest are the Villa Torlonia (formerly Conti), Lancelotti (formerly Piccolomini), Ruffinella (now belonging to Prince Lancellotti), Aldobrandini, Borghese and Mondragone (now a Jesuit school). The surrounding country, covered with remains of ancient villas, is fertile and noted for its wine. Frascati seems to have arisen on the site of a very large ancient villa, which, under Domitian at any rate, belonged to the imperial house about the 9th century in which period we find in the Liber Pontificalis the names of four churches in Frascata. The medieval stronghold of the counts of Tusculum (q.v.), which occupied the site of the ancient city, was dismantled by the Romans in 1191, and the inhabitants put to the sword or mutilated. Many of the fugitives naturally took refuge in Frascati. The see of Tusculum had, however, always had its cathedral church in Frascati. For the greater part of the middle ages Frascati belonged to the papacy.

See G. Tomassetti, La Via Latina nel medio evo (Rome, 1886), 170 seq.; T. Ashby in Papers of the British School at Rome, iv. (London, 1907).

(T. As.)

FRASER, ALEXANDER CAMPBELL (1819-  ), Scottish philosopher, was born at Ardchattan, Argyllshire, on the 3rd of September 1819. He was educated at Glasgow and Edinburgh, where, from 1846 to 1856, he was professor of Logic at New College. He edited the North British Review from 1850 to 1857, and in 1856, having previously been a Free Church minister, he succeeded Sir William Hamilton as professor of Logic and Metaphysics at Edinburgh University. In 1859 he became dean of the faculty of arts. He devoted himself to the study of English philosophers, especially Berkeley, and published a Collected Edition of the Works of Bishop Berkeley with Annotations, &c. (1871; enlarged 1901), a Biography of Berkeley (1881), an Annotated Edition of Locke’s Essay (1894), the Philosophy of Theism (1896) and the Biography of Thomas Reid (1898). He contributed the article on John Locke to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In 1904 he published an autobiography entitled Biographia philosophica, in which he sketched the progress of his intellectual development. From this work and from his Gifford lectures we learn objectively what had previously been inferred from his critical works. After a childhood spent in an austerity which stigmatized as unholy even the novels of Sir Walter Scott, he began his college career at the age of fourteen at a time when Christopher North and Dr Ritchie were lecturing on Moral Philosophy and Logic. His first philosophical advance was stimulated by Thomas Brown’s Cause and Effect, which introduced him to the problems which were to occupy his thought. From this point he fell into the scepticism of Hume. In 1836 Sir William Hamilton was appointed to the chair of Logic and Metaphysics, and Fraser became his pupil. He himself says, “I owe more to Hamilton than to any other influence.” It was about this time also that he began his study of Berkeley and Coleridge, and deserted his early phenomenalism for the conception of a spiritual will as the universal cause. In the Biographia this “Theistic faith” appears in its full development (see the concluding chapter), and is especially important as perhaps the nearest approach to Kantian ethics made by original English philosophy. Apart from the philosophical interest of the Biographia, the work contains valuable pictures of the Land of Lorne and Argyllshire society in the early 19th century, of university life in Glasgow and Edinburgh, and a history of the North British Review.

FRASER, JAMES (1818-1885), English bishop, was born at Prestbury, in Gloucestershire, on the 18th of August 1818, and was educated at Bridgnorth, Shrewsbury, and Lincoln College, Oxford. In 1839 he was Ireland scholar, and took a first class. In 1840 he gained an Oriel fellowship, and was for some time tutor of the college, but did not take orders until 1846. He was successively vicar of Cholderton, in Wiltshire, and rector of Ufton Nervet, in Berkshire; but his subsequent importance was largely due to W. K. Hamilton, bishop of Salisbury, who recommended him as an assistant commissioner of education. His report on the educational condition of thirteen poor-law unions, made in May 1859, was described by Thomas Hughes as “a superb, almost a unique piece of work.” In 1865 he was commissioned to report on the state of education in the United States and Canada, and his able performance of this task brought him an offer of the bishopric of Calcutta, which he declined, but in January 1870 he accepted the see of Manchester. The task before him was an arduous one, for although his predecessor, James Prince Lee, had consecrated no fewer than 130 churches, the enormous population was still greatly in advance of the ecclesiastical machinery. Fraser worked with the utmost energy, and did even more for the church by the liberality and geniality which earned him the title of “the bishop of all denominations.” He was prominent in secular as well as religious works, interesting himself in every movement that promoted health, morality, or education; and especially serviceable as the friendly, unofficious counsellor of all classes. His theology was that of a liberal high-churchman, and his sympathies were broad. In convocation he seconded a motion for the disuse of the Athanasian Creed, and in the House of Lords he voted for the abolition of university tests. He died suddenly on the 22nd of October 1885.

A biography by Thomas Hughes was published in 1887, and an account of his Lancashire life by J. W. Diggle (1889), who also edited 2 vols. of University and Parochial Sermons (1887).

FRASER, JAMES BAILLIE (1783-1856), Scottish traveller and author, was born at Reelick in the county of Inverness on the 11th of June 1783. He was the eldest of the four sons of Edward Satchell Fraser of Reelick, all of whom found their way to the East, and gave proof of their ability. In early life he went to the West Indies and thence to India. In 1815 he made a tour of exploration in the Himalayas, accompanied by his brother William (d. 1835). When Reza Kuli Mirza and Nejeff Kuli Mirza, the exiled Persian princes, visited England, he was appointed to look after them during their stay, and on their return he accompanied them as far as Constantinople. He was afterwards sent to Persia on a diplomatic mission by Lord Glenelg, and effected a most remarkable journey on horseback through Asia Minor to Teheran. His health, however, was impaired by the exposure. In 1823 he married a daughter of Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee, a sister of the historian Patrick Fraser Tytler. He died at Reelick in January 1856. Fraser is said to have displayed great skill in water-colours, and several of his drawings have been engraved; and the astronomical observations which he took during some of his journeys did considerable service to the cartography of Asia. The works by which he attained his literary reputation were accounts of his travels and fictitious tales illustrative of Eastern life. In both he employed a vigorous and impassioned style, which was on the whole wonderfully effective in spite of minor faults in taste and flaws in structure.

Fraser’s earliest writings are: Journal of a Tour through Part of the Himālā Mountains and to the Sources of the Jumna and the Ganges (1820); A Narrative of a Journey into Khorasan in the Years 1821 and 1822, including some Account of the Countries to the North-East of Persia (1825); and Travels and Adventures in the Persian Provinces on the Southern Banks of the Caspian Sea (1826). His romances include The Kuzzilbash, a Tale of Khorasan (1828), and its sequel, The Persian Adventurer (1830); Allee Neemroo (1842); and The Dark Falcon (1844). He also wrote An Historical and Descriptive Account of Persia (1834); A Winter’s Journey (TÂtar) from Constantinople to Teheran (1838); Travels in Koordistan, Mesopotamia, &c. (1840); Mesopotamia and Assyria (1842); and Military Memoirs of Col. James Skinner (1851).

FRASER, SIR WILLIAM AUGUSTUS, Bart. (1826-1898), English politician, author and collector, was born on the 10th of February 1826, the son of Sir James John Fraser, 3rd baronet, a colonel of the 7th Hussars, who had served on Wellington’s staff at Waterloo. He was educated at Eton and at Christ Church, Oxford, entered the 1st Life Guards in 1847, but retired with a captain’s rank in 1852. He then set about entering parliament, and the ups and downs of his political career were rather remarkable. He was returned for Barnstaple in 1852, but the election was declared void on account of bribery, and the constituency was disfranchised for two years. At the election of 1857 Sir William, who had meantime been defeated at Harwich, was again returned at Barnstaple. He was, however, defeated in 1859, but was elected in 1863 at Ludlow. This seat he held for only two years, when he was again defeated and did not re-enter parliament until 1874, when be was returned for Kidderminster, a constituency he represented for six years, when he retired. He was a familiar figure at the Carlton Club, always ready with a copious collection of anecdotes of Wellington, Disraeli and Napoleon III. He died on the 17th of August 1898. He was an assiduous collector of relics; and his library was sold for some £20,000. His own books comprise Words on Wellington (1889), Disraeli and his Day (1891), Hic et Ubique (1893), Napoleon III. (1896) and the Waterloo Ball (1897).

FRASER, the chief river of British Columbia, Canada, rising in two branches among the Rocky Mountains near 52° 45′ N., 118° 30′ W. Length 740 m. It first flows N.W. for about 160 m., then rounds the head of the Cariboo Mountains, and flows directly S. for over 400 m. to Hope, where it again turns abruptly and flows W. for 80 m., falling into the Gulf of Georgia at New Westminster. After the junction of the two forks near its northern extremity, the first important tributary on its southern course is the Stuart, draining Lakes Stuart, Fraser and FranÇois. One hundred miles lower down the Quesnel, draining a large lake of the same name, flows in from the east at a town also so named. Farther on the Fraser receives from the west the Chilcotin, and at Lytton, about 180 m. from the sea, the Thompson, its largest tributary, flows in from the east, draining a series of mountain lakes, and receiving at Kamloops the North Thompson, which flows through deep and impassable canyons. Below Hope the Lillooet flows in from the north. The Fraser is a typical mountain stream, rapid and impetuous through all its length, and like most of its tributaries is in many parts not navigable even by canoes. On its southern course between Lytton and Yale, while bursting its way through the Coast Range, it flows through majestic canyons, which, like those of the Thompson, were the scene of many tragedies during the days of the gold-rush to the Cariboo district. At Yale, about 80 m. from its mouth, it becomes navigable, though its course is still very rapid. In the Cariboo district, comprised within the great bend of the river, near TÊte Jaune Cache, are many valuable gold deposits. With its tributaries the Fraser drains the whole province from 54° to 49° N., except the extreme south-eastern corner, which is within the basin of the Columbia and its tributary the Kootenay.

FRASERBURGH, a police burgh and seaport, on the N. coast of Aberdeenshire, Scotland. Pop. (1891), 7466; (1901), 9105. It is situated 47¼ m. by rail N. of Aberdeen, from which there is a branch line, of which it is the terminus, of the Great North of Scotland railway. It takes its name from Sir Alexander Fraser, the ancestor of Lord Saltoun, whose seat, Philorth House, lies 2 m. to the south. Sir Alexander obtained for it in 1613 a charter as a burgh of royalty, and also in 1592 a charter for the founding of a university. This latter project, however, was not carried out, and all that remains of the building intended for the college is a three-storeyed tower. The old castle of the Frasers on Kinnaird Head now contains a lighthouse, and close by is the Wine Tower, with a cave below. The town cross is a fine structure standing upon a huge hexagon, surmounted by a stone pillar 12 ft. high, ornamented by the royal and Fraser arms. The port is one of the leading stations of the herring fishery in the north of Scotland and the head of a fishery district. During the herring season (June to September) the population is increased by upwards of 10,000 persons. The fleet numbers more than 700 boats, and the annual value of the catch exceeds £200,000. The harbour, originally constructed as a refuge for British ships of war, is one of the best on the east coast, and has been improved by the widening of the piers and the extension of the breakwaters. It has an area of upwards of eight acres, is easy of access, and affords anchorage for vessels of every size.

FRASERVILLE (formerly RiviÈre du Loup en Bas), a town and watering-place in Temiscouata county, Quebec, Canada, 107 m. (by water) north-east of Quebec, on the south shore of the St Lawrence river, and at the mouth of the RiviÈre du Loup, at the junction of the Intercolonial and Temiscouata railways. It contains a convent, boys’ college, hospital, several mills, and is a favourite summer resort on account of the angling and shooting, and the magnificent scenery. Pop. (1901) 4569.

FRATER, Frater House or Fratery, a term in architecture for the hall where the members of a monastery or friary met for meals or refreshment. The word is by origin the same as “refectory.” The older forms, such as freitur, fraytor and the like, show the word to be an adaptation of the O. Fr. fraitour, a shortened form of refraitour, from the Med. Lat. rejectorium. The word has been confused with frater, a brother or friar, and hence sometimes confined in meaning to the dining-hall of a friary, while “refectory” is used of a monastery.

FRATERNITIES, COLLEGE, a class of student societies peculiar to the colleges and universities of the United States and Canada, with certain common characteristics, and mostly named from two or three letters of the Greek alphabet; hence they are frequently called “Greek Letter Societies.” They are organized on the lodge system, and each fraternity comprises a number of affiliated lodges of which only one of any one fraternity is connected with the same institution. The lodges, called “chapters,” in memory of the convocations of monks of medieval times, are usually designated by Greek letters also. They are nominally secret, with one exception (Delta Upsilon). Each chapter admits members from the lowest or freshman class, and of course loses its members as the students depart from college, consequently each chapter has in it at the same time members of all the four college classes and frequently those pursuing postgraduate studies. Where the attendance at a college is large the material from which fraternity members may be drawn is correspondingly abundant, and in some of the large colleges (e.g. at Cornell University and the University of Michigan) there are chapters of over twenty fraternities. All the fraternities aim to be select and to pick their members from the mass of incoming students. Where, however, the material to select from is not abundant and the rival fraternities are numerous, care in selection is impossible, and the chapters at any one college are apt to secure much the same general type of men. Many of the fraternities have, however, on account of a persistent selection of men of about the same tastes at different colleges, acquired a distinct character and individuality; for instance, Alpha Delta Phi is literary.

The first of these fraternities was the Phi Beta Kappa, founded at the College of William and Mary at Williamsburg, Virginia, in 1776. It was a little social club of five students: John Heath, Richard Booker, Thomas Smith, Armistead Smith and John Jones. Its badge was a square silver medal displaying the Greek letters of its name and a few symbols. In 1779 it authorized Elisha Parmelee, one of its members, to establish “meetings” or chapters at Yale and Harvard, these chapters being authorized to establish subordinate branches in their respective states. In 1781 the College of William and Mary was closed, its buildings being occupied in turn by the British, French and American troops, and the society ceased to exist. The two branches, however, were established—that at Yale in 1780 and that at Harvard in 1781. Chapters were established at Dartmouth in 1787, at Union in 1817, at Bowdoin in 1824 and at Brown in 1830. This society changed its character in 1826 and became non-secret and purely honorary in character, admitting to membership a certain proportion of the scholars of highest standing in each class (only in classical courses, usually and with few exceptions only in graduating classes). More recent honorary societies of similar character among schools of science and engineering are Sigma Xi and Tau Beta Pi.

In 1825, at Union College, Kappa Alpha was organized, copying in style of badge, membership restrictions and the like, its predecessor. In 1827 two other similar societies, Sigma Phi and Delta Phi, were founded at the same place. In 1831 Sigma Phi placed a branch at Hamilton College and in 1832 Alpha Delta Phi originated there. In 1833 Psi Upsilon, a fourth society, was organized at Union. In 1835 Alpha Delta Phi placed a chapter at Miami University, and in 1839 Beta Theta Pi originated there, and so the system spread. These fraternities, it will be observed, were all undergraduate societies among the male students. In 1910 the total number of men’s general fraternities was 32, with 1068 living chapters, and owning property worth many millions of dollars. In 1864 Theta Xi, the first professional fraternity restricting its membership to students intending to engage in the same profession, was organized. There were in 1910 about 50 of these organizations with some 400 chapters. In addition there are about 100 local societies or chapters acting as independent units. Some of the older of these, such as Kappa Kappa Kappa at Dartmouth, IKA at Trinity, Phi Nu Theta at Wesleyan and Delta Psi at Vermont, are permanent in character, but the majority of them are purely temporary, designed to maintain an organization until the society becomes a chapter of one of the general fraternities. In 1870 the first women’s society or “sorority,” the Kappa Alpha Theta, was organized at De Pauw University. There were in 1910, 17 general sororities with some 300 active chapters.

It is no exaggeration to say that these apparently insignificant organizations of irresponsible students have modified the college life of America and have had a wide influence. Members join in the impressionable years of their youth; they retain for their organizations a peculiar loyalty and affection, and freely contribute with money and influence to their advancement.

Almost universally the members of any particular chapter (or part of them) live together in a lodge or chapter house. The men’s fraternities own hundreds of houses and rent as many more. The fraternities form a little aristocracy within the college community. Sometimes the line of separation is invisible, sometimes sharply marked. Sometimes this condition militates against the college discipline and sometimes it assists it. Conflicts not infrequently occur between the fraternity and non-fraternity element in a college.

It can readily be understood how young men living together in the intimate relationship of daily contact in the same house, having much the same tastes, culture and aspirations would form among themselves enduring friendships. In addition each fraternity has a reputation to maintain, and this engenders an esprit du corps which at times places loyalty to fraternity interests above loyalty to college interest or the real advantage of the individual. At commencements and upon other occasions the former members of the chapters return to their chapter houses and help to foster the pride and loyalty of the undergraduates. The chapter houses are commonly owned by corporations made up of the alumni. This brings the undergraduates into contact with men of mature age and often of national fame, who treat their membership as a serious privilege.

The development of this collegiate aristocracy has led to jealousy and bitter animosity among those not selected for membership. Some of the states, notably South Carolina and Arkansas, have by legislation, either abolished the fraternities at state-controlled institutions or seriously limited the privileges of their members. The constitutionality of such legislation has never been tested. Litigation has occasionally arisen out of attempts on the part of college authorities to prohibit the fraternities at their several institutions. This, it has been held, may lawfully be done at a college maintained by private endowment but not at an institution supported by public funds. In the latter case all classes of the public are equally entitled to the same educational privileges and members of the fraternities may not be discriminated against.

The fraternities are admirably organized. The usual system comprises a legislative body made up of delegates from the different chapters and an executive or administrative body elected by the delegates. Few of the fraternities have any judiciary. None is needed. The financial systems are sound, and the conventions of delegates meet in various parts of the United States, several hundred in number, spend thousands of dollars in travel and entertainment, and attract much public attention. Most of the fraternities have an inspection system by which chapters are periodically visited and kept up to a certain level of excellence.

The leading fraternities publish journals usually from four to eight times during the college year. The earliest of these was the Beta Theta Pi, first issued in 1872. All publish catalogues of their members and the most prosperous have issued histories. They also publish song books, music and many ephemeral and local publications.

The alumni of the fraternities are organized into clubs or associations having headquarters at centres of population. These organizations are somewhat loose, but nevertheless are capable of much exertion and influence should occasion arise.

The college fraternity system has no parallel among the students of colleges outside of America. One of the curious things about it, however, is that while it is practically uniform throughout the United States, at the three prominent universities of Harvard, Yale and Princeton it differs in many respects from its character elsewhere. At Harvard, although there are chapters of a few of the fraternities, their influence is insignificant, their place being taken by a group of local societies, some of them class organizations. At Yale, the regular system of fraternities obtains in the engineering or technical department (the Sheffield Scientific School), but in the classical department the fraternity chapters are called “junior” societies, because they limit their membership to the three upper classes and allow the juniors each year practically to control the chapter affairs. Certain senior societies, of which the oldest is the Skull and Bones, which are inter-fraternity societies admitting freely members of the fraternities, are more prominent at Yale than the fraternities themselves. Princeton has two (secret) literary and fraternal societies, the American Whig and the Cliosophic, and various local social clubs, with no relationship to organizations in other colleges and not having Greek letter names.

At a few universities (for instance, Michigan, Cornell and Virginia), senior societies or other inter-fraternity societies exert great influence and have modified the strength of the fraternity system.

Of late years, numerous societies bearing Greek names and imitating the externals of the college fraternities have sprung up in the high schools and academies of the country, but have excited the earnest and apparently united opposition of the authorities of such schools.

See William Raimond Baird, American College Fraternities (6th ed., New York, 1905); Albert C. Stevens, Cyclopedia of Fraternities (Paterson, N. J., 1899); Henry D. Sheldon, Student Life and Customs (New York, 1901); Homer L. Patterson, Patterson’s College and School Directory (Chicago, 1904); H. K. Kellogg, College Secret Societies (Chicago, 1874); Albert P. Jacobs, Greek Letter Societies (Detroit, 1879).

(W. R. B.*)

FRATICELLI (plural diminutive of Ital. frate, brother), the name given during the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries to a number of religious groups in Italy, differing widely from each other, but all derived more or less directly from the Franciscan movement. Fra Salimbene says in his Chronicle (Parma ed., p. 108): “All who wished to found a new rule borrowed something from the Franciscan order, the sandals or the habit.” As early as 1238 Gregory IX., in his bull Quoniam abundavit iniquitas, condemned and denounced as forgers (tanquam falsarios) all who begged or preached in a habit resembling that of the mendicant orders, and this condemnation was repeated by him or his successors. The term Fraticelli was used contemptuously to denote, not any particular sect, but the members of orders formed on the fringe of the church. Thus Giovanni Villani, speaking of the heretic Dolcino, says in his Chronicle (bk. viii. ch. 84): “He is not a brother of an ordered rule, but a fraticello without an order.” Similarly, John XXII., in his bull Sancta Romana et Universalis Ecclesia (28th of December 1317), condemns vaguely those “profanae multitudinis viri commonly called Fraticelli, or Brethren of the Poor Life, or Bizocchi, or Beguines, or by all manner of other names.”

Some historians, in their zeal for rigid classification, have regarded the Fraticelli as a distinct sect, and have attempted to discover its dogmas and its founder. Some of the contemporaries of these religious groups fell into the same error, and in this way the vague term Fraticelli has sometimes been applied to the disciples of Armanno Pongilupo of Ferrara (d. 1269), who was undoubtedly a Cathar, and to the followers of Gerard Segarelli and Dolcino, who were always known among themselves as Apostolic Brethren (Apostolici). Furthermore, it seems absurd to classify both the Dolcinists and the Spiritual Franciscans as Fraticelli, since, as has been pointed out by Ehrle (Arch. f. Lit. u. Kirchengesch. des Mittelalters, ii. 107, &c.), Angelo of Clarino, in his De septem tribulationibus, written to the glory of the Spirituals, does not scruple to stigmatize the Dolcinists as “disciples of the devil.” It is equally absurd to include in the same category the ignorant Bizocchi and Segarellists and such learned disciples of Michael of Cesena and Louis of Bavaria as William of Occam and Bonagratia of Bergamo, who have often been placed under this comprehensive rubric.

The name Fraticelli may more justly be applied to the most exalted fraction of Franciscanism. In 1322 some prisoners declared to the inquisitor Bernard Gui at Toulouse that the Franciscan order was divided into three sections—the Conventuals, who were allowed to retain their real and personal property; the Spirituals or Beguines, who were at that time the objects of persecution; and the Fraticelli of Sicily, whose leader was Henry of Ceva (see Gui’s Practica Inquisitionis, v.). It is this fraction of the order which John XXII. condemned in his bull Gloriosam Ecclesiam (23rd of January 1318), but without calling them Fraticelli. Henry of Ceva had taken refuge in Sicily at the time of Pope Boniface VIII.’s persecution of the Spirituals, and thanks to the good offices of Frederick of Sicily, a little colony of Franciscans who rejected all property had soon established itself in the island. Under Pope Clement V., and more especially under Pope John XXII., fresh Spirituals joined them; and this group of exalted and isolated ascetics soon began to regard itself as the sole legitimate order of the Minorites and then as the sole Catholic Church. After being excommunicated as “schismatics and rebels, founders of a superstitious sect, and propagators of false and pestiferous doctrines,” they proceeded to elect a general (for Michael of Cesena had disavowed them) and then a pope called Celestine (L. Wadding, Annales, at date 1313). The rebels continued to carry on an active propaganda. In Tuscany particularly the Inquisition made persistent efforts to suppress them; Florence afflicted them with severe laws, but failed to rouse the populace against them. The papacy dreaded their social even more than their dogmatic influence. At first in Sicily and afterwards throughout Italy the Ghibellines gave them a warm welcome; the rigorists and the malcontents who had either left the church or were on the point of leaving it, were attracted by these communities of needy rebels; and the tribune Rienzi was at one time disposed to join them. To overcome these ascetics it was necessary to have recourse to other ascetics, and from the outset the reformed Franciscans, or Franciscans of the Strict Observance, under the direction of their first leaders, Paoluccio da Trinci (d. 1390), Giovanni Stronconi (d. 1405), and St Bernardine of Siena, had been at great pains to restore the Fraticelli to orthodoxy. These early efforts, however, had little success. Alarmed by the number of the sectaries and the extent of their influence, Pope Martin V., who had encouraged the Observants, and particularly Bernardine of Siena, fulminated two bulls (1418 and 1421) against the heretics, and entrusted different legates with the task of hunting them down. These measures failing, he decided, in 1426, to appoint two Observants as inquisitors without territorial limitation to make a special crusade against the heresy of the Fraticelli. These two inquisitors, who pursued their duties under three popes (Martin V., Eugenius IV. and Nicholas V.) were Giovanni da Capistrano and Giacomo della Marca. The latter’s valuable Dialogus contra Fraticellos (Baluze and Mansi, Miscellanea, iv. 595-610) gives an account of the doctrines of these heretics and of the activity of the two inquisitors, and shows that the Fraticelli not only constituted a distinct church but a distinct society. They had a pope called Rinaldo, who was elected in 1429 and was succeeded by a brother named Gabriel. This supreme head of their church they styled “bishop of Philadelphia,” Philadelphia being the mystic name of their community; under him were bishops, e.g. the bishops of Florence, Venice, &c.; and, furthermore, a member of the community named Guglielmo Majoretto bore the title of “Emperor of the Christians.” This organization, at least in so far as concerns the heretical church, had already been observed among the Fraticelli in Sicily, and in 1423 the general council of Siena affirmed with horror that at Peniscola there was an heretical pope surrounded with a college of cardinals who made no attempt at concealment. From 1426 to 1449 the Fraticelli were unremittingly pursued, imprisoned and burned. The sect gradually died out after losing the protection of the common people, whose sympathy was now transferred to the austere Observants and their miracle-worker Capistrano. From 1466 to 1471 there were sporadic burnings of Fraticelli, and in 1471 Tommaso di Scarlino was sent to Piombino and the littoral of Tuscany to track out some Fraticelli who had been discovered in those parts. After that date the name disappears from history.

See F. Ehrle, “Die Spiritualen, ihr VerhÄltnis zum Franziskanerorden und zu den Fraticellen” and “Zur Vorgeschichte des Concils von Vienne,” in Archiv fÜr Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters, vols. i., ii., iii.; Wetzer and Welte, Kirchenlexikon, s.v. “Fraticellen”; H. C. Lea, History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, iii. 129-180 (London, 1888).

(P. A.)

FRAUD (Lat. fraus, deceit), in its widest sense, a term which has never been exhaustively defined by an English court of law, and for legal purposes probably cannot usefully be defined. But as denoting a cause of action for which damages can be recovered in civil proceedings it now has a clear and settled meaning. In actions in which damages are claimed for fraud, the difficulties and obscurities which commonly arise are due rather to the complexity of modern commerce and the ingenuity of modern swindlers than to any uncertainty or technicality in the modern law. To succeed in such an action, the person aggrieved must first prove a representation of fact, made either by words, by writing or by conduct, which is in fact untrue. Mere concealment is not actionable unless it amounts not only to suppressio veri, but to suggestio falsi. An expression of opinion or of intention is not enough, unless it can be shown that the opinion was not really held, or that the intention was not really entertained, in which case it must be borne in mind, to use the phrase of Lord Bowen, that the state of a man’s mind is as much a matter of fact as the state of his digestion. Next, it must be proved that the representation was made without any honest belief in its truth, that is, either with actual knowledge of its falsity or with a reckless disregard whether it is true or false. It was finally established, after much controversy, in the case of Derry v. Peek in 1889, that a merely negligent misstatement is not actionable. Further, the person aggrieved must prove that the offender made the representation with the intention that he should act on it, though not necessarily directly to him, and that he did in fact act in reliance on it. Lastly, the complainant must prove that, as the direct consequence, he has suffered actual damage capable of pecuniary measurement.

As soon as the case of Derry v. Peek had established, as the general rule of law, that a merely negligent misstatement is not actionable, a statutory exception was made to the rule in the case of directors and promoters of companies who publish prospectuses and similar documents. By the Directors’ Liability Act 1890, such persons are liable for damage caused by untrue statements in such documents, unless they can prove that they had reasonable grounds for believing the statements to be true. It is also to be observed that, though damages cannot be recovered in an action for a misrepresentation made with an honest belief in its truth, still any person induced to enter into a contract by a misrepresentation, whether fraudulent or innocent, is entitled to avoid the contract and to obtain a declaration that it is not binding upon him. This is in accordance with the rule of equity, which since the Judicature Act prevails in all the courts. Whether the representation is fraudulent or innocent, the contract is not void, but voidable. The party misled must exercise his option to avoid the contract without delay, and before it has become impossible to restore the other party to the position in which he stood before the contract was made. If he is too late, he can only rely on his claim for damages, and in order to assert this claim it is necessary to prove that the misrepresentation was fraudulent. Fraud, in its wider sense of dishonest dealing, though not a distinct cause of action, is often material as preventing the acquisition of a right, for which good faith is a necessary condition. Also a combination or conspiracy by two or more persons to defraud gives rise to liabilities not very clearly or completely defined.

FRAUENBURG, a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Prussia, on the Frische Haff, at the mouth of the Bande, 41 m. S.W. from KÖnigsberg on the railway to Elbing. Pop. 2500. The cathedral (founded 1329), with six towers, stands on a commanding eminence adjoining the town and surrounded by castellated walls and bastions. This is known as Dom-Frauenburg, and is the seat of the Roman Catholic bishop of Ermeland. Within the cathedral is a monument to the astronomer Copernicus bearing the inscription Astronomo celeberrimo, cujus nomen et gloria utrumque implevit orbem. There is a small port with inconsiderable trade. Frauenburg was founded in 1287 and received the rights of a town in 1310.

FRAUENFELD, the capital of the Swiss canton of Thurgau, 27 m. by rail N.E. of ZÜrich or 14½ m. W. of Romanshorn. It is built on the Murg stream a little above its junction with the Thur. It is a prosperous commercial town, being situated at the meeting point of several routes, while it possesses several industrial establishments, chiefly concerned with different branches of the iron trade. In 1900 its population (including the neighbouring villages) was 7761, mainly German-speaking, while there were 5563 Protestants to 2188 Romanists. Frauenfeld is the artillery depÔt for North-East Switzerland. The upper town is the older part, and centres round the castle, of which the tower dates from the 10th century, though the rest is of a later period. Both stood on land belonging to the abbot of Reichenau, who, with the count of Kyburg, founded the town, which is first mentioned in 1255. The abbot retained all manorial rights till 1803, while the political powers of the Kyburgers (who were the “protectors” of Reichenau) passed to the Habsburgs in 1273, and were seized by the Swiss in 1460 with the rest of the Thurgau. In 1712 the town succeeded Baden in Aargau as the meeting-place of the Federal Diet, and continued to be the capital of the Confederation till its transformation in 1798. In 1799 it was successively occupied by the Austrians and the French. The old Capuchin convent (1591-1848) is now occupied as a vicarage by the Romanist priest.

(W. A. B. C.)

FRAUENLOB, the name by which Heinrich von Meissen, a German poet of the 13th century, is generally known. He seems to have acquired the sobriquet because in a famous Liederstreit with his rival Regenbogen he defended the use of the word Frau (i.e. frouwe, = lady) instead of Weib (wÎp = woman). Frauenlob was born about 1250 of a humble burgher family. His youth was spent in straitened circumstances, but he gradually acquired a reputation as a singer at the various courts of the German princes. In 1278 we find him with Rudolph I. in the Marchfeld, in 1286 he was at Prague at the knighting of Wenceslaus (Wenzel) II., and in 1311 he was present at a knightly festival celebrated by Waldemar of Brandenburg before Rostock. After this he settled in Mainz, and there according to the popular account, founded the first school of Meistersingers (q.v.). He died in 1318, and was buried in the cloisters of the cathedral at Mainz. His grave is still marked by a copy made in 1783 of the original tombstone of 1318; and in 1842 a monument by Schwanthaler was erected in the cloisters. Frauenlob’s poems make a great display of learning; he delights in far-fetched metaphors, and his versification abounds in tricks of form and rhyme.

Frauenlob’s poetry was edited by L. EttmÜller in 1843; a selection will be found in K. Bartsch, Deutsche Liederdichter des 12. bis 14. Jahrhunderts (3rd ed., 1893). An English translation of Frauenlob’s Cantica canticorum, by A. E. Kroeger, with notes, appeared in 1877 at St Louis, U.S.A. See A. Boerkel, Frauenlob (2nd ed., 1881).

FRAUNCE, ABRAHAM (c. 1558-1633), English poet, a native of Shropshire, was born between 1558 and 1560. His name was registered as a pupil of Shrewsbury School in January 1571/2, and he joined St John’s College, Cambridge, in 1576, becoming a fellow in 1580/81. His Latin comedy of Victoria, dedicated to Sidney, was probably written at Cambridge, where he remained until he had taken his M.A. degree in 1583. He was called to the bar at Gray’s Inn in 1588, and then apparently practised as a barrister in the court of the Welsh marches. After the death of his patron Sir Philip Sidney, Fraunce was protected by Sidney’s sister Mary, countess of Pembroke. His last work was published in 1592, and we have no further knowledge of him until 1633, when he is said to have written an Epithalamium in honour of the marriage of Lady Magdalen Egerton, 7th daughter of the earl of Bridgwater, whose service he may possibly have entered.

His works are: The Lamentations of Amintas for the death of Phyllis (1587), a version in English hexameters of his friend’s, Thomas Watson’s, Latin Amyntas; The Lawiers Logike, exemplifying the praecepts of Logike by the practise of the common Lawe (1588); Arcadian Rhetorike (1588); Abrahami Fransi Insignium, Armorum ... explicatio (1588); The Countess of Pembroke’s Yvychurch (1591/2), containing a translation of Tasso’s Aminta, a reprint of his earlier version of Watson, “The Lamentation of Corydon for the love of Alexis” (Virgil, eclogue ii.), a short translation from Heliodorus, and, in the third part (1592) “Aminta’s Dale,” a collection of “conceited” tales supposed to be related by the nymphs of Ivychurch; The Countess of Pembroke’s Emanuell (1591); The Third Part of the Countess of Pembroke’s Ivychurch, entituled Aminta’s Dale (1592). His Arcadian Rhetorike owes much to earlier critical treatises, but has a special interest from its references to Spenser, and Fraunce quotes from the Faerie Queene a year before the publication of the first books. In “Colin Clout’s come home again,” Spenser speaks of Fraunce as Corydon, on account of his translations of Virgil’s second eclogue. His poems are written in classical metres, and he was regarded by his contemporaries as the best exponent of Gabriel Harvey’s theory. Even Thomas Nashe had a good word for “sweete Master France.”

The Countess of Pembroke’s Emanuell, hexameters on the nativity and passion of Christ, with versions of some psalms, were reprinted by Dr A. B. Grosart in the third volume of his Miscellanies of the Fuller Worthies Library (1872). Joseph Hunter in his Chorus Vatum stated that five of Fraunce’s songs were included in Sidney’s Astrophel and Stella, but it is probable that these should be attributed not to Fraunce, but to Thomas Campion. See a life prefixed to the transcription of a MS. Latin comedy by Fraunce, Victoria, by Professor G. C. Moore Smith, published in Bang’s Materialien zur Kunde des alteren englischen Dramas, vol. xiv., 1906.

FRAUNHOFER, JOSEPH VON (1787-1826), German optician and physicist, was born at Straubing in Bavaria on the 6th of March 1787, the son of a glazier who died in 1798. He was apprenticed in 1799 to Weichselberger, a glass-polisher and looking-glass maker. On the 21st of July 1801 he nearly lost his life by the fall of the house in which he lodged, and the elector of Bavaria, Maximilian Joseph, who was present at his extrication from the ruins, gave him 18 ducats. With a portion of this sum he obtained release from the last six months of his apprenticeship, and with the rest he purchased a glass-polishing machine. He now employed himself in making optical glasses, and in engraving on metal, devoting his spare time to the perusal of works on mathematics and optics. In 1806 he obtained the place of optician in the mathematical institute which in 1804 had been founded at Munich by Joseph von Utzschneider, G. Reichenbach and J. Liebherr; and in 1807 arrangements were made by Utzschneider for his instruction by Pierre Louis Guinand, a skilled optician, in the fabrication of flint and crown glass, in which he soon became an adept (see R. Wolf, Gesch. der Wissensch. in Deutschl. bd. xvi. p. 586). With Reichenbach and Utzschneider, Fraunhofer established in 1809 an optical institute at Benedictbeuern, near Munich, of which he in 1818 became sole manager. The institute was in 1819 removed to Munich, and on Fraunhofer’s death came under the direction of G. Merz.

Amongst the earliest mechanical contrivances of Fraunhofer was a machine for polishing mathematically uniform spherical surfaces. He was the inventor of the stage-micrometer, and of a form of heliometer; and in 1816 he succeeded in constructing for the microscope achromatic glasses of long focus, consisting of a single lens, the constituent glasses of which were in juxtaposition, but not cemented together. The great reflecting telescope at Dorpat was manufactured by him, and so great was the skill he attained in the making of lenses for achromatic telescopes that, in a letter to Sir David Brewster, he expressed his willingness to furnish an achromatic glass of 18 in. diameter. Fraunhofer is especially known for the researches, published in the Denkschriften der MÜnchener Akademie for 1814-1815, by which he laid the foundation of solar and stellar chemistry. The dark lines of the spectrum of sunlight, earliest noted by Dr W. H. Wollaston (Phil. Trans., 1802, p. 378), were independently discovered, and, by means of the telescope of a theodolite, between which and a distant slit admitting the light a prism was interposed, were for the first time carefully observed by Fraunhofer, and have on that account been designated “Fraunhofer’s lines.” He constructed a map of as many as 576 of these lines, the principal of which he denoted by the letters of the alphabet from A to G; and by ascertaining their refractive indices he determined that their relative positions are constant, whether in spectra produced by the direct rays of the sun, or by the reflected light of the moon and planets. The spectra of the stars he obtained by using, outside the object-glass of his telescope, a large prism, through which the light passed to be brought to a focus in front of the eye-piece. He showed that in the spectra of the fixed stars many of the dark lines were different from those of the solar spectrum, whilst other well-known solar lines were wanting; and he concluded that it was not by any action of the terrestrial atmosphere upon the light passing through it that the lines were produced. He further expressed the belief that the dark lines D of the solar spectrum coincide with the bright lines of the sodium flame. He was also the inventor of the diffraction grating.

In 1823 he was appointed conservator of the physical cabinet at Munich, and in the following year he received from the king of Bavaria the civil order of merit. He died at Munich on the 7th of June 1826, and was buried near Reichenbach, whose decease had taken place eight years previously. On his tomb is the inscription “Approximavit sidera.”

See J. von Utzschneider, Kurzer Umriss der Lebensgeschichte des Herrn Dr J. von Fraunhofer (Munich, 1826); and G. Merz, Das Leben und Wirken Fraunhofers (Landshut, 1865).

FRAUSTADT (Polish, Wszowa), a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Posen, in a flat sandy country dotted with windmills, 50 m. S.S.W. of Posen, on the railway Lissa-Sagan. Pop. (including a garrison) 7500. It has three Evangelical and two Roman Catholic churches, a classical school and a teachers’ seminary; the manufactures include woollen and cotton goods, hats, morocco leather and gloves, and there is a considerable trade in corn, cattle and wool. Fraustadt was founded by Silesians in 1348, and afterwards belonged to the principality of Glogau. Near the town the Swedes under Charles XII. defeated the Saxons on the 13th of February 1706.

FRAYSSINOUS, DENIS ANTOINE LUC, Comte de (1765-1841), French prelate and statesman, distinguished as an orator and as a controversial writer, was born of humble parentage at CuriÈres, in the department of Aveyron, on the 9th of May 1765. He owes his reputation mainly to the lectures on dogmatic theology, known as the “conferences” of Saint Sulpice, delivered in the church of Saint Sulpice, Paris, from 1803 to 1809, to which admiring crowds were attracted by his lucid exposition and by his graceful oratory. The freedom of his language in 1809, when Napoleon had arrested the pope and declared the annexation of Rome to France, led to a prohibition of his lectures; and the dispersion of the congregation of Saint Sulpice in 1811 was followed by his temporary retirement from the capital. He returned with the Bourbons, and resumed his lectures in 1814; but the events of the Hundred Days again compelled him to withdraw into private life, from which he did not emerge until February 1816. As court preacher and almoner to Louis XVIII., he now entered upon the period of his greatest public activity and influence. In connexion with the controversy raised by the signing of the reactionary concordat of 1817, he published in 1818 a treatise entitled Vrais Principes de l’Église Gallicane sur la puissance ecclÉsiastique, which though unfavourably criticized by Lamennais, was received with favour by the civil and ecclesiastical authorities. The consecration of Frayssinous as bishop of Hermopolis “in partibus,” his election to the French Academy, and his appointment to the grand-mastership of the university, followed in rapid succession. In 1824, on the accession of Charles X., he became minister of public instruction and of ecclesiastical affairs under the administration of VillÈle; and about the same time he was created a peer of France with the title of count. His term of office was chiefly marked by the recall of the Jesuits. In 1825 he published his lectures under the title DÉfense du christianisme. The work passed through 15 editions within 18 years, and was translated into several European languages. In 1828 he, along with his colleagues in the VillÈle ministry, was compelled to resign office, and the subsequent revolution of July 1830 led to his retirement to Rome. Shortly afterwards he became tutor to the duke of Bordeaux (Comte de Chambord) at Prague, where he continued to live until 1838. He died at St GÉniez on the 12th of December 1841.

See Bertrand, Bibl. Sulpicienne (t. ii. 135 sq.; iii. 253) for bibliography, and G. A. Henrion (Paris, 2 vols., 1844) for biography.

FRÉCHETTE, LOUIS HONORÉ (1839-1908), French-Canadian poet, was born at Levis, Quebec, on the 16th of November 1839, the son of a contractor. He was educated in his native province, and called to the Canadian bar in 1864. He started the Journal de LÉvis, and his revolutionary doctrines compelled him to leave Canada for the United States. After some years spent in journalism at Chicago, he was in 1874 elected as the Liberal candidate to represent Levis in the Canadian parliament. At the elections of 1878 and 1882 he was defeated, and thereafter confined himself to literature. He edited La Patrie and other French papers in the Dominion; and in 1889 was appointed clerk of the Quebec legislative council. He was long a warm advocate of the political union of Canada and the United States, but in later life became less ardent, and in 1897 accepted the honour of C.M.G. from Queen Victoria. He was president of the Royal Society of Canada, and of the Canadian Society of Arts, and received numerous honorary degrees. His works include: Mes Loisirs (1863); La Voix d’un exilÉ (1867), a satire against the Canadian government; PÊle-mÊle (1877); Les Fleurs borÉales, and Les Oiseaux de neige (1880), crowned by the French academy; La LÉgende d’un peuple (1887); two historical dramas, Papineau (1880) and Felix PoutrÉ (1880); La NoËl au Canada (1900), and several prose works and translations. An exponent of local French sentiment, he won the title of the “Canadian Laureate.” He died on the 1st of June 1908.

FREDEGOND (Fredigundis) (d. 597), Frankish queen. Originally a serving-woman, she inspired the Frankish king, Chilperic I., with a violent passion. At her instigation he repudiated his first wife Audovera, and strangled his second, Galswintha, Queen Brunhilda’s sister. A few days after this murder Chilperic married Fredegond (567). This woman exercised a most pernicious influence over him. She forced him into war against Austrasia, in the course of which she procured the assassination of the victorious king Sigebert (575); she carried on a malignant struggle against Chilperic’s sons by his first wife, Theodebert, Merwich and Clovis, who all died tragic deaths; and she persistently endeavoured to secure the throne for her own children. Her first son Thierry, however, to whom Bishop Ragnemod of Paris stood godfather, died soon after birth, and Fredegond tortured a number of women whom she accused of having bewitched the child. Her second son also died in infancy. Finally, she gave birth to a child who afterwards became king as Clotaire II. Shortly after the birth of this third son, Chilperic himself perished in mysterious circumstances (584). Fredegond has been accused of complicity in his murder, but with little show of probability, since in her husband she lost her principal supporter.

Henceforth Fredegond did all in her power to gain the kingdom for her child. Taking refuge at the church of Notre Dame at Paris, she appealed to King Guntram of Burgundy, who took Clotaire under his protection and defended him against his other nephew, Childebert II., king of Austrasia. From that time until her death Fredegond governed the western kingdom. She endeavoured to prevent the alliance between King Guntram and Childebert, which was cemented by the pact of Andelot; and made several attempts to assassinate Childebert by sending against him hired bravoes armed with poisoned scramasaxes (heavy single-edged knives). After the death of Childebert in 595 she resolved to augment the kingdom of Neustria at the expense of Austrasia, and to this end seized some cities near Paris and defeated Theudebert at the battle of Laffaux, near Soissons. Her triumph, however, was short-lived, as she died quietly in her bed in 597 soon after her victory.

See V. N. Augustin Thierry, RÉcits des temps mÉrovingiens (Brussels, 1840); Ulysse Chevalier, Bio-bibliographie (2nd ed.), s.v. “FrÉdÉgonde.”

(C. Pf.)

FREDERIC, HAROLD (1856-1898), Anglo-American novelist, was born on the 19th of August 1856 at Utica, N.Y., was educated there, and took to journalism. He went to live in England as London correspondent of the New York Times in 1884, and was soon recognized for his ability both as a writer and as a talker. He wrote several clever early stories, but it was not till he published Illumination (1896), followed by Gloria Mundi (1898), that his remarkable gifts as a novelist were fully realized. He died in England on the 19th of October 1898.

FREDERICIA (Friedericia), a seaport of Denmark, near the S.E. corner of Jutland, on the west shore of the Little Belt opposite the island of FÜnen. Pop. (1901) 12,714. It has railway communication with both south and north, and a steam ferry connects with Middelfart, a seaside resort and railway station on FÜnen. There is a considerable shipping trade, and the industries comprise the manufacture of tobacco, salt and chicory, and of cotton goods and hats. A small fort was erected on the site of Fredericia by Christian IV. of Denmark, and his successor, Frederick III., determined about 1650 to make it a powerful fortress. Free exercise of religion was offered to all who should settle in the new town, which at first bore the name of Frederiksodde, and only received its present designation in 1664. In 1657 it was taken by storm by the Swedish general Wrangel, and in 1659, after the fortress had been dismantled, it was occupied by Frederick William of Brandenburg. It was not till 1709-1710 that the works were again put in a state of defence. In 1848 no attempt was made by the Danes to oppose the Prussians, who entered on the 2nd of May, and maintained their position against the Danish gunboats. During the armistice of 1848-1849 the fortress was strengthened, and soon afterwards it stood a siege of two months, which was brought to a glorious close by a successful sortie on the 6th of July 1849. In memory of the victory several monuments have been erected in the town and its vicinity, of which the most noticeable are the bronze statue of the Danish Land Soldier by Bissen (one of Thorvaldsen’s pupils), and the great barrow over 500 Danes in the cemetery of the Holy Trinity Church, with a bas-relief by the same sculptor. On the outbreak of the war of 1864, the fortress was again strengthened by new works and an entrenched camp; but the Danes suddenly evacuated it on the 28th of April after a siege of six weeks. The Austro-Prussian army partly destroyed the fortifications, and kept possession of the town till the conclusion of peace.

FREDERICK (Mod. Ger. Friedrich; Ital. Federigo; Fr. FrÉdÉric and FÉdÉric; M.H.G. FriderÎch; O.H.G. FridurÎh, “king or lord of peace,” from O.H.G. fridu, A.S. frith, “peace,” and rÎh “rich,” “a ruler,” for derivation of which see Henry), a Christian name borne by many European sovereigns and princes, the more important of whom are given below in the following order:—(1) Roman emperors and German kings; (2) other kings in the alphabetical order of their states; (3) other reigning princes in the same order.

FREDERICK I. (c. 1123-1190), Roman emperor, surnamed “Barbarossa” by the Italians, was the son of Frederick II. of Hohenstaufen, duke of Swabia, and Judith, daughter of Henry IX. the Black, duke of Bavaria. The precise date and place of his birth, together with details of his early life, are wanting; but in 1143 he assisted his maternal uncle, Count Welf VI., in his attempts to conquer Bavaria, and by his conduct in several local feuds earned the reputation of a brave and skilful warrior. When his father died in 1147 Frederick became duke of Swabia, and immediately afterwards accompanied his uncle, the German king Conrad III., on his disastrous crusade, during which he greatly distinguished himself and won the complete confidence of the king. Abandoning the cause of the Welfs, he fought for Conrad against them, and in 1152 the dying king advised the princes to choose Frederick as his successor to the exclusion of his own young son. Energetically pressing his candidature, he was chosen German king at Frankfort on the 4th or 5th of March 1152, and crowned at Aix-la-Chapelle on the 9th of the same month, owing his election partly to his personal qualities, and partly to the fact that he united in himself the blood of the rival families of Welf and Waiblingen.

The new king was anxious to restore the Empire to the position it had occupied under Charlemagne and Otto the Great, and saw clearly that the restoration of order in Germany was a necessary preliminary to the enforcement of the imperial rights in Italy. Issuing a general order for peace, he was prodigal in his concessions to the nobles. Count Welf was made duke of Spoleto and margrave of Tuscany; Berthold VI., duke of ZÄhringen, was entrusted with extensive rights in Burgundy; and the king’s nephew, Frederick, received the duchy of Swabia. Abroad Frederick decided a quarrel for the Danish throne in favour of Svend, or Peter as he is sometimes called, who did homage for his kingdom, and negotiations were begun with the East Roman emperor, Manuel Comnenus. It was probably about this time that the king obtained a divorce from his wife Adela, daughter of Dietpold, margrave of Vohburg and Cham, on the ground of consanguinity, and made a vain effort to obtain a bride from the court of Constantinople. On his accession Frederick had communicated the news of his election to Pope Eugenius III., but neglected to ask for the papal confirmation. In spite of this omission, however, and of some trouble arising from a double election to the archbishopric of Magdeburg, a treaty was concluded between king and pope at Constance in March 1153, by which Frederick promised in return for his coronation to make no peace with Roger I. king of Sicily, or with the rebellious Romans, without the consent of Eugenius, and generally to help and defend the papacy.

The journey to Italy made by the king in 1154 was the precursor of five other expeditions which engaged his main energies for thirty years, during which the subjugation of the peninsula was the central and abiding aim of his policy. Meeting the new pope, Adrian IV., near Nepi, Frederick at first refused to hold his stirrup; but after some negotiations he consented and received the kiss of peace, which was followed by his coronation as emperor at Rome on the 18th of June 1155. As his slender forces were inadequate to encounter the fierce hostility which he aroused, he left Italy in the autumn of 1155 to prepare for a new and more formidable campaign. Disorder was again rampant in Germany, especially in Bavaria, but general peace was restored by Frederick’s vigorous measures. Bavaria was transferred from Henry II. Jasomirgott, margrave of Austria, to Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony; and the former was pacified by the erection of his margraviate into a duchy, while Frederick’s step-brother Conrad was invested with the Palatinate of the Rhine. On the 9th of June 1156 the king was married at WÜrzburg to Beatrix, daughter and heiress of the dead count of Upper Burgundy, Renaud III., when Upper Burgundy or Franche ComtÉ, as it is sometimes called, was added to his possessions. An expedition into Poland reduced Duke Boleslaus IV. to an abject submission, after which Frederick received the homage of the Burgundian nobles at a diet held at BesanÇon in October 1157, which was marked by a quarrel between pope and emperor. A Swedish archbishop, returning from Rome, had been seized by robbers, and as Frederick had not punished the offenders Adrian sent two legates to remonstrate. The papal letter when translated referred to the imperial crown as a benefice conferred by the pope, and its reading aroused great indignation. The emperor had to protect the legates from the fury of the nobles; and afterwards issued a manifesto to his subjects declaring that he held the Empire from God alone, to which Adrian replied that he had used the ambiguous word beneficia as meaning benefits, and not in its feudal sense.

In June 1158 Frederick set out upon his second Italian expedition, which was signalized by the establishment of imperial officers called podestas in the cities of northern Italy, the revolt and capture of Milan, and the beginning of the long struggle with pope Alexander III., who excommunicated the emperor on the 2nd of March 1160. During this visit Frederick summoned the doctors of Bologna to the diet held near Roncaglia in November 1158, and as a result of their inquiries into the rights belonging to the kingdom of Italy he obtained a large amount of wealth. Returning to Germany towards the close of 1162, Frederick prevented a conflict between Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony, and a number of neighbouring princes, and severely punished the citizens of Mainz for their rebellion against Archbishop Arnold. A further visit to Italy in 1163 saw his plans for the conquest of Sicily checked by the formation of a powerful league against him, brought together mainly by the exactions of the podestas and the enforcement of the rights declared by the doctors of Bologna. Frederick had supported an anti-pope Victor IV. against Alexander, and on Victor’s death in 1163 a new anti-pope called Paschal III. was chosen to succeed him. Having tried in vain to secure the general recognition of Victor and Paschal in Europe, the emperor held a diet at WÜrzburg in May 1165; and by taking an oath, followed by many of the clergy and nobles, to remain true to Paschal and his successors, brought about a schism in the German church. A temporary alliance with Henry II., king of England, the magnificent celebration of the canonization of Charlemagne at Aix-la-Chapelle, and the restoration of peace in the Rhineland, occupied Frederick’s attention until October 1166, when he made his fourth journey to Italy. Having captured Ancona, he marched to Rome, stormed the Leonine city, and procured the enthronement of Paschal, and the coronation of his wife Beatrix; but his victorious career was stopped by the sudden outbreak of a pestilence which destroyed the German army and drove the emperor as a fugitive to Germany, where he remained for the ensuing six years. Henry the Lion was again saved from a threatening combination; conflicting claims to various bishoprics were decided; and the imperial authority was asserted over Bohemia, Poland and Hungary. Friendly relations were entered into with the emperor Manuel, and attempts made to come to a better understanding with Henry II., king of England, and Louis VII., king of France.

In 1174, when Frederick made his fifth expedition to Italy, the Lombard league had been formed, and the fortress of Alessandria raised to check his progress. The campaign was a complete failure. The refusal of Henry the Lion to bring help into Italy was followed by the defeat of the emperor at Legnano on the 29th of May 1176, when he was wounded and believed to be dead. Reaching Pavia, he began negotiations for peace with Alexander, which ripened into the treaty of Venice in August 1177, and at the same time a truce with the Lombard league was arranged for six years. Frederick, loosed from the papal ban, recognized Alexander as the rightful pope, and in July 1177 knelt before him and kissed his feet. The possession of the vast estates left by Matilda, marchioness of Tuscany, and claimed by both pope and emperor, was to be decided by arbitration, and in October 1178 the emperor was again in Germany. Various small feuds were suppressed; Henry the Lion was deprived of his duchy, which was dismembered, and sent into exile; a treaty was made with the Lombard league at Constance in June 1183; and most important of all, Frederick’s son Henry was betrothed in 1184 to Constance, daughter of Roger I., king of Sicily, and aunt and heiress of the reigning king, William II. This betrothal, which threatened to unite Sicily with the Empire, made it difficult for Frederick, when during his last Italian expedition in 1184 he met Pope Lucius III. at Verona, to establish friendly relations with the papacy. Further causes of trouble arose, moreover, and when the potentates separated the question of Matilda’s estates was undecided; and Lucius had refused to crown Henry or to recognize the German clergy who had been ordained during the schism. Frederick then formed an alliance with Milan, where the citizens witnessed a great festival on the 27th of January 1186. The emperor, who had been crowned king of Burgundy, or Arles, at Arles on the 30th of July 1178, had this ceremony repeated; while his son Henry was crowned king of Italy and married to Constance, who was crowned queen of Germany.

The quarrel with the papacy was continued with the new pope Urban III., and open warfare was begun. But Frederick was soon recalled to Germany by the news of a revolt raised by Philip of Heinsberg, archbishop of Cologne, in alliance with the pope. The German clergy remained loyal to the emperor, and hostilities were checked by the death of Urban and the election of a new pope as Gregory VIII., who adopted a more friendly policy towards the emperor. In 1188 Philip submitted, and immediately afterwards Frederick took the cross in order to stop the victorious career of Saladin, who had just taken Jerusalem. After extensive preparations he left Regensburg in May 1189 at the head of a splendid army, and having overcome the hostility of the East Roman emperor Isaac Angelus, marched into Asia Minor. On the 10th of June 1190 Frederick was either bathing or crossing the river Calycadnus (Geuksu), near Seleucia (Selefke) in Cilicia, when he was carried away by the stream and drowned. The place of his burial is unknown, and the legend which says he still sits in a cavern in the KyffhÄuser mountain in Thuringia waiting until the need of his country shall call him, is now thought to refer, at least in its earlier form, to his grandson, the emperor Frederick II. He left by his wife, Beatrix, five sons, of whom the eldest afterwards became emperor as Henry VI.

Frederick’s reign, on the whole, was a happy and prosperous time for Germany. He encouraged the growth of towns, easily suppressed the few risings against his authority, and took strong and successful measures to establish order. Even after the severe reverses which he experienced in Italy, his position in Germany was never seriously weakened; and in 1181, when, almost without striking a blow, he deprived Henry the Lion of his duchy, he seemed stronger than ever. This power rested upon his earnest and commanding personality, and also upon the support which he received from the German church, the possession of a valuable private domain, and the care with which he exacted feudal dues from his dependents.

Frederick I. is said to have taken Charlemagne as his model; but the contest in which he engaged was entirely different both in character and results from that in which his great predecessor achieved such a wonderful temporary success. Though Frederick failed to subdue the republics, the failure can scarcely be said to reflect either on his prudence as a statesman or his skill as a general, for his ascendancy was finally overthrown rather by the ravages of pestilence than by the might of human arms. In Germany his resolute will and sagacious administration subdued or disarmed all discontent, and he not only succeeded in welding the various rival interests into a unity of devotion to himself against which papal intrigues were comparatively powerless, but won for the empire a prestige such as it had not possessed since the time of Otto the Great. The wide contrast between his German and Italian rule is strikingly exemplified in the fact that, while he endeavoured to overthrow the republics in Italy, he held in check the power of the nobles in Germany, by conferring municipal franchises and independent rights on the principal cities. Even in Italy, though his general course of action was warped by wrong prepossessions, he in many instances manifested exceptional practical sagacity in dealing with immediate difficulties and emergencies. Possessing frank and open manners, untiring and unresting energy, and a prowess which found its native element in difficulty and danger, he seemed the embodiment of the chivalrous and warlike spirit of his age, and was the model of all the qualities which then won highest admiration. Stern and ambitious he certainly was, but his aims can scarcely be said to have exceeded his prerogatives as emperor; and though he had sometimes recourse when in straits to expedients almost diabolically ingenious in their cruelty, yet his general conduct was marked by a clemency which in that age was exceptional. His quarrel with the papacy was an inherited conflict, not reflecting at all on his religious faith, but the inevitable consequence of inconsistent theories of government, which had been created and could be dissipated only by a long series of events. His interference in the quarrels of the republics was not only quite justifiable from the relation in which he stood to them, but seemed absolutely necessary. From the beginning, however, he treated the Italians, as indeed was only natural, less as rebellious subjects than as conquered aliens; and it must be admitted that in regard to them the only effective portion of his procedure was, not his energetic measures of repression nor his brilliant victories, but, after the battle of Legnano, his quiet and cheerful acceptance of the inevitable, and the consequent complete change in his policy, by which if he did not obtain the great object of his ambition, he at least did much to render innoxious for the Empire his previous mistakes.

In appearance Frederick was a man of well-proportioned, medium stature, with flowing yellow hair and a reddish beard. He delighted in hunting and the reading of history, was zealous in his attention to public business, and his private life was unimpeachable. Carlyle’s tribute to him is interesting: “No king so furnished out with apparatus and arena, with personal faculty to rule and scene to do it in, has appeared elsewhere. A magnificent, magnanimous man; holding the reins of the world, not quite in the imaginary sense; scourging anarchy down, and urging noble effort up, really on a grand scale. A terror to evil-doers and a praise to well-doers in this world, probably beyond what was ever seen since.”

The principal contemporary authority for the earlier part of the reign of Frederick is the Gesta Friderici imperatoris, mainly the work of Otto, bishop of Freising. This is continued from 1156 to 1160 by Rahewin, a canon of Freising, and from 1160 to 1170 by an anonymous author. The various annals and chronicles of the period, among which may be mentioned the Chronica regia Coloniensis and the Annales Magdeburgenses, are also important. Other authorities for the different periods in Frederick’s reign are Tageno of Passau, Descriptio expeditionis asiaticae Friderici I.; Burchard, Historia Friderici imperatoris magni; Godfrey of Viterbo, Carmen de gestis Friderici I., which are all found in the Monumenta Germaniae historica. Scriptores (Hanover and Berlin, 1826-1892); Otto Morena of Lodi, Historia rerum Laudensium, continued by his son, Acerbus, also in the Monumenta; Ansbert, Historia de expeditione Friderici, 1187-1196, published in the Fontes rerum Austriacarum. Scriptores (Vienna, 1855 fol.). Many valuable documents are found in the Monumenta Germaniae selecta, Band iv., edited by M. Doeberl (Munich, 1889-1890).

The best modern authorities are J. Jastrow, Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Hohenstaufen (Berlin, 1893); W. von Giesebrecht, Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit, Band iv. (Brunswick, 1877); H. von BÜnau, Leben und Thaten Friedrichs I. (Leipzig, 1872); H. Prutz, Kaiser Friedrich I. (Dantzig, 1871-1874); C. Peters, Die Wahl Kaiser Friedrichs I. in the Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, Band xx. (GÖttingen, 1862-1886); W. Gundlach, Barbarossalieder (Innsbruck, 1899). For a complete bibliography see Dahlmann-Waitz, Quellenkunde der deutschen Geschichte (GÖttingen, 1894), and U. Chevalier, RÉpertoire des sources historiques du moyen Âge, tome iii. (Paris, 1904).

FREDERICK II. (1194-1250), Roman emperor, king of Sicily and Jerusalem, was the son of the emperor Henry VI. and Constance, daughter of Roger I., king of Sicily, and therefore grandson of the emperor Frederick I. and a member of the Hohenstaufen family. Born at Jesi near Ancona on the 26th of December 1194, he was baptized by the name of Frederick Roger, chosen German king at Frankfort in 1196, and after his father’s death crowned king of Sicily at Palermo on the 17th of May 1198. His mother, who assumed the government, died in November 1198, leaving Pope Innocent III. as regent of Sicily and guardian of her son. The young king passed his early years amid the terrible anarchy in his island kingdom, which Innocent was powerless to check; but his education was not neglected, and his character and habits were formed by contact with men of varied nationalities and interests, while the darker traits of his nature were developed in the atmosphere of lawlessness in which he lived. In 1208 he was declared of age, and soon afterwards Innocent arranged a marriage, which was celebrated the following year, between him and Constance, daughter of Alphonso II. king of Aragon, and widow of Emerich or Imre, king of Hungary.

The dissatisfaction felt in Germany with the emperor Otto IV. came to a climax in September 1211, when a number of influential princes met at Nuremberg, declared Otto deposed, and invited Frederick to come and occupy the vacant throne. In spite of the reluctance of his wife, and the opposition of the Sicilian nobles, he accepted the invitation; and having recognized the papal supremacy over Sicily, and procured the coronation of his son Henry as its king, reached Germany after an adventurous journey in the autumn of 1212. This step was taken with the approval of the pope, who was anxious to strike a blow at Otto IV.

Frederick was welcomed in Swabia, and the renown of the Hohenstaufen name and a liberal distribution of promises made his progress easy. Having arranged a treaty against Otto with Louis, son of Philip Augustus, king of France, whom he met at Vaucouleurs, he was chosen German king a second time at Frankfort on the 5th of December 1212, and crowned four days later at Mainz. Anxious to retain the support of the pope, Frederick promulgated a bull at Eger on the 12th of July 1213, by which he renounced all lands claimed by the pope since the death of the emperor Henry VI. in 1197, gave up the right of spoils and all interference in episcopal elections, and acknowledged the right of appeal to Rome. He again affirmed the papal supremacy over Sicily, and promised to root out heresy in Germany. The victory of his French allies at Bouvines on the 27th of July 1214 greatly strengthened his position, and a large part of the Rhineland having fallen into his power, he was crowned German king at Aix-la-Chapelle on the 25th of July 1215. His cause continued to prosper, fresh supporters gathered round his standard, and in May 1218 the death of Otto freed him from his rival and left him undisputed ruler of Germany. A further attempt to allay the pope’s apprehension lest Sicily should be united with the Empire had been made early in 1216, when Frederick, in a letter to Innocent, promised after his own coronation as emperor to recognize his son Henry as king of Sicily, and to place him under the suzerainty of Rome. Henry nevertheless was brought to Germany and chosen German king at Frankfort in April 1220, though Frederick assured the new pope, Honorius III., that this step had been taken without his consent. The truth, however, seems to be that he had taken great trouble to secure this election, and for the purpose had won the support of the spiritual princes by extensive concessions. In August 1220 Frederick set out for Italy, and was crowned emperor at Rome on the 22nd of November 1220; after which he repeated the undertaking he had entered into at Aix-la-Chapelle in 1215 to go on crusade, and made lavish promises to the Church. The clergy were freed from taxation and from lay jurisdiction, the ban of the Empire was to follow the ban of the Church, and heretics were to be severely punished.

Neglecting his promise to lead a crusade, Frederick was occupied until 1225 in restoring order in Sicily. The island was seething with disorder, but by stern and sometimes cruel measures the emperor suppressed the anarchy of the barons, curbed the power of the cities, and subdued the rebellious Saracens, many of whom, transferred to the mainland and settled at Nocera, afterwards rendered him valuable military service. Meanwhile the crusade was postponed again and again; until under a threat of excommunication, after the fall of Damietta in 1221, Frederick definitely undertook by a treaty made at San Germano in 1225 to set out in August 1227 or to submit to this penalty. His own interests turned more strongly to the East, when on the 9th of November 1225, after having been a widower since 1222, he married Iolande (Yolande or Isabella), daughter of John, count of Brienne, titular king of Jerusalem. John appears to have expected that this alliance would restore him to his kingdom, but his hopes were dashed to the ground when Frederick himself assumed the title of king of Jerusalem. The emperor’s next step was an attempt to restore the imperial authority in northern Italy, and for the purpose a diet was called at Cremona. But the cities, watchful and suspicious, renewed the Lombard league and took up a hostile attitude. Frederick’s reply was to annul the treaty of Constance and place the cities under the imperial ban; but he was forced by lack of military strength to accept the mediation of Pope Honorius and the maintenance of the status quo.

After these events, which occurred early in 1227, preparations for the crusade were pressed on, and the emperor sailed from Brindisi on the 8th of September. A pestilence, however, which attacked his forces compelled him to land in Italy three days later, and on the 29th of the same month he was excommunicated by the new pope, Gregory IX. The greater part of the succeeding year was spent by pope and emperor in a violent quarrel. Alarmed at the increase in his opponent’s power, Gregory denounced him in a public letter, to which Frederick replied in a clever document addressed to the princes of Europe. The reading of this manifesto, drawing attention to the absolute power claimed by the popes, was received in Rome with such evidences of approval that Gregory was compelled to fly to Viterbo. Having lost his wife Isabella on the 8th of May 1228, Frederick again set sail for Palestine, where he met with considerable success, the result of diplomatic rather than of military skill. By a treaty made in February 1229 he secured possession of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth and the surrounding neighbourhood. Entering Jerusalem, he crowned himself king of that city on the 18th of March 1229. These successes had been won in spite of the hostility of Gregory, which deprived Frederick of the assistance of many members of the military orders and of the clergy of Palestine. But although the emperor’s possessions on the Italian mainland had been attacked in his absence by the papal troops and their allies, Gregory’s efforts had failed to arouse serious opposition in Germany and Sicily; so that when Frederick returned unexpectedly to Italy in June 1229 he had no difficulty in driving back his enemies, and compelling the pope to sue for peace. The result was the treaty of San Germano, arranged in July 1230, by which the emperor, loosed from the ban, promised to respect the papal territory, and to allow freedom of election and other privileges to the Sicilian clergy. Frederick was next engaged in completing the pacification of Sicily. In 1231 a series of laws were published at Melfi which destroyed the ascendancy of the feudal nobles. Royal officials were appointed for administrative purposes, large estates were recovered for the crown, and fortresses were destroyed, while the church was placed under the royal jurisdiction and all gifts to it were prohibited. At the same time certain privileges of self-government were granted to the towns, representatives from which were summoned to sit in the diet. In short, by means of a centralized system of government, the king established an almost absolute monarchical power.

In Germany, on the other hand, an entirely different policy was pursued. The concessions granted by Frederick in 1220, together with the Privilege of Worms, dated the 1st of May 1231, made the German princes virtually independent. All jurisdiction over their lands was vested in them, no new mints or toll-centres were to be erected on their domains, and the imperial authority was restricted to a small and dwindling area. A fierce attack was also made on the rights of the cities. Compelled to restore all their lands, their jurisdiction was bounded by their city-walls; they were forbidden to receive the dependents of the princes; all trade gilds were declared abolished; and all official appointments made without the consent of the archbishop or bishop were annulled. A further attack on the Lombard cities at the diet of Ravenna in 1231 was answered by a renewal of their league, and was soon connected with unrest in Germany. About 1231 a breach took place between Frederick and his elder son Henry, who appears to have opposed the Privilege of Worms and to have favoured the towns against the princes. After refusing to travel to Italy, Henry changed his mind and submitted to his father at Aquileia in 1232; and a temporary peace was made with the Lombard cities in June 1233. But on his return to Germany Henry again raised the standard of revolt, and made a league with the Lombards in December 1234. Frederick, meanwhile, having helped Pope Gregory against the rebellious Romans and having secured the friendship of France and England, appeared in Germany early in 1235 and put down this rising without difficulty. Henry was imprisoned, but his associates were treated leniently. In August 1235 a splendid diet was held at Mainz, during which the marriage of the emperor with Isabella (1214-1241), daughter of John, king of England, was celebrated. A general peace (Landfrieden), which became the basis of all such peaces in the future, was sworn to; a new office, that of imperial justiciar, was created, and a permanent judicial record was first instituted. Otto of Brunswick, grandson of Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony, was made duke of Brunswick-LÜneburg; and war was declared against the Lombards.

Frederick was now at the height of his power. His second son, Conrad, was invested with the duchy of Swabia, and the claim of Wenceslaus, king of Bohemia, to some lands which had belonged to the German king Philip was bought off. The attitude of Frederick II. (the Quarrelsome), duke of Austria, had been considered by the emperor so suspicious that during a visit paid by Frederick to Italy a war against him was begun. Compelled to return by the ill-fortune which attended this campaign, the emperor took command of his troops, seized Austria, Styria and Carinthia, and declared these territories to be immediately dependent on the Empire. In January 1237 he secured the election of his son Conrad as German king at Vienna; and in September went to Italy to prosecute the war which had broken out with the Lombards in the preceding year. Pope Gregory attempted to mediate, but the cities refused to accept the insulting terms offered by Frederick. The emperor gained a great victory over their forces at Cortenuova in November 1237; but though he met with some further successes, his failure to take Brescia in October 1238, together with the changed attitude of Gregory, turned the fortune of war. The pope had become alarmed when the emperor brought about a marriage between the heiress of Sardinia, Adelasia, and his natural son Enzio, who afterwards assumed the title of king of Sardinia. But as his warnings had been disregarded, he issued a document after the emperor’s retreat from Brescia, teeming with complaints against Frederick, and followed it up by an open alliance with the Lombards, and by the excommunication of the emperor on the 20th of March 1239. A violent war of words ensued. Frederick, accused of heresy, blasphemy and other crimes, called upon all kings and princes to unite against the pope, who on his side made vigorous efforts to arouse opposition in Germany, where his emissaries, a crowd of wandering friars, were actively preaching rebellion. It was, however, impossible to find an anti-king. In Italy, Spoleto and Ancona were declared part of the imperial dominions, and Rome itself, faithful on this occasion to the pope, was threatened. A number of ecclesiastics proceeding to a council called by Gregory were captured by Enzio at the sea-fight of Meloria, and the emperor was about to undertake the siege of Rome, when the pope died (August 1241). Germany was at this time menaced by the Mongols; but Frederick contented himself with issuing directions for a campaign against them, until in 1242 he was able to pay a short visit to Germany, where he gained some support from the towns by grants of extensive privileges.

The successor of Gregory was Pope Celestine IX. But this pontiff died soon after his election; and after a delay of eighteen months, during which Frederick marched against Rome on two occasions and devastated the lands of his opponents, one of his partisans, Sinibaldo Fiesco, was chosen pope, and took the name of Innocent IV. Negotiations for peace were begun, but the relations of the Lombard cities to the Empire could not be adjusted, and when the emperor began again to ravage the papal territories Innocent fled to Lyons. Hither he summoned a general council, which met in June 1245; but although Frederick sent his justiciar, Thaddeus of Suessa, to represent him, and expressed his willingness to treat, sentence of excommunication and deposition was pronounced against him. Once more an interchange of recriminations began, charged with all the violent hyperbole characteristic of the controversial style of the age. Accused of violating treaties, breaking oaths, persecuting the church and abetting heresy, Frederick replied by an open letter rebutting these charges, and in equally unmeasured terms denounced the arrogance and want of faith of the clergy from the pope downwards. The source of all the evil was, he declared, the excessive wealth of the church, which, in retaliation for the sentence of excommunication, he threatened to confiscate. In vain the mediation of the saintly king of France, Louis IX., was invoked. Innocent surpassed his predecessors in the ferocity and unscrupulousness of his attacks on the emperor (see Innocent IV.). War soon became general in Germany and Italy. Henry Raspe, landgrave of Thuringia, was chosen German king in opposition to Frederick in May 1246, but neither he nor his successor, William II., count of Holland, was successful in driving the Hohenstaufen from Germany. In Italy, during the emperor’s absence, his cause had been upheld by Enzio and by the ferocious Eccelino da Romano. In 1246 a formidable conspiracy of the discontented Apulian barons against the emperor’s power and life, fomented by papal emissaries, was discovered and crushed with ruthless cruelty. The emperor’s power seemed more firmly established than ever, when suddenly the news reached him that Parma, a stronghold of the imperial authority in the north, had been surprised, while the garrison was off its guard, by the Guelphs. To recover the city was a matter of prime importance, and in 1247 Frederick concentrated his forces round it, building over against it a wooden town which, in anticipation of the success that astrologers had predicted, he named Vittoria. The siege, however, was protracted, and finally, in February 1248, during the absence of the emperor on a hunting expedition, was brought to an end by a sudden sortie of the men of Parma, who stormed the imperial camp. The disaster was complete. The emperor’s forces were destroyed or scattered; the treasury, with the imperial insignia, together with Frederick’s harem and some of the most trusted of his ministers, fell into the hands of the victors. Thaddeus of Suessa was hacked to pieces by the mob; the imperial crown was placed in mockery on the head of a hunch-backed beggar, who was carried back in triumph into the city.

Frederick struggled hard to retrieve his fortunes, and for a while with success. But his old confidence had left him; he had grown moody and suspicious, and his temper gave a ready handle to his enemies. Pier della Vigna, accused of treasonable designs, was disgraced; and the once all-powerful favourite and minister, blinded now and in rags, was dragged in the emperor’s train, as a warning to traitors, till in despair he dashed out his brains. Then, in May 1248, came the tidings of Enzio’s capture by the Bolognese, and of his hopeless imprisonment, the captors refusing all offers of ransom. This disaster to his favourite son broke the emperor’s spirit. He retired to southern Italy, and after a short illness died at Fiorentino on the 13th of December 1250, after having been loosed from the ban by the archbishop of Palermo. He was buried in the cathedral of that city, where his splendid tomb may still be seen. By his will he appointed his son Conrad to succeed him in Germany and Sicily, and Henry, his son by Isabella of England, to be king of Jerusalem or Arles, neither of which kingdoms, however, he obtained. Frederick left several illegitimate children: Enzio has already been referred to; Frederick, who was made the imperial vicar in Tuscany; and Manfred, his son by the beloved Bianca Lancia or Lanzia, who was legitimatized just before his father’s death, and was appointed by his will prince of Tarento and regent of Sicily.

The character of Frederick is one of extraordinary interest and versatility, and contemporary opinion is expressed in the words stupor mundi et immutator mirabilis. Licentious and luxurious in his manners, cultured and catholic in his tastes, he united in his person the most diverse qualities. His Sicilian court was a centre of intellectual activity. Michael Scott, the translator of some treatises of Aristotle and of the commentaries of Averroes, Leonard of Pisa, who introduced Arabic numerals and algebra to the West, and other scholars, Jewish and Mahommedan as well as Christian, were welcome at his court. Frederick himself had a knowledge of six languages, was acquainted with mathematics, philosophy and natural history, and took an interest in medicine and architecture. In 1224 he founded the university of Naples, and he was a liberal patron of the medical school at Salerno. He formed a menagerie of strange animals, and wrote a treatise on falconry (De arte venandi cum avibus) which is remarkable for its accurate observation of the habits of birds.1 It was at his court, too, that—as Dante points out—Italian poetry had its birth. Pier della Vigna there wrote the first sonnet, and Italian lyrics by Frederick himself are preserved to us. His wives were kept secluded in oriental fashion; a harem was maintained at Lucera, and eunuchs were a prominent feature of his household. His religious ideas have been the subject of much controversy. The theory of M. Huillard-BrÉholles that he wished to unite to the functions of emperor those of a spiritual pontiff, and aspired to be the founder of a new religion, is insufficiently supported by evidence to be credible. Although at times he persecuted heretics with great cruelty, he tolerated Mahommedans and Jews, and both acts appear rather to have been the outcome of political considerations than of religious belief. His jests, which were used by his enemies as a charge against him, seem to have originated in religious indifference, or perhaps in a spirit of inquiry which anticipated the ideas of a later age. Frederick’s rule in Germany and Italy was a failure, but this fact may be accounted for by the conditions of the time and the inevitable conflict with the papacy. In Germany the enactments of 1220 and 1231 contributed to the disintegration of the Empire and the fall of the Hohenstaufen, while conflicting interests made the government of Italy a problem of exceptional difficulty. In Sicily Frederick was more successful. He quelled disorder, and under his rule the island was prosperous and contented. His ideas of government were those of an absolute monarch, and he probably wished to surround himself with some of the pomp which had encircled the older emperors of Rome. His chief claim to fame, perhaps, is as a lawgiver. The code of laws which he gave to Sicily in 1231 bears the impress of his personality, and has been described as “the fullest and most adequate body of legislation promulgated by any western ruler since Charlemagne.” Without being a great soldier, Frederick was not unskilful in warfare, but was better acquainted with the arts of diplomacy. In person he is said to have been “red, bald and short-sighted,” but with good features and a pleasing countenance. It was seriously believed in Germany for about a century after his death that Frederick was still alive, and many impostors attempted to personate him. A legend, afterwards transferred to Frederick Barbarossa, told how he sat in a cavern in the KyffhÄusser before a stone table through which his beard had grown, waiting for the time for him to awake and restore to the Empire the golden age of peace.

The contemporary documents relating to the reign of Frederick II. are very numerous. Among the most important are: Richard of San Germano, Chronica regni Siciliae; Annales Placentini, Gibellini; Albert of Stade, Annales; Matthew Paris, Historia major Angliae; Burchard, Chronicon Urspergense. All these are in the Monumenta Germaniae historica. Scriptores (Hanover and Berlin, 1826-1892). The Rerum Italicarum scriptores, edited by L. A. Muratori (Milan, 1723-1751), contains Annales Mediolanenses; Nicholas of Jamsilla, Historia de rebus gestis Friderici II., and Vita Gregorii IX. pontificis. There are also the Epistolarum libri of Peter della Vigna, edited by J. R. Iselin (Basel, 1740); and Salimbene of Parma’s Chronik, published at Parma (1857). Many of the documents concerning the history of the time are found in the Historia diplomatica Friderici II., edited by M. Huillard-BrÉholles (Paris, 1852-1861); Acta imperii selecta. Urkunden deutscher KÖnige und Kaiser, edited by J. F. BÖhmer and J. Ficker (Innsbruck, 1870); Acta imperii inedita seculi XIII. Urkunden und Briefe zur Geschichte des Kaiserreichs und des KÖnigreichs Sicilien, edited by E. Winkelmann (Innsbruck, 1880); Epistolae saeculi XIII. selecta e regestis pontificum Romanorum, edited by C. Rodenberg, tome i. (Berlin, 1883); P. Pressutti, Regesta Honorii papae III. (Rome, 1888); L. Auvray, Les Registres de GrÉgoire IX. (Paris, 1890).

The best modern authorities are W. von Giesebrecht, Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit, Band v. (Leipzig, 1888); J. Jastrow, Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Hohenstaufen (Berlin, 1893); F. W. Schirrmacher, Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite (GÖttingen, 1859-1865); “BeitrÄge zur Geschichte Kaiser Friedrichs II.” in the Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, Band xi. (GÖttingen, 1862-1886), and Die letzten Hohenstaufen (GÖttingen, 1871); E. Winkelmann, Geschichte Kaiser Friedrichs II und seiner Reiche (Berlin, 1865) and Kaiser Friedrich II. (Leipzig, 1889); G. Blondel, Étude sur la politique de l’empereur FrÉdÉric II. en Allemagne (Paris, 1892); M. Halbe, Friedrich II. und der pÄpstliche Stuhl (Berlin, 1888); R. RÖhricht, Die Kreuzfahrt des Kaisers Friedrich II. (Berlin, 1874); C. KÖhler, Das VerhÄltnis Kaiser Friedrichs II. zu den PÄpsten seiner Zeit (Breslau, 1888); J. Feiten, Papst Gregor IX. (Freiburg, 1886); C. Rodenberg, Innocenz IV. und das KÖnigreich Sicilien (Halle, 1892); K. Lamprecht, Deutsche Geschichte, Band iii. (Berlin, 1891); M. Huillard-BrÉholles, Vie et correspondance de Pierre de la Vigne (Paris, 1865); A. del Vecchio, La legislazione de Federico II (Turin, 1874); and K. Hampe, Kaiser Friedrich II. (Munich, 1899).

(A. W. H.*)

1 First printed at Augsburg in 1596; a German edition was published at Berlin in 1896.

FREDERICK III. (1415-1493), Roman emperor,—as Frederick IV., German king, and as Frederick V., archduke of Austria,—son of Ernest of Habsburg, duke of Styria and Carinthia, was born at Innsbruck on the 21st of September 1415. After his father’s death in 1424 he passed his time at the court of his uncle and guardian, Frederick IV., count of Tirol. In 1435, together with his brother, Albert the Prodigal, he undertook the government of Styria and Carinthia, but the peace of these lands was disturbed by constant feuds between the brothers, which lasted until Albert’s death in 1463. In 1439 the deaths of the German king Albert II. and of Frederick of Tirol left Frederick the senior member of the Habsburg family, and guardian of Sigismund, count of Tirol. In the following year he also became guardian of Ladislaus, the posthumous son of Albert II., and heir to Bohemia, Hungary and Austria, but these responsibilities brought only trouble and humiliation in their train. On the 2nd of February 1440 Frederick was chosen German king at Frankfort, but, owing to his absence from Germany, the coronation was delayed until the 17th of June 1442, when it took place at Aix-la-Chapelle.

Disregarding the neutral attitude of the German electors towards the papal schism, and acting under the influence of Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, afterwards Pope Pius II., Frederick in 1445 made a secret treaty with Pope Eugenius IV. This developed into the Concordat of Vienna, signed in 1448 with the succeeding pope, Nicholas V., by which the king, in return for a sum of money and a promise of the imperial crown, pledged the obedience of the German people to Rome, and so checked for a time the rising tide of liberty in the German church. Taking up the quarrel between the Habsburgs and the Swiss cantons, Frederick invited the Armagnacs to attack his enemies, but after meeting with a stubborn resistance at St Jacob on the 26th of August 1444, these allies proved faithless, and the king soon lost every vestige of authority in Switzerland. In 1451 Frederick, disregarding the revolts in Austria and Hungary, travelled to Rome, where, on the 16th of March 1452, his marriage with Leonora, daughter of Edward, king of Portugal, was celebrated, and three days later he was crowned emperor by pope Nicholas. On his return he found Germany seething with indignation. His capitulation to the pope was not forgotten; his refusal to attend the diets, and his apathy in the face of Turkish aggressions, constituted a serious danger; and plans for his deposition failed only because the electors could not unite upon a rival king. In 1457 Ladislaus, king of Hungary and Bohemia, and archduke of Austria, died; Frederick failed to secure either kingdom, but obtained lower Austria, from which, however, he was soon driven by his brother Albert, who occupied Vienna. On Albert’s death in 1463 the emperor united upper and lower Austria under his rule, but these possessions were constantly ravaged by George Podĕbrad, king of Bohemia, and by Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary. A visit to Rome in 1468 to discuss measures against the Turks with Pope Paul II. had no result, and in 1470 Frederick began negotiations for a marriage between his son Maximilian and Mary, daughter and heiress of Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy. The emperor met the duke at Treves in 1473, when Frederick, disliking to bestow the title of king upon Charles, left the city secretly, but brought about the marriage after the duke’s death in 1477. Again attacked by Matthias, the emperor was driven from Vienna, and soon handed over the government of his lands to Maximilian, whose election as king of the Romans he vainly opposed in 1486. Frederick then retired to Linz, where he passed his time in the study of botany, alchemy and astronomy, until his death on the 19th of August 1493.

Frederick was a listless and incapable ruler, lacking alike the qualities of the soldier and of the diplomatist, but possessing a certain cleverness in evading difficulties. With a fine presence, he had many excellent personal qualities, is spoken of as mild and just, and had a real love of learning. He had a great belief in the future greatness of his family, to which he contributed largely by arranging the marriage of Maximilian with Mary of Burgundy, and delighted to inscribe his books and other articles of value with the letters A.E.I.O.U. (Austriae est imperare orbi universo; or in German, Alles Erdreich ist Oesterreich unterthan). His personality counts for very little in German history. One chronicler says: “He was a useless emperor, and the nation during his long reign forgot that she had a king.” His tomb, a magnificent work in red and white marble, is in the cathedral of St Stephen at Vienna.

See Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, De rebus et gestis Friderici III. (trans. Th. Ilgen, Leipzig, 1889); J. Chmel, Geschichte Kaiser Friedrichs IV. und seines Sohnes Maximilians I. (Hamburg, 1840); A. Bachmann, Deutsche Reichsgeschichte im Zeitalter Friedrichs III. und Maximilians I. (Leipzig, 1884); A. Huber, Geschichte Österreichs (Gotha, 1885-1892); and E. M. FÜrst von Lichnowsky, Geschichte des Hauses Habsburg (Vienna, 1836-1844).

FREDERICK III. (c. 1286-1330), surnamed “the Fair,” German king and duke of Austria, was the second son of the German king, Albert I., and consequently a member of the Habsburg family. In 1298, when his father was chosen German king, Frederick was invested with some of the family lands, and in 1306, when his elder brother Rudolph became king of Bohemia, he succeeded to the duchy of Austria. In 1307 Rudolph died, and Frederick sought to obtain the Bohemian throne; but an expedition into that country was a failure, and his father’s murder in May 1308 deprived him of considerable support. He was equally unsuccessful in his efforts to procure the German crown at this time, and the relations between the new king, Henry VII., and the Habsburgs were far from friendly. Frederick asked not only to be confirmed in the possession of Austria, but to be invested with Moravia, a demand to which Henry refused to accede; but an arrangement was subsequently made by which the duke agreed to renounce Moravia in return for a payment of 50,000 marks. Frederick then became involved in a quarrel with his cousin Louis IV., duke of Upper Bavaria (afterwards the emperor Louis IV.), over the guardianship of Henry II., duke of Lower Bavaria. Hostilities broke out, and on the 9th of November 1313 he was defeated by Louis at the battle of Gammelsdorf and compelled to renounce his claim.

Meanwhile the emperor Henry VII. had died in Italy, and a stubborn contest ensued for the vacant throne. After a long delay Frederick was chosen German king at Frankfort by a minority of the electors on the 19th of October 1314, while a majority elected Louis of Bavaria. Six days later Frederick was crowned at Bonn by the archbishop of Cologne, and war broke out at once between the rivals. During this contest, which was carried on in a desultory fashion, Frederick drew his chief strength from southern and eastern Germany, and was supported by the full power of the Habsburgs. The defeat of his brother Leopold by the Swiss at Morgarten in November 1315 was a heavy blow to him, but he prolonged the struggle for seven years. On the 28th of September 1322 a decisive battle was fought at MÜhldorf; Frederick was defeated and sent as a prisoner to Trausnitz. Here he was retained until three years later a series of events induced Louis to come to terms. By the treaty of Trausnitz, signed on the 13th of March 1325, Frederick acknowledged the kingship of Louis in return for freedom, and promised to return to captivity unless he could induce his brother Leopold to make a similar acknowledgment. As Leopold refused to take this step, Frederick, although released from his oath by Pope John XXII., travelled back to Bavaria, where he was treated by Louis rather as a friend than as a prisoner. A suggestion was then made that the kings should rule jointly, but as this plan aroused some opposition it was agreed that Frederick should govern Germany while Louis went to Italy for the imperial crown. But this arrangement did not prove generally acceptable, and the death of Leopold in 1326 deprived Frederick of a powerful supporter. In these circumstances he returned to Austria broken down in mind and body, and on the 13th of January 1330 he died at Gutenstein, and was buried at Mauerbach, whence his remains were removed in 1783 to the cathedral of St Stephen at Vienna. He married Elizabeth, daughter of James I., king of Aragon, and left two daughters. His voluntary return into captivity is used by Schiller in his poem Deutsche Treue, and by J. L. Uhland in the drama Ludwig der Bayer.

The authorities for the life of Frederick are found in the Fontes rerum Germanicarum, Band i., edited by J. F. BÖhmer (Stuttgart, 1843-1868), and in the Fontes rerum Austriacarum, part i. (Vienna, 1855). Modern works which may be consulted are: E. M. FÜrst von Lichnowsky, Geschichte des Hauses Habsburg (Vienna, 1836-1844); Th. Lindner, Deutsche Geschichte unter den Habsburgern und Luxemburgern (Stuttgart, 1888-1893). R. DÖbner, Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Ludwig IV. dem Bayer und Friedrich dem SchÖnen von Österreich (GÖttingen, 1875); F. Kurz, Österreich unter KÖnig Friedrich dem SchÖnen (Linz, 1818); F. Krones, Handbuch der Geschichte Österreichs (Berlin, 1876-1879); H. Schrohe, Der Kampf der GegenkÖnige Ludwig und Friedrich (Berlin, 1902); W. Friedensburg, Ludwig IV. der Bayer und Friedrich von Österreich (GÖttingen, 1877); B. Gebhardt, Handbuch der deutschen Geschichte (Berlin, 1901).

FREDERICK II. (1534-1588), king of Denmark and Norway, son of Christian III., was born at Hadersleben on the 1st of July 1534. His mother, Dorothea of Saxe-Lauenburg, was the elder sister of Catherine, the first wife of Gustavus Vasa and the mother of Eric XIV. The two little cousins, born the same year, were destined to be lifelong rivals. At the age of two Frederick was proclaimed successor to the throne at the Rigsdag of Copenhagen (October 30th, 1536), and homage was done to him at Oslo for Norway in 1548. The choice of his governor, the patriotic historiographer Hans Svaning, was so far fortunate that it ensured the devotion of the future king of Denmark to everything Danish; but Svaning was a poor pedagogue, and the wild and wayward lad suffered all his life from the defects of his early training. Frederick’s youthful, innocent attachment to the daughter of his former tutor, Anna Hardenberg, indisposed him towards matrimony at the beginning of his reign (1558). After the hands of Elizabeth of England, Mary of Scotland and Renata of Lorraine had successively been sought for him, the council of state grew anxious about the succession, but he finally married his cousin, Sophia of Mecklenburg, on the 20th of July 1572.

The reign of Frederick II. falls into two well-defined divisions: (1) a period of war, 1559-1570; and (2) a period of peace, 1570-1588. The period of war began with the Ditmarsh expedition, when the independent peasant-republic of the Ditmarshers of West Holstein, which had stoutly maintained its independence for centuries against the counts of Holstein and the Danish kings, was subdued by a Dano-Holstein army of 20,000 men in 1559, Frederick and his uncles John and Adolphus, dukes of Holstein, dividing the land between them. Equally triumphant was Frederick in his war with Sweden, though here the contest was much more severe, lasting as it did for seven years; whence it is generally described in northern history as the Scandinavian Seven Years’ War. The tension which had prevailed between the two kingdoms during the last years of Gustavus Vasa reached breaking point on the accession of Gustavus’s eldest son Eric XIV. There were many causes of quarrel between the two ambitious young monarchs, but the detention at Copenhagen in 1563 of a splendid matrimonial embassy on its way to Germany, to negotiate a match between Eric and Christina of Hesse, which King Frederick for political reasons was determined to prevent, precipitated hostilities. During the war, which was marked by extraordinary ferocity throughout, the Danes were generally victorious on land owing to the genius of Daniel Rantzau, but at sea the Swedes were almost uniformly triumphant. By 1570 the strife had degenerated into a barbarous devastation of border provinces; and in July of the same year both countries accepted the mediation of the Emperor, and peace was finally concluded at Stettin on Dec. 13, 1570. During the course of this Seven Years’ War Frederick II. had narrowly escaped the fate of his deposed cousin Eric XIV. The war was very unpopular in Denmark, and the closing of the Sound against foreign shipping, in order to starve out Sweden, had exasperated the maritime powers and all the Baltic states. On New Year’s Day 1570 Frederick’s difficulties seemed so overwhelming that he threatened to abdicate; but the peace of Stettin came in time to reconcile all parties, and though Frederick had now to relinquish his ambitious dream of re-establishing the Union of Kalmar, he had at least succeeded in maintaining the supremacy of Denmark in the north. After the peace Frederick’s policy became still more imperial. He aspired to the dominion of all the seas which washed the Scandinavian coasts, and before he died he succeeded in suppressing the pirates who so long had haunted the Baltic and the German Ocean. He also erected the stately fortress of Kronborg, to guard the narrow channel of the Sound. Frederick possessed the truly royal gift of discovering and employing great men, irrespective of personal preferences and even of personal injuries. With infinite tact and admirable self-denial he gave free scope to ministers whose superiority in their various departments he frankly recognized, rarely interfering personally unless absolutely called upon to do so. His influence, always great, was increased by his genial and unaffected manners as a host. He is also remarkable as one of the few kings of the house of Oldenburg who had no illicit liaison. He died at Antvorskov on the 4th of April 1588. No other Danish king was ever so beloved by his people.

See Lund (Troels), Danmarks og Norges Historie i Slutningen af det XVI. Aarh. (Copenhagen, 1879); Danmarks Riges Historie (Copenhagen, 1897-1905), vol. 3; Robert Nisbet Bain, Scandinavia, cap. 4 (Cambridge, 1905).

(R. N. B.)

FREDERICK III. (1609-1670), king of Denmark and Norway, son of Christian IV. and Anne Catherine of Brandenburg, was born on the 18th of March 1609 at Hadersleben. His position as a younger son profoundly influenced his future career. In his youth and early manhood there was no prospect of his ascending the Danish throne, and he consequently became the instrument of his father’s schemes of aggrandizement in Germany. While still a lad he became successively bishop of Bremen, bishop of Verden and coadjutor of Halberstadt, while at the age of eighteen he was the chief commandant of the fortress of Stade. Thus from an early age he had considerable experience as an administrator, while his general education was very careful and thorough. He had always a pronounced liking for literary and scientific studies. On the 1st of October 1643 Frederick wedded Sophia Amelia of Brunswick LÜneburg, whose energetic, passionate and ambitious character was profoundly to affect not only Frederick’s destiny but the destiny of Denmark. During the disastrous Swedish War of 1643-1645 Frederick was appointed generalissimo of the duchies by his father, but the laurels he won were scanty, chiefly owing to his quarrels with the Earl-Marshal Anders Bille, who commanded the Danish forces. This was Frederick’s first collision with the Danish nobility, who ever afterwards regarded him with extreme distrust. The death of his elder brother Christian in June 1647 first opened to him the prospect of succeeding to the Danish throne, but the question was still unsettled when Christian IV. died on the 28th of February 1648. Not till the 6th of July in the same year did Frederick III. receive the homage of his subjects, and only after he had signed a Haandfaestning or charter, by which the already diminished royal prerogative was still further curtailed. It had been doubtful at first whether he would be allowed to inherit his ancestral throne at all; but Frederick removed the last scruples of the Rigsraad by unhesitatingly accepting the conditions imposed upon him.

The new monarch was a reserved, enigmatical prince, who seldom laughed, spoke little and wrote less—a striking contrast to Christian IV. But if he lacked the brilliant qualities of his impulsive, jovial father, he possessed in a high degree the compensating virtues of moderation, sobriety and self-control. But with all his good qualities Frederick was not the man to take a clear view of the political horizon, or even to recognize his own and his country’s limitations. He rightly regarded the accession of Charles X. of Sweden (June 6th, 1654) as a source of danger to Denmark. He felt that temperament and policy would combine to make Charles an aggressive warrior-king: the only uncertainty was in which direction he would turn his arms first. Charles’s invasion of Poland (July 1654) came as a distinct relief to the Danes, though even the Polish War was full of latent peril to Denmark. Frederick was resolved upon a rupture with Sweden at the first convenient opportunity. The Rigsdag which assembled on the 23rd of February 1657 willingly granted considerable subsidies for mobilization and other military expenses; on the 15th of April Frederick III. desired, and on the 23rd of April he received, the assent of the majority of the Rigsraad to attack Sweden’s German provinces; in the beginning of May the still pending negotiations with that power were broken off, and on the 1st of June Frederick signed the manifesto justifying a war which was never formally declared. The Swedish king traversed all the plans of his enemies by his passage of the frozen Belts, in January and February 1658 (see Charles X. of Sweden). The effect of this unheard-of achievement on the Danish government was crushing. Frederick III. at once sued for peace; and, yielding to the persuasions of the English and French ministers, Charles finally agreed to be content with mutilating instead of annihilating the Danish monarchy (treaties of Taastrup, February 18th, and of Roskilde, February 26th, 1658). The conclusion of peace was followed by a remarkable episode. Frederick expressed the desire to make the personal acquaintance of his conqueror; and Charles X. consented to be his guest for three days (March 3-5) at the castle of Fredriksborg. Splendid banquets lasting far into the night, private and intimate conversations between the princes who had only just emerged from a mortal struggle, seemed to point to nothing but peace and friendship in the future. But Charles’s insatiable lust for conquest, and his ineradicable suspicion of Denmark, induced him, on the 17th of July, without any reasonable cause, without a declaration of war, in defiance of all international equity, to endeavour to despatch an inconvenient neighbour.

Terror was the first feeling produced at Copenhagen by the landing of the main Swedish army at KorsÖr in Zealand. None had anticipated the possibility of such a sudden and brutal attack, and every one knew that the Danish capital was very inadequately fortified and garrisoned. Fortunately Frederick had never been deficient in courage. “I will die in my nest” were the memorable words with which he rebuked those counsellors who advised him to seek safety in flight. On the 8th of August representatives from every class in the capital urged the necessity of a vigorous resistance; and the citizens of Copenhagen, headed by the great burgomaster Hans Nansen (q.v.), protested their unshakable loyalty to the king, and their determination to defend Copenhagen to the uttermost. The Danes had only three days’ warning of the approaching danger; and the vast and dilapidated line of defence had at first but 2000 regular defenders. But the government and the people displayed a memorable and exemplary energy, under the constant supervision of the king, the queen, and burgomaster Nansen. By the beginning of September all the breaches were repaired, the walls bristled with cannon, and 7000 men were under arms. So strong was the city by this time that Charles X., abandoning his original intention of carrying the place by assault, began a regular siege; but this also he was forced to abandon when, on the 29th of October, an auxiliary Dutch fleet, after reinforcing and reprovisioning the garrison, defeated, in conjunction with the Danish fleet, the Swedish navy of 44 liners in the Sound. Thus the Danish capital had saved the Danish monarchy. But it was Frederick III. who profited most by his spirited defence of the common interests of the country and the dynasty. The traditional loyalty of the Danish middle classes was transformed into a boundless enthusiasm for the king personally, and for a brief period Frederick found himself the most popular man in his kingdom. He made use of his popularity by realizing the dream of a lifetime and converting an elective into an absolute monarchy by the Revolution of 1660 (see Denmark: History). Frederick III. died on the 6th of February 1670 at the castle of Copenhagen.

See R. Nisbet Bain, Scandinavia, caps. ix. and x. (Cambridge, 1905).

(R. N. B.)

FREDERICK VIII. (1843-  ), king of Denmark, eldest son of King Christian IX., was born at Copenhagen on the 3rd of June 1843. As crown prince of Denmark he took part in the war of 1864 against Austria and Prussia, and subsequently assisted his father in the duties of government, becoming king on Christian’s death in January 1906. In 1869 Frederick married Louise (b. 1851), daughter of Charles XV., king of Sweden, by whom he had a family of four sons and four daughters. His eldest son Christian, crown prince of Denmark (b. 1870), was married in 1898 to Alexandrina (b. 1879), daughter of Frederick Francis III., grand-duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin; and his second son, Charles (b. 1872), who married his cousin Maud, daughter of Edward VII. of Great Britain, became king of Norway as Haakon VII. in 1905.

FREDERICK I. (1657-1713), king of Prussia, and (as Frederick III.) elector of Brandenburg, was the second son of the great elector, Frederick William, by his first marriage with Louise Henriette, daughter of Frederick Henry of Orange. Born at KÖnigsberg on the 11th of July 1657, he was educated and greatly influenced by Eberhard Danckelmann, and became heir to the throne of Brandenburg through the death of his elder brother, Charles Emil, in 1674. He appears to have taken some part in public business before the death of his father; and the court at Berlin was soon disturbed by quarrels between the young prince and his stepmother, Dorothea of Holstein-GlÜcksburg. In 1686 Dorothea persuaded her husband to bequeath outlying portions of his lands to her four sons; and Frederick, fearing he would be poisoned, left Brandenburg determined to prevent any diminution of his inheritance. By promising to restore Schwiebus to Silesia after his accession he won the support of the emperor Leopold I.; but eventually he gained his end in a peaceable fashion. Having become elector of Brandenburg in May 1688, he came to terms with his half-brothers and their mother. In return for a sum of money these princes renounced their rights under their father’s will, and the new elector thus secured the whole of Frederick William’s territories. After much delay and grumbling he fulfilled his bargain with Leopold and gave up Schwiebus in 1695. At home and abroad Frederick continued the policy of the great elector. He helped William of Orange to make his descent on England; added various places, including the principality of NeuchÂtel, to his lands; and exercised some influence on the course of European politics by placing his large and efficient army at the disposal of the emperor and his allies (see Brandenburg). He was present in person at the siege of Bonn in 1689, but was not often in command of his troops. The elector was very fond of pomp, and, striving to model his court upon that of Louis XIV., he directed his main energies towards obtaining for himself the title of king. In spite of the assistance he had given to the emperor his efforts met with no success for some years; but towards 1700 Leopold, faced with the prospect of a new struggle with France, was inclined to view the idea more favourably. Having insisted upon various conditions, prominent among them being military aid for the approaching war, he gave the imperial sanction to Frederick’s request in November 1700; whereupon the elector, hurrying at once to KÖnigsberg, crowned himself with great ceremony king of Prussia on the 18th of January 1701. According to his promise the king sent help to the emperor; and during the War of the Spanish Succession the troops of Brandenburg-Prussia rendered great assistance to the allies, fighting with distinction at Blenheim and elsewhere. Frederick, who was deformed through an injury to his spine, died on the 25th of February 1713. By his extravagance the king exhausted the treasure amassed by his father, burdened his country with heavy taxes, and reduced its finances to chaos. His constant obligations to the emperor drained Brandenburg of money which might have been employed more profitably at home, and prevented her sovereign from interfering in the politics of northern Europe. Frederick, however, was not an unpopular ruler, and by making Prussia into a kingdom he undoubtedly advanced it several stages towards its future greatness. He founded the university of Halle, and the Academy of Sciences at Berlin; welcomed and protected Protestant refugees from France and elsewhere; and lavished money on the erection of public buildings.

The king was married three times. His second wife, Sophie Charlotte (1668-1705), sister of the English king George I., was the friend of Leibnitz and one of the most cultured princesses of the age; she bore him his only son, his successor, King Frederick William I.

See W. Hahn, Friedrich I., KÖnig in Preussen (Berlin, 1876); J. G. Droysen, Geschichte der preussischen Politik, Band iv. (Leipzig, 1872); E. Heyck, Friedrich I. und die BegrÜndung des preussischen KÖnigtums (Bielefeld, 1901): C. Graf von Dohna, MÉmoires originaux sur le rÈgne et la cour de FrÉdÉric Ier (Berlin, 1883); Aus dem Briefwechsel KÖnig Friedrichs I. von Preussen und seiner Familie (Berlin, 1901); and T. Carlyle, History of Frederick the Great, vol. i. (London, 1872).

FREDERICK II., known as “the Great” (1712-1786), king of Prussia, born on the 24th of January 1712, was the eldest son of Frederick William I. He was brought up with extreme rigour, his father devising a scheme of education which was intended to make him a hardy soldier, and prescribing for him every detail of his conduct. So great was Frederick William’s horror of everything which did not seem to him practical, that he strictly excluded Latin from the list of his son’s studies. Frederick, however, had free and generous impulses which could not be restrained by the sternest system. Encouraged by his mother, and under the influence of his governess Madame de Roucoulle, and of his first tutor Duhan, a French refugee, he acquired an excellent knowledge of French and a taste for literature and music. He even received secret lessons in Latin, which his father invested with all the charms of forbidden fruit. As he grew up he became extremely dissatisfied with the dull and monotonous life he was compelled to lead; and his discontent was heartily shared by his sister, Wilhelmina, a bright and intelligent young princess for whom Frederick had a warm affection.

Frederick William, seeing his son apparently absorbed in frivolous and effeminate amusements, gradually conceived for him an intense dislike, which had its share in causing him to break off the negotiations for a double marriage between the prince of Wales and Wilhelmina, and the princess Amelia, daughter of George II., and Frederick; for Frederick had been so indiscreet as to carry on a separate correspondence with the English court and to vow that he would marry Amelia or no one. Frederick William’s hatred of his son, openly avowed, displayed itself in violent outbursts and public insults, and so harsh was his treatment that Frederick frequently thought of running away and taking refuge at the English court. He at last resolved to do so during a journey which he made with the king to south Germany in 1730, when he was eighteen years of age. He was helped by his two friends, Lieutenant Katte and Lieutenant Keith; but by the imprudence of the former the secret was found out. Frederick was placed under arrest, deprived of his rank as crown prince, tried by court-martial, and imprisoned in the fortress of CÜstrin. Warned by Frederick, Keith escaped; but Katte delayed his flight too long, and a court-martial decided that he should be punished with two years’ fortress arrest. But the king was determined by a terrible example to wake Frederick once for all to a consciousness of the heavy responsibility of his position. He changed the sentence on Katte to one of death and ordered the execution to take place in Frederick’s presence, himself arranging its every detail; Frederick’s own fate would depend upon the effect of this terrible object-lesson and the response he should make to the exhortations of the chaplain sent to reason with him. On the morning of the 7th of November Katte was beheaded before Frederick’s window, after the crown prince had asked his pardon and received the answer that there was nothing to forgive. On Frederick himself lay the terror of death, and the chaplain was able to send to the king a favourable report of his orthodoxy and his changed disposition. Frederick William, whose temper was by no means so ruthlessly Spartan as tradition has painted it,was overjoyed, and commissioned the clergyman to receive from the prince an oath of filial obedience, and in exchange for this proof of “his intention to improve in real earnest” his arrest was to be lightened, pending the earning of a full pardon. “The whole town shall be his prison,” wrote the king; “I will give him employment, from morning to night, in the departments of war, and agriculture, and of the government. He shall work at financial matters, receive accounts, read minutes and make extracts.... But if he kicks or rears again, he shall forfeit the succession to the crown, and even, according to circumstances, life itself.”

For about fifteen months Frederick lived in Custrin, busy according to the royal programme with the details of the Prussian administrative system. He was very careful not to “kick or rear,” and his good conduct earned him a further stage in the restoration to favour. During this period of probation he had been deprived of his status as a soldier and refused the right to wear uniform, while officers and soldiers were forbidden to give him the military salute; in 1732 he was made colonel in command of the regiment at Neuruppin. In the following year he married, in obedience to the king’s orders, the princess Elizabeth Christina, daughter of the duke of Brunswick-Bevern. He was given the estate of Rheinsberg in the neighbourhood of Neuruppin, and there he lived until he succeeded to the throne. These years were perhaps the happiest of his life. He discharged his duties with so much spirit and so conscientiously that he ultimately gained the esteem of Frederick William, who no longer feared that he would leave the crown to one unworthy of wearing it. At the same time the crown prince was able to indulge to the full his personal tastes. He carried on a lively correspondence with Voltaire and other French men of letters, and was a diligent student of philosophy, history and poetry. Two of his best-known works were written at this time—ConsidÉrations sur l’État present du corps politique de l’Europe and his Anti-Macchiavel. In the former he calls attention to the growing strength of Austria and France, and insists on the necessity of some third power, by which he clearly means Prussia, counterbalancing their excessive influence. The second treatise, which was issued by Voltaire in Hague in 1740, contains a generous exposition of some of the favourite ideas of the 18th-century philosophers respecting the duties of sovereigns, which may be summed up in the famous sentence: “the prince is not the absolute master, but only the first servant of his people.”

On the 31st of May 1740 he became king. He maintained all the forms of government established by his father, but ruled in a far more enlightened spirit; he tolerated every form of religious opinion, abolished the use of torture, was most careful to secure an exact and impartial administration of justice, and, while keeping the reins of government strictly in his own hands, allowed every one with a genuine grievance free access to his presence. The Potsdam regiment of giants was disbanded, but the real interests of the army were carefully studied, for Frederick realized that the two pillars of the Prussian state were sound finances and a strong army. On the 20th of October 1740 the emperor Charles VI. died. Frederick at once began to make extensive military preparations, and it was soon clear to all the world that he intended to enter upon some serious enterprise. He had made up his mind to assert the ancient claim of the house of Brandenburg to the three Silesian duchies, which the Austrian rulers of Bohemia had ever denied, but the Hohenzollerns had never abandoned. Projects for the assertion of this claim by force of arms had been formed by more than one of Frederick’s predecessors, and the extinction of the male line of the house of Habsburg may well have seemed to him a unique opportunity for realizing an ambition traditional in his family. For this resolution he is often abused still by historians, and at the time he had the approval of hardly any one out of Prussia. He himself, writing of the scheme in his MÉmoires, laid no claim to lofty motives, but candidly confessed that “it was a means of acquiring reputation and of increasing the power of the state.” He firmly believed, however, in the lawfulness of his claims; and although his father had recognized the Pragmatic Sanction, whereby the hereditary dominions of Charles VI. were to descend to his daughter, Maria Theresa, Frederick insisted that this sanction could refer only to lands which rightfully belonged to the house of Austria. He could also urge that, as Charles VI. had not fulfilled the engagements by which Frederick William’s recognition of the Pragmatic Sanction had been secured, Prussia was freed from her obligation.

Frederick sent an ambassador to Vienna, offering, in the event of his rights in Silesia being conceded, to aid Maria Theresa against her enemies. The queen of Hungary, who regarded the proposal as that of a mere robber, haughtily declined; whereupon Frederick immediately invaded Silesia with an army of 30,000 men. His first victory was gained at Mollwitz on the 10th of April 1741. Under the impression, in consequence of a furious charge of Austrian cavalry, that the battle was lost, he rode rapidly away at an early stage of the struggle—a mistake which gave rise for a time to the groundless idea that he lacked personal courage. A second Prussian victory was gained at Chotusitz, near Caslau, on the 17th May 1742; by this time Frederick was master of all the fortified places of Silesia. Maria Theresa, in the heat of her struggle with France and the elector of Bavaria, now Charles VII., and pressed by England to rid herself of Frederick, concluded with him, on the 11th of June 1742, the peace of Breslau, conceding to Prussia, Upper and Lower Silesia as far as the Oppa, together with the county of Glatz. Frederick made good use of the next two years, fortifying his new territory, and repairing the evils inflicted upon it by the war. By the death of the prince of East Friesland without heirs, he also gained possession of that country (1744). He knew well that Maria Theresa would not, if she could help it, allow him to remain in Silesia; accordingly, in 1744, alarmed by her victories, he arrived at a secret understanding with France, and pledged himself, with Hesse-Cassel and the palatinate, to maintain the imperial rights of Charles VII., and to defend his hereditary Bavarian lands. Frederick began the second Silesian War by entering Bohemia in August 1744 and taking Prague. By this brilliant but rash venture he put himself in great danger, and soon had to retreat; but in 1745 he gained the battles of Hohenfriedberg, Soor and Hennersdorf; and Leopold of Dessau (“Der alte Dessauer”) won for him the victory of Kesselsdorf in Saxony. The latter victory was decisive, and the peace of Dresden (December 25, 1745) assured to Frederick a second time the possession of Silesia. (See Austrian Succession, War of the.)

Frederick had thus, at the age of thirty-three, raised himself to a great position in Europe, and henceforth he was the most conspicuous sovereign of his time. He was a thoroughly absolute ruler, his so-called ministers being mere clerks whose business was to give effect to his will. To use his own famous phrase, however, he regarded himself as but “the first servant of the state”; and during the next eleven years he proved that the words expressed his inmost conviction and feeling. All kinds of questions were submitted to him, important and unimportant; and he is frequently censured for having troubled himself so much with mere details. But in so far as these details related to expenditure he was fully justified, for it was absolutely essential for him to have a large army, and with a small state this was impossible unless he carefully prevented unnecessary outlay. Being a keen judge of character, he filled the public offices with faithful, capable, energetic men, who were kept up to a high standard of duty by the consciousness that their work might at any time come under his strict supervision. The Academy of Sciences, which had fallen into contempt during his father’s reign, he restored, infusing into it vigorous life; and he did more to promote elementary education than any of his predecessors. He did much too for the economic development of Prussia, especially for agriculture; he established colonies, peopling them with immigrants, extended the canal system, drained and diked the great marshes of the Oderbruch, turning them into rich pasturage, encouraged the planting of fruit trees and of root crops; and, though in accordance with his ideas of discipline he maintained serfdom, he did much to lighten the burdens of the peasants. All kinds of manufacture, too, particularly that of silk, owed much to his encouragement. To the army he gave unremitting attention, reviewing it at regular intervals, and sternly punishing negligence on the part of the officers. Its numbers were raised to 160,000 men, while fortresses and magazines were always kept in a state of readiness for war. The influence of the king’s example was felt far beyond the limits of his immediate circle. The nation was proud of his genius, and displayed something of his energy in all departments of life. Lessing, who as a youth of twenty came to Berlin in 1749, composed enthusiastic odes in his honour, and Gleim, the Halberstadt poet, wrote of him as of a kind of demi-god. These may be taken as fair illustrations of the popular feeling long before the Seven Years’ War.

He despised German as the language of boors, although it is remarkable that at a later period, in a French essay on German literature, he predicted for it a great future. He habitually wrote and spoke French, and had a strong ambition to rank as a distinguished French author. Nobody can now read his verses, but his prose writings have a certain calm simplicity and dignity, without, however, giving evidence of the splendid mental qualities which he revealed in practical life. To this period belong his MÉmoires pour servir À l’histoire de Brandebourg and his poem L’Art de la guerre. The latter, judged as literature, is intolerably dull; but the former is valuable, throwing as it does considerable light on his personal sympathies as well as on the motives of important epochs in his career. He continued to correspond with French writers, and induced a number of them to settle in Berlin, Maupertuis being president of the Academy. In 1752 Voltaire, who had repeatedly visited him, came at Frederick’s urgent entreaty, and received a truly royal welcome. The famous Hirsch trial, and Voltaire’s vanity and caprice, greatly lowered him in the esteem of the king, who, on his side, irritated his guest by often requiring him to correct bad verses, and by making him the object of rude banter. The publication of Doctor Akakia, which brought down upon the president of the Academy a storm of ridicule, finally alienated Frederick; while Voltaire’s wrongs culminated in the famous arrest at Frankfort, the most disagreeable elements of which were due to the misunderstanding of an order by a subordinate official.

The king lived as much as possible in a retired mansion, to which he gave the name of Sanssouci—not the palace so called, which was built after the Seven Years’ War, and was never a favourite residence. He rose regularly in summer at five, in winter at six, devoting himself to public business till about eleven. During part of this time, after coffee, he would aid his reflections by playing on the flute, of which he was passionately fond, being a really skilful performer. At eleven came parade, and an hour afterwards, punctually, dinner, which continued till two, or later, if conversation happened to be particularly attractive. After dinner he glanced through and signed cabinet orders written in accordance with his morning instructions, often adding marginal notes and postscripts, many of which were in a caustic tone. These disposed of, he amused himself for a couple of hours with literary work; between six and seven he would converse with his friends or listen to his reader (a post held for some time by La Mettrie); at seven there was a concert; and at half-past eight he sat down to supper, which might go on till midnight. He liked good eating and drinking, although even here the cost was sharply looked after, the expenses of his kitchen mounting to no higher figure than £1800 a year. At supper he was always surrounded by a number of his most intimate friends, mainly Frenchmen; and he insisted on the conversation being perfectly free. His wit, however, was often cruel, and any one who responded with too much spirit was soon made to feel that the licence of talk was to be complete only on one side.

At Frederick’s court ladies were seldom seen, a circumstance that gave occasion to much scandal for which there seems to have been no foundation. The queen he visited only on rare occasions. She had been forced upon him by his father, and he had never loved her; but he always treated her with marked respect, and provided her with a generous income, half of which she gave away in charity. Although without charm, she was a woman of many noble qualities; and, like her husband, she wrote French books, some of which attracted a certain attention in their day. She survived him by eleven years, dying in 1797.

Maria Theresa had never given up hope that she would recover Silesia; and as all the neighbouring sovereigns were bitterly jealous of Frederick, and somewhat afraid of him, she had no difficulty in inducing several of them to form a scheme for his ruin. Russia and Saxony entered into it heartily, and France, laying aside her ancient enmity towards Austria, joined the empress against the common object of dislike. Frederick, meanwhile, had turned towards England, which saw in him a possible ally of great importance against the French. A convention between Prussia and Great Britain was signed in January 1756, and it proved of incalculable value to both countries, leading as it did to a close alliance during the administration of Pitt. Through the treachery of a clerk in the Saxon foreign office Frederick was made aware of the future which was being prepared for him. Seeing the importance of taking the initiative, and if possible, of securing Saxony, he suddenly, on the 24th of August 1756, crossed the frontier of that country, and shut in the Saxon army between Pirna and KÖnigstein, ultimately compelling it, after a victory gained over the Austrians at Lobositz, to surrender. Thus began the Seven Years’ War, in which, supported by England, Brunswick and Hesse-Cassel, he had for a long time to oppose Austria, France, Russia, Saxony and Sweden. Virtually the whole Continent was in arms against a small state which, a few years before, had been regarded by most men as beneath serious notice. But it happened that this small state was led by a man of high military genius, capable of infusing into others his own undaunted spirit, while his subjects had learned both from him and his predecessors habits of patience, perseverance and discipline. In 1757, after defeating the Austrians at Prague, he was himself defeated by them at Kolin; and by the shameful convention of Closter-Seven, he was freely exposed to the attack of the French. In November 1757, however, when Europe looked upon him as ruined, he rid himself of the French by his splendid victory over them at Rossbach, and in about a month afterwards, by the still more splendid victory at Leuthen, he drove the Austrians from Silesia. From this time the French were kept well employed in the west by Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, who defeated them at Crefeld in 1758, and at Minden in 1759. In the former year Frederick triumphed, at a heavy cost, over the Russians at Zorndorf; and although, through lack of his usual foresight, he lost the battle of Hochkirch, he prevented the Austrians from deriving any real advantage from their triumph, Silesia still remaining in his hands at the end of the year. The battle of Kunersdorf, fought on the 12th of August 1759, was the most disastrous to him in the course of the war. He had here to contend both with the Russians and the Austrians; and although at first he had some success, his army was in the end completely broken. “All is lost save the royal family,” he wrote to his minister Friesenstein; “the consequences of this battle will be worse than the battle itself. I shall not survive the ruin of the Fatherland. Adieu for ever!” But he soon recovered from his despair, and in 1760 gained the important victories of Liegnitz and Torgau. He had now, however, to act on the defensive, and fortunately for him, the Russians, on the death of the empress Elizabeth, not only withdrew in 1762 from the compact against him, but for a time became his allies. On the 29th of October of that year he gained his last victory over the Austrians at Freiberg. Europe was by that time sick of war, every power being more or less exhausted. The result was that, on the 15th of February 1763, a few days after the conclusion of the peace of Paris, the treaty of Hubertusburg was signed, Austria confirming Prussia in the possession of Silesia. (See Seven Years’ War.)

It would be difficult to overrate the importance of the contribution thus made by Frederick to the politics of Europe. Prussia was now universally recognized as one of the great powers of the Continent, and she definitely took her place in Germany as the rival of Austria. From this time it was inevitable that there should be a final struggle between the two nations for predominance, and that the smaller German states should group themselves around one or the other. Frederick himself acquired both in Germany and Europe the indefinable influence which springs from the recognition of great gifts that have been proved by great deeds.

His first care after the war was, as far as possible, to enable the country to recover from the terrific blows by which it had been almost destroyed; and he was never, either before or after, seen to better advantage than in the measures he adopted for this end. Although his resources had been so completely drained that he had been forced to melt the silver in his palaces and to debase the coinage, his energy soon brought back the national prosperity. Pomerania and Neumark were freed from taxation for two years, Silesia for six months. Many nobles whose lands had been wasted received corn for seed; his war horses were within a few months to be found on farms all over Prussia; and money was freely spent in the re-erection of houses which had been destroyed. The coinage was gradually restored to its proper value, and trade received a favourable impulse by the foundation of the Bank of Berlin. All these matters were carefully looked into by Frederick himself, who, while acting as generously as his circumstances would allow, insisted on everything being done in the most efficient manner at the least possible cost. Unfortunately, he adopted the French ideas of excise, and the French methods of imposing and collecting taxes—a system known as the Regie. This system secured for him a large revenue, but it led to a vast amount of petty tyranny, which was all the more intolerable because it was carried out by French officials. It was continued to the end of Frederick’s reign, and nothing did so much to injure his otherwise immense popularity. He was quite aware of the discontent the system excited, and the good-nature with which he tolerated the criticisms directed against it and him is illustrated by a well-known incident. Riding along the JÄger Strasse one day, he saw a crowd of people. “See what it is,” he said to the groom who was attending him. “They have something posted up about your Majesty,” said the groom, returning. Frederick, riding forward, saw a caricature of himself: “King in very melancholy guise,” says Preuss (as translated by Carlyle), “seated on a stool, a coffee-mill between his knees, diligently grinding with the one hand, and with the other picking up any bean that might have fallen. ‘Hang it lower,’ said the king, beckoning his groom with a wave of the finger; ‘lower, that they may not have to hurt their necks about it.’ No sooner were the words spoken, which spread instantly, than there rose from the whole crowd one universal huzzah of joy. They tore the caricature into a thousand pieces, and rolled after the king with loud ‘Lebe Hoch, our Frederick for ever,’ as he rode slowly away.” There are scores of anecdotes about Frederick, but not many so well authenticated as this.

There was nothing about which Frederick took so much trouble as the proper administration of justice. He disliked the formalities of the law, and in one instance, “the miller Arnold case,” in connexion with which he thought injustice had been done to a poor man, he dismissed the judges, condemned them to a year’s fortress arrest, and compelled them to make good out of their own pockets the loss sustained by their supposed victim—not a wise proceeding, but one springing from a generous motive. He once defined himself as “l’avocat du pauvre,” and few things gave him more pleasure than the famous answer of the miller whose windmill stood on ground which was wanted for the king’s garden. The miller sturdily refused to sell it. “Not at any price?” said the king’s agent; “could not the king take it from you for nothing, if he chose?” “Have we not the Kammergericht at Berlin?” was the answer, which became a popular saying in Germany. Soon after he came to the throne Frederick began to make preparations for a new code. In 1747 appeared the Codex Fridericianus, by which the Prussian judicial body was established. But a greater monument of Frederick’s interest in legal reform was the Allgemeines preussisches Landrecht, completed by the grand chancellor Count Johann H. C. von Carmer (1721-1801) on the basis of the Project des Corporis Juris Fridericiani, completed in the year 1749-1751 by the eminent jurist Samuel von Cocceji (1679-1755). The Landrecht, a work of vast labour and erudition, combines the two systems of German and Roman law supplemented by the law of nature; it was the first German code, but only came into force in 1794, after Frederick’s death.

Looking ahead after the Seven Years’ War, Frederick saw no means of securing himself so effectually as by cultivating the goodwill of Russia. In 1764 he accordingly concluded a treaty of alliance with the empress Catherine for eight years. Six years afterwards, unfortunately for his fame, he joined in the first partition of Poland, by which he received Polish Prussia, without Danzig and Thorn, and Great Poland as far as the river Netze. Prussia was then for the first time made continuous with Brandenburg and Pomerania.

The emperor Joseph II. greatly admired Frederick, and visited him at Neisse, in Silesia, in 1769, a visit which Frederick returned, in Moravia, in the following year. The young emperor was frank and cordial; Frederick was more cautious, for he detected under the respectful manner of Joseph a keen ambition that might one day become dangerous to Prussia. Ever after these interviews a portrait of the emperor hung conspicuously in the rooms in which Frederick lived, a circumstance on which some one remarked. “Ah yes,” said Frederick, “I am obliged to keep that young gentleman in my eye.” Nothing came of these suspicions till 1777, when, after the death of Maximilian Joseph, elector of Bavaria, without children, the emperor took possession of the greater part of his lands. The elector palatine, who lawfully inherited Bavaria, came to an arrangement, which was not admitted by his heir, Charles, duke of ZweibrÜcken. Under these circumstances the latter appealed to Frederick, who, resolved that Austria should gain no unnecessary advantage, took his part, and brought pressure to bear upon the emperor. Ultimately, greatly against his will, Frederick felt compelled to draw the sword, and in July 1778 crossed the Bohemian frontier at the head of a powerful army. No general engagement was fought, and after a great many delays the treaty of Teschen was signed on the 13th of May 1779. Austria received the circle of Burgau, and consented that the king of Prussia should take the Franconian principalities. Frederick never abandoned his jealousy of Austria, whose ambition he regarded as the chief danger against which Europe had to guard. He seems to have had no suspicion that evil days were coming in France. It was Austria which had given trouble in his time; and if her pride were curbed, he fancied that Prussia at least would be safe. Hence one of the last important acts of his life was to form, in 1785, a league of princes (the “FÜrstenbund”) for the defence of the imperial constitution, believed to be imperilled by Joseph’s restless activity. The league came to an end after Frederick’s death; but it is of considerable historical interest, as the first open attempt of Prussia to take the lead in Germany.

Frederick’s chief trust was always in his treasury and his army. By continual economy he left in the former the immense sum of 70 million thalers; the latter, at the time of his death, numbered 200,000 men, disciplined with all the strictness to which he had throughout life accustomed his troops. He died at Sanssouci on the 17th of August 1786; his death being hastened by exposure to a storm of rain, stoically borne, during a military review. He passed away on the eve of tremendous events, which for a time obscured his fame; but now that he can be impartially estimated, he is seen to have been in many respects one of the greatest figures in modern history.

He was rather below the middle size, in youth inclined to stoutness, lean in old age, but of vigorous and active habits. An expression of keen intelligence lighted up his features, and his large, sparkling grey eyes darted penetrating glances at every one who approached him. In his later years an old blue uniform with red facings was his usual dress, and on his breast was generally some Spanish snuff, of which he consumed large quantities. He shared many of the chief intellectual tendencies of his age, having no feeling for the highest aspirations of human nature, but submitting all things to a searching critical analysis. Of Christianity he always spoke in the mocking tone of the “enlightened” philosophers, regarding it as the invention of priests; but it is noteworthy that after the Seven Years’ War, the trials of which steadied his character, he sought to strengthen the church for the sake of its elevating moral influence. In his judgments of mankind he often talked as a misanthrope. He was once conversing with Sulzer, who was a school inspector, about education. Sulzer expressed the opinion that education had of late years greatly improved. “In former times, your Majesty,” he said, “the notion being that mankind were naturally inclined to evil, a system of severity prevailed in schools; but now, when we recognize that the inborn inclination of men is rather to good than to evil, schoolmasters have adopted a more generous procedure.” “Ah, my dear Sulzer,” replied the king, “you don’t know this damned race” (“Ach, mein lieber Sulzer, er kennt nicht diese verdammte Race”). This fearful saying unquestionably expressed a frequent mood of Frederick’s; and he sometimes acted with great harshness, and seemed to take a malicious pleasure in tormenting his acquaintances. Yet he was capable of genuine attachments. He was beautifully loyal to his mother and his sister Wilhelmina; his letters to the duchess of Gotha are full of a certain tender reverence; the two Keiths found him a devoted friend. But the true evidence that beneath his misanthropical moods there was an enduring sentiment of humanity is afforded by the spirit in which he exercised his kingly functions. Taking his reign as a whole, it must be said that he looked upon his power rather as a trust than as a source of personal advantage; and the trust was faithfully discharged according to the best lights of his day. He has often been condemned for doing nothing to encourage German literature; and it is true that he was supremely indifferent to it. Before he died a tide of intellectual life was rising all about him; yet he failed to recognize it, declined to give Lessing even the small post of royal librarian, and thought GÖtz von Berlichingen a vulgar imitation of vulgar English models. But when his taste was formed, German literature did not exist; the choice was between Racine and Voltaire on the one hand and Gottsched and Gellert on the other. He survived into the era of Kant, Goethe and Schiller, but he was not of it, and it would have been unreasonable to expect that he should in old age pass beyond the limits of his own epoch. As Germans now generally admit, it was better that he let their literature alone, since, left to itself, it became a thoroughly independent product. Indirectly he powerfully promoted it by deepening the national life from which it sprang. At a time when there was no real bond of cohesion between the different states, he stirred among them a common enthusiasm; and in making Prussia great he laid the foundation of a genuinely united empire.

Bibliographical Note.—The main sources for the biography of Frederick the Great are his own works, which, in the words of Leopold von Ranke, “deal with the politics and wars of the period with the greatest possible objectivity, i.e. truthfulness, and form an imperishable monument of his life and opinions.” A magnificent edition of Frederick’s complete works was issued (1846-1857), at the instance of Frederick William IV., under the supervision of the historian Johann D. E. Preuss (1785-1868). It is in thirty volumes, of which six contain verse, seven are historical, two philosophical, and three military, twelve being made up of correspondence. So long as the various state archives remained largely inaccessible historians relied upon this as their chief authority. Among works belonging to this period may be mentioned Thomas Carlyle, History of Frederick II. of Prussia (6 vols., London, 1858-1865); J. G. Droysen, Friedrich der Grosse (2 vols., Leipzig, 1874-1876, forming part V. of his Geschichte der preussischen Politik); Ranke, Friedrich II., KÖnig von Preussen (Werke, vols. li. and lii.). A great stimulus to the study of Frederick’s history has since been given by the publication of collections of documents preserved in various archives. Of these the most important is the great official edition of Frederick’s political correspondence (Berlin, 1879), of which the thirty-first vol. appeared in 1906. Of later works, based on modern research, may be mentioned R. Koser, KÖnig Friedrich der Grosse, Bd. 2 (Stuttgart, 1893 and 1903; 3rd ed., 1905); Bourdeau, Le Grand FrÉdÉric (2 vols., Paris, 1900-1902); L. Paul-Dubois, FrÉdÉric le Grand, d’aprÈs sa correspondance politique (Paris, 1903); W. F. Reddaway, Frederick the Great and the Rise of Prussia (London, 1904). Of the numerous special studies may be noticed E. Zeller, Friedrich der Grosse als Philosoph (Berlin, 1886); H. Pigge, Die Staatstheorie Friedrichs des Grossen (MÜnster, 1904); T. von Bernhardi, Friedrich der Grosse als Feldherr (2 vols., Berlin, 1881); Ernest Lavisse, La Jeunesse du Grand FrÉdÉric (Paris, 1891, 3rd ed., 1899; Eng. transl., London, 1891); R. Brode, Friedrich der Grosse und der Konflikt mit seinem Vater (Leipzig, 1904); W. von Bremen, Friedrich der Grosse (Bd. ii. of Erzieher des preussischen Heeres, Berlin, 1905); G. Winter, Friedrich der Grosse (3 vols. in Geisteshelden series, Berlin, 1906); Dreissig Jahre am Hofe Friedrichs des Grossen. Aus den TagebÜchern des Reichsgrafen Ahasuerus Heinrich von Lehndorff, Kammerherrn der KÖnigin Elisabett Christine von Preussen (Gotha, 1907). The great work on the wars of Frederick is that issued by the Prussian General Staff: Die Kriege Friedrichs des Grossen (12 vols. in three parts, Berlin, 1890-1904). For a full list of other works see Dahlmann-Waitz, Quellenkunde (Leipzig, 1906).

(J. Si.; W. A. P.)

FREDERICK III. (1831-1888), king of Prussia and German emperor, was born at Potsdam on the 18th of October 1831, being the eldest son of Prince William of Prussia, afterwards first German emperor, and the princess Augusta. He was carefully educated, and in 1849-1850 studied at the university of Bonn. The next years were spent in military duties and in travels, in which he was accompanied by Moltke. In 1851 he visited England on the occasion of the Great Exhibition, and in 1855 became engaged to Victoria, princess royal of Great Britain, to whom he was married in London on the 25th of January 1858. On the death of his uncle in 1861 and the accession of his father, Prince Frederick William, as he was then always called, became crown prince of Prussia. His education, the influence of his mother, and perhaps still more that of his wife’s father, the Prince Consort, had made him a strong Liberal, and he was much distressed at the course of events in Prussia after the appointment of Bismarck as minister. He was urged by the Liberals to put himself into open opposition to the government; this he refused to do, but he remonstrated privately with the king. In June 1863, however, he publicly dissociated himself from the press ordinances which had just been published. He ceased to attend meetings of the council of state, and was much away from Berlin. The opposition of the crown prince to the ministers was increased during the following year, for he was a warm friend of the prince of Augustenburg, whose claims to Schleswig-Holstein Bismarck refused to support. During the war with Denmark he had his first military experience, being attached to the staff of Marshal von Wrangel; he performed valuable service in arranging the difficulties caused by the disputes between the field marshal and the other officers, and was eventually given a control over him. After the war he continued to support the prince of Augustenburg and was strongly opposed to the war with Austria. During the campaign of 1866 he received the command of an army consisting of four army corps; he was assisted by General von Blumenthal, as chief of the staff, but took a very active part in directing the difficult operations by which his army fought its way through the mountains from Silesia to Bohemia, fighting four engagements in three days, and showed that he possessed genuine military capacity. In the decisive battle of KÖniggrÄtz the arrival of his army on the field of battle, after a march of nearly 20 m., secured the victory. During the negotiations which ended the war he gave valuable assistance by persuading the king to accept Bismarck’s policy as regards peace with Austria. From this time he was very anxious to see the king of Prussia unite the whole of Germany, with the title of emperor, and was impatient of the caution with which Bismarck proceeded. In 1869 he paid a visit to Italy, and in the same year was present at the opening of the Suez Canal; on his way he visited the Holy Land.

He played a conspicuous part in the year 1870-1871, being appointed to command the armies of the Southern States, General Blumenthal again being his chief of the staff; his troops won the victory of WÖrth, took an important part in the battle of Sedan, and later in the siege of Paris. The popularity he won was of political service in preparing the way for the union of North and South Germany, and he was the foremost advocate of the imperial idea at the Prussian court. During the years that followed, little opportunity for political activity was open to him. He and the crown princess took a great interest in art and industry, especially in the royal museums; and the excavations conducted at Olympia and Pergamon with such great results were chiefly due to him. The crown princess was a keen advocate of the higher education of women, and it was owing to her exertions that the Victoria Lyceum at Berlin (which was named after her) was founded. In 1878, when the emperor was incapacitated by the shot of an assassin, the prince acted for some months as regent. His palace was the centre of all that was best in the literary and learned society of the capital. He publicly expressed his disapproval of the attacks on the Jews in 1878; and the coalition of Liberal parties founded in 1884 was popularly known as the “crown prince’s party,” but he scrupulously refrained from any act that might embarrass his father’s government. For many reasons the accession of the prince was looked forward to with great hope by a large part of the nation. Unfortunately he was attacked by cancer in the throat; he spent the winter of 1887-1888 at San Remo; in January 1888 the operation of tracheotomy had to be performed. On the death of his father, which took place on the 9th of March, he at once journeyed to Berlin; but his days were numbered, and he came to the throne only to die. In these circumstances his accession could not have the political importance which would otherwise have attached to it, though it was disfigured by a vicious outburst of party passion in which the names of the emperor and the empress were constantly misused. While the Liberals hoped the emperor would use his power for some signal declaration of policy, the adherents of Bismarck did not scruple to make bitter attacks on the empress. The emperor’s most important act was a severe reprimand addressed to Herr von Puttkamer, the reactionary minister of the interior, which caused his resignation; in the distribution of honours he chose many who belonged to classes and parties hitherto excluded from court favour. A serious difference of opinion with the chancellor regarding the proposal for a marriage between Prince Alexander of Battenberg and the princess Victoria of Prussia was arranged by the intervention of Queen Victoria, who visited Berlin to see her dying son-in-law. He expired at Potsdam on the 15th of June 1888, after a reign of ninety-nine days.

After the emperor’s death Professor Geffcken, a personal friend, published in the Deutsche Rundschau extracts from the diary of the crown prince containing passages which illustrated his differences with Bismarck during the war of 1870. The object was to injure Bismarck’s reputation, and a very unseemly dispute ensued. Bismarck at first, in a letter addressed to the new emperor, denied the authenticity of the extracts on the ground that they were unworthy of the crown prince. Geffcken was then arrested and imprisoned. He had undoubtedly shown that he was an injudicious friend, for the diary proved that the prince, in his enthusiasm for German unity, had allowed himself to consider projects which would have seriously compromised the relations of Prussia and Bavaria. The treatment of the crown prince’s illness also gave rise to an acrimonious controversy. It arose from the fact that as early as May 1887 the German physicians recognized the presence of cancer in the throat, but Sir Morell Mackenzie, the English specialist who was also consulted, disputed the correctness of this diagnosis, and advised that the operation for removal of the larynx, which they had recommended, should not be undertaken. His advice was followed, and the differences between the medical men were made the occasion for a considerable display of national and political animosity.

The empress Victoria, who, after the death of her husband, was known as the empress Frederick, died on the 5th of August 1901 at the castle of Friedrichskron, Cronberg, near Homburg v. d. H., where she spent her last years. Of the emperor’s children two, Prince Sigismund (1864-1866) and Prince Waldemar (1869-1879), died in childhood. He left two sons, William, his successor as emperor, and Henry, who adopted a naval career. Of his daughters, the princess Charlotte was married to Bernard, hereditary prince of Meiningen; the princess Victoria to Prince Adolf of Schaumburg-Lippe; the princess Sophie to the duke of Sparta, crown prince of Greece; and the princess Margaretha to Prince Friedrich Karl of Hesse.

Authorities.—M. von Poschinger, Kaiser Friedrich (3 vols., Berlin, 1898-1900). Adapted into English by Sidney Whitman, Life of the Emperor Frederick (1901). See also Bismarck, Reflections and Reminiscences; Rennell Rodd, Frederick, Crown Prince and Emperor (1888); Gustav Freytag, Der Kronprinz und die deutsche Kaiserkrone (1889; English translation, 1890); Otto Richter, Kaiser Friedrich III. (2nd ed., Berlin, 1903). For his illness, the official publications, published both in English and German: Die Krankheit Kaiser Friedrichs III. (Berlin, 1888), and Morell Mackenzie, The Fatal Illness of Frederick the Noble (1888). Most of the copies of the Deutsche Rundschau containing the extracts from the crown prince’s diary were confiscated, but there is an English edition, published in 1889.

(J. W. He.)

FREDERICK III. (1272-1337), king of Sicily, third son of King Peter of Aragon and Sicily, and of Constance, daughter of Manfred. Peter died in 1285, leaving Aragon to his eldest son Alphonso, and Sicily to his second son James. When Alphonso died in 1291 James became king of Aragon, and left his brother Frederick as regent of Sicily. The war between the Angevins and the Aragonese for the possession of Sicily was still in progress, and although the Aragonese were successful in Italy, James’s position in Spain became very insecure to internal troubles and French attacks. Peace negotiations were begun with Charles II. of Anjou, but were interrupted by the successive deaths of two popes; at last under the auspices of Boniface VIII. James concluded a shameful treaty, by which, in exchange for being left undisturbed in Aragon and promised possession of Sardinia and Corsica, he gave up Sicily to the Church, for whom it was to be held by the Angevins (1295). The Sicilians refused to be made over once more to the hated French whom they had expelled in 1282, and found a national leader in the regent Frederick. In vain the pope tried to bribe him with promises and dignities; he was determined to stand by his subjects, and was crowned king by the nobles at Palermo in 1296. Young, brave and handsome, he won the love and devotion of his people, and guided them through the long years of storm and stress with wisdom and ability. Although the second Frederick of Sicily, he called himself third, being the third son of King Peter. He reformed the administration and extended the powers of the Sicilian parliament, which was composed of the barons, the prelates and the representatives of the towns.

His refusal to comply with the pope’s injunctions led to a renewal of the war. Frederick landed in Calabria, where he seized several towns, encouraged revolt in Naples, negotiated with the Ghibellines of Tuscany and Lombardy, and assisted the house of Colonna against Pope Boniface. In the meanwhile James, who received many favours from the Church, married his sister Yolanda to Robert, the third son of Charles II. Unfortunately for Frederick, a part of the Aragonese nobles of Sicily favoured King James, and both John of Procida and Ruggiero di Lauria, the heroes of the war of the Vespers, went over to the Angevins, and the latter completely defeated the Sicilian fleet off Cape Orlando. Charles’s sons Robert and Philip landed in Sicily, but after capturing Catania were defeated by Frederick, Philip being taken prisoner (1299), while several Calabrian towns were captured by the Sicilians. For two years more the fighting continued with varying success, until Charles of Valois, who had been sent by Boniface to invade Sicily, was forced to sue for peace, his army being decimated by the plague, and in August 1302 the treaty of Caltabellotta was signed, by which Frederick was recognized king of Trinacria (the name Sicily was not to be used) for his lifetime, and was to marry Eleonora, the daughter of Charles II.; at his death the kingdom was to revert to the Angevins (this clause was inserted chiefly to save Charles’s face), and his children would receive compensation elsewhere. Boniface tried to induce King Charles to break the treaty, but the latter was only too anxious for peace, and finally in May 1303 the pope ratified it, Frederick agreeing to pay him a tribute.

For a few years Sicily enjoyed peace, and the kingdom was reorganized. But on the descent of the emperor Henry VII., Frederick entered into an alliance with him, and in violation of the pact of Caltabellotta made war on the Angevins again (1313) and captured Reggio. He set sail for Tuscany to cooperate with the emperor, but on the latter’s death (1314) he returned to Sicily. Robert, who had succeeded Charles II. in 1309, made several raids into the island, which suffered much material injury. A truce was concluded in 1317, but as the Sicilians helped the north Italian Ghibellines in the attack on Genoa, and Frederick seized some Church revenues for military purposes, the pope (John XXII.) excommunicated him and placed the island under an interdict (1321) which lasted until 1335. An Angevin fleet and army, under Robert’s son Charles, was defeated at Palermo by Giovanni da Chiaramonte in 1325, and in 1326 and 1327 there were further Angevin raids on the island, until the descent into Italy of the emperor Louis the Bavarian distracted their attention. The election of Pope Benedict XII. (1334), who was friendly to Frederick, promised a respite; but after fruitless negotiations the war broke out once more, and Chiaramonte went over to Robert, owing to a private feud. In 1337 Frederick died at Paternione, and in spite of the peace of Caltabellotta his son Peter succeeded. Frederick’s great merit was that during his reign the Aragonese dynasty became thoroughly national and helped to weld the Sicilians into a united people.

Bibliography.—G. M. Mira, Bibliografia Siciliana (Palermo, 1875); of the contemporary authorities N. Speciale’s “Historia Sicula” (in Muratori’s Script. rer. ital. x.) is the most important; for the first years of Frederick’s reign see M. Amari, La Guerra del Vespro Siciliano (Florence, 1876), and F. Lanzani, Storia dei Comuni italiani (Milan, 1882); for the latter years C. Cipolla, Storia delle signorie italiane (Milan, 1881); also Testa, Vita di Federigo di Sicilia.

(L. V.)

FREDERICK I. (c. 1371-1440), elector of Brandenburg, founder of the greatness of the House of Hohenzollern, was a son of Frederick V., burgrave of Nuremberg, and first came into prominence by saving the life of Sigismund, king of Hungary, at the battle of Nicopolis in 1396. In 1397 he became burgrave of Nuremberg, and after his father’s death in 1398 he shared Ansbach, Bayreuth, and the smaller possessions of the family, with his only brother John, but became sole ruler after his brother’s death in 1420. Loyal at first to King Wenceslaus, the king’s neglect of Germany drove Frederick to take part in his deposition in 1400, and in the election of Rupert III., count palatine of the Rhine, whom he accompanied to Italy in the following year. In 1401 he married Elizabeth, or Elsa, daughter of Frederick, duke of Bavaria-Landshut (d. 1393), and after spending some time in family and other feuds, took service again with King Sigismund in 1409, whom he assisted in his struggle with the Hungarian rebels. The double election to the German throne in 1410 first brought Frederick into relation with Brandenburg. Sigismund, anxious to obtain another vote in the electoral college, appointed Frederick to exercise the Brandenburg vote on his behalf, and it was largely through his efforts that Sigismund was chosen German king. Frederick then passed some time as administrator of Brandenburg, where he restored a certain degree of order, and was formally invested with the electorate and margraviate by Sigismund at Constance on the 18th of April 1417 (see Brandenburg). He took part in the war against the Hussites, but became estranged from Sigismund when in 1423 the king invested Frederick of Wettin, margrave of Meissen, with the vacant electoral duchy of Saxe-Wittenberg. In 1427 he sold his rights as burgrave to the town of Nuremberg, and he was a prominent member of the band of electors who sought to impose reforms upon Sigismund. After having been an unsuccessful candidate for the German throne in 1438, Frederick was chosen king of Bohemia in 1440, but declined the proffered honour. He took part in the election of Frederick III. as German king in 1440, and died at Radolzburg on the 21st of September in the same year. In 1902 a bronze statue was erected to his memory at Friesack, and there is also a marble one of the elector in the “Siegesallee” at Berlin.

See A. F. Riedel, Zehn Jahre aus der Geschichte der Ahnherren des preussischen KÖnigshauses (Berlin, 1851); E. Brandenburg, KÖnig Sigmund und KurfÜrst Friedrich I. von Brandenburg (Berlin, 1891); and O. Franklin, Die deutsche Politik Friedrichs I. KurfÜrsten von Brandenburg (Berlin, 1851).

FREDERICK I. (1425-1476), elector palatine of the Rhine, surnamed “the Victorious,” and called by his enemies “wicked Fritz,” second son of the elector palatine Louis III., was born on the 1st of August 1425. He inherited a part of the Palatinate on his father’s death in 1439, but soon surrendered this inheritance to his elder brother, the elector Louis IV. On his brother’s death in 1449, however, he became guardian of the young elector Philip, and ruler of the land. In 1451 he persuaded the nobles to recognize him as elector, on condition that Philip should be his successor, a scheme which was disliked by the emperor Frederick III. The elector was successful in various wars with neighbouring rulers, and was a leading member of the band of princes who formed plans to secure a more efficient government for Germany, and even discussed the deposition of Frederick III. Frederick himself was mentioned as a candidate for the German throne, but the jealousies of the princes prevented any decisive action, and soon became so acute that in 1459 they began to fight among themselves. In alliance with Louis IX., duke of Bavaria-Landshut, Frederick gained several victories during the struggle, and in 1462 won a decisive battle at Seckenheim over Ulrich V., count of WÜrttemberg. In 1472 the elector married Clara Tott, or Dett, the daughter of an Augsburg citizen, and by her he had two sons, Frederick, who died during his father’s lifetime, and Louis (d. 1524), who founded the line of the counts of LÖwenstein. He died at Heidelberg on the 12th of December 1476, and was succeeded, according to the compact, by his nephew Philip. Frederick was a cultured prince, and, in spite of his warlike career, a wise and intelligent ruler. He added largely to the area of the Palatinate, and did not neglect to further its internal prosperity.

See N. Feeser, Friedrich der Siegreiche, KurfÜrst von der Pfalz (Neuburg, 1880); C. J. Kremer, Geschichte des KurfÜrsten Friedrichs I. von der Pfalz (Leipzig, 1765); and K. Menzel, KurfÜrst Friedrich der Siegreiche von der Pfalz (Munich, 1861).

FREDERICK II. (1482-1556), surnamed “the Wise,” elector palatine of the Rhine, fourth son of the elector Philip, was bom on the 9th of December 1482. Of an active and adventurous temperament, he fought under the emperor Maximilian I. in 1508, and afterwards served the Habsburgs loyally in other ways. He worked to secure the election of Charles, afterwards the emperor Charles V., as the successor of Maximilian in 1519; fought in two campaigns against the Turks; and being disappointed in his hope of obtaining the hand of one of the emperor’s sisters, married in 1535 Dorothea (d. 1580), daughter of Christian II., who had been driven from the Danish throne. The Habsburgs promised their aid in securing this crown for Frederick, but, like many previous promises made to him, this came to nothing. Having spent his time in various parts of Europe, and incurred heavy debts on account of his expensive tastes, Frederick became elector palatine by the death of his brother, Louis V., in March 1544. With regard to the religious troubles of Germany, he took up at first the rÔle of a mediator, but in 1545 he joined the league of Schmalkalden, and in 1546 broke definitely with the older faith. He gave a little assistance to the league in its war with Charles, but soon submitted to the emperor, accepted the Interim issued from Augsburg in May 1548, and afterwards acted in harmony with Charles. The elector died on the 26th of February 1556, and as he left no children was succeeded by his nephew, Otto Henry (1502-1559). He was a great benefactor to the university of Heidelberg.

Frederick’s life, Annales de vita et rebus gestis Friderici II. electoris palatini (Frankfort, 1624), was written by his secretary Hubert Thomas Leodius; this has been translated into German by E. von BÜlow (Breslau, 1849). See also Rott, Friedrich II. von der Pfalz und die Reformation (Heidelberg, 1904).

FREDERICK III. (1515-1576), called “the Pious,” elector palatine of the Rhine, eldest son of John II., count palatine of Simmern, was born at Simmern on the 14th of February 1515. In 1537 he married Maria (d. 1567), daughter of Casimir, prince of Bayreuth, and in 1546, mainly as a result of this union, adopted the reformed doctrines, which had already made considerable progress in the Palatinate. He lived in comparative obscurity and poverty until 1557, when he became count palatine of Simmern by his father’s death, succeeding his kinsman, Otto Henry (1502-1559), as elector palatine two years later. Although inclined to the views of Calvin rather than to those of Luther, the new elector showed great anxiety to unite the Protestants; but when these efforts failed, and the breach between the followers of the two reformers became wider, he definitely adopted Calvinism. This form of faith was quickly established in the Palatinate; in its interests the “Heidelberg Catechism” was drawn up in 1563; and Catholics and Lutherans were persecuted alike, while the churches were denuded of all their ornaments. The Lutheran princes wished to root out Calvinism in the Palatinate, but were not willing to exclude the elector from the benefits of the religious peace of Augsburg, which were confined to the adherents of the confession of Augsburg, and the matter came before the diet in 1566. Boldly defending his position, Frederick refused to give way an inch, and as the Lutherans were unwilling to proceed to extremities the emperor Maximilian II. could only warn him to mend his ways. The elector was an ardent supporter of the Protestants abroad, whom, rather than the German Lutherans, he regarded as his co-religionists. He aided the Huguenots in France and the insurgents in the Netherlands with men and money; one of his sons, John Casimir (1543-1592), took a prominent part in the French wars of religion, while another, Christopher, was killed in 1574 fighting for the Dutch at Mooker Heath. In his later years Frederick failed in his efforts to prevent the election of a member of the Habsburg family as Roman king, to secure the abrogation of the “ecclesiastical reservation” clause in the peace of Augsburg, or to obtain security for Protestants in the territories of the spiritual princes. He was assiduous in caring for the material, moral and educational welfare of his electorate, and was a benefactor to the university of Heidelberg. The elector died at Heidelberg on the 26th of October 1576, and was succeeded by his elder surviving son, Louis (1539-1583), who had offended his father by adopting Lutheranism.

See A. Kluckhohn, Friedrich der Fromme (NÖrdlingen, 1877-1879); and Briefe Friedrichs des Frommen, edited by Kluckhohn (Brunswick, 1868-1872).

FREDERICK IV. (1574-1610), elector palatine of the Rhine, only surviving son of the elector Louis VI., was born at Amberg on the 5th of March 1574. His father died in October 1583, when the young elector came under the guardianship of his uncle John Casimir, an ardent Calvinist, who, in spite of the wishes of the late elector, a Lutheran, had his nephew educated in his own form of faith. In January 1592, on the death of John Casimir, Frederick undertook the government of the Palatinate, and continued the policy of his uncle, hostility to the Catholic Church and the Habsburgs, and co-operation with foreign Protestants. He was often in communication with Henry of Navarre, afterwards Henry IV. of France, and like him was unremitting in his efforts to conclude a league among the German Protestants, while he sought to weaken the Habsburgs by refusing aid for the Turkish War. After many delays and disappointments the Union of Evangelical Estates was actually formed in May 1608, under the leadership of the elector, and he took a prominent part in directing the operations of the union until his death, which occurred on the 19th of September 1610. Frederick was very extravagant, and liked to surround himself with pomp and luxury. He married in 1593 Louise, daughter of William the Silent, prince of Orange, and was succeeded by Frederick, the elder of his two sons.

See M. Ritter, Geschichte der deutschen Union (Schaffhausen, 1867-1873); and L. HÄusser, Geschichte der rheinischen Pfalz (Heidelberg, 1856).

FREDERICK V. (1596-1632), elector palatine of the Rhine and king of Bohemia, son of the elector Frederick IV. by his wife, Louisa Juliana, daughter of William the Silent, prince of Orange, was born at Amberg on the 26th of August 1596. He became elector on his father’s death in September 1610, and was under the guardianship of his kinsman, John II., count palatine of ZweibrÜcken (d. 1635), until he was declared of age in July 1614. Having received a good education, Frederick had married Elizabeth, daughter of the English king James I., in February 1613, and was the recognized head of the Evangelical Union founded by his father to protect the interests of the Protestants. In 1619 he stepped into a larger arena. Before this date the estates of Bohemia, Protestant in sympathy and dissatisfied with the rule of the Habsburgs, had been in frequent communication with the elector palatine, and in August 1619, a few months after the death of the emperor Matthias, they declared his successor, Ferdinand, afterwards the emperor Ferdinand II., deposed, and chose Frederick as their king. After some hesitation the elector yielded to the entreaties of Christian I., prince of Anhalt (1568-1630), and other sanguine supporters, and was crowned king of Bohemia at Prague on the 4th of November 1619. By this time the emperor Ferdinand was able to take the aggressive, while Frederick, disappointed at receiving no assistance either from England or from the Union, had few soldiers and little money. Consequently on the 8th of November, four days after his coronation, his forces were easily routed by the imperial army under Tilly at the White Hill, near Prague, and his short reign in Bohemia ended abruptly. Soon afterwards the Palatinate was overrun by the Spaniards and Bavarians, and after a futile attempt to dislodge them, Frederick, called in derision the “Winter King,” sought refuge in the Netherlands. Having been placed under the imperial ban his electorate was given in 1623 to Maximilian I. of Bavaria, who also received the electoral dignity.

The remainder of Frederick’s life was spent in comparative obscurity, although his restoration was a constant subject of discussion among European diplomatists. He died at Mainz on the 29th of November 1632, having had a large family, among his children being Charles Louis (1617-1680), who regained the Palatinate at the peace of Westphalia in 1648, and Sophia, who married Ernest Augustus, afterwards elector of Hanover, and was the mother of George I., king of Great Britain. His third son was Prince Rupert, the hero of the English civil war, and another son was Prince Maurice (1620-1652), who also assisted his uncle Charles I. during the civil war. Having sailed with Rupert to the West Indies, Maurice was lost at sea in September 1652.

In addition to the numerous works which treat of the outbreak of the Thirty Years’ War see A. Gindely, Friedrich V. von der Pfalz (Prague, 1884); J. Krebs, Die Politik der evangelischen Union im Jahre 1618 (Breslau, 1890-1901); M. Ritter, “Friedrich V.,” in the Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, Band vii. (Leipzig, 1878); and Deutsche Lieder auf den WinterkÖnig, edited by R. Wolkan (Prague, 1899).

FREDERICK I. (1369-1428), surnamed “the Warlike,” elector and duke of Saxony, was the eldest son of Frederick “the Stern,” count of Osterland, and Catherine, daughter and heiress of Henry VIII., count of Coburg. He was born at Altenburg on the 29th of March 1369, and was a member of the family of Wettin. When his father died in 1381 some trouble arose over the family possessions, and in the following year an arrangement was made by which Frederick and his brothers shared Meissen and Thuringia with their uncles Balthasar and William. Frederick’s brother George died in 1402, and his uncle William in 1407. A further dispute then arose, but in 1410 a treaty was made at Naumburg, when Frederick and his brother William added the northern part of Meissen to their lands; and in 1425 the death of William left Frederick sole ruler. In the German town war of 1388 he assisted Frederick V. of Hohenzollern, burgrave of Nuremberg, and in 1391 did the same for the Teutonic Order against Ladislaus V., king of Poland and prince of Lithuania. He supported Rupert III., elector palatine of the Rhine, in his struggle with King Wenceslaus for the German throne, probably because Wenceslaus refused to fulfil a promise to give him his sister Anna in marriage. The danger to Germany from the Hussites induced Frederick to ally himself with the German and Bohemian king Sigismund; and he took a leading part in the war against them, during the earlier years of which he met with considerable success. In the prosecution of this enterprise Frederick spent large sums of money, for which he received various places in Bohemia and elsewhere in pledge from Sigismund, who further rewarded him in January 1423 with the vacant electoral duchy of Saxe-Wittenberg; and Frederick’s formal investiture followed at Ofen on the 1st of August 1425. Thus spurred to renewed efforts against the Hussites, the elector was endeavouring to rouse the German princes to aid him in prosecuting this war when the Saxon army was almost annihilated at Aussig on the 16th of August 1426. Returning to Saxony, Frederick died at Altenburg on the 4th of January 1428, and was buried in the cathedral at Meissen. In 1402 he married Catherine of Brunswick, by whom he left four sons and two daughters. In 1409, in conjunction with his brother William, he founded the university of Leipzig, for the benefit of German students who had just left the university of Prague. Frederick’s importance as an historical figure arises from his having obtained the electorate of Saxe-Wittenberg for the house of Wettin, and transformed the margraviate of Meissen into the territory which afterwards became the kingdom of Saxony. In addition to the king of Saxony, the sovereigns of England and of the Belgians are his direct descendants.

There is a life of Frederick by G. Spalatin in the Scriptores rerum Germanicarum praecipue Saxonicarum, Band ii., edited by J. B. Mencke (Leipzig, 1728-1730). See also C. W. BÖttiger and Th. Flathe, Geschichte des Kurstaates und KÖnigreichs Sachsen (Gotha, 1867-1873); and J. G. Horn, Lebens- und Heldengeschichte Friedrichs des Streitbaren (Leipzig, 1733).

FREDERICK II. (1411-1464), called “the Mild,” elector and duke of Saxony, eldest son of the elector Frederick I., was born on the 22nd of August 1411. He succeeded his father as elector in 1428, but shared the family lands with his three brothers, and was at once engaged in defending Saxony against the attacks of the Hussites. Freed from these enemies about 1432, and turning his attention to increasing his possessions, he obtained the burgraviate of Meissen in 1439, and some part of Lower Lusatia after a struggle with Brandenburg about the same time. In 1438 it was decided that Frederick, and not his rival, Bernard IV., duke of Saxe-Lauenburg, was entitled to exercise the Saxon electoral vote at the elections for the German throne; and the elector then aided Albert II. to secure this dignity, performing a similar service for his own brother-in-law, Frederick, afterwards the emperor Frederick III., two years later. Family affairs, meanwhile, occupied Frederick’s attention. One brother, Henry, having died in 1435, and another, Sigismund (d. 1463), having entered the church and become bishop of WÜrzburg, Frederick and his brother William (d. 1482) were the heirs of their childless cousin, Frederick “the Peaceful,” who ruled Thuringia and other parts of the lands of the Wettins. On his death in 1440 the brothers divided Frederick’s territory, but this arrangement was not satisfactory, and war broke out between them in 1446. Both combatants obtained extraneous aid, but after a desolating struggle peace was made in January 1451, when William received Thuringia, and Frederick Altenburg and other districts. The remainder of the elector’s reign was uneventful, and he died at Leipzig on the 7th of September 1464. By his wife, Margaret (d. 1486), daughter of Ernest, duke of Styria, he left two sons and four daughters. In July 1455 occurred the celebrated Prinzenraub, the attempt of a knight named Kunz von Kaufungen (d. 1455) to abduct Frederick’s two sons, Ernest and Albert. Having carried them off from Altenburg, Kunz was making his way to Bohemia when the plot was accidentally discovered and the princes restored.

See W. SchÄfer, Der Montag vor Kiliani (1855); J. Gersdorf, Einige AktenstÜcke zur Geschichte des sÄchsischen Prinzenraubes (1855); and T. Carlyle, Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, vol. iv. (London, 1899).

FREDERICK III. (1463-1525), called “the Wise,” elector of Saxony, eldest son of Ernest, elector of Saxony, and Elizabeth, daughter of Albert, duke of Bavaria-Munich (d. 1508), was born at Torgau, and succeeded his father as elector in 1486. Retaining the government of Saxony in his own hands, he shared the other possessions of his family with his brother John, called “the Stedfast” (1468-1532). Frederick was among the princes who pressed the need of reform upon the German king Maximilian I. in 1495, and in 1500 he became president of the newly-formed council of regency (Reichsregiment). He took a genuine interest in learning; was a friend of Georg Spalatin; and in 1502 founded the university of Wittenberg, where he appointed Luther and Melanchthon to professorships. In 1493 he had gone as a pilgrim to Jerusalem, and had been made a knight of the Holy Sepulchre; but, although he remained throughout life an adherent of the older faith, he seems to have been drawn into sympathy with the reformers, probably through his connexion with the university of Wittenberg. In 1520 he refused to put into execution the papal bull which ordered Luther’s writings to be burned and the reformer to be put under restraint or sent to Rome; and in 1521, after Luther had been placed under the imperial ban by the diet at Worms, the elector caused him to be conveyed to his castle at the Wartburg, and afterwards protected him while he attacked the enemies of the Reformation. In 1519, Frederick, who alone among the electors refused to be bribed by the rival candidates for the imperial throne, declined to be a candidate for this high dignity himself, and assisted to secure the election of Charles V. He died unmarried at Langau, near Annaberg, on the 5th of May 1525.

See G. Spalatin, Das Leben und die Zeitgeschichte Friedrichs des Weisen, edited by C. G. Neudecker and L. Preller (Jena, 1851); M. M. Tutzschmann, Friedrich der Weise, KurfÜrst von Sachsen (Grimma, 1848); and T. Kolde, Friedrich der Weise und die AnfÄnge der Reformation (Erlangen, 1881).

FREDERICK, a city and the county-seat of Frederick county, Maryland, U.S.A., on Carroll’s Creek, a tributary of the Monocacy, 61 m. by rail W. by N. from Baltimore and 45 m. N.W. from Washington. Pop. (1890) 8193; (1900) 9296, of whom 1535 were negroes; (1910 census) 10,411. It is served by the Baltimore & Ohio and the Northern Central railways, and by two interurban electric lines. Immediately surrounding it is the rich farming land of the Monocacy valley, but from a distance it appears to be completely shut in by picturesque hills and mountains; to the E., the Linga ore Hills; to the W., Catoctin Mountain; and to the S., Sugar Loaf Mountain. It is built for the most part of brick and stone. Frederick is the seat of the Maryland school for the deaf and dumb and of the Woman’s College of Frederick (1893; formerly the Frederick Female Seminary, opened in 1843), which in 1907-1908 had 212 students, 121 of whom were in the Conservatory of Music. Francis Scott Key and Roger Brooke Taney were buried here, and a beautiful monument erected to the memory of Key stands at the entrance to Mount Olivet cemetery. Frederick has a considerable agricultural trade and is an important manufacturing centre, its industries including the canning of fruits and vegetables, and the manufacture of flour, bricks, brushes, leather goods and hosiery. The total value of the factory product in 1905 was $1,937,921, being 34.7% more than in 1900. The municipality owns and operates its water-works and electric-lighting plant. Frederick, so named in honour of Frederick Calvert, son and afterward successor of Charles, Lord Baltimore, was settled by Germans in 1733, and was laid out as a town in 1745, but was not incorporated until 1817. Here in 1755 General Braddock prepared for his disastrous expedition against the French at Fort Duquesne (Pittsburg). During the Civil War the city was occupied on different occasions by Unionists and Confederates, and was made famous by Whittier’s poem “Barbara Frietchie.”

FREDERICK AUGUSTUS I. (1750-1827), king of Saxony, son of the elector Frederick Christian, was born at Dresden on the 23rd of December 1750. He succeeded his father under the guardianship of Prince Xavier in 1763, and was declared of age in 1768. In the following year (January 17, 1769) he married Princess Maria Amelia, daughter of Duke Frederick of ZweibrÜcken, by whom he had only one child, Princess Augusta (born June 21, 1782). One of his chief aims was the reduction of taxes and imposts and of the army. He was always extremely methodical and conscientious, and a good example to all his officials, whence his surname “the Just.” On account of the claims of his mother on the inheritance of her brother, the elector of Bavaria, he sided with Frederick the Great in the short Bavarian succession war of 1778 against Austria. At the peace of Teschen, which concluded the war, he received 6 million florins, which he employed partly in regaining those parts of his kingdom which had been lost, and partly in favour of his relatives. In 1785 he joined the league of German princes (Deutscher FÜrstenbund) formed by Prussia, but without prejudice to his neutrality. Thus he remained neutral during the quarrel between Austria and Prussia in 1790. In the following year he declined the crown of Poland. He refused to join the league against France (February 7, 1792), but when war was declared his duty to the Empire necessitated his taking part in it. Even after the peace of Basel (April 5, 1795) he continued the war. But when the French army, during the following year, advanced into the heart of Germany, he was compelled by General Jourdan to retreat (August 13, 1796). He maintained his neutrality during the war between France and Austria in 1805, but in the following year he joined Prussia against France. After the disastrous battle of Jena he concluded a treaty of peace with Napoleon at Posen (December 11, 1806), and, assuming the title of king, he joined the Confederation of the Rhine. But he did not alter the constitution and administration of his new kingdom. After the peace of Tilsit (July 9, 1807) he was created by Napoleon grand-duke of Warsaw, but his sovereignty of Poland was little more than nominal. There was a kind of friendship between Frederick Augustus and Napoleon. In 1809 Frederick Augustus fought with him against Austria. On several occasions (1807, 1812, 1813) Napoleon was entertained at Dresden, and when, on his return from his disastrous Russian campaign, he passed through Saxony by Dresden (December 16, 1812), Frederick Augustus remained true to his friend and ally. It was only during April 1813 that he made overtures to Austria, but he soon afterwards returned to the side of the French. He returned to Dresden on the 10th of May and was present at the terrible battle of August 26 and 27, in which Napoleon’s army and his own were defeated. He fell into the hands of the Allies after their entry into Leipzig on the 19th of October 1813; and, although he regained his freedom after the congress of Vienna, he was compelled to give up the northern part—three-fifths—of his kingdom to Prussia (May 21, 1814). He entered Dresden on the 7th of July, and was enthusiastically welcomed by his people. The remainder of his life was spent in repairing the damages caused by the Napoleonic wars, in developing the agricultural, commercial and industrial resources of his kingdom, reforming the administration of justice, establishing hospitals and other charitable institutions, encouraging art and science and promoting education. He had a special interest in botany, and originated the beautiful park at Pillnitz. His reign throughout was characterized by justice, probity, moderation and prudence. He died on the 5th of May 1827.

Bibliography.—The earlier lives, by C. E. Weisse (1811), A. L. Herrmann (1827), PÖlitz (1830), are mere panegyrics. On the other side see Flathe in Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, and BÖttiger-Flathe, History of Saxony (2nd ed., 1867 ff.), vols. ii. and iii.; A. Bonnefons, Un AlliÉ de NapolÉon, FrÉdÉric Auguste, premier roi de Saxe ... (Paris, 1902); Fritz Friedrich, Politik Sachsens 1801-1803 (1898); P. RÜhlmann, Öffentliche Meinung ... 1806-1813 (1902). There are many pamphlets bearing on the Saxon question and on Frederick Augustus during the years 1814 and 1815.

(J. Hn.)

FREDERICK AUGUSTUS II. (1797-1854), king of Saxony, eldest son of Prince Maximilian and of Caroline Maria Theresa of Parma, was born on the 18th of May 1797. The unsettled times in which his youth was passed necessitated his frequent change of residence, but care was nevertheless taken that his education should not be interrupted, and he also acquired, through his journeys in foreign states (Switzerland 1818, Montenegro 1838, England and Scotland 1844) and his intercourse with men of eminence, a special taste for art and for natural science. He was himself a good landscape-painter and had a fine collection of engravings on copper. He was twice married—in 1819 (October 7) to the duchess Caroline, fourth daughter of the emperor Francis I. of Austria (d. May 22, 1832), and in 1833 (April 4) to Maria, daughter of Maximilian I. of Bavaria. There were no children of either marriage. During the government of his uncles (Frederick Augustus I. and Anthony) he took no part in the administration of the country, though he was the sole heir to the crown. In 1830 a rising in Dresden led to his being named joint regent of the kingdom along with King Anthony on the 13th of September; and in this position his popularity and his wise and liberal reforms (for instance, in arranging public audiences) speedily quelled all discontent. On the 6th of June 1836 he succeeded his uncle. Though he administered the affairs of his kingdom with enlightened liberality Saxony did not escape the political storms which broke upon Germany in 1848. He elected Liberal ministers, and he was at first in favour of the programme of German unity put forward at Frankfort, but he refused to acknowledge the democratic constitution of the German parliament. This attitude led to the insurrection at Dresden in May 1849, which was suppressed by the help of Prussian troops. From that time onward his reign was tranquil and prosperous. Later Count Beust, leader of the Austrian and feudal party in Saxony, became his principal minister and guided his policy on most occasions. His death occurred accidentally through the upsetting of his carriage near BrennbÜhel, between Imst and Wenns in Tirol (August 9, 1854). Frederick Augustus devoted his leisure hours chiefly to the study of botany. He made botanical excursions into different countries, and Flora Marienbadensis, oder Pflanzen und Gebirgsarten, gesammelt und beschrieben, written by him, was published at Prague by Kedler, 1837.

See BÖttiger-Flathe, History of Saxony, vol. iii.; R. Freiherr von Friesen, Erinnerungen (2 vols., Dresden, 1881); F. F. Graf von Beust, Aus drei-viertel Jahrhunderten (2 vols., 1887); Flathe, in Allg. deutsche Biogr.

(J. Hn.)

FREDERICK CHARLES (FRIEDRICH KARL NIKOLAUS), Prince (1828-1885), Prussian general field marshal, son of Prince Charles of Prussia and grandson of King Frederick William III., was born in Berlin on the 20th of March 1828. He was educated for the army, which he entered on his tenth birthday as second lieutenant in the 14th Foot Guards. He became first lieutenant in 1844, and in 1846 entered the university of Bonn, where he stayed for two years, being accompanied throughout by Major von Roon, afterwards the famous war minister. In 1848 he became a company commander in his regiment, and soon afterwards served in the Schleswig-Holstein War on the staff of Marshal von Wrangel, being present at the battle of Schleswig (April 23, 1848). Later in 1848 he became Rittmeister in the Garde du Corps cavalry regiment, and in 1849 major in the Guard Hussars. In this year the prince took part in the campaign against the Baden insurgents, and was wounded at the action of Wiesenthal while leading a desperate charge against entrenched infantry. After this experience the wild courage of his youth gave place to the unshakable resolution which afterwards characterized the prince’s generalship. In 1852 he became colonel, and in 1854 major-general and commander of a cavalry brigade. In this capacity he was brought closely in touch with General von Reyher, the chief of the general staff, and with Moltke. He married, in the same year, Princess Marie Anne of Anhalt. In 1857 he became commander of the 1st Guard Infantry division, but very shortly afterwards, on account of disputes concerned with the training methods then in force, he resigned the appointment.

In 1858 he visited France, where he minutely investigated the state of the French army, but it was not long before he was recalled, for in 1859, in consequence of the Franco-Austrian War, Prussia mobilized her forces, and Frederick Charles was made a divisional commander in the II. army corps. In this post he was given the liberty of action which had previously been denied to him. About this time (1860) the prince gave a lecture to the officers of his command on the French army and its methods, the substance of which (Eine militÄrische Denkschrift von P.F.K., Frankfort on Main, 1860) was circulated more widely than the author intended, and in the French translation gave rise to much indignation in France. In 1861 Frederick Charles became general of cavalry. He was then commander of the III. (Brandenburg) army corps. This post he held from 1860 to 1870, except during the campaigns of 1864 and 1866, and in it he displayed his real qualities as a troop leader. His self-imposed task was to raise the military spirit of his troops to the highest possible level, and ten years of his continuous and thorough training brought the III. corps to a pitch of real efficiency which the Guard corps alone, in virtue of its special recruiting powers, slightly surpassed. Prince Frederick Charles’ work was tested to the full when von Alvensleben and the III. corps engaged the whole French army on the 16th of August 1870. In 1864 the prince once more fought against the Danes under his old leader “Papa” Wrangel. The Prussian contingent under Frederick Charles formed a corps of the allied army, and half of it was drawn from the III. corps. After the storming of the DÜppel lines the prince succeeded Wrangel in the supreme command, with Lieutenant-General Freiherr von Moltke as his chief of staff. These two great soldiers then planned and brilliantly carried out the capture of the island of Alsen, after which the war came to an end.

In 1860 came the Seven Weeks’ War with Austria. Prince Frederick Charles was appointed to command the I. Army, which he led through the mountains into Bohemia, driving before him the Austrians and Saxons to the upper Elbe, where on the 3rd of July took place the decisive battle of KÖniggrÄtz or Sadowa. This was brought on by the initiative of the leader of the I. Army, which had to bear the brunt of the fighting until the advance of the II. Army turned the Austrian flank. After the peace he returned to the III. army corps, which he finally left, in July 1870, when appointed to command the II. German Army in the war with France. In the early days of the advance the prince’s ruthless energy led to much friction between the I. and II. Armies (see Franco-German War), while his strategical mistakes seriously embarrassed the great headquarters staff. The advance of the II. Army beyond the Saar to the Moselle and from that river to the Meuse displayed more energy than careful strategy, but herein at least the “Red Prince” (as he was called from the colour of his favourite hussar uniform) was in thorough sympathy with the king’s headquarters on the one hand and the feelings of the troops on the other. Then came the discovery that the French were not in front, but to the right rear of the II. Army (August 16). Alvensleben with the III. corps held the French to their ground at Vionville while the prince hurried together his scattered forces. He himself directed with superb tactical skill the last efforts of the Germans at Vionville, and the victory of St Privat on the 18th was due to his leadership (see Metz), which shone all the more by contrast with the failures of the I. Army at Gravelotte. The prince was left in command of the forces which blockaded Bazaine in Metz, and received the surrender of that place and of the last remaining field army of the enemy. He was promoted at once to the rank of general field marshal, and shortly afterwards the II. Army was despatched to aid in crushing the newly organized army of the French republic on the Loire. Here again he retrieved strategical errors by energy and tactical skill, and his work was in the end crowned by the victory of Le Mans on the 12th of January 1871. Of all the subordinate leaders on the German side none enjoyed a greater and a better deserved reputation than the Red Prince.

He now became inspector-general of the 3rd “army inspection,” and a little later inspector of cavalry, and in the latter post he was largely instrumental in bringing the German cavalry to the degree of perfection in manoeuvre and general training which it gradually attained in the years after the war. He never ceased to improve his own soldierly qualities by further study and by the conduct of manoevres on a large scale. His sternness of character kept him aloof from the court and from his own family, and he spent his leisure months chiefly on his various country estates. In 1872 and in 1882 he travelled in the Mediterranean and the Near East. He died on the 15th of June 1885 at Klein-Glienicke near Berlin, and was buried at the adjacent church of Nikolskoe. His third daughter, Princess Louise Margareta, was married, in March 1879, to the duke of Connaught.

FREDERICK HENRY (1584-1647), prince of Orange, the youngest child of William the Silent, was born at Delft about six months before his father’s assassination on the 29th of January 1584. His mother, Louise de Coligny, was daughter of the famous Huguenot leader, Admiral de Coligny, and was the fourth wife of William the Silent. The boy was trained to arms by his elder brother, Maurice of Nassau, one of the first generals of his age. On the death of Maurice in 1625, Frederick Henry succeeded him in his paternal dignities and estates, and also in the stadtholderates of the five provinces of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Overysel and Gelderland, and in the important posts of captain and admiral-general of the Union. Frederick Henry proved himself scarcely inferior to his brother as a general, and a far more capable statesman and politician. During twenty-two years he remained at the head of affairs in the United Provinces, and in his time the power of the stadtholderate reached its highest point. The “Period of Frederick Henry,” as it is usually styled by Dutch writers, is generally accounted the golden age of the republic. It was marked by great military and naval triumphs, by world-wide maritime and commercial expansion, and by a wonderful outburst of activity in the domains of art and literature. The chief military exploits of Frederick Henry were the sieges and captures of Hertogenbosch in 1629, of Maastricht in 1632, of Breda in 1637, of Sas van Ghent in 1644, and of Hulst in 1645. During the greater part of his administration the alliance with France against Spain had been the pivot of Frederick Henry’s foreign policy, but in his last years he sacrificed the French alliance for the sake of concluding a separate peace with Spain, by which the United Provinces obtained from that power all the advantages for which they had for eighty years been contending. Frederick Henry died on the 14th of March 1647, and was buried with great pomp beside his father and brother at Delft. The treaty of MÜnster, ending the long struggle between the Dutch and the Spaniards, was not actually signed until the 30th of January 1648, the illness and death of the stadtholder having caused a delay in the negotiations. Frederick Henry was married in 1625 to Amalia von Solms, and left one son, William II. of Orange, and four daughters.

Frederick Henry left an account of his campaigns in his MÉmoires de FrÉdÉric Henri (Amsterdam, 1743). See Cambridge Mod. Hist. vol. iv. chap. 24, and the bibliography on p. 931.

FREDERICK LOUIS (1707-1751), prince of Wales, eldest son of George II., was born at Hanover on the 20th of January 1707. After his grandfather, George I., became king of Great Britain and Ireland in 1714, Frederick was known as duke of Gloucester1 and made a knight of the Garter, having previously been betrothed to Wilhelmina Sophia Dorothea (1709-1758), daughter of Frederick William I., king of Prussia, and sister of Frederick the Great. Although he was anxious to marry this lady, the match was rendered impossible by the dislike of George II. and Frederick William for each other. Soon after his father became king in 1727 Frederick took up his residence in England and in 1729 was created prince of Wales; but the relations between George II. and his son were very unfriendly, and there existed between them the jealousy which Stubbs calls the “incurable bane of royalty.” The faults were not all on one side. The prince’s character was not attractive, and the king refused to make him an adequate allowance. In 1735 Frederick wrote, or inspired the writing of, the Histoire du prince Titi, a book containing offensive caricatures of both king and queen; and losing no opportunity of irritating his father, “he made,” says Lecky, “his court the special centre of opposition to the government, and he exerted all his influence for the ruin of Walpole.” After a marriage between the prince and Lady Diana Spencer, afterwards the wife of John, 4th duke of Bedford, had been frustrated by Walpole, Frederick was married in April 1736 to Augusta (1719-1772), daughter of Frederick II., duke of Saxe-Gotha, a union which was welcomed by his parents, but which led to further trouble between father and son. George proposed to allow the prince £50,000 a year; but this sum was regarded as insufficient by the latter, whose appeal to parliament was unsuccessful. After the birth of his first child, Augusta, in 1737, Frederick was ordered by the king to quit St James’ Palace, and the foreign ambassadors were requested to refrain from visiting him. The relations between the two were now worse than before. In 1745 George II. refused to allow his son to command the British army against the Jacobites. On the 20th of March 1751 the prince died in London, and was buried in Westminster Abbey. He left five sons and two daughters. The sons were George (afterwards King George III.), Edward Augustus, duke of York and Albany (1739-1767), William Henry, duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh (1743-1805), Henry Frederick, duke of Cumberland (1745-1790), and Frederick William (1750-1765); the daughters were Augusta (1737-1813), wife of Charles William Ferdinand, duke of Brunswick, and Caroline Matilda (1751-1775), wife of Christian VII., king of Denmark.

See Lord Hervey of Ickworth, Memoirs of the Reign of George II., edited by J. W. Croker (London, 1884); Horace Walpole, Memoirs of the Reign of George II. (London, 1847); and Sir N. W. Wraxall, Memoirs, edited by H. B. Wheatley, vol. i. (London, 1884).

1 Frederick was never actually created duke of Gloucester, and when he was raised to the peerage in 1736 it was as duke of Edinburgh only. See G. E. C(okayne), Complete Peerage, sub “Gloucester.”

FREDERICK WILLIAM I. (1688-1740), king of Prussia, son of Frederick I. by his second marriage was born on the 15th of August 1688. He spent a considerable time in early youth at the court of his grandfather, the elector Ernest Augustus of Hanover. On his return to Berlin he was placed under General von Dohna and Count Finkenstein, who trained him to the energetic and regular habits which ever afterwards characterized him. He was soon imbued with a passion for military life, and this was deepened by acquaintance with the duke of Marlborough (1709), Prince Eugene, whom he visited during the siege of Tournai, and Prince Leopold of Anhalt (the “Old Dessauer”). In nearly every respect he was the opposite of his father, having frugal, simple tastes, a passionate temper and a determined will. Throughout his life he was always the protector of the church and of religion. But he detested religious quarrels and was very tolerant towards his Catholic subjects, except the Jesuits. His life was simple and puritanical, being founded on the teaching of the Bible. He was, however, fond of hunting and somewhat given to drinking. He intensely disliked the French, and highly disapproved of the imitation of their manners by his father and his court. When he came to the throne (February 25, 1713) his first act was to dismiss from the palace every unnecessary official and to regulate the royal household on principles of the strictest parsimony. The greater part of the beautiful furniture was sold. His importance for Prussia is twofold: in internal politics he laid down principles which continued to be followed long after his death. This was a province peculiarly suited to his genius; he was one of the greatest administrators who have ever worn the Prussian crown. His foreign policy was less successful, though under his rule the kingdom acquired some extension of territory.

Thus at the peace of Utrecht (April 11, 1713), after the War of the Spanish Succession, he acquired the greater part of the duchy of Gelderland. By the treaty of Schwedt, concluded with Russia on the 6th of October, he was assured of an important influence in the solution of the Baltic question, which during the long absence of Charles XII. had become burning; and Swedish Pomerania, as far as the Peene, was occupied by Prussia. But Charles XII. on his return turned against the king, though without success, for the Pomeranian campaign of 1715 ended in favour of Prussia (fall of Stralsund, December 22). This enabled Frederick William I. to maintain a more independent attitude towards the tsar; he refused, for example, to provide him with troops for a campaign (in Schonen) against the Swedes. When on the 28th of May 1718, in view of the disturbances in Mecklenburg, he signed at Havelberg the alliance with Russia, he confined himself to taking up a defensive attitude, and, on the other hand, on the 14th of August 1719 he also entered into relations with his former enemies, England and Hanover. And so, by the treaty of Stockholm (February 1, 1720), Frederick William succeeded in obtaining the consent of Sweden to the cession of that part of Pomerania which he had occupied (Usedom, Wollin, Stettin, Hither Pomerania, east of the Peene) in return for a payment of 2,000,000 thalers.

While Frederick William I. succeeded in carrying his wishes into effect in this direction, he was unable to realize another project which he had much at heart, namely, the Prussian succession to the Lower Rhine duchies of JÜlich and Berg. The treaty concluded in 1725 at Vienna between the emperor and Spain brought the whole of this question up again, for both sides had pledged themselves to support the Palatinate-Sulzbach succession (in the event of the Palatinate-Neuberg line becoming extinct). Frederick William turned for help to the western powers, England and France, and secured it by the treaty of alliance signed at Herrenhausen on the 3rd of September 1725 (League of Hanover). But since the western powers soon sought to use the military strength of Prussia for their own ends, Frederick again turned towards the east, strengthened above all his relations with Russia, which had continued to be good, and finally, by the treaty of WÜsterhausen (October 12, 1726; ratified at Berlin, December 23, 1728), even allied himself with his former adversary, the court of Vienna; though this treaty only imperfectly safeguarded Prussian interests, inasmuch as Frederick William consented to renounce his claims to JÜlich. But as in the following years the European situation became more and more favourable to the house of Habsburg, the latter began to try to withdraw part of the concessions which it had made to Frederick William. As early as 1728 DÜsseldorf, the capital, was excluded from the guarantee of Berg. Nevertheless, in the War of the Polish Succession against France (1734-1735), Frederick William remained faithful to the emperor’s cause, and sent an auxiliary force of 10,000 men. The peace of Vienna, which terminated the war, led to a reconciliation between France and Austria, and so to a further estrangement between Frederick William and the emperor. Moreover, in 1738 the western powers, together with the emperor, insisted in identical notes on the recognition of the emperor’s right to decide the question of the succession in the Lower Rhine duchies. A breach with the emperor was now inevitable, and this explains why in a last treaty (April 5, 1739) Frederick William obtained from France a guarantee of a part, at least, of Berg (excluding DÜsseldorf).

But Frederick William’s failures in foreign policy were more than compensated for by his splendid services in the internal administration of Prussia. He saw the necessity of rigid economy not only in his private life but in the whole administration of the state. During his reign Prussia obtained for the first time a centralized and uniform financial administration. It was the king himself who composed and wrote in the year 1722 the famous instruction for the general directory (Generaldirektorium) of war, finance and domains. When he died the income of the state was about seven million thalers (£1,050,000). The consequence was that he paid off the debts incurred by his father, and left to his successor a well filled treasury. In the administration of the domains he made three innovations: (1) the private estates of the king were turned into domains of the crown (August 13, 1713); (2) the freeing of the serfs on the royal domains (March 22, 1719); (3) the conversion of the hereditary lease into a short-term lease on the basis of productiveness. His industrial policy was inspired by the mercantile spirit. On this account he forbade the importation of foreign manufactures and the export of raw materials from home, a policy which had a very good effect on the growth of Prussian industries.

The work of internal colonization he carried on with especial zeal. Most notable of all was his rÉtablissement of East Prussia, to which he devoted six million thalers (c. £900,000). His policy in respect of the towns was motived largely by fiscal considerations, but at the same time he tried also to improve their municipal administration; for example, in the matter of buildings, of the letting of domain lands and of the collection of the excise in towns. Frederick William had many opponents among the nobles because he pressed on the abolition of the old feudal rights, introduced in East Prussia and Lithuania a general land tax (the Generalhufenschoss), and finally in 1739 attacked in a special edict the Legen, i.e. the expropriation of the peasant proprietors. He did nothing for the higher learning, and even banished the philosopher Christian Wolff at forty-eight hours’ notice “on pain of the halter,” for teaching, as he believed, fatalist doctrines. Afterwards he modified his judgment in favour of Wolff, and even, in 1739, recommended the study of his works. He established many village schools, which he often visited in person; and after the year 1717 (October 23) all Prussian parents were obliged to send their children to school (Schulzwang). He was the especial friend of the Franckische Stiftungen at Halle on the Saale. Under him the people flourished; and although it stood in awe of his vehement spirit it respected him for his firmness, his honesty of purpose and his love of justice. He was devoted also to his army, the number of which he raised from 38,000 to 83,500, so that under him Prussia became the third military power in the world, coming next after Russia and France. There was not a more thoroughly drilled or better appointed force. The Potsdam guard, made up of giants collected from all parts of Europe, sometimes kidnapped, was a sort of toy with which he amused himself. The reviewing of his troops was his chief pleasure. But he was also fond of meeting his friends in the evening in what he called his Tobacco-College, where amid clouds of tobacco smoke he not only discussed affairs of state but heard the newest “guard-room jokes.” He died on the 31st of May 1740, leaving behind him his widow, Sophia Dorothea of Hanover, whom he had married on the 26th of November 1706. His son was Frederick the Great, who was the opposite of Frederick William. This opposition became so strong in 1730 that the crown prince fled from the court, and was later arrested and brought before a court-martial. A reconciliation was brought about, at first gradually. In later years the relations between father and son came to be of the best (see Frederick II., king of Prussia).

Bibliography.—D. Fassmann, Leben und Thaten Friedrich Wilhelms (2 vols., Hamburg and Breslau, 1735, 1741); F. FÖrster, Friedrich Wilhelm I. (3 vols., Potsdam, 1834 and 1835); C. v. Noorden, Historische VortrÄge (Leipzig, 1884); O. Krauske, “Vom Hofe Friedrich Wilhelms I.,” Hohenzollernjahrbuch, v. (1902); R. Koser, Friedrich der Grosse als Kronprinz (2nd ed., Stuttgart, 1901); W. Oncken, “Sir Charles Hotham und Friedrich Wilhelm I. im Jahre 1730,” Forschungen zur brandenburgischen Geschichte, vol. vii. et seq.; J. G. Droysen in the Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, vii. (1878), and in Geschichte der preussischen Politik, section iv., vols. ii.-iv. (2nd ed., 1868 et seq.); L. v. Ranke, ZwÖlf BÜcher preussischer Geschichte (1874 et seq.); Stenzel, Geschichte des preussischen Staates, iii. (1841); F. Holke, “Strafrechtspflege unter Friedrich Wilhelm I.,” BeitrÄge zur brandenburgischen Rechtsgeschichte, iii. (1894); V. Loewe, “Allodifikation der Leben unter Friedrich Wilhelm I.,” Forschungen zur brandenburgischen Geschichte, xi.; G. Schmoller, “Epochen der preuss. Finanzpolitik,” Umrisse und Untersuchungen (Leipzig, 1898), “Innere Verwaltung unter Friedrich Wilhelm I.,” Preuss. JahrbÜcher, xxvi., “StÄdtewesen unter Friedrich Wilhelm I.,” Zeitschrift fÜr preussische Geschichte, x. et seq.; B. Reuter, “KÖnig Friedrich Wilhelm I. und das General-Direktorium,” ibid. xii.; V. Loewe, “Zur Grundungsgeschichte des General-Direktoriums,” Forschungen, &c., xiii.; R. Stadelmann, Preussens KÖnige in ihrer TÄtigkeit fÜr die Landeskultur, vol. i. “Friedrich Wilhelm I.” (1878); M. Beheim-Schwarzbach, Hohenzollern’sche Kolonizationen (Leipzig, 1874); W. Naude, “Die merkantilistische Wirtschaftspolitik Friedrich Wilhelms I.,” Historische Zeitschrift, xc.; M. Lehmann, “Werbung, &c., im Heere Friedrich Wilhelms I.,” ibid. lxvii.; Isaacson, “Erbpachtsystem in der preussischen DomÄnenverwaltung,” Zeitschrift fÜr preuss. Gesch. xi. Cf. also Hohenzollernjahrbuch, viii. (1905), for particulars of his education and death; letters to Prince Leopold of Anhalt-Dessau in the Acta Borussica (1905). English readers will find a picturesque account of him in Thomas Carlyle’s Frederick the Great.

(J. Hn.)

FREDERICK WILLIAM II. (1744-1797), king of Prussia, son of Augustus William, second son of King Frederick William I. and of Louise Amalie of Brunswick, sister of the wife of Frederick the Great, was born at Berlin on the 25th of September 1744, and became heir to the throne on his father’s death in 1757. The boy was of an easy-going and pleasure-loving disposition, averse from sustained effort of any kind, and sensual by nature. His marriage with Elisabeth Christine, daughter of Duke Charles of Brunswick, contracted in 1765, was dissolved in 1769, and he soon afterwards married Frederika Louisa, daughter of the landgrave Louis IX. of Hesse-Darmstadt. Although he had a numerous family by his wife, he was completely under the influence of his mistress, Wilhelmine Enke, afterwards created Countess Lichtenau, a woman of strong intellect and much ambition. He was a man of singularly handsome presence, not without mental qualities of a high order; he was devoted to the arts—Beethoven and Mozart enjoyed his patronage and his private orchestra had a European reputation. But an artistic temperament was hardly that required of a king of Prussia on the eve of the Revolution; and Frederick the Great, who had employed him in various services—notably in an abortive confidential mission to the court of Russia in 1780—openly expressed his misgivings as to the character of the prince and his surroundings.

The misgivings were justified by the event. Frederick William’s accession to the throne (August 17, 1786) was, indeed, followed by a series of measures for lightening the burdens of the people, reforming the oppressive French system of tax-collecting introduced by Frederick, and encouraging trade by the diminution of customs dues and the making of roads and canals. This gave the new king much popularity with the mass of the people; while the educated classes were pleased by his removal of Frederick’s ban on the German language by the admission of German writers to the Prussian Academy, and by the active encouragement given to schools and universities. But these reforms were vitiated in their source. In 1781 Frederick William, then prince of Prussia, inclined, like many sensual natures, to mysticism, had joined the Rosicrucians, and had fallen under the influence of Johann Christof WÖllner (1732-1800), and by him the royal policy was inspired. WÖllner, whom Frederick the Great had described as a “treacherous and intriguing priest,” had started life as a poor tutor in the family of General von Itzenplitz, a noble of the mark of Brandenburg, had, after the general’s death and to the scandal of king and nobility, married the general’s daughter, and with his mother-in-law’s assistance settled down on a small estate. By his practical experiments and by his writings he gained a considerable reputation as an economist; but his ambition was not content with this, and he sought to extend his influence by joining first the Freemasons and afterwards (1779) the Rosicrucians. WÖllner, with his impressive personality and easy if superficial eloquence, was just the man to lead a movement of this kind. Under his influence the order spread rapidly, and he soon found himself the supreme director (Oberhauptdirektor) of some 26 “circles,” which included in their membership princes, officers and high officials. As a Rosicrucian WÖllner dabbled in alchemy and other mystic arts, but he also affected to be zealous for Christian orthodoxy, imperilled by Frederick II.’s patronage of “enlightenment,” and a few months before Frederick’s death wrote to his friend the Rosicrucian Johann Rudolph von Bischoffswerder (1741-1803) that his highest ambition was to be placed at the head of the religious department of the state “as an unworthy instrument in the hand of Ormesus” (the prince of Prussia’s Rosicrucian name) “for the purpose of saving millions of souls from perdition and bringing back the whole country to the faith of Jesus Christ.”

Such was the man whom Frederick William II., immediately after his accession, called to his counsels. On the 26th of August 1786 he was appointed privy councillor for finance (Geheimer Oberfinanzrath), and on the 2nd of October was ennobled. Though not in name, in fact he was prime minister; in all internal affairs it was he who decided; and the fiscal and economic reforms of the new reign were the application of his theories. Bischoffswerder, too, still a simple major, was called into the king’s counsels; by 1789 he was already an adjutant-general. These were the two men who enmeshed the king in a web of Rosicrucian mystery and intrigue, which hampered whatever healthy development of his policy might have been possible, and led ultimately to disaster. The opposition to WÖllner was, indeed, at the outset strong enough to prevent his being entrusted with the department of religion; but this too in time was overcome, and on the 3rd of July 1788 he was appointed active privy councillor of state and of justice and head of the spiritual department for Lutheran and Catholic affairs. War was at once declared on what—to use a later term—we may call the “modernists.” The king, so long as WÖllner was content to condone his immorality (which Bischoffswerder, to do him justice, condemned), was eager to help the orthodox crusade. On the 9th of July was issued the famous religious edict, which forbade Evangelical ministers to teach anything not contained in the letter of their official books, proclaimed the necessity of protecting the Christian religion against the “enlighteners” (AufklÄrer), and placed educational establishments under the supervision of the orthodox clergy. On the 18th of December a new censorship law was issued, to secure the orthodoxy of all published books; and finally, in 1791, a sort of Protestant Inquisition was established at Berlin (Immediat-Examinations-commission) to watch over all ecclesiastical and scholastic appointments. In his zeal for orthodoxy, indeed, Frederick William outstripped his minister; he even blamed WÖllner’s “idleness and vanity” for the inevitable failure of the attempt to regulate opinion from above, and in 1794 deprived him of one of his secular offices in order that he might have more time “to devote himself to the things of God”; in edict after edict the king continued to the end of his reign to make regulations “in order to maintain in his states a true and active Christianity, as the path to genuine fear of God.”

The effects of this policy of blind obscurantism far outweighed any good that resulted from the king’s well-meant efforts at economic and financial reform; and even this reform was but spasmodic and partial, and awoke ultimately more discontent than it allayed. But far more fateful for Prussia was the king’s attitude towards the army and foreign policy. The army was the very foundation of the Prussian state, a truth which both Frederick William I. and the great Frederick had fully realized; the army had been their first care, and its efficiency had been maintained by their constant personal supervision. Frederick William, who had no taste for military matters, put his authority as “War-Lord” into commission under a supreme college of war (Oberkriegs-Collegium) under the duke of Brunswick and General von MÖllendorf. It was the beginning of the process that ended in 1806 at Jena.

In the circumstances Frederick William’s intervention in European affairs was not likely to prove of benefit to Prussia. The Dutch campaign of 1787, entered on for purely family reasons, was indeed successful; but Prussia received not even the cost of her intervention. An attempt to intervene in the war of Russia and Austria against Turkey failed of its object; Prussia did not succeed in obtaining any concessions of territory from the alarms of the Allies, and the dismissal of Hertzberg in 1791 marked the final abandonment of the anti-Austrian tradition of Frederick the Great. For, meanwhile, the French Revolution had entered upon alarming phases, and in August 1791 Frederick William, at the meeting at Pillnitz, arranged with the emperor Leopold to join in supporting the cause of Louis XVI. But neither the king’s character, nor the confusion of the Prussian finances due to his extravagance, gave promise of any effective action. A formal alliance was indeed signed on the 7th of February 1792, and Frederick William took part personally in the campaigns of 1792 and 1793. He was hampered, however, by want of funds, and his counsels were distracted by the affairs of Poland, which promised a richer booty than was likely to be gained by the anti-revolutionary crusade into France. A subsidy treaty with the sea powers (April 19, 1794) filled his coffers; but the insurrection in Poland that followed the partition of 1793, and the threat of the isolated intervention of Russia, hurried him into the separate treaty of Basel with the French Republic (April 5, 1795), which was regarded by the great monarchies as a betrayal, and left Prussia morally isolated in Europe on the eve of the titanic struggle between the monarchical principle and the new political creed of the Revolution. Prussia had paid a heavy price for the territories acquired at the expense of Poland in 1793 and 1795, and when, on the 16th of November 1797, Frederick William died, he left the state in bankruptcy and confusion, the army decayed and the monarchy discredited.

Frederick William II. was twice married: (1) in 1765 to Elizabeth of Brunswick (d. 1841), by whom he had a daughter, Frederika, afterwards duchess of York, and from whom he was divorced in 1769; (2) in 1769 to Frederika Louisa of Hesse-Darmstadt, by whom he had four sons, Frederick William III., Louis (d. 1796), Henry and William, and two daughters, Wilhelmina, wife of William of Orange, afterwards William I., king of the Netherlands, and Augusta, wife of William II., elector of Hesse. Besides his relations with his maÎtresse en titre, the countess Lichtenau, the king—who was a frank polygamist—contracted two “marriages of the left hand” with FrÄulein von Voss and the countess DÖnhoff.

See article by von Hartmann in Allgem. deutsche Biog. (Leipzig, 1878); Stadelmann, Preussens KÖnige in ihrer TÄtigkeit fÜr die Landeskultur, vol. iii. “Friedrich Wilhelm II.” (Leipzig, 1885); Paulig, Friedrich Wilhelm II., sein Privatleben u. seine Regierung (Frankfurt-an-der-Oder, 1896).

FREDERICK WILLIAM III. (1770-1840), king of Prussia, eldest son of King Frederick William II., was born at Potsdam on the 3rd of August 1770. His father, then prince of Prussia, was out of favour with Frederick the Great and entirely under the influence of his mistress; and the boy, handed over to tutors appointed by the king, lived a solitary and repressed life which tended to increase the innate weakness of his character. But though his natural defects of intellect and will-power were not improved by the pedantic tutoring to which he was submitted, he grew up pious, honest and well-meaning; and had fate cast him in any but the most stormy times of his country’s history he might well have left the reputation of a model king. As a soldier he received the usual training of a Prussian prince, obtained his lieutenancy in 1784, became a colonel commanding in 1790, and took part in the campaigns of 1792-94. In 1793 he married Louise, daughter of Prince Charles of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, whom he had met and fallen in love with at Frankfort (see Louise, queen of Prussia). He succeeded to the throne on the 16th of November 1797 and at once gave earnest of his good intentions by cutting down the expenses of the royal establishment, dismissing his father’s ministers, and reforming the most oppressive abuses of the late reign. Unfortunately, however, he had all the Hohenzollern tenacity of personal power without the Hohenzollern genius for using it. Too distrustful to delegate his responsibility to his ministers, he was too infirm of will to strike out and follow a consistent course for himself.

The results of this infirmity of purpose are written large on the history of Prussia from the treaty of LunÉville in 1801 to the downfall that followed the campaign of Jena in 1806. By the treaty of Tilsit (July 9th, 1807) Frederick William had to surrender half his dominions, and what remained to him was exhausted by French exactions and liable at any moment to be crushed out of existence by some new whim of Napoleon. In the dark years that followed it was the indomitable courage of Queen Louise that helped the weak king not to despair of the state. She seconded the reforming efforts of Stein and the work of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in reorganizing the army, by which the resurrection of Prussia became a possibility. When Stein was dismissed at the instance of Napoleon, Hardenberg succeeded him as chancellor (June 1810). In the following month Queen Louise died, and the king was left alone to deal with circumstances of ever-increasing difficulty. He was forced to join Napoleon in the war against Russia; and even when the disastrous campaign of 1812 had for the time broken the French power, it was not his own resolution, but the loyal disloyalty of General York in concluding with Russia the convention of Tauroggen that forced him into line with the patriotic fervour of his people.

Once committed to the Russian alliance, however, he became the faithful henchman of the emperor Alexander, whose fascinating personality exercised over him to the last a singular power, and began that influence of Russia at the court of Berlin which was to last till Frederick William IV.’s supposed Liberalism was to shatter the cordiality of the entente. That during and after the settlement of 1815 Frederick William played a very secondary part in European affairs is explicable as well by his character as by the absorbing character of the internal problems of Prussia. He was one of the original co-signatories of the Holy Alliance, though, in common with most, he signed it with reluctance; and in the counsels of the Grand Alliance he allowed himself to be practically subordinated to Alexander and later to Metternich. In a ruler of his character it is not surprising that the Revolution and its developments had produced an unconquerable suspicion of constitutional principles and methods, which the Liberal agitations in Germany tended to increase. At the various congresses, from Aix-la-Chapelle (1818) to Verona (1822), therefore, he showed himself heartily in sympathy with the repressive policy formulated in the Troppau Protocol. The promise of a constitution, which in the excitement of the War of Liberation he had made to his people, remained unfulfilled partly owing to this mental attitude, partly, however, to the all but insuperable difficulties in the way of its execution. But though reluctant to play the part of a constitutional king, Frederick William maintained to the full the traditional character of “first servant of the state.” Though he chastised Liberal professors and turbulent students, it was in the spirit of a benevolent Landesvater; and he laboured assiduously at the enormous task of administrative reconstruction necessitated by the problem of welding the heterogeneous elements of the new Prussian kingdom into a united whole. He was sincerely religious; but his well-meant efforts to unite the Lutheran and Reformed Churches, in celebration of the tercentenary of the Reformation (1817), revealed the limits of his paternal power; eleven years passed in vain attempts to devise common formulae; a stubborn Lutheran minority had to be coerced by military force, the confiscation of their churches and the imprisonment or exile of their pastors; not till 1834 was outward union secured on the basis of common worship but separate symbols, the opponents of the measure being forbidden to form communities of their own. With the Roman Church, too, the king came into conflict on the vexed question of “mixed marriages,” a conflict in which the Vatican gained an easy victory (see Bunsen, C. C. J., Baron von).

The revolutions of 1830 strengthened Frederick William in his reactionary tendencies; the question of the constitution was indefinitely shelved; and in 1831 Prussian troops concentrated on the frontier helped the task of the Russians in reducing the military rising in Poland. Yet, in spite of all, Frederick William was beloved by his subjects, who valued him for the simplicity of his manners, the goodness of his heart and the memories of the dark days after 1806. He died on the 7th of June 1840. In 1824 he had contracted a morganatic marriage with the countess Auguste von Harrach, whom he created Princess von Liegnitz. He wrote Luther in Bezug auf die Kirchenagenda von 1822 und 1823 (Berlin, 1827), Reminiszenzen aus der Kampagne 1792 in Frankreich, and Journal meiner Brigade in der Kampagne am Rhein 1793.

The correspondence (Briefwechsel) of King Frederick William III. and Queen Louise with the emperor Alexander I. has been published (Leipzig, 1900) and also that between the king and queen (ib. 1903), both edited by P. Bailleu. See W. Hahn, Friedrich Wilhelm III. und Luise (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1877); M. W. Duncker, Aus der Zeit Friedrichs des Grossen und Friedrich Wilhelms III. (Leipzig, 1876); Bishop R. F. Eylert, CharakterzÜge aus dem Leben des KÖnigs von Preussen Friedrich Wilhelm III. (3 vols., Magdeburg, 1843-1846).

FREDERICK WILLIAM IV. (1795-1861), king of Prussia, eldest son of Frederick William III., was born on the 15th of October 1795. From his first tutor, Johann DelbrÜck, he imbibed a love of culture and art, and possibly also the dash of Liberalism which formed an element of his complex habit of mind. But after a time DelbrÜck, suspected of inspiring his charge with a dislike of the Prussian military caste and even of belonging to a political secret society, was dismissed, his place being taken by the pastor and historian Friedrich Ancillon, while a military governor was also appointed. By Ancillon he was grounded in religion, in history and political science, his natural taste for the antique and the picturesque making it easy for his tutor to impress upon him his own hatred of the Revolution and its principles. This hatred was confirmed by the sufferings of his country and family in the terrible years after 1806, and his first experience of active soldiering was in the campaigns that ended in the occupation of Paris by the Allies in 1814. In action his reckless bravery had earned him rebuke, and in Paris he was remarked for the exact performance of his military duties, though he found time to whet his appetite for art in the matchless collections gathered by Napoleon as the spoil of all Europe. On his return to Berlin he studied art under the sculptor Christian Daniel Rauch and the painter and architect Karl Friedrich Schinkel (1781-1841), proving himself in the end a good draughtsman, a born architect and an excellent landscape gardener. At the same time he was being tutored in law by Savigny and in finance by a series of distinguished masters. In 1823 he married the princess Elizabeth of Bavaria, who adopted the Lutheran creed. The union, though childless, was very happy. A long tour in Italy in 1828 was the beginning of his intimacy with Bunsen and did much to develop his knowledge of art and love of antiquity.

On his accession to the throne in 1840 much was expected of a prince so variously gifted and of so amiable a temper, and his first acts did not belie popular hopes. He reversed the unfortunate ecclesiastical policy of his father, allowing a wide liberty of dissent, and releasing the imprisoned archbishop of Cologne; he modified the strictness of the press censorship; above all he undertook, in the presence of the deputations of the provincial diets assembled to greet him on his accession, to carry out the long-deferred project of creating a central constitution, which he admitted to be required alike by the royal promises, the needs of the country and the temper of the times. The story of the evolution of the Prussian parliament belongs to the history of Prussia. Here it must suffice to notice Frederick William’s personal share in the question, which was determined by his general attitude of mind. He was an idealist; but his idealism was of a type the exact reverse of that which the Revolution in arms had sought to impose upon Europe. The idea of the sovereignty of the people was to him utterly abhorrent, and even any delegation of sovereign power on his own part would have seemed a betrayal of a God-given trust. “I will never,” he declared, “allow to come between Almighty God and this country a blotted parchment, to rule us with paragraphs, and to replace the ancient, sacred bond of loyalty.” His vision of the ideal state was that of a patriarchial monarchy, surrounded and advised by the traditional estates of the realm—nobles, peasants, burghers—and cemented by the bonds of evangelical religion; but in which there should be no question of the sovereign power being vested in any other hands than those of the king by divine right. In Prussia, with its traditional loyalty and its old-world caste divisions, he believed that such a conception could be realized, and he took up an attitude half-way between those who would have rejected the proposal for a central diet altogether as a dangerous “thin end of the wedge,” and those who would have approximated it more to the modern conception of a parliament. With a charter, or a representative system based on population, he would have nothing to do. The united diet which was opened on the 3rd of February 1847 was no more than a congregation of the diets instituted by Frederick William III. in the eight provinces of Prussia. Unrepresentative though it was—for the industrial working-classes had no share in it—it at once gave voice to the demand for a constitutional system.

This demand gained overwhelmingly in force with the revolutionary outbreaks of 1848. To Frederick William these came as a complete surprise, and, rudely awakened from his medieval dreamings, he even allowed himself to be carried away for a while by the popular tide. The loyalty of the Prussian army remained inviolate; but the king was too tender-hearted to use military force against his “beloved Berliners,” and when the victory of the populace was thus assured his impressionable temper yielded to the general enthusiasm. He paraded the streets of Berlin wrapped in a scarf of the German black and gold, symbol of his intention to be the leader of the united Germany; and he even wrote to the indignant tsar in praise of “the glorious German revolution.” The change of sentiment was, however, apparent rather than real. The shadow of venerable institutions, past or passing, still darkened his counsels. The united Germany which he was prepared to champion was not the democratic state which the theorists of the Frankfort national parliament were evolving on paper with interminable debate, but the old Holy Roman Empire, the heritage of the house of Habsburg, of which he was prepared to constitute himself the guardian so long as its lawful possessors should not have mastered the forces of disorder by which they were held captive. Finally, when Austria had been excluded from the new empire, he replied to the parliamentary deputation that came to offer him the imperial crown that he might have accepted it had it been freely offered to him by the German princes, but that he would never stoop “to pick up a crown out of the gutter.”

Whatever may be thought of the manner of this refusal, or of its immediate motives, it was in itself wise, for the German empire would have lost immeasurably had it been the cause rather than the result of the inevitable struggle with Austria, and Bismarck was probably right when he said that, to weld the heterogeneous elements of Germany into a united whole, what was needed was, not speeches and resolutions, but a policy of “blood and iron.” In any case Frederick William, uneasy enough as a constitutional king, would have been impossible as a constitutional emperor. As it was, his refusal to play this part gave the deathblow to the parliament and to all hope of the immediate creation of a united Germany. For Frederick William the position of leader of Germany now meant the employment of the military force of Prussia to crush the scattered elements of revolution that survived the collapse of the national movement. His establishment of the northern confederacy was a reversion to the traditional policy of Prussia in opposition to Austria, which, after the emperor Nicholas had crushed the insurrection in Hungary, was once more free to assert her claims to dominance in Germany. But Prussia was not ripe for a struggle with Austria, even had Frederick William found it in his conscience to turn his arms against his ancient ally, and the result was the humiliating convention of OlmÜtz (November 29th, 1850), by which Prussia agreed to surrender her separatist plans and to restore the old constitution of the confederation. Yet Frederick William had so far profited by the lessons of 1848 that he consented to establish (1850) a national parliament, though with a restricted franchise and limited powers. The House of Lords (Herrenhaus) justified the king’s insistence in calling it into being by its support of Bismarck against the more popular House during the next reign.

In religious matters Frederick William was also largely swayed by his love for the ancient and picturesque. In concert with his friend Bunsen he laboured to bring about a rapprochement between the Lutheran and Anglican churches, the first-fruits of which was the establishment of the Jerusalem bishopric under the joint patronage of Great Britain and Prussia; but the only result of his efforts was to precipitate the secession of J. H. Newman and his followers to the Church of Rome. In general it may be said that Frederick William, in spite of his talents and his wide knowledge, lived in a dream-land of his own, out of touch with actuality. The style of his letters reveals a mind enthusiastic and ill-balanced. In the summer of 1857 he had a stroke of paralysis, and a second in October. From this time, with the exception of brief intervals, his mind was completely clouded, and the duties of government were undertaken by his brother William (afterwards emperor), who on the 7th of October 1858 was formally recognized as regent. Frederick William died on the 2nd of January 1861.

Selections from the correspondence (Briefwechsel) of Frederick William IV. and Bunsen were edited by Ranke (Leipzig, 1873); his proclamations, speeches, &c., from the 6th of March 1848 to the 31st of May 1851 have been published (Berlin, 1851); also his correspondence with Bettina von Arnim, Bettina von Arnim und Friedrich Wilhelm IV., ungedruckte Briefe und AktenstÜcke, ed. L. Geiger (Frankfort-on-Main, 1902). See L. von Ranke, Friedrich Wilhelm IV., KÖnig von Preussen (works 51, 52 also in Allgem. deutsche Biog. vol. vii.), especially for the king’s education and the inner history of the debates leading up to the united diet of 1847; H. von Petersdorff, KÖnig Friedrich Wilhelm IV. (Stuttgart, 1900); F. Rachfahl, Deutschland, KÖnig Friedrich Wilhelm IV. und die Berliner MÄrzrevolution (Halle, 1901); H. von Poschinger (ed.), Unter Friedrich Wilhelm IV. DenkwÜrdigkeiten des Ministers Otto Frhr. von Manteuffel, 1848-1858 (3 vols., Berlin, 1900-1901); and Preussens auswÄrtige Politik, 1850-1858 (3 vols., ib., 1902), documents selected from those left by Manteuffel; E. Friedberg, Die Grundlagen der preussischen Kirchenpolitik unter Friedrich Wilhelm IV. (Leipzig, 1882).

FREDERICK WILLIAM (1620-1688), elector of Brandenburg, usually called the “Great Elector,” was born in Berlin on the 16th of February 1620. His father was the elector George William, and his mother was Elizabeth Charlotte, daughter of Frederick IV., elector palatine of the Rhine. Owing to the disorders which were prevalent in Brandenburg he passed part of his youth in the Netherlands, studying at the university of Leiden and learning something of war and statecraft under Frederick Henry, prince of Orange. During his boyhood a marriage had been suggested between him and Christina, afterwards queen of Sweden; but although the idea was revived during the peace negotiations between Sweden and Brandenburg, it came to nothing, and in 1646 he married Louise Henriette (d. 1667), daughter of Frederick Henry of Orange, a lady whose counsel was very helpful to him and who seconded his efforts for the welfare of his country.

Having become ruler of Brandenburg and Prussia by his father’s death in December 1640, Frederick William set to work at once to repair the extensive damage wrought during the Thirty Years’ War, still in progress. After some difficulty he secured his investiture as duke of Prussia from Wladislaus, king of Poland, in October 1641, but was not equally successful in crushing the independent tendencies of the estates of Cleves. It was in Brandenburg, however, that he showed his supreme skill as a diplomatist and administrator. His disorderly troops were replaced by an efficient and disciplined force; his patience and perseverance freed his dominions from the Swedish soldiers; and the restoration of law and order was followed by a revival of trade and an increase of material prosperity. After a tedious struggle he succeeded in centralizing the administration, and controlling and increasing the revenue, while no department of public life escaped his sedulous care (see Brandenburg). The area of his dominions was largely increased at the peace of Westphalia in 1648, and this treaty and the treaty of Oliva in 1660 alike added to his power and prestige. By a clever but unscrupulous use of his intermediate position between Sweden and Poland he procured his recognition as independent duke of Prussia from both powers, and eventually succeeded in crushing the stubborn and lengthened opposition which was offered to his authority by the estates of the duchy (see Prussia). After two checks he made his position respected in Cleves, and in 1666 his title to Cleves, JÜlich and Ravensberg was definitely recognized. His efforts, however, to annex the western part of the duchy of Pomerania, which he had conquered from the Swedes, failed owing to the insistence of Louis XIV. at the treaty of St Germain-en-Laye in 1679, and he was unable to obtain the Silesian duchies of Liegnitz, Brieg and Wohlau from the emperor Leopold I. after they had been left without a ruler in 1675.

Frederick William played an important part in European politics. Although found once or twice on the side of France, he was generally loyal to the interests of the empire and the Habsburgs, probably because his political acumen scented danger to Brandenburg from the aggressive policy of Louis XIV. He was a Protestant in religion, but he supported Protestant interests abroad on political rather than on religious grounds, and sought, but without much success, to strengthen Brandenburg by allaying the fierce hostility between Lutherans and Calvinists. His success in founding and organizing the army of Brandenburg-Prussia was amply demonstrated by the great victory which he gained over the Swedes at Fehrbellin in June 1675, and by the eagerness with which foreign powers sought his support. He was also the founder of the Prussian navy. The elector assisted trade in every possible way. He made the canal which still bears his name between the Oder and the Spree; established a trading company; and founded colonies on the west coast of Africa. He encouraged Flemings to settle in Brandenburg, and both before and after the revocation of the edict of Nantes in 1685 welcomed large numbers of Huguenots, who added greatly to the welfare of the country. Education was not neglected; and if in this direction some of his plans were abortive, it was from lack of means and opportunity rather than effort and inclination. It is difficult to overestimate the services of the great elector to Brandenburg and Prussia. They can only be properly appreciated by those who compare the condition of his country in 1640 with its condition in 1688. Both actually and relatively its importance had increased enormously; poverty had given place to comparative wealth, and anarchy to a system of government which afterwards made Prussia the most centralized state in Europe. He had scant sympathy with local privileges, and in fighting them his conduct was doubtless despotic. His aim was to make himself an absolute ruler, as he regarded this as the best guarantee for the internal and external welfare of the state.

The great elector died at Potsdam from dropsy on the 9th of May 1688, and was succeeded by his eldest surviving son, Frederick. His personal appearance was imposing, and although he was absolutely without scruples when working for the interests of Brandenburg, he did not lack a sense of justice and generosity. At all events he deserves the eulogy passed upon him by Frederick the Great, “Messieurs; celui-ci a fait de grandes choses.” His second wife, whom he married in 1668, was Dorothea (d. 1689), daughter of Philip, duke of Holstein-GlÜcksburg, and widow of Christian Louis, duke of Brunswick-LÜneburg; she bore him four sons and three daughters. His concluding years were troubled by differences between his wife and her step-son, Frederick; and influenced by Dorothea he bequeathed portions of Brandenburg to her four sons, a bequest which was annulled under his successor.

See S. de Pufendorf, De rebus gestis Friderici Wilhelmi Magni (Leipzig and Berlin, 1733); L. von Orlich, Friedrich Wilhelm der grosse KurfÜrst (Berlin, 1836); K. H. S. RÖdenbeck, Zur Geschichte Friedrich Wilhelms des grossen KurfÜrsten (Berlin, 1851); B. ErdmannsdÖrffer, Der grosse KurfÜrst (Leipzig, 1879); J. G. Droysen, Geschichte der preussischen Politik (Berlin, 1855-1886); M. Philippson, Der grosse KurfÜrst (Berlin, 1897-1903); E. Heyck, Der grosse KurfÜrst (Bielefeld, 1902); Spahn, Der grosse KurfÜrst (Mainz, 1902); H. Landwehr, Die Kirchenpolitik des grossen KurfÜrsten (Berlin, 1894); H. Prutz, Aus des grossen KurfÜrsten letzten Jahren (Berlin, 1897). Also Urkunden und AktenstÜcke zur Geschichte des KurfÜrsten Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg (Berlin, 1864-1902); T. Carlyle, History of Frederick the Great, vol. i. (London, 1858); and A. Waddington, Le Grand Électeur et Louis XIV (Paris, 1905).

FRÉDÉRICK-LEMAÎTRE, ANTOINE LOUIS PROSPER (1800-1876) French actor, the son of an architect, was born at Havre on the 28th of July 1800. He spent two years at the Conservatoire, and made his first appearance at a variety performance in one of the basement restaurants at the Palais Royal. At the Ambigu on the 12th of July 1823 he played the part of Robert Macaire in L’Auberge des AdrÉts. The melodrama was played seriously on the first night and was received with little favour, but it was changed on the second night to burlesque, and thanks to him had a great success. All Paris came to see it, and from that day he was famous. He created a number of parts that added to his popularity, especially Cardillac, Cagliostro and Cartouche. His success in the last led to an engagement at the Porte St Martin, where in 1827 he produced Trente ans, ou la vie d’un joueur, in which his vivid acting made a profound impression. Afterwards at the OdÉon and other theatres he passed from one success to another, until he put the final touch to his reputation as an artist by creating the part of Ruy Blas in Victor Hugo’s play. On his return to the Porte St Martin he created the title-rÔle in Balzac’s Vautrin, which was forbidden a second presentation, on account, it is said, of the resemblance of the actor’s wig to the well-known toupet worn by Louis Philippe. His last appearance was at this theatre in 1873 as the old Jew in Marie Tudor, and he died at Paris on the 26th of January 1876.

FREDERICKSBURG, a city of Spottsylvania county, Virginia, U.S.A., on the Rappahannock river, at the head of tide-water navigation, about 60 m. N. of Richmond and about 55 m. S.S.W. of Washington. Pop. (1890) 4528; (1900) 5068 (1621 negroes); (1910) 5874. It is served by the Potomac, Fredericksburg & Piedmont, and the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac railways, and by several coasting steamship lines. The city is built on a series of terraces between the river and hills of considerable height. The river is here spanned by iron bridges, and just above the city is a dam 900 ft. long and 18 ft. high. By means of this dam and a canal good water-power is furnished, and the city’s manufactures include flour, leather, shoes, woollens, silks, wagons, agricultural implements and excelsior (fine wood-shavings for packing or stuffing). The water-works, gas and electric-lighting plants are owned and operated by the municipality. At Fredericksburg are Fredericksburg College (founded in 1893; co-educational), which includes the Kenmore school for girls and the Saunders memorial school for boys (both preparatory); a Confederate and a National cemetery (the latter on Marye’s Heights), a monument (erected in 1906) to General Hugh Mercer (c. 1720-1777), whose home for several years was here and who fell in the battle of Princeton; and a monument to the memory of Washington’s mother, who died here in 1789 and whose home is still standing. Other buildings of interest are the old Rising Sun Hotel, a popular resort during Washington’s time, and “Kenmore,” the home of Colonel Fielding Lewis, who married a sister of Washington. The city was named in honour of Frederick, father of George III., and was incorporated in 1727, long after its first settlement; in 1871 it was re-chartered by act of the General Assembly of Virginia.

The battle of Fredericksburg in the American Civil War was fought on the 13th of December 1862 between the Union forces (Army of the Potomac) under Major-General A. E. Burnside and the Confederates (Army of Northern Virginia) under General R. E. Lee. In the middle of November, Burnside, newly appointed to command the Army of the Potomac, had manoeuvred from the neighbourhood of Warrenton with a view to beginning an offensive move from Fredericksburg and, as a preliminary, to seizing a foothold beyond the Rappahannock at or near that place. On arriving near Falmouth, however, he found that the means of crossing that he had asked for had not been forwarded from Washington, and he sat down to wait for them, while, on the other side, the Confederate army gradually assembled south of the Rappahannock in a strong position with the left on the river above Fredericksburg and the right near Hamilton’s Crossing on the Richmond railway. On the 10th of December Burnside, having by now received his pontoons, prepared to cross the river and to attack the Confederate entrenched position on the heights beyond the town. The respective forces were Union 122,000, Confederate 79,000. Major-General E. V. Sumner, commanding the Federal right wing (II. and IX. corps), was to cross at Fredericksburg, Major-General W. B. Franklin with the left (I. and VI. corps) some miles below, while the centre (III. and V. corps) under Major-General Joseph Hooker was to connect the two attacks and to reinforce either at need. The Union artillery took position along the heights of the north bank to cover the crossing, and no opposition was encountered opposite Franklin’s command, which formed up on the other side during the 11th and 12th. Opposite Sumner, however, the Confederate riflemen, hidden in the gardens and houses of Fredericksburg, caused much trouble and considerable losses to the Union pioneers, and a forlorn hope of volunteers from the infantry had to be rowed across under fire before the enemy’s skirmishers could be dislodged. Sumner’s two corps crossed on the 12th. The battle took place next morning.

Controversy has raged round Burnside’s plan of action and in particular round his orders to Franklin, as to which it can only be said that whatever chance of success there was in so formidable an undertaking as attacking the well-posted enemy was thrown away through misunderstandings, and that nothing but misunderstandings could be expected from the vague and bewildering orders issued by the general in command. The actual battle can be described in a few words. Jackson held the right of Lee’s line, Longstreet the left, both entrenched. Franklin, tied by his instructions, attacked with one division only, which a little later he supported by two more (I. corps, Major-General J. F. Reynolds) out of eight or nine available. His left flank was harassed by the Confederate horse artillery under the young and brilliant Captain John Pelham, and after breaking the first line of Stonewall Jackson’s corps the assailants were in the end driven back with heavy losses. On the other flank, where part of Longstreet’s corps held the low ridge opposite Fredericksburg called Marye’s Heights, Burnside ordered in the II. corps under Major-General D. N. Couch about 11 A.M., and thenceforward division after division, on a front of little more than 800 yds., was sent forward to assault with the bayonet. The “Stone Wall” along the foot of Marye’s was lined with every rifle of Longstreet’s corps that could find room to fire, and above them the Confederate guns fired heavily on the assailants, whose artillery, on the height beyond the river, was too far off to assist them. Not a man of the Federals reached the wall, though the bravest were killed a few paces from it, and Sumner’s and most of Hooker’s brigades were broken one after the other as often as they tried to assault. At night the wrecks of the right wing were withdrawn. Burnside proposed next day to lead the IX. corps, which he had formerly commanded, in one mass to the assault of the Stone Wall, but his subordinates dissuaded him, and on the night of the 15th the Army of the Potomac withdrew to its camps about Falmouth. The losses of the Federals were 12,650 men, those of the Confederates 4200, little more than a third of which fell on Longstreet’s corps.

See F. W. Palfrey, Antietam and Fredericksburg (New York, 1881); G. W. Redway, Fredericksburg (London, 1906); and G. F. R. Henderson, Fredericksburg (London, 1889).

FREDERICTON, a city and port of entry of New Brunswick, Canada, capital of the province, situated on the St John river, 84 m. from its mouth, and on the Canadian Pacific railway. It stands on a plain bounded on one side by the river, which is here ¾ m. broad, and on the other by a range of hills which almost encircle the town. It is regularly built with long and straight streets, and contains the parliament buildings, government house, the Anglican cathedral, the provincial university and several other educational establishments. Fredericton is the chief commercial centre in the interior of the province, and has also a large trade in lumber. Its industries include canneries, tanneries and wooden ware factories. The river is navigable for large steamers up to the city, and above it by vessels of lighter draught. Two bridges, passenger and railway, unite the city with the towns of St Marye’s and Gibson on the east side of the river, at its junction with the Nashwaak. The city was founded in 1785 by Sir Guy Carleton, and made the capital of the province, in spite of the jealousy of St John, on account of its superior strategical position. Pop. (1901) 7117.

FREDONIA, a village of Chautauqua county, New York, U.S.A., about 45 m. S.W. of Buffalo, and 3 m. from Lake Erie. Pop. (1900) 4127; (1905, state census) 5148; (1910 census) 5285. Fredonia is served by the Dunkirk, Allegheny Valley & Pittsburg railway, which connects at Dunkirk, 3 m. to the N., with the Erie, the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern, the New York, Chicago & St Louis, and the Pennsylvania railways; and by electric railway to Erie, Buffalo and Dunkirk. It is the seat of a State Normal School. The Darwin R. Barker public library contained 9700 volumes in 1908. Fredonia is situated in the grape-growing region of western New York, is an important shipping point for grapes, and has large grape-vine and general nurseries. The making of wine and of unfermented grape-juice are important industries of the village. Among other manufactures are canned goods, coal dealers’ supplies, and patent medicines. The first settlement here was made in 1804, and the place was called Canandaway until 1817, when the present name was adopted. The village was incorporated in 1829. Fredonia was one of the first places in the United States, if not the first, to make use of natural gas for public purposes. Within the village limits, near a creek, whose waters showed the presence of gas, a well was sunk in 1821, and the supply of gas thus tapped was sufficient to light the streets of the village. Another well was sunk within the village limits in 1858. About 1905 natural gas was again obtained by deep drilling near Fredonia and came into general use for heat, light and power. In the Fredonia Baptist church on the 14th of December 1873 a Woman’s Temperance Union was organized, and from this is sometimes dated the beginning of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union movement.

FREDRIKSHALD (Frederickshald, Friederichshall), a seaport and garrison town of Norway, in Smaalenene amt (county), 85 m. by rail S. by E. of Christiania. Pop. (1900) 11,948. It is picturesquely situated on both banks of the Tistedal river at its outflow to the Ide fjord, surrounded by several rocky eminences. The chief of these is occupied by the famous fortress Fredriksten, protected on three sides by precipices, founded by Frederick III. (1661), and mainly showing, in its present form, the works of Frederick V. (1766) and Christian VII. (1808). Between it and the smaller GyldenlÖve fort a monument marks the spot where Charles XII. was shot in the trenches while besieging the town (1718). The siege, which was then raised, is further commemorated by a monument to the brave defence of the brothers Peter and Hans KolbjÖrnsen. Fredrikshald is close to the Swedish frontier, and had previously (1660) withstood invasion, after which its name was changed from Halden to the present form in 1665 in honour of Frederick III. The town was almost totally destroyed by fire in 1759 and 1826. The castle surrendered to the Swedish crown prince Bernadotte in 1814, and its capture was speedily followed by the conquest of the kingdom and its union with Sweden. Fredrikshald is one of the principal ports of the kingdom for the export of timber. Marble of very fine quality and grain is extensively quarried and exported for architectural ornamentation and for furniture-making. Wood-pulp is also exported. The industries embrace granite quarries, wood-pulp factories, and factories for sugar, tobacco, curtains, travelling-bags, boots, &c. There are railway communications with Gothenburg and all parts of Sweden and regular coastal and steamer services.

FREDRIKSTAD (Frederikstad), a seaport and manufacturing town of Norway in Smaalenene amt (county), 58 m. S. by E. of Christiania by the Christiania-Gothenburg railway. Pop. (1900) 14,553. It lies at the mouth and on the eastern shore of Christiania fjord, occupying both banks of the great river Glommen, which, descending from the richly-wooded district of Österdal, floats down vast quantities of timber. The new town on the right bank is therefore a centre of the timber export trade, this place being the principal port in Norway for the export of pit-props, planed boards, and other varieties of timber. There is also a great industry in the making of red bricks, owing to the expansion of Christiania, Gothenburg and other towns. Granite is quarried and exported. Besides the large number of saw and planing mills, there are shipbuilding yards, engine and boiler works, cotton and woollen mills, and factories for acetic acid and naphtha. The harbour, which can be entered by vessels drawing 14 ft., is kept open in winter by an ice-breaker. In the vicinity is the island HankÖ, the most fashionable Norwegian seaside resort. The old town on the left bank was founded by Frederick II. in 1567. It was for a long time strongly fortified, and in 1716 Charles XII. of Sweden made a vain attempt to capture it.

FREE BAPTISTS, formerly called (but no longer officially) Freewill Baptists, an American denomination holding anti-paedobaptist and anti-Calvinistic doctrines, and practically identical in creed with the General Baptists of Great Britain. Many of the early Baptist churches in Rhode Island and throughout the South were believers in “general redemption” (hence called “general” Baptists); and there was a largely attended conference of this Arminian branch of the church at Newport in 1729. But the denomination known as “Free-willers” had its rise in 1779-1780, when anti-Calvinists in Loudon, Barrington and Canterbury, New Hampshire, seceded and were organized by Benjamin Randall (1749-1808), a native of New Hampshire. Randall was an itinerant missionary, who had been preaching for two years before his ordination in 1780; in the same year he was censured for “heterodox” teaching. The work of the church suffered a relapse after his death, and a movement to join the Freewill Baptists with the “Christians,” who were led by Elias Smith (1769-1846) and had been bitterly opposed by Randall, was nearly successful. Between 1820 and 1830 the denomination made considerable progress, especially in New England and the Middle West. The Freewill Baptists were joined in 1841 by many “open-communion Baptists”—those in the Carolinas who did not join the larger body distinguishing themselves by the name of Original Freewill Baptists—and soon afterwards by some of the General Baptists of North Carolina and some of the Six Principle Baptists of Rhode Island (who had added the “laying on of hands” to the Five Principles hitherto held); and the abbreviation of the denominational name to “Free Baptists” suggests their liberal policy—indeed open communion is the main if not the only hindrance to union with the “regular” Baptist Church.

Colleges founded by the denomination, all co-educational, are: Hillsdale College, opened at Spring Harbor as Michigan Central College in 1844, and established at Hillsdale, Michigan, in 1855; Bates College, Lewiston, Maine, 1863, now non-sectarian; Rio Grande College, Rio Grande, Ohio, 1876; and Parker College, Winnebago City, Minnesota, opened in 1888. At the close of 1909 there were 1294 ministers, 1303 churches, and 73,536 members of the denomination in the United States. The Morning Star of Boston, established in 1826, is the most prominent journal published by the church. In British North America, according to a Canadian census bulletin of 1902, there were, in 1901, 24,229 Free Baptists, of whom 15,502 were inhabitants of New Brunswick, 8355 of Nova Scotia, 246 of Ontario, and 87 of Quebec. The United Societies of Free Baptist Young People, an international organization founded in 1888, had in 1907 about 15,000 members. At the close of 1907 the “Original Freewill Baptists” had 120 ministers, 167 churches, and 12,000 members, practically all in the Carolinas.

See I. D. Stewart, History of the Free Will Baptists (Dover, N. H., 1862) for 1780-1830, and his edition of the Minutes of the General Conference of the Free Will Baptist Connection (Boston, 1887); James B. Taylor, The Centennial Record of the Free Will Baptists (Dover, 1881); John Buzzell, Memoir of Elder Benjamin Randall (Parsonfield, Maine, 1827); and P. Richardson, “Randall and the Free Will Baptists,” in The Christian Review, vol. xxiii. (Baltimore, 1858).

FREEBENCH, in English law, the interest which a widow has in the copyhold lands of her husband, corresponding to dower in the case of freeholds. It depends upon the custom of the manor, but as a general rule the widow takes a third for her life of the lands of which her husband dies seised, but it may be an estate greater or less than a third. If the husband surrenders his copyhold and the surrenderee is admitted, or if he contracts for a sale, it will defeat the widow’s freebench. As freebench is regarded as a continuation of the husband’s estate, the widow does not (except by special custom) require to be admitted.

FREE CHURCH FEDERATION, a voluntary association of British Nonconformist churches for co-operation in religious, social and civil work. It was the outcome of a unifying tendency displayed during the latter part of the 19th century. About 1890 the proposal that there should be a Nonconformist Church Congress analogous to the Anglican Church Congress was seriously considered, and the first was held in Manchester on the 7th of November 1892. In the following year it was resolved that the basis of representation should be neither personal (as in the Anglican Church Congress) nor denominational, but territorial. England and Wales have since been completely covered with a network of local councils, each of which elects its due proportion of representatives to the national gathering. This territorial arrangement eliminated all sectarian distinctions, and also the possibility of committing the different churches as such to any particular policy. The representatives of the local councils attend not as denominationalists but as Evangelical Free Churchmen. The name of the organization was changed from Congress to National Council as soon as the assembly ceased to be a fortuitous concourse of atoms, and consisted of duly appointed representatives from the local councils of every part of England. The local councils consist of representatives of the Congregational and Baptist Churches, the Methodist Churches, the Presbyterian Church of England, the Free Episcopal Churches, the Society of Friends, and such other Evangelical Churches as the National Council may at any time admit. The constitution states the following as the objects of the National Council: (a) To facilitate fraternal intercourse and co-operation among the Evangelical Free Churches; (b) to assist in the organization of local councils; (c) to encourage devotional fellowship and mutual counsel concerning the spiritual life and religious activities of the Churches; (d) to advocate the New Testament doctrine of the Church, and to defend the rights of the associated Churches; (e) to promote the application of the law of Christ in every relation of human life. Although the objects of the Free Church councils are thus in their nature and spirit religious rather than political, there are occasions on which action is taken on great national affairs. Thus a thorough-going opposition was offered to the Education Act of 1902, and whole-hearted support accorded to candidates at the general election of 1906 who pledged themselves to altering that measure.

A striking feature of the movement is the adoption of the parochial system for the purpose of local work. Each of the associated churches is requested to look after a parish, not of course with any attempt to exclude other churches, but as having a special responsibility for those in that area who are not already connected with some existing church. Throughout the United Kingdom local councils are formed into federations, some fifty in number, which are intermediate between them and the national council. The local councils do what is possible to prevent overlapping and excessive competition between the churches. They also combine the forces of the local churches for evangelistic and general devotional work, open-air services, efforts on behalf of Sunday observance, and the prevention of gambling. Services are arranged in connexion with workhouses, hospitals and other public institutions. Social work of a varied character forms a large part of the operations of the local councils, and the Free Church Girls’ Guild has a function similar to that of the Anglican Girls’ Friendly Society. The national council engages in mission work on a large scale, and a considerable number of periodicals, hymn-books for special occasions, and works of different kinds explaining the history and ideals of the Evangelical Free Churches have been published. The churches represented in the National Council have 9966 ministers, 55,828 local preachers, 407,991 Sunday-school teachers, 3,416,377 Sunday scholars, 2,178,221 communicants, and sitting accommodation for 8,555,460.

A remarkable manifestation of this unprecedented reunion was the fact that a committee of the associated churches prepared and published a catechism expressing the positive and fundamental agreement of all the Evangelical Free Churches on the essential doctrines of Christianity (see The Contemporary Review, January 1899). The catechism represents substantially the creed of not less than 80,000,000 Protestants. It has been widely circulated throughout Great Britain, the British Colonies and the United States of America, and has also been translated into Welsh, French and Italian.

The movement has spread to all parts of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Jamaica, the United States of America and India. It is perhaps necessary to add that it differs essentially from the Evangelical Alliance, inasmuch as its unit is not an individual, private Christian, but a definitely organized and visible Church. The essential doctrine of the movement is a particular doctrine of churchmanship which, as explained in the catechism, regards the Lord Jesus Christ as the sole and Divine Head of every branch of the Holy Catholic Church throughout the world. For this reason those who do not accept the deity of Christ are necessarily excluded from the national council and its local constituent councils.

FREE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, a Protestant episcopal church “essentially one with the established church of England, but free to go into any parish, to use a revised edition of the Book of Common Prayer, to associate the laity with the clergy in the government and work of the church, and to hold communion with Christians of other denominations.” It was founded in 1844 in opposition to the Tractarian movement, and embodies the distinctively evangelical elements of the Reformation. It preserves and maintains to the letter all that is Protestant and evangelical in the liturgy and services of the Anglican church, while its free constitution and revised formularies meet the needs of members of that communion who resent sacerdotal and ritualistic tendencies. There are two dioceses (northern and southern) each with a bishop, about 30 churches and ministers, and about 1300 members.

FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. In one sense the Free Church of Scotland dated its existence from the Disruption of 1843, in another it claimed to be the rightful representative of the National Church of Scotland (see Scotland, Church of) as it was reformed in 1560.1 In the ecclesiastical history of Scotland the Free Churchman sees three great reforming periods. In his view these deserve to be called reforming on many accounts, but most especially because in them the independence of the church, her inherent scriptural right to exercise a spiritual jurisdiction in which she is responsible to her Divine Head alone, was both earnestly asserted and practically maintained. The first reformation extended from 1560, when the church freely held her first General Assembly, and of her own authority acted on the First Book of Discipline, to 1592, when her Presbyterian order was finally and fully ratified by the parliament. The second period began in 1638, when, after 20 years of suspended animation, the Assembly once more shook off Episcopacy, and terminated in 1649, when the parliament of Scotland confirmed the church in her liberties in a larger and ampler sense than before. The third period began in 1834, when the Assembly made use of what the church believed to be her rights in passing the Veto and Chapel Acts. It culminated in the Disruption of 1843.

The fact that the Church, as led first by John Knox and afterwards by Andrew Melville, claimed an inherent right to exercise a spiritual jurisdiction is notorious. More apt to be overlooked is the comparative freedom with which that right was actually used by the church irrespective of state recognition. That recognition was not given until after the queen’s resignation in 1567;2 but, for several years before it came, the church had been holding her Assemblies and settling all questions of discipline, worship, and administration as they arose, in accordance with the first book of polity or discipline which had been drawn up in 1560. Further, in 1581 she, of her own motion, adopted a second book of a similar character, in which she expressly claimed an independent and exclusive jurisdiction or power in all matters ecclesiastical, “which flows directly from God and the Mediator Jesus Christ, and is spiritual, not having a temporal head on earth, but only Christ, the only king and governor of his church”; and this claim, though directly negatived in 1584 by the “Black Acts,” which included an Act of Supremacy over estates spiritual and temporal, continued to be asserted by the Assemblies, until at last it also was practically allowed in the act of 1592.3 This legislation of 1592, however, did not long remain in force. An act of parliament in 1606, which “reponed, restored and reintegrated” the estate of bishops to their ancient dignities, prerogatives and privileges, was followed by several acts of various subservient assemblies, which, culminating in that of 1618, practically amounted to a complete surrender of jurisdiction by the church itself. For twenty years no Assemblies whatever were held. This interval must necessarily be regarded from the Presbyterian point of view as having been one of very deep depression. But a second reformation, characterized by great energy and vigour, began in 1638. The proceedings of the Assembly of that year, afterwards tardily and reluctantly acquiesced in by the state, finally issued in the acts of parliament of 1649, by which the Westminster standards were ratified, lay-patronage was abolished, and the coronation oath itself framed in accordance with the principles of Presbyterian church government. Another period of intense reaction soon set in. No Assemblies were permitted by Cromwell after 1653; and, soon after the Restoration, Presbytery was temporarily overthrown by a series of rescissory acts. Nor was the Revolution Settlement of 1690 so entirely favourable to the freedom of the church as the legislation of 1649 had been. Prelacy was abolished, and various obnoxious statutes were repealed, but the acts rescissory were not cancelled; presbyterianism was re-established, but the statutory recognition of the Confession of Faith took no notice of certain qualifications under which that document had originally been approved by the Assembly of 1647;4 the old rights of patrons were again discontinued, but the large powers which had been conferred on congregations by the act of 1649 were not wholly restored. Nevertheless the great principle of a distinct ecclesiastical jurisdiction, embodied in the Confession of Faith, was accepted without reservation, and a Presbyterian polity effectively confirmed both then and at the ratification of the treaty of Union. This settlement, however, did not long subsist unimpaired. In 1712 the act of Queen Anne, restoring patronage to its ancient footing, was passed in spite of the earnest remonstrances of the Scottish people. For many years afterwards (until 1784) the Assembly continued to instruct each succeeding commission to make application to the king and the parliament for redress of the grievance. But meanwhile a new phase of Scottish ecclesiastical politics commonly known as Moderatism had been inaugurated, during the prevalence of which the church became even more indifferent than the lay patrons themselves to the rights of her congregations with regard to the “calling” of ministers. From the Free Church point of view, the period from which the secessions under Ebenezer Erskine and Thomas Gillespie are dated was also characterized by numerous other abuses on the Church’s part which amounted to a practical surrender of the most important and distinctive principles of her ancient Presbyterian polity.5 Towards the beginning of the present century there were many circumstances, both within and without the church, which conspired to bring about an evangelical and popular reaction against this reign of “Moderatism.” The result was a protracted struggle, which is commonly referred to as the Ten Years’ Conflict, and which has been aptly described as the last battle in the long war which for nearly 300 years had been waged within the church itself, between the friends and the foes of the doctrine of an exclusive ecclesiastical jurisdiction. That final struggle may be said to have begun with the passing in 1834 of the “Veto” Act, by which it was declared to be a fundamental law of the church that no pastor should be intruded on a congregation contrary to the will of the people,6 and by which it was provided that the simple dissent of a majority of heads of families in a parish should be enough to warrant a presbytery in rejecting a presentee. The question of the legality of this measure soon came to be tried in the civil courts; and it was ultimately answered in a sense unfavourable to the church by the decision (1838) of the court of session in the Auchterarder case, to the effect that a presbytery had no right to reject a presentee simply because the parishioners protested against his settlement, but was bound to disregard the veto (see Chalmers, Thomas). This decision elicited from the Assembly of that year a new declaration of the doctrine of the spiritual independence of the church. The “exclusive jurisdiction of the civil courts in regard to the civil rights and emoluments secured by law to the church and the ministers thereof” was acknowledged without qualification; and continued implicit obedience to their decisions with reference to these rights and emoluments was pledged. At the same time it was insisted on “that, as is declared in the Confession of Faith of this National Established Church, ‘the Lord Jesus Christ, as King and Head of the church, hath therein appointed a government in the hand of church officers distinct from the civil magistrate’; and that in all matters touching the doctrine, discipline and government of the church her judicatories possess an exclusive jurisdiction, founded on the Word of God, which power ecclesiastical” (in the words of the Second Book of Discipline) “flows immediately from God and the Mediator the Lord Jesus Christ, and is spiritual, not having a temporal head on earth, but only Christ, the only spiritual King and Governor of His Kirk.” And it was resolved to assert, and at all hazards defend, this spiritual jurisdiction, and firmly to enforce obedience to the same upon the office-bearers and members of the church. The decision of the court of session having been confirmed by the House of Lords early in 1839, it was decided in the Assembly of that year that the church, while acquiescing in the loss of the temporalities at Auchterarder, should reaffirm the principle of non-intrusion as an integral part of the constitution of the Reformed Church of Scotland, and that a committee should be appointed to confer with the government with a view to the prevention, if possible, of any further collision between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities. While the conference with the government had no better result than an unsuccessful attempt at compromise by means of Lord Aberdeen’s Bill, which embodied the principle of a dissent with reasons, still graver complications were arising out of the Marnoch and other cases.7 In the circumstances it was resolved by the Assembly of 1842 to transmit to the queen, by the hands of the lord high commissioner, a “claim, declaration, and protest,” complaining of the encroachments of the court of session,8 and also an address praying for the abolition of patronage. The home secretary’s answer (received in January 1843) gave no hope of redress. Meanwhile the position of the evangelical party had been further hampered by the decision of the court of session declaring the ministers of chapels of ease to be unqualified to sit in any church court. A final appeal to parliament by petition was made in March 1843, when, by a majority of 135 (211 against 76), the House of Commons declined to attempt any redress of the grievances of the Scottish Church.9 At the first session of the following General Assembly (18th May 1843) the reply of the non-intrusion party was made in a protest, signed by upwards of 200 commissioners, to the effect that since, in their opinion, the recent decisions of the civil courts, and the still more recent sanction of these decisions by the legislature, had made it impossible at that time to hold a free Assembly of the church as by law established, they therefore “protest that it shall be lawful for us, and such other commissioners as may concur with us, to withdraw to a separate place of meeting, for the purpose of taking steps for ourselves and all who adhere to us—maintaining with us the Confession of Faith and standards of the Church of Scotland as heretofore understood—for separating in an orderly way from the Establishment, and thereupon adopting such measures as may be competent to us, in humble dependence on God’s grace and the aid of His Holy Spirit, for the advancement of His glory, the extension of the gospel of our Lord and Saviour, and the administration of the affairs of Christ’s house according to His holy word.” The reading of this document was followed by the withdrawal of the entire non-intrusion party to another place of meeting, where the first Assembly of the Free Church was constituted, with Dr Thomas Chalmers as moderator. This Assembly sat from the 18th to the 30th of May, and transacted a large amount of important business. On Tuesday the 23rd, 39610 ministers and professors publicly adhibited their names to the Act of Separation and deed of demission by which they renounced all claim to the benefices they had held in connexion with the Establishment, declaring them to be vacant, and consenting to their being dealt with as such. By this impressive proceeding the signatories voluntarily surrendered an annual income amounting to fully £100,000.

The first care of the voluntarily disestablished church was to provide incomes for her clergy and places of worship for her people. As early as 1841 indeed the leading principle of a “sustentation fund” for the support of the ministry had been announced by Dr Robert Smith Candlish; and at “Convocation,” a private unofficial meeting of the members of the evangelical or non-intrusion party held in November 1842, Dr Chalmers was prepared with a carefully matured scheme according to which “each congregation should do its part in sustaining the whole, and the whole should sustain each congregation.” Between November 1842 and May 1843, 647 associations had been formed; and at the first Assembly it was announced that upwards of £17,000 had already been contributed. At the close of the first financial year (1843-1844) it was reported that the fund had exceeded £61,000. It was participated in by 583 ministers; and 470 drew the full equal dividend of £105. Each successive year showed a steady increase in the gross amount of the fund; but owing to an almost equally rapid increase of the number of new ministerial charges participating in its benefits, the stipend payable to each minister did not for many years reach the sum of £150 which had been aimed at as a minimum. Thus in 1844-1845 the fund had risen to £76,180, but the ministers had also increased to 627, and the equal dividend therefore was only £122. During the first ten years the annual income averaged £84,057; during the next decade £108,643; and during the third £130,246. The minimum of £150 was reached at last in 1868; and subsequently the balance remaining after that minimum had been provided was treated as a surplus fund, and distributed among those ministers whose congregations have contributed at certain specified rates per member. In 1878 the total amount received for this fund was upwards of £177,000; in this 1075 ministers participated. The full equal dividend of £157 was paid to 766 ministers; and additional grants of £36 and £18 were paid out of the surplus fund to 632 and 129 ministers respectively.

To provide for the erection of the buildings which, it was foreseen, would be necessary, a general building fund, in which all should share alike, was also organized, and local building funds were as far as possible established in each parish, with the result that at the first Assembly a sum of £104,776 was reported as already available. By May 1844 a further sum of £123,060 had been collected, and 470 churches were reported as completed or nearly so. In the following year £131,737 was raised and 60 additional churches were built. At the end of four years considerably more than 700 churches had been provided.

During the winter session 1843-1844 the divinity students who had joined the Free Church continued their studies under Dr Chalmers and Dr David Welsh (1793-1845); and at the Assembly of 1844 arrangements were made for the erection of suitable collegiate buildings. The New College, Edinburgh, was built in 1847 at a cost of £46,506; and divinity halls were subsequently set up also in Glasgow and Aberdeen. In 1878 there were 13 professors of theology, with an aggregate of 230 students,—the numbers at Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen respectively being 129, 69 and 32.

A somewhat unforeseen result of the Disruption was the necessity for a duplicate system of elementary schools. At the 1843 Assembly it was for the first time announced by Dr Welsh that “schools to a certain extent must be opened to afford a suitable sphere of occupation for parochial and still more for private teachers of schools, who are threatened with deprivation of their present office on account of their opinions upon the church question.” The suggestion was taken up with very great energy, with the result that in May 1845, 280 schools had been set up, while in May 1847 this number had risen to 513, with an attendance of upwards of 44,000 scholars. In 1869 it was stated in an authoritative document laid before members of parliament that at that time there were connected with and supported by the Free Church 598 schools (including two normal schools), with 633 teachers and 64,115 scholars. The school buildings had been erected at a cost of £220,000, of which the committee of privy council had contributed £35,000, while the remainder had been raised by voluntary effort. Annual payments made to teachers, &c., as at 1869, amounted to £16,000. In accordance with certain provisions of the Education Act of 1872 most of the schools of the Free Church were voluntarily transferred, without compensation, to the local school boards. The normal schools are now transferred to the state.

It has been seen already that during the period of the Ten Years’ Conflict the non-intrusion party strenuously denied that in any one respect it was departing from acknowledged principles of the National Church. It continued to do so after the Disruption. In 1846, however, it was found to have become necessary, “in consequence of the late change in the outward condition of the church,” to amend the “questions and formula” to be used at the licensing of probationers and the ordination of office-bearers. These were amended accordingly; and at the same time it was declared that, “while the church firmly maintains the same scriptural principles as to the duties of nations and their rulers in reference to true religion and the Church of Christ for which she has hitherto contended, she disclaims intolerant or persecuting principles, and does not regard her Confession of Faith, or any portion thereof when fairly interpreted, as favouring intolerance or persecution, or consider that her office-bearers by subscribing it profess any principles inconsistent with liberty of conscience and the right of private judgment.” The main difference between the “formula” of the Free Church and that of the Established Church (as at the year 1900) was that the former referred to the Confession of Faith simply as “approven by General Assemblies of this Church,” while the latter described it as “approven by the General Assemblies of this National Church, and ratified by law in the year 1690, and frequently confirmed by divers Acts of Parliament since that time.” The former inserted an additional clause,—“I also approve of the general principles respecting the jurisdiction of the church, and her subjection to Christ as her only Head, which are contained in the Claim of Right and in the Protest referred to in the questions already put to me”; and also added the words which are here distinguished by italics,—“And I promise that through the grace of God I shall firmly and constantly adhere to the same, and to the utmost of my power shall in my station assert, maintain, and defend the said doctrine, worship, discipline and government of this church by kirk-sessions, presbyteries, provincial synods, and general assemblies, together with the liberty and exclusive jurisdiction thereof; and that I shall, in my practice, conform myself to the said worship and submit to the said discipline [and] government, and exclusive jurisdiction, and not endeavour directly or indirectly the prejudice or subversion of the same.” In the year 1851 an act and declaration anent the publication of the subordinate standards and other authoritative documents of the Free Church of Scotland was passed, in which the historical fact is recalled that the Church of Scotland had formally consented to adopt the Confession of Faith, catechisms, directory of public worship, and form of church government agreed upon by the Westminster Assembly; and it is declared that “these several formularies, as ratified, with certain explanations, by divers Acts of Assembly in the years 1645, 1646, and particularly in 1647, this church continues till this day to acknowledge as her subordinate standards of doctrine, worship and government.”11

In 1858 circumstances arose which, in the opinion of many, seemed fitted to demonstrate to the Free Church that her freedom was an illusion, and that all her sacrifices had been made in vain. John Macmillan, minister of Cardross, accused of immorality, had been tried and found guilty by the Free Presbytery of Dumbarton. Appeal having been taken to the synod, an attempt was there made to revive one particular charge, of which he had been finally acquitted by the presbytery; and this attempt was successful in the General Assembly. That ultimate court of review did not confine itself to the points appealed, but went into the merits of the whole case as it had originally come before the presbytery. The result was a sentence of suspension. Macmillan, believing that the Assembly had acted with some irregularity, applied to the court of session for an interdict against the execution of that sentence; and for this act he was summoned to the bar of the Assembly to say whether or not it was the case that he had thus appealed. Having answered in the affirmative, he was deposed on the spot. Forthwith he raised a new action (his previous application for an interdict had been refused) concluding for reduction of the spiritual sentence of deposition and for substantial damages. The defences lodged by the Free Church were to the effect that the civil courts had no right to review and reduce spiritual sentences, or to decide whether the General Assembly of the Free Church had acted irregularly or not. Judgments adverse to the defenders were delivered on these points; and appeals were taken to the House of Lords. But before the case could be heard there, the lord president took an opportunity in the court of session to point out to the pursuer that, inasmuch as the particular General Assembly against which the action was brought had ceased to exist, it could not therefore be made in any circumstances to pay damages, and that the action of reduction of the spiritual sentence, being only auxiliary to the claim of damages, ought therefore to be dismissed. He further pointed out that Macmillan might obtain redress in another way, should he be able to prove malice against individuals. Very soon after this deliverance of the lord president, the case as it had stood against the Free Church was withdrawn, and Macmillan gave notice of an action of a wholly different kind. But this last was not persevered in. The appeals which had been taken to the House of Lords were, in these circumstances, also departed from by the Free Church. The case did not advance sufficiently to show how far the courts of law would be prepared to go in the direction of recognizing voluntary tribunals and a kind of secondary exclusive jurisdiction founded on contract.12 But, whether recognized or not, the church for her part continued to believe that she had an inherent spiritual jurisdiction, and remained unmoved in her determination to act in accordance with that resolution “notwithstanding of whatsoever trouble or persecution may arise.”13

In 1863 a motion was made and unanimously carried in the Free Church Assembly for the appointment of a committee to confer with a corresponding committee of the United Presbyterian Synod, and with the representatives of such other disestablished churches as might be willing to meet and deliberate with a view to an incorporating union. Formal negotiations between the representatives of these two churches were begun shortly afterwards, which resulted in a report laid before the following Assembly. From this document it appeared that the committees of the two churches were not at one on the question as to the relation of the civil magistrate to the church. While on the part of the Free Church it was maintained that he “may lawfully acknowledge, as being in accordance with the Word of God, the creed and jurisdiction of the church,” and that “it is his duty, when necessary and expedient, to employ the national resources in aid of the church, provided always that in doing so, while reserving to himself full control over the temporalities which are his own gift, he abstain from all authoritative interference in the internal government of the church,” it was declared by the committee of the United Presbyterian Church that, “inasmuch as the civil magistrate has no authority in spiritual things, and as the employment of force in such matters is opposed to the spirit and precepts of Christianity, it is not within his province to legislate as to what is true in religion, to prescribe a creed or form of worship to his subjects, or to endow the church from national resources.” In other words, while the Free Church maintained that in certain circumstances it was lawful and even incumbent on the magistrate to endow the church and on the church to accept his endowment, the United Presbyterians maintained that in no case was this lawful either for the one party or for the other. Thus in a very short time it had been made perfectly evident that a union between the two bodies, if accomplished at all, could only be brought about on the understanding that the question as to the lawfulness of state endowments should be an open one. The Free Church Assembly, by increasing majorities, manifested a readiness for union, even although unanimity had not been attained on that theoretical point. But there was a minority which did not sympathize in this readiness, and after ten years of fruitless effort it was in 1873 found to be expedient that the idea of union with the United Presbyterians should for the time be abandoned. Other negotiations, however, which had been entered upon with the Reformed Presbyterian Church at a somewhat later date proved more successful; and a majority of the ministers of that church with their congregations were united with the Free Church in 1876.

In the last quarter of the 19th century the Free Church continued to be the most active, theologically, of the Scottish Churches. The College chairs were almost uniformly filled by advanced critics or theologians, inspired more or less by Professor A. B. Davidson. Dr A. B. Bruce, author of The Training of the Twelve, &c., was appointed to the chair of apologetics and New Testament exegesis in the Glasgow College in 1875; Henry Drummond (author of Natural Law in the Spiritual World, &c.) was made lecturer in natural science in the same college in 1877 and became professor in 1884; and Dr George Adam Smith (author of The Twelve Prophets, &c.) was called to the Hebrew chair in 1892. Attempts were made between 1890 and 1895 to bring all these professors except Davidson (similar attacks were also made on Dr Marcus Dods, afterwards principal of the New College, Edinburgh) to the bar of the Assembly for unsound teaching or writing; but in every case these were abortive, the Assembly never taking any step beyond warning the accused that their primary duty was to teach and defend the church’s faith as embodied in the confession. In 1892 the Free Church, following the example of the United Presbyterian Church and the Church of Scotland (1889), passed a Declaratory Act relaxing the stringency of subscription to the confession, with the result that a small number of ministers and congregations, mostly in the Highlands, severed their connexion with the church and formed the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, on strictly and straitly orthodox lines. In 1907 this body had twenty congregations and twelve ministers.

The Free Church always regarded herself as a National Church, and during this period she sought actively to be true to that character by providing church ordinances for the increasing population of Scotland and applying herself to the new problems of non-church-going, and of the changing habits of the people. Her Assembly’s committee on religion and morals worked toward the same ends as the similar organization of the Established Church, and in her, as in the other churches, the standard of parochial and congregational activity was raised and new methods of operation devised. She passed legislation on the difficult problem of ridding the church of inefficient ministers. The use of instrumental music was sanctioned in Free Churches during this period. An association was formed in 1891 to promote the ends of edification, order and reverence in the public services of the church, and published in 1898 A New Directory for Public Worship which does not provide set forms of prayer, but directions as to the matter of prayer in the various services. The Free Church took a large share in the study of hymnology and church music, which led to the production of The Church Hymnary. From 1885 to 1895 much of the energy of all the Presbyterian churches was absorbed by the disestablishment agitation. In the former year the Free Church, having almost entirely shed the establishment principle on which it was founded, began to rival the United Presbyterian Church in its resolutions calling for the disestablishment of the Church of Scotland. In spite of the offers of the Establishment Assembly to confer with the dissenting churches about union, the assaults upon its status waxed in vigour, till in 1893 the Free Church hailed the result of the general election as a verdict of the constituencies in favour of disestablishment, and insisted upon the government of the day taking up Sir Charles Cameron’s bill.

During the last four or five years of the century the Free and United Presbyterian churches, which after the failure of their union negotiations in 1873 had been connected together by a Mutual Eligibility Act enabling a congregation of one church to call a minister from the other, devoted their energy to the arrangement of an incorporating union. The Synod of the United Presbyterian Church resolved in 1896 to “take steps towards union,” and in the following year the Free Assembly responded by appointing a committee to confer with a committee of the other church. The joint committee discovered a “remarkable and happy agreement” between the doctrinal standards, rules and methods of the two bodies, and with very little concessions on either side a common constitution and common “questions and formula” for the admission of ministers and office-bearers were arranged. A minority, always growing smaller, of the Free Church Assembly, protested against the proposed union, and threatened if it were carried through to test its legality in the courts. To meet this opposition, the suggestion is understood to have been made that an act of parliament should be applied for to legalize the union; but this was not done, and the union was carried through on the understanding that the question of the lawfulness of church establishments should be an open one.

The supreme courts of the churches met for the last time in their respective places of meeting on the 30th of October 1900, and on the following day the joint meeting took place at which the union was completed, and the United Free Church of Scotland (q.v.) entered on its career. The protesting and dissenting minority at once claimed to be the Free Church. They met outside the Free Assembly Hall on the 31st of October, and, failing to gain admission to it, withdrew to another hall, where they elected Mr Colin Bannatyne their moderator and held the remaining sittings of the Assembly. It was reported that between 16,000 and 17,000 names had been received of persons adhering to the anti-unionist principle. At the Assembly of 1901 it was stated that the Free Church had twenty-five ministers and at least sixty-three congregations. The character of the church is indicated by the fact that its office-bearers were the faithful survivors of the decreasing minority of the Old Free Church, which had protested against the disestablishment resolutions, against the relaxation of subscription, against toleration of the teaching of the Glasgow professors, and against the use in worship of organs or of human hymns. Her congregations were mostly in the Gaelic-speaking districts of Scotland. She was confronted with a very arduous undertaking; her congregations grew in number, but were far from each other and there were not nearly enough ministers. The Highlands were filled, by the Union, with exasperation and dispeace which could not soon subside. The church met with no sympathy or assistance at the hands of the United Free Church, and her work was conducted at first under considerable hardships, nor was her position one to appeal to the general popular sentiment of Scotland. But the little church continued her course with indomitable courage and without any compromise of principle. The Declaratory Act of 1892 was repealed after a consultation of presbyteries, and the old principles as to worship were declared. A professor was obliged to withdraw a book he had written, in which the results of criticism, with regard to the Synoptic Gospels, had been accepted and applied. The desire of the Church of Scotland to obtain relaxation of her formula was declared to make union with her impossible. Along with this unbending attitude, signs of material growth were not wanting. The revenue of the church increased; the grant from the sustentation fund was in 1901 only £75, but from 1903 onwards it was £167.

The decision of the House of Lords in 1904 did not bring the trials of the Free Church to an end. In the absence of any arrangement with the United Free Church, she could only gain possession of the property declared to belong to her by an application in each particular case to the Court of Session, and a series of law-suits began which were trying to all parties. In the year 1905 the Free Church Assembly met in the historic Free Church Assembly Hall, but it did not meet there again. Having been left by the awards of the commission without any station in the foreign mission field, the Free Church resolved to start a foreign mission of her own. The urgent task confronting the church was that of supplying ordinances to her congregations. The latter numbered 200 in 1907, and the church had as yet only 74 ordained ministers, so that many of the manses allocated to her by the commissioners were not yet occupied, and catechists and elders were called to conduct services where possible. The gallant stand this little church had made for principles which were no longer represented by any Presbyterian church outside the establishment attracted to her much interest and many hopes that she might be successful in her endeavours to do something for the religious life of Scotland.

See Scotland, Church of, for bibliography and statistics.

(A. M.*)

1 “It is her being free, not her being established, that constitutes the real historical and hereditary identity of the Reformed National Church of Scotland.” See Act and Declaration, &c., of Free Assembly, 1851.

2 In the act Anent the true and holy Kirk, and of those that are declared not to be of the same. This act was supplemented by that of 1579, Anent the Jurisdiction of the Kirk.

3 The Second Book of Discipline was not formally recognized in that act; but all former acts against “the jurisdiction and discipline of the true Kirk as the same is used and exercised within the realm” were abolished; and all “liberties, privileges, immunities and freedoms whatsoever” previously granted were ratified and approved.

4 The most important of these had reference to the full right of a constituted church to the enjoyment of an absolutely unrestricted freedom in convening Assemblies. This very point on one occasion at least threatened to be the cause of serious misunderstandings between William and the people of Scotland. The difficulties were happily smoothed, however, by the wisdom and tact of William Carstares.

5 See Act and Declaration of Free Assembly, 1851.

6 This principle had been asserted even by an Assembly so late as that of 1736, and had been invariably presupposed in the “call,” which had never ceased to be regarded as an indispensable prerequisite for the settlement of a minister.

7 According to the Free Church “Protest” of 1843 it was in these cases decided (1) that the courts of the church were liable to be compelled to intrude ministers on reclaiming congregations; (2) that the civil courts had power to interfere with and interdict the preaching of the gospel and administration of ordinances as authorized and enjoined by the church; (3) that the civil courts had power to suspend spiritual censures pronounced by the courts of the church, and to interdict their execution as to spiritual effects, functions and privileges; (4) that deposed ministers, and probationers deprived of their licence, could be restored by the mandate of the civil courts to the spiritual office and status of which the church courts had deprived them; (5) that the right of membership in ecclesiastical courts could be determined by the civil courts; (6) that the civil courts had power to supersede the majority of a church court of the Establishment in regard to the exercise of its spiritual functions as a church court, and to authorize the minority to exercise the said functions in opposition to the court itself and to the superior judicatories of the church; (7) that processes of ecclesiastical discipline could be arrested by the civil courts; and (8) that without the sanction of the civil courts no increased provision could be made for the spiritual care of a parish, although such provision left all civil rights and patrimonial interests untouched.

8 The narrative and argument of this elaborate and able document cannot be reproduced here. In substance it is a claim “as of right” on behalf of the church and of the nation and people of Scotland that the church shall freely possess and enjoy her liberties, government, discipline, rights and privileges according to law, and that she shall be protected therein from the foresaid unconstitutional and illegal encroachments of the said court of session, and her people secured in their Christian and constitutional rights and liberties. This claim is followed by the “declaration” that the Assembly cannot intrude ministers on reclaiming congregations, or carry on the government of Christ’s church subject to the coercion of the court of session; and by the “protest” that all acts of the parliament of Great Britain passed without the consent of the Scottish church and nation, in alteration or derogation of the government, discipline, rights and privileges of the church, as also all sentences of courts in contravention of said government, discipline, rights and privileges, “are and shall be in themselves void and null, and of no legal force or effect.”

9 The Scottish members voted with the minority in the proportion of 25 to 12.

10 The number ultimately rose to 474.

11 By this formal recognition of the qualifications to the Confession of Faith made in 1647 the scruples of the majority of the Associate Synod of Original Seceders were removed, and 27 ministers, along with a considerable number of their people, joined the Free Church in the following year.

12 See Taylor Innes, Law of Creeds in Scotland, p. 258 seq.

13 The language of Dr Buchanan, for example, in 1860 was (mutatis mutandis) the same as that which he had employed in 1838 in moving the Independence resolution already referred to.

FREEDMEN’S BUREAU (officially the Bureau of Freedmen, Refugees and Abandoned Lands), a bureau created in the United States war department by an act of Congress, 3rd of March 1865, to last one year, but continued until 1872 by later acts passed over the president’s veto. Its establishment was due partly to the fear entertained by the North that the Southerners if left to deal with the blacks would attempt to re-establish some form of slavery, partly to the necessity for extending relief to needy negroes and whites in the lately conquered South, and partly to the need of creating some commission or bureau to take charge of lands confiscated in the South. During the Civil War a million negroes fell into the hands of the Federals and had to be cared for. Able-bodied blacks were enlisted in the army, and the women, children and old men were settled in large camps on confiscated Southern property, where they were cared for alternately by the war department and by the treasury department until the organization of the Freedmen’s Bureau. At the head of the bureau was a commissioner, General O. O. Howard, and under him in each Southern state was an assistant commissioner with a corps of local superintendents, agents and inspectors. The officials had the broadest possible authority in all matters that concerned the blacks. The work of the bureau may be classified as follows: (1) distributing rations and medical supplies among the blacks; (2) establishing schools for them and aiding benevolent societies to establish schools and churches; (3) regulating labour and contracts; (4) taking charge of confiscated lands; and (5) administering justice in cases in which blacks were concerned. For several years the ex-slaves were under the almost absolute control of the bureau. Whether this control had a good or bad effect is still disputed, the Southern whites and many Northerners holding that the results of the bureau’s work were distinctly bad, while others hold that much good resulted from its work. There is now no doubt, however, that while most of the higher officials of the bureau were good men, the subordinate agents were generally without character or judgment and that their interference between the races caused permanent discord. Much necessary relief work was done, but demoralization was also caused by it, and later the institution was used by its officials as a means of securing negro votes. In educating the blacks the bureau made some progress, but the instruction imparted by the missionary teachers resulted in giving the ex-slaves notions of liberty and racial equality that led to much trouble, finally resulting in the hostility of the whites to negro education. The secession of the blacks from the white churches was aided and encouraged by the bureau. The whole field of labour and contracts was covered by minute regulations, which, good in theory, were absurd in practice, and which failed altogether, but not until labour had been disorganized for several years. The administration of justice by the bureau agents amounted simply to a ceaseless persecution of the whites who had dealings with the blacks, and bloody conflicts sometimes resulted. The law creating the bureau provided for the division of the confiscated property among the negroes, and though carried out only in parts of South Carolina, Florida and Georgia, it caused the negroes to believe that they were to be cared for at the expense of their former masters. This belief made them subject to swindling schemes perpetrated by certain bureau agents and others who promised to secure lands for them. When negro suffrage was imposed by Congress upon the Southern States, the bureau aided the Union League (q.v.) in organizing the blacks into a political party opposed to the whites. A large majority of the bureau officials secured office through their control of the blacks. The failure of the bureau system and its discontinuance in the midst of reconstruction without harm to the blacks, and the intense hostility of the Southern whites to the institution caused by the irritating conduct of bureau officials, are indications that the institution was not well conceived nor wisely administered.

See P. S. Pierce, The Freedmen’s Bureau (Iowa City, 1904); Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction (Washington, 1866); W. L. Fleming (ed.), Documents relating to Reconstruction (Cleveland, O., 1906); W. L. Fleming, Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabama (New York, 1905); and James W. Garner, Reconstruction in Mississippi (New York, 1901).

(W. L. F.)

FREEHOLD, a town and the county-seat of Monmouth county, New Jersey, U.S.A., in the township of Freehold, about 25 m. E. by N. of Trenton. Pop. (1890) 2932; (1900) 2934, of whom 215 were foreign-born and 126 were negroes; (1905) 3064; (1910) 3233. Freehold is served by the Pennsylvania and the Central of New Jersey railways. It is the trade centre of one of the most productive agricultural districts of the state and has various manufactures, including carriages, carpets and rugs, files, shirts, underwear, and canned beans and peas. The town is the seat of two boarding schools for boys: the Freehold Military School and the New Jersey Military Academy (chartered, 1900; founded in 1844 as the Freehold Institute). One of the residences in the town dates from 1755. A settlement was made in the township about 1650, and the township was incorporated in 1693. In 1715 the town was founded and was made the county-seat; it was long commonly known (from the county) as Monmouth Court-House, but afterwards took (from the township) the name Freehold, and in 1869 it was incorporated as the Town of Freehold. An important battle of the War of Independence, known as the battle of Monmouth, was fought near the court-house on the 28th of June 1778. A short distance N.W. of the court-house is a park in which there is a monument, unveiled on the 13th of November 1884 in commemoration of the battle; the base is of Quincy granite and the shaft is of Concord granite. Surmounting the shaft is a statue representing “Liberty Triumphant” (the height to the top of which is about 100 ft.). The monument is adorned with five bronze reliefs, designed and modelled by James E. Kelly (b. 1855); one of these reliefs represents “Molly Pitcher” (d. 1832), a national heroine, who, when her husband (John C. Hays), an artillerist, was rendered insensible during the battle, served the gun in his place and prevented its capture by the British.1 Joel Parker (1816-1888), governor of New Jersey in 1863-1866 and 1872-1875, was long a resident of Freehold, and the erection of the monument was largely due to his efforts. A bronze tablet on a boulder in front of the present court-house, commemorating the old court-house, used as a hospital in the battle of Monmouth, was unveiled in 1907. Freehold was the birthplace and home of Dr Thomas Henderson (1743-1824), a Whig or Patriot leader in New Jersey, an officer in the War of Independence, and a member of the Continental Congress in 1779-1780 and of the national House of Representatives in 1795-1797.

The name Freehold was first used of a Presbyterian church established about 1692 by Scottish exiles who came to East Jersey in 1682-1685 and built what was called the “Old Scots’ Church” near the present railway station of Wickatunk in Marlboro’ township, Monmouth county. In this church, in December 1706, John Boyd (d. 1709) was ordained—the first recorded Presbyterian ordination in America. The church was the first regularly constituted Presbyterian church. No trace of the building now remains in the burying-ground where Boyd was interred, and where the Presbyterian Synod of New Jersey in 1900 raised a granite monument to his memory; his tombstone is preserved by the Presbyterian Historical Society in Philadelphia. John Tennent (1706-1732) became pastor of the Freehold church in 1730, when a new church was built by the Old Scots congregation on White Hill in the present township of Manalapan (then a part of Freehold township), near the railway station and village called Tennent; his brother William (1705-1777), whose trance, in which he thought he saw the glories of heaven, was a matter of much discussion in his time, was pastor in 1733-1777. In 1751-1753 the present “Old Tennent Church,” then called the Freehold Church, was erected on (or near) the same site as the building of 1730; in it Whitefield preached and in the older building David Brainerd and his Indian converts met. In 1859 this church (whose corporate name is “The First Presbyterian Church of the County of Monmouth”) adopted the name of Tennent, partly to distinguish it from the Presbyterian church organized at Monmouth Court-House (now Freehold) in 1838.

See Frank R. Symmes, History of the Old Tennent Church (2nd ed., Cranbury, New Jersey, 1904).

1 Her maiden name was Mary Ludwig. “Molly Pitcher” was a nickname given to her by the soldiers in reference to her carrying water to soldiers overcome by heat in the battle of Monmouth. She married Hays in 1769; Hays died soon after the war, and later she married one George McCauley. She lived for more than forty years at Carlisle, Penn., where a monument was erected to her memory in 1876.

FREEHOLD, in the English law of real property, an estate in land, not being less than an estate for life. An estate for a term of years, no matter how long, was considered inferior in dignity to an estate for life, and unworthy of a freeman (see Estate). “Some time before the reign of Henry II., but apparently not so early as Domesday, the expression liberum tenementum was introduced to designate land held by a freeman by a free tenure. Thus freehold tenure is the sum of the rights and duties which constitute the relation of a free tenant to his lord.”1 In this sense freehold is distinguished from copyhold, which is a tenure having its origin in the relation of lord and villein (see Copyhold). Freehold is also distinguished from leasehold, which is an estate for a fixed number of years only. By analogy the interest of a person who holds an office for life is sometimes said to be a freehold interest. The term customary freeholds is applied to a kind of copyhold tenure in the north of England, viz. tenure by copy of court-roll, but not, as in other cases, expressed to be at the will of the lord.

1 Digby’s History of the Law of Real Property.

FREELAND, a borough of Luzerne county, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., about 20 m. S. of Wilkes-Barre, in the E. part of the state. Pop. (1890) 1730; (1900) 5254 (1339 foreign-born, many being Slavs); (1910) 6197. Freeland is served by the Lehigh Valley railway and by electric railway to Upper Lehigh (1 m. distant, served by the Central Railroad of New Jersey) and to other neighbouring places. The borough is built on Broad Mountain, nearly 2000 ft. above sea-level, and the chief industry is the mining of coal at the numerous surrounding collieries. Freeland is the seat of the Mining and Mechanical Institute of the Anthracite Region, chartered in 1894, modelled after the German Steigerschulen, with elementary and secondary departments and a night school for workmen. The borough has foundries and machine shops of considerable importance, and manufactures silk, overalls, beer and hames. Freeland was first settled about 1842, was laid out in 1870, and was incorporated in 1876.

FREEMAN, EDWARD AUGUSTUS (1823-1892), English historian, was born at Harborne, Staffordshire, on the 2nd of August 1823. He lost both his parents in infancy, was brought up by a grandmother, and was educated at private schools and by a private tutor. He was a studious and precocious boy, more interested in religious matters, history and foreign politics than in boyish things. He obtained a scholarship at Trinity College, Oxford, and a second class in the degree examination, and was elected fellow of his college (1845). While at Oxford he was much influenced by the High Church movement, and thought seriously of taking orders, but abandoned the idea. He married a daughter of his former tutor, the Rev. R. Gutch, in 1847, and entered on a life of study. Ecclesiastical architecture attracted him strongly. He visited many churches and began a practice, which he pursued throughout his life, of making drawings of buildings on the spot and afterwards tracing them over in ink. His first book, save for his share in a volume of English verse, was a History of Architecture (1849). Though he had not then seen any buildings outside England, it contains a good sketch of the development of the art. It is full of youthful enthusiasm and is written in florid language. After some changes of residence he bought a house called Somerleaze, near Wells, Somerset, and settled there in 1860.

Freeman’s life was one of strenuous literary work. He wrote many books, and countless articles for reviews, newspapers and other publications, and was a constant contributor to the Saturday Review until 1878, when he ceased to write for it for political reasons. His Saturday Review articles corrected many errors and raised the level of historical knowledge among the educated classes, but as a reviewer he was apt to forget that a book may have blemishes and yet be praiseworthy. For some years he was an active county magistrate. He was deeply interested in politics, was a follower of Mr Gladstone, and approved the Home Rule Bill of 1886, but objected to the later proposal to retain the Irish members at Westminster. To be returned to Parliament was one of his few ambitions, and in 1868 he unsuccessfully contested Mid-Somerset. Foreign rather than domestic politics had the first place with him. Historical and religious sentiment combined with his detestation of all that was tyrannical to inspire him with hatred of the Turk and sympathy with the smaller and subject nationalities of eastern Europe. He took a prominent part in the agitation which followed “the Bulgarian atrocities”; his speeches were intemperate, and he was accused of uttering the words “Perish India!” at a public meeting in 1876. This, however, was a misrepresentation of his words. He was made a knight commander of the order of the Saviour by the king of Greece, and also received an order from the prince of Montenegro.

Freeman advanced the study of history in England in two special directions, by insistence on the unity of history, and by teaching the importance and right use of original authorities. History is not, he urges, to be divided “by a middle wall of partition” into ancient and modern, nor broken into fragments as though the history of each nation stood apart. It is more than a collection of narratives; it is a science, “the science of man in his political character.” The historical student, then, cannot afford to be indifferent to any part of the record of man’s political being; but as his abilities for study are limited, he will, while reckoning all history to be within his range, have his own special range within which he will master every detail (Rede Lecture). Freeman’s range included Greek, Roman and the earlier part of English history, together with some portions of foreign medieval history, and he had a scholarly though general knowledge of the rest of the history of the European world. He regarded the abiding life of Rome as “the central truth of European history,” the bond of its unity, and he undertook his History of Sicily (1891-1894) partly because it illustrated this unity. Further, he urges that all historical study is valueless which does not take in a knowledge of original authorities, and he teaches both by example and precept what authorities should be thus described, and how they are to be weighed and used. He did not use manuscript authorities, and for most of his work he had no need to do so. The authorities which he needed were already in print, and his books would not have been better if he had disinterred a few more facts from unprinted sources.

His reputation as a historian will chiefly rest on his History of the Norman Conquest (1867-1876), his longest completed book. In common with his works generally, it is distinguished by exhaustiveness of treatment and research, critical ability, a remarkable degree of accuracy, and a certain insight into the past which he gained from his practical experience of men and institutions. He is almost exclusively a political historian. His saying that “history is past politics and politics are present history” is significant of this limitation of his work, which left on one side subjects of the deepest interest in a nation’s life. In dealing with constitutional matters he sometimes attaches too much weight to words and formal aspects. This gives certain of his arguments an air of pedantry, and seems to lead him to find evidences of continuity in institutions which in reality and spirit were different from what they once had been. As a rule his estimates of character are remarkably able. It is true that he is sometimes swayed by prejudice, but this is the common lot of great historians; they cannot altogether avoid sharing in the feelings of the past, for they live in it, and Freeman did so to an extraordinary degree. Yet if he judges too favourably the leaders of the national party in England on the eve of the Norman Conquest, that is a small matter to set against the insight which he exhibits in writing of Aratus, Sulla, Nicias, William the Conqueror, Thomas of Canterbury, Frederick the Second and many more. In width of view, thoroughness of investigation and honesty of purpose he is unsurpassed by any historian. He never conceals nor wilfully misrepresents anything, and he reckoned no labour too great which might help him to draw a truthful picture of the past. When a place had any important connexion with his work he invariably visited it. He travelled much, always to gain knowledge, and generally to complete his historical equipment. His collected articles and essays on places of historical interest are perhaps the most pleasing of his writings, but they deal exclusively with historical associations and architectural features. The quantity of work which he turned out is enormous, for the fifteen large volumes which contain his Norman Conquest, his unfinished History of Sicily, his William Rufus (1882), and his Essays (1872-1879), and the crowd of his smaller books, are matched in amount by his uncollected contributions to periodicals. In respect of matter his historical work is uniformly excellent. In respect of form and style the case is different. Though his sentences themselves are not wordy, he is extremely diffuse in treatment, habitually repeating an idea in successive sentences of much the same import. While this habit was doubtless aggravated by the amount of his journalistic work, it seems originally to have sprung from what may be called a professorial spirit, which occasionally appears in the tone of his remarks. He was anxious to make sure that his readers would understand his exact meaning, and to guard them against all possible misconceptions. His lengthy explanations are the more grievous because he insists on the same points in several of his books. His prolixity was increased by his unwillingness, when writing without prescribed limits, to leave out any detail, however unimportant. His passion for details not only swelled his volumes to a portentous size, but was fatal to artistic construction. The length of his books has hindered their usefulness. They were written for the public at large, but few save professed students, who can admire and value his exhaustiveness, will read the many hundreds of pages which he devotes to a short period of history. In some of his smaller books, however, he shows great powers of condensation and arrangement, and writes tersely enough. His style is correct, lucid and virile, but generally nothing more, and his endeavour to use as far as possible only words of Teutonic origin limited his vocabulary and makes his sentences somewhat monotonous. While Froude often strayed away from his authorities, Freeman kept his authorities always before his eyes, and his narrative is here and there little more than a translation of their words. Accordingly, while it has nothing of Froude’s carelessness and inaccuracy, it has nothing of his charm of style. Yet now and again he rises to the level of some heroic event, and parts of his chapter on the “Campaign of Hastings” and of his record of the wars of Syracuse and Athens, his reflections on the visit of Basil the Second to the church of the Virgin on the Acropolis, and some other passages in his books, are fine pieces of eloquent writing.

The high quality of Freeman’s work was acknowledged by all competent judges. He was made D.C.L. of Oxford and LL.D. of Cambridge honoris causa, and when he visited the United States on a lecturing tour was warmly received at various places of learning. He served on the royal commission on ecclesiastical courts appointed in 1881. In 1884 he was appointed regius professor of modern history at Oxford. His lectures were thinly attended, for he did not care to adapt them to the requirements of the university examinations, and he was not perhaps well fitted to teach young men. But he exercised a wholesome influence over the more earnest students of history among the resident graduates. From 1886 he was forced by ill-health to spend much of his time abroad, and he died of smallpox at Alicante on the 16th of March 1892, while on a tour in Spain. Freeman had a strongly marked personality. Though impatient in temper and occasionally rude, he was tender-hearted and generous. His rudeness to strangers was partly caused by shyness and partly by a childlike inability to conceal his feelings. Eminently truthful, he could not understand that some verbal insincerities are necessary to social life. He had a peculiar faculty for friendship, and his friends always found him sympathetic and affectionate. In their society he would talk well and showed a keen sense of humour. He considered it his duty to expose careless and ignorant writers, and certainly enjoyed doing so. He worked hard and methodically, often had several pieces of work in hand, and kept a daily record of the time which he devoted to each of them. His tastes were curiously limited. No art interested him except architecture, which he studied throughout his life; and he cared little for literature which was not either historical or political. In later life he ceased to hold the theological opinions of his youth, but remained a devout churchman.

See W. R. W. Stephens, Life and Letters of E. A. Freeman (London, 1895); Frederic Harrison, Tennyson, Ruskin, Mill and other Literary Estimates (London, 1899); James Bryce, “E. A. Freeman,” Eng. Hist. Rev., July 1892.

(W. Hu.)

FREEMAN, primarily one who is free, as opposed to a slave or serf (see Feudalism; Slavery). The term is more specifically applied to one who possesses the freedom of a city, borough or company. Before the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, each English borough admitted freemen according to its own peculiar custom and by-laws. The rights and privileges of a freeman, though varying in different boroughs, generally included the right to vote at a parliamentary election of the borough, and exemption from all tolls and dues. The act of 1835 respected existing usages, and every person who was then an admitted freeman remained one, retaining at the same time all his former rights and privileges. The admission of freemen is now regulated by the Municipal Corporations Act 1882. By section 201 of that act the term “freeman” includes any person of the class whose rights and interests were reserved by the act of 1835 under the name either of freemen or of burgesses. By section 202 no person can be admitted a freeman by gift or by purchase; that is, only birth, servitude or marriage are qualifications. The Honorary Freedom of Boroughs Act 1885, however, makes an exception, as by that act the council of every borough may from time to time admit persons of distinction to be honorary freemen of the borough. The town clerk of every borough keeps a list, which is called “the freeman’s roll,” and when any person claims to be admitted a freeman in respect of birth, servitude or marriage, the mayor examines the claim, and if it is established the claimant’s name is enrolled by the town clerk.

A person may become a freeman or freewoman of one of the London livery companies by (1) apprenticeship or servitude; (2) patrimony; (3) redemption; (4) gift. This last is purely honorary. The most usual form of acquiring freedom was by serving apprenticeship to a freeman, free both of a company and of the city of London. By an act of common council of 1836 apprenticeship was permitted to freemen of the city who had not taken up the freedom of a company. By an act of common council of 1889 the term of service was reduced from seven years to four years. Freedom by patrimony is always granted to children of a person who has been duly admitted to the freedom. Freedom by redemption or purchase requires the payment of certain entrance fees, which vary with the standing of the company. In the Grocers’ Company freedom by redemption does not exist, and in such companies as still have a trade, e.g. the Apothecaries and Stationers, it is limited to members of the trade.

See W. C. Hazlitt, The Livery Companies of the City of London (1892).

FREEMASONRY. According to an old “Charge” delivered to initiates, Freemasonry is declared to be an “ancient and honourable institution: ancient no doubt it is, as having subsisted from time immemorial; and honourable it must be acknowledged to be, as by a natural tendency it conduces to make those so who are obedient to its precepts ... to so high an eminence has its credit been advanced that in every age Monarchs themselves have been promoters of the art, have not thought it derogatory from their dignity to exchange the sceptre for the trowel, have patronised our mysteries and joined in our Assemblies.” For many years the craft has been conducted without respect to clime, colour, caste or creed.

History.—The precise origin of the society has yet to be ascertained, but is not likely to be, as the early records are lost; there is, however, ample evidence remaining to justify the claim for its antiquity and its honourable character. Much has been written as to its eventful past, based upon actual records, but still more which has served only to amuse or repel inquirers, and led not a few to believe that the fraternity has no trustworthy history. An unfavourable opinion of the historians of the craft generally may fairly have been held during the 18th and early in the 19th centuries, but happily since the middle of the latter century quite a different principle has animated those brethren who have sought to make the facts of masonic history known to the brotherhood, as well as worth the study of students in general. The idea that it would require an investigator to be a member of the “mystic tie” in order to qualify as a reader of masonic history has been exploded. The evidences collected concerning the institution during the last five hundred years, or more, may now be examined and tested in the most severe manner by literary and critical experts (whether opposed or favourable to the body), who cannot fail to accept the claims made as to its great antiquity and continuity, as the lineal descendant of those craftsmen who raised the cathedrals and other great English buildings during the middle ages.

It is only needful to refer to the old works on freemasonry, and to compare them with the accepted histories of the present time, to be assured that such strictures as above are more than justified. The premier work on the subject was published in London in 1723, the Rev. James Anderson being the author of the historical portion, introductory to the first “Book of Constitutions” of the original Grand Lodge of England. Dr Anderson gravely states that “Grand Master Moses often marshalled the Israelites into a regular and general lodge, whilst in the wilderness.... King Solomon was Grand Master of the lodge at Jerusalem.1... Nebuchadnezzar became the Grand Master Mason,” &c., devoting many more pages to similar absurdities, but dismisses the important modern innovation (1716-1717) of a Grand Lodge with a few lines noteworthy for their brief and indefinite character.

In 1738 a second edition was issued, dedicated to the prince of Wales (“a Master Mason and master of a lodge”), and was the work of the same brother (as respects the historical part), the additions being mainly on the same lines as the former volume, only, if possible, still more ridiculous and extravagant; e.g. Cyrus constituted Jerubbabel “provincial grand master in Judah”; Charles Martel was “the Right Worshipful Grand Master of France, and Edward I. being deeply engaged in wars left the craft to the care of several successive grand masters” (duly enumerated). Such loose statements may now pass unheeded, but unfortunately they do not exhaust the objections to Dr Anderson’s method of writing history. The excerpt concerning St Alban (apparently made from Coles’s Ancient Constitutions, 1728-1729) has the unwarranted additional title of Grand Master conferred on that saint, and the extract concerning King Æthelstan and Prince Edwin from the “Old MS. Charges” (given in the first edition) contains still more unauthorized modern terms, with the year added of 926; thus misleading most seriously those who accept the volume as trustworthy, because written by the accredited historian of the Grand Lodge, Junior Grand Warden in 1723. These examples hardly increase our confidence in the author’s accuracy when Dr Anderson comes to treat of the origin of the premier Grand Lodge; but he is our only informant as to that important event, and if his version of the occurrence is declined, we are absolutely without any information.

In considering the early history of Freemasonry, from a purely matter-of-fact standpoint, it will be well to settle as a necessary preliminary what the term did and does now include or mean, and how far back the inquiry should be conducted, as well as on what lines. If the view of the subject herein taken be correct, it will be useless to load the investigation by devoting considerable space to a consideration of the laws and customs of still older societies which may have been utilized and imitated by the fraternity, but which in no sense can be accepted as the actual forbears of the present society of Free and Accepted Masons. They were predecessors, or possibly prototypes, but not near relatives or progenitors of the Freemasons.2

The Mother Grand Lodge of the world is that of England, which was inaugurated in the metropolis on St John Baptist’s day 1717 by four or more old lodges, three of which still flourish. There were other lodges also in London and the country at the time, but whether they were invited to the meeting is not now known. Probably not, as existing records of the period preserve a sphinx-like silence thereon. Likewise there were many scores of lodges at work in Scotland, and undoubtedly in Ireland the craft was widely patronized. Whatever the ceremonies may have been which were then known as Freemasonry in Great Britain and Ireland, they were practically alike, and the venerable Old Charges or MS. constitutions, dating back several centuries, were rightly held by them as the title-deeds of their masonic inheritance.

It was a bold thing to do, thus to start a governing body for the fraternity quite different in many respects to all preceding organizations, and to brand as irregular all lodges which declined to accept such authority; but the very originality and audacity of its promoters appears to have led to its success, and it was not long before most of the lodges of the pre-Grand-Lodge era joined and accepted “constitution” by warrant of the Grand Master. Not only so, but Ireland quickly followed the lead, so early as 1725 there being a Grand Lodge for that country which must have been formed even still earlier, and probably by lodges started before any were authorized in the English counties. In Scotland the change was not made until 1736, many lodges even then holding aloof from such an organization. Indeed, out of some hundred lodges known to have been active then, only thirty-three responded and agreed to fall into line, though several joined later; some, however, kept separate down to the end of the 19th century, while others never united. Many of these lodges have records of the 17th century though not then newly formed; one in particular, the oldest (the Lodge of Edinburgh, No. 1), possesses minutes so far back as the year 1599.

It is important to bear in mind that all the regular lodges throughout the world, and likewise all the Grand Lodges, directly or indirectly, have sprung from one or other of the three governing bodies named; Ireland and Scotland following the example set by their masonic mother of England in having Grand Lodges of their own. It is not proved how the latter two became acquainted with Freemasonry as a secret society, guided more or less by the operative MS. Constitutions or Charges common to the three bodies, not met with elsewhere; but the credit of a Grand Lodge being established to control the lodges belongs to England.

It may be a startling declaration, but it is well authenticated, that there is no other Freemasonry, as the term is now understood, than what which has been so derived. In other words, the lodges and Grand Lodges in both hemispheres trace their origin and authority back to England for working what are known as the Three Degrees, controlled by regular Grand Lodges. That being so, a history of modern Freemasonry, the direct offspring of the British parents aforesaid, should first of all establish the descent of the three Grand Lodges from the Freemasonry of earlier days; such continuity, of five centuries or more, being a sine qua non of antiquity and regularity.

It will be found that from the early part of the 18th century back to the 16th century existing records testify to the assemblies of lodges, mainly operative, but partly speculative, in Great Britain, whose guiding stars and common heritage were the Old Charges, and that when their actual minutes and transactions cease to be traced by reason of their loss, these same MS. Constitutions furnish testimony of the still older working of such combinations of freemasons or masons, without the assistance, countenance or authority of any other masonic body; consequently such documents still preserved, of the 14th and later centuries (numbering about seventy, mostly in form of rolls), with the existing lodge minutes referred to of the 16th century, down to the establishment of the premier Grand Lodge in 1717, prove the continuity of the society. Indeed so universally has this claim been admitted, that in popular usage the term Freemason is only now applied to those who belong to this particular fraternity, that of mason being applicable to one who follows that trade, or honourable calling, as a builder.

There is no evidence that during this long period any other organization of any kind, religious, philosophical, mystical or otherwise, materially or even slightly influenced the customs of the fraternity, though they may have done so; but so far as is known the lodges were of much the same character throughout, and consisted really of operatives (who enjoyed practically a monopoly for some time of the trade as masons or freemasons), and, in part, of “speculatives,” i.e. noblemen, gentlemen and men of other trades, who were admitted as honorary members.

Assuming then that the freemasons of the present day are the sole inheritors of the system arranged at the so-called “Revival of 1717,” which was a development from an operative body to one partly speculative, and that, so far back as the MS. Records extend and furnish any light, they must have worked in Lodges in secret throughout the period noted, a history of Freemasonry should be mainly devoted to giving particulars, as far as possible, of the lodges, their traditions, customs and laws, based upon actual documents which can be tested and verified by members and non-members alike.

It has been the rule to treat, more or less fully, of the influence exerted on the fraternity by the Ancient Mysteries, the Essenes, Roman Colleges, Culdees, Hermeticism, Fehm-Gerichte et hoc genus omne, especially the Steinmetzen, the Craft Gilds and the Companionage of France, &c.; but in view of the separate and independent character of the freemasons, it appears to be quite unnecessary, and the time so employed would be better devoted to a more thorough search after additional evidences of the activity of the craft, especially during the crucial period overlapping the second decade of the 18th century, so as to discover information as to the transmitted secrets of the medieval masons, which, after all, may simply have been what Gaspard Monge felicitously entitles “Descriptive Geometry, or the Art and Science of Masonic Symbolism.”

The rules and regulations of the masons were embodied in what are known as the Old Charges; the senior known copy being the Regius MS. (British Museum Bibl. Reg. 17 A, i.), which, however, is not so exclusively devoted to masonry as the later copies. David Casley, in his catalogue of the MSS. in the King’s Library (1734), unfortunately styled the little gem A Poem of Moral Duties; and owing to this misdescription its true character was not recognized until the year 1839, and then by a non-mason (Mr Halliwell-Phillipps), who had it reproduced in 1840 and brought out an improved edition in 1844. Its date has been approximately fixed at 1390 by Casley and other authorities.

The curious legend of the craft, therein made known, deals first of all with the number of unemployed in early days and the necessity of finding work, “that they myght gete here lyvynge therby.” Euclid was consulted, and recommended the “onest craft of good masonry,” and the genesis of the society is found “yn Egypte lande.” By a rapid transition, but “mony erys afterwarde,” we are told that the “Craft com ynto England yn tyme of good kynge Adelstonus (Æthelstan) day,” who called an assembly of the masons, when fifteen articles and as many more points were agreed to for the government of the craft, each being duly described. Each brother was instructed that—

“He must love wel God, and holy Churche algate

And hys mayster also, that he ys wythe.”

“The thrydde poynt must be severle.

With the prentes knowe hyt wele,

Hys mayster cownsel he kepe and close,

And hys felows by hys goode purpose;

The prevetyse of the chamber telle he no mon,

Ny yn the logge whatsever they done,

Whatsever thou heryst, or syste hem do,

Telle hyt no mon, whersever thou go.”

The rules generally, besides referring to trade regulations, are as a whole suggestive of the Ten Commandments in an extended form, winding up with the legend of the Ars quatuor coronatorum, as an incentive to a faithful discharge of the numerous obligations. A second part introduces a more lengthy account of the origin of masonry, in which Noah’s flood and the Tower of Babylon are mentioned as well as the great skill of Euclid, who—

“Through hye grace of Crist yn heven,

He commensed yn the syens seven”;

The “seven sciences” are duly named and explained. The compiler apparently was a priest, line 629 reading “And, when ye gospel me rede schal,” thus also accounting for the many religious injunctions in the MS.; the last hundred lines are evidently based upon Urbanitatis (Cott. MS. Caligula A 11, fol. 88) and Instructions for a Parish Priest (Cott. MS. Claudius A 11, fol. 27), instructions such as lads and even men would need who were ignorant of the customs of polite society, correct deportment at church and in the presence of their social superiors.

The recital of the legend of the Quatuor Coronati has been held by Herr Findel in his History of Freemasonry (Allgemeine Geschichte der Freimaurerei, 1862; English editions, 1866-1869) to prove that British Freemasonry was derived from Germany, but without any justification, the legend being met with in England centuries prior to the date of the Regius MS., and long prior to its incorporation in masonic legends on the Continent.

The next MS., in order, is known as the “Cooke” (Ad. MS. 23,198, British Museum), because Matthew Cooke published a fair reproduction of the document in 1861; and it is deemed by competent paleographers to date from the first part of the 15th century. There are two versions of the Old Charges in this little book, purchased for the British Museum in 1859. The compiler was probably a mason and familiar with several copies of these MS. Constitutions, two of which he utilizes and comments upon; he quotes from a MS. copy of the Policronicon the manner in which a written account of the sciences was preserved in the two historic stones at the time of the Flood, and generally makes known the traditions of the society as well as the laws which were to govern the members.

Its introduction into England through Egypt is noted (where the Children of Israel “lernyd ye craft of Masonry”), also the “lande of behest” (Jerusalem) and the Temple of Solomon (who “confirmed ye chargys yt David his Fadir” had made). Then masonry in France is interestingly described; and St Alban and “Æthelstane with his yongest sone” (the Edwin of the later MSS.) became the chosen mediums subsequently, as with the other Charges, portions of the Old Testament are often cited in order to convey a correct idea to the neophyte, who is to hear the document read, as to these sciences which are declared to be free in themselves (fre in hem selfe). Of all crafts followed by man in this world “Masonry hathe the moste notabilite,” as confirmed by “Elders that were bi for us of masons [who] had these chargys wryten,” and “as is write and taught in ye boke of our charges.”

Until quite recently no representative or survival of this particular version had been traced, but in 1890 one was discovered of 1687 (since known as the William Watson MS.). Of some seventy copies of these old scrolls which have been unearthed, by far the greater proportion have been made public since 1860. They have all much in common, though often curious differences are to be detected; are of English origin, no matter where used; and when complete, as they mostly are, whether of the 16th or subsequent centuries, are noteworthy for an invocation or prayer which begins the recital:—

“The mighte of the ffather of heaven

And the wysedome of the glorious Sonne

through the grace and the goodnes of the holly

ghoste yt been three p’sons and one God

be with us at or beginning and give us grace

so to gou’ne us here in or lyving that wee maye

come to his blisse that nevr shall have ending.—Amen.”

(Grand Lodge MS. No. 1, A.D. 1583.)

They are chiefly of the 17th century and nearly all located in England; particulars may be found in Hughan’s Old Charges of the British Freemasons (1872, 1895 and supplement 1906).3 The chief scrolls, with some others, have been reproduced in facsimile in six volumes of the Quatuor Coronatorum Antigrapha; and the collection in Yorkshire has been published separately, either in the West Yorkshire Reprints or the Ancient York Masonic Rolls. Several have been transcribed and issued in other works.

These scrolls give considerable information as to the traditions and customs of the craft, together with the regulations for its government, and were required to be read to apprentices long after the peculiar rules ceased to be acted upon, each lodge apparently having one or more copies kept for the purpose. The old Lodge of Aberdeen ordered in 1670 that the Charge was to be “read at ye entering of everie entered prenteise”; another at Alnwick in 1701 provided—

“Noe Mason shall take any apprentice [but he must]

Enter him and give him his Charge, within one whole year after”;

and still another at Swallwell (now No. 48 Gateshead) demanded that “the Apprentices shall have their Charge given at the time of Registering, or within thirty days after”; the minutes inserting such entries accordingly even so late as 1754, nearly twenty years after the lodge had cast in its lot with the Grand Lodge of England.

Their Christian character is further emphasized by the “First Charge that you shall be true men to God and the holy Church”; the York MS. No. 6 beseeches the brethren “at every meeting and assembly they pray heartily for all Christians”; the Melrose MS. No. 2 (1674) mentions “Merchants and all other Christian men,” and the Aberdeen MS. (1670) terms the invocation “A Prayer before the Meeting.” Until the Grand Lodge era, Freemasonry was thus wholly Christian. The York MS. No. 4 of 1693 contains a singular error in the admonitory lines:—

“The [n] one of the elders takeing the Booke and that

hee or shee that is to be made mason, shall lay their

hands thereon and the charge shall be given.”

This particular reading was cited by Hughan in 1871, but was considered doubtful; Findel,4 however, confirmed it, on his visit to York under the guidance of the celebrated masonic student the late Rev. A. F. A. Woodford. The mistake was due possibly to the transcriber, who had an older roll before him, confusing “they,” sometimes written “the,” with “she,” or reading that portion, which is often in Latin, as ille vel illa, instead of ille vel illi.

In some of the Codices, about the middle of the 17th century and later, New Articles are inserted, such as would be suitable for an organization similar to the Masons’ Company of London, which had one, at least, of the Old Charges in its possession according to inventories of 1665 and 1676; and likewise in 1722, termed The Book of the Constitutions of the Accepted Masons. Save its mention (“Book wrote on parchment”) by Sir Francis Palgrave in the Edinburgh Review (April 1839) as being in existence “not long since,” this valuable document has been lost sight of for many years.

That there were signs and other secrets preserved and used by the brethren throughout this mainly operative period may be gathered from discreet references in these old MSS. The Institutions in parchment (22nd of November 1696) of the Dumfries Kilwinning Lodge (No. 53, Scotland) contain a copy of the oath taken “when any man should be made”:—

“These Charges which we now reherse to you and all others ye secrets and misterys belonging to free masons you shall faithfully and truly keep, together with ye Counsell of ye assembly or lodge, or any other lodge, or brother, or fellow.”

“Then after ye oath taken and the book kissed” (i.e. the Bible) the “precepts” are read, the first being:—

“You shall be true men to God and his holy Church, and that you do not countenance or maintaine any eror, faction, schism or herisey, in ye church to ye best of your understanding.” (History of No. 53, by James Smith.)

The Grand Lodge MS. No. 2 provides that “You shall keepe secret ye obscure and intricate pts. of ye science, not disclosinge them to any but such as study and use ye same.”

The Harleian MS. No. 2054 (Brit. Mus.) is still more explicit, termed The ffree Masons Orders and Constitutions, and is in the handwriting of Randle Holme (author of the Academie of Armory, 1688), who was a member of a lodge in Cheshire. Following the MS. Constitutions, in the same handwriting, about 1650, is a scrap of paper with the obligation:—

“There is sevrall words and signes of a free Mason to be revailed to yu wch as yu will answr. before God at the Great and terrible day of judgmt. yu keep secret and not to revaile the same to any in the heares of any p’son, but to the Mrs and fellows of the Society of Free Masons, so helpe me God, &c.” (W. H. Rylands, Mas. Mag., 1882.)

It is not yet settled who were the actual designers or architects of the grand old English cathedrals. Credit has been claimed for church dignitaries, to the exclusion more or less of the master masons, to whom presumably of right the distinction belonged. In early days the title “architect” is not met with, unless the term “Ingenator” had that meaning, which is doubtful. As to this interesting question, and as to the subject of building generally, an historical account of Master and Free Masons (Discourses upon Architecture in England, by the Rev. James Dallaway, 1833), and Notes on the Superintendents of English Buildings in the Middle Ages (by Wyatt Papworth, 1887), should be consulted. Both writers were non-masons. The former observes: “The honour due to the original founders of these edifices is almost invariably transferred to the ecclesiastics under whose patronage they rose, rather than to the skill and design of the master mason, or professional architect, because the only historians were monks.... They were probably not so well versed in geometrical science as the master masons, for mathematics formed a part of monastic learning in a very limited degree.” In the Journal of Proceedings R.I.B.A. vol. iv. (1887), a skilful critic (W. H. White) declares that Papworth, in that valuable collection of facts, has contrived to annihilate all the professional idols of the century, setting up in their place nothing except the master mason. The brotherhood of Bridge-builders,5 that travelled far and wide to build bridges, and the travelling bodies of Freemasons,6 he believes never existed; nor was William of Wykeham the designer of the colleges attributed to him. It seems well-nigh impossible to disprove the statements made by Papworth, because they are all so well grounded on attested facts; and the attempt to connect the Abbey of Cluny, or men trained at Cluny, with the original or preliminary designs of the great buildings erected during the middle ages, at least during the 12th and 13th centuries, is also a failure. The whole question is ably and fully treated in the History of Freemasonry by Robert Freke Gould (1886-1887), particularly in chapter vi. on “Medieval Operative Masonry,” and in his Concise History (1903).

The lodge is often met with, either as the tabulatum domicialem (1200, at St Alban’s Abbey) or actually so named in the Fabric Rolls of York Minster (1370), ye loge being situated close to the fane in course of erection; it was used as a place in which the stones were prepared in private for the structure, as well as occupied at meal-time, &c. Each mason was required to “swere upon ye boke yt he sall trewly ande bysyli at his power hold and kepe holy all ye poyntes of yis forsayde ordinance” (Ordinacio Cementanorum).

As to the term free-mason, from the 14th century, it is held by some authorities that it described simply those men who worked “freestone,” but there is abundant evidence to prove that, whatever may have been intended at first, free-mason soon had a much wider signification, the prefix free being also employed by carpenters (1666), sewers (15th century, tailors at Exeter) and others, presumably to indicate they were free to follow their trades in certain localities. On this point Mr Gould well observes: “The class of persons from whom the Freemasons of Warrington (1646), Staffordshire (1686), Chester, York, London and their congeners in the 17th century derived the descriptive title, which became the inheritance of the Grand Lodge of England, were free men, and masons of Gilds or Companies” (History, vol. ii. p. 160). Dr Brentano may also be cited: “Wherever the Craft Guilds were legally acknowledged, we find foremost, that the right to exercise their craft, and sell their manufactures, depended upon the freedom of their city” (Development of Guilds, &c., p. 65). In like manner, the privilege of working as a mason was not conferred before candidates had been “made free.” The regular free-masons would not work with men, even if they had a knowledge of their trade, “if unfree,” but styled them “Cowans,” a course justified by the king’s “Maister of Work,” William Schaw, whose Statutis and Ordinanceis (28th December 1598) required that “Na maister or fellow of craft ressaue any cowanis to wirk in his societie or companye, nor send nane of his servants to wirk wt. cowanis, under the pane of twentie pounds.” Gradually, however, the rule was relaxed, in time such monopoly practically ceased, and the word “cowan” is only known in connexion with speculative Freemasonry. Sir Walter Scott, as a member of Lodge St David (No. 36), was familiar with the word and used it in Rob Roy. In 1707 a cowan was described in the minutes of Mother Lodge Kilwinning, as a mason “without the word,” thus one who was not a free mason (History of the Lodge of Edinburgh No. 1, by D. Murray Lyon, 1900).

In the New English Dictionary (Oxford, vol. iv., 1897) under “Freemason” it is noted that three views have been propounded:—(1) “The suggestion that free-mason stands for free-stone-mason would appear unworthy of attention, but for the curious fact that the earliest known instances of any similar appellation are mestre mason de franche peer (Act 25 Edw. III., 1350), and sculptores lapidum liberorum, alleged to occur in a document of 1217; the coincidence, however, seems to be merely accidental. (2) The view most generally held is that freemasons were those who were free of the masons’ guild. Against this explanation many forcible objections have been brought by Mr G. W. Speth, who suggests (3) that the itinerant masons were called free because they claimed exemption from the control of the local guilds of the towns in which they temporarily settled. (4) Perhaps the best hypothesis is that the term refers to the medieval practice of emancipating skilled artisans, in order that they might be able to travel and render their services wherever any great building was in process of construction.” The late secretary of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge (No. 2076, London) has thus had his view sanctioned by “the highest tribunal in the Republic of Letters so far as Philology is concerned” (Dr W. J. Chetwode Crawley in Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, 1898). Still it cannot be denied that members of lodges in the 16th and following centuries exercised the privilege of making free masons and denied the freedom of working to cowans (also called un-freemen) who had not been so made free; “the Masownys of the luge” being the only ones recognized as freemasons. As to the prefix being derived from the word frere, a sufficient answer is the fact that frequent reference is made to “Brother freemasons,” so that no ground for that supposition exists (cf. articles by Mr Gould in the Freemason for September 1898 on “Free and Freemasonry”).

There are numerous indications of masonic activity in the British lodges of the 17th century, especially in Scotland; the existing records, however, of the southern part of the United Kingdom, though few, are of importance, some only having been made known in recent years. These concern the Masons’ Company of London, whose valuable minutes and other documents are ably described and commented upon by Edward Conder, jr., in his Hole Crafte and Fellowship of Masons (1894), the author then being the Master of that ancient company. It was incorporated in 1677 by Charles II., who graciously met the wishes of the members, but as a company the information “that is to be found in the Corporation Records at Guildhall proves very clearly that in 1376 the Masons’ Company existed and was represented in the court of common council.” The title then favoured was “Masons,” the entry of the term “Freemasons” being crossed out. Herbert erroneously overlooked the correction, and stated in his History of the Twelve Great Livery Companies (vol. i.) that the Freemasons returned two, and the Masons four members, but subsequently amalgamated; whereas the revised entry was for the “Masons” only. The Company obtained a grant of arms in 1472 (12th year Hen. VIII.), one of the first of the kind, being thus described:—“A feld of Sablys A Cheveron silver grailed thre Castellis of the same garnysshed wt. dores and wyndows of the feld in the Cheveron or Cumpas of Black of Blak”; it is the authority (if any) for all later armorial bearings having a chevron and castles, assumed by other masonic organizations. This precious document was only discovered in 1871, having been missing for a long time, thus doubtless accounting for the erroneous representations met with, not having the correct blazon to follow. The oldest masonic motto known is “God is our Guide” on Kerwin’s tomb in St Helen’s church, Bishopgate, of 1594; that of “In the Lord is all our trust” not being traced until the next century. Supporters consisting of two doric columns are mentioned in 1688 by Randle Holme, but the Grand Lodge of England in the following century used Beavers as operative builders. Its first motto was “In the beginning was the Word” (in Greek), exchanged a few years onward for “Relief and Truth,” the rival Grand Lodge (Atholl Masons) selecting “Holiness to the Lord” (in Hebrew), and the final selection at the “Union of December 1813” being Audi Vide Tace.

Mr Conder’s discovery of a lodge of “Accepted Masons” being held under the wing of the Company was a great surprise, dating as the records do from 1620 to 1621 (the earliest of the kind yet traced in England), when seven were made masons, all of whom were free of the Company before, three being of the Livery; the entry commencing “Att the making masons.” The meetings were entitled the “Acception,” and the members of the lodge were called Accepted Masons, being those so accepted and initiated, the term never otherwise being met with in the Records. An additional fee had to be paid by a member of the Company to join the “Acception,” and any not belonging thereto were mulct in twice the sum; though even then such “acceptance” did not qualify for membership of the superior body; the fees for the “Acception” being £1 and £2 respectively. In 1638-1639, when Nicholas Stone entered the lodge (he was Master of the Company 1632-1633) the banquet cost a considerable sum, showing that the number of brethren present must have been large.

Elias Ashmole (who according to his diary was “made a Free Mason of Warrington with Colonel Henry Mainwaring,” seven brethern being named as in attendance at the lodge, 16th of October 1646) states that he “received a summons to appear at a Lodge to be held next day at Masons’ Hall, London.” Accordingly on the 11th of March 1682 he attended and saw six gentlemen “admitted into the Fellowship of Free Masons,” of whom three only belonged to the Company; the Master, however, Mr Thomas Wise, the two wardens and six others being present on the occasion as members in their dual capacity. Ashmole adds: “We all dyned at the Halfe Moone Tavern in Cheapside at a noble dinner prepaired at the charge of the new-accepted Masons.”

It is almost certain that there was not an operative mason present at the Lodge held in 1646, and at the one which met in 1682 there was a strong representation of the speculative branch. Before the year 1654 the Company was known as that of the Freemasons for some time, but after then the old title of Masons was reverted to, the terms “Acception” and “Accepted” belonging to the speculative Lodge, which, however, in all probability either became independent or ceased to work soon after 1682. It is very interesting to note that subsequently (but never before) the longer designation is met with of “Free and Accepted Masons,” and is thus a combination of operative and speculative usage.

Mr Conder is of opinion that in the Records “there is no evidence of any particular ceremony attending the position of Master Mason, possibly it consisted of administering a different oath from the one taken by the apprentices on being entered.” There is much to favour this supposition, and it may provide the key to the vexata quaestio as to the plurality of degrees prior to the Grand Lodge era. The fellow-crafts were recruited from those apprentices who had served their time and had their essay (or sufficient trial of their skill) duly passed; they and the Masters, by the Schaw Statutes of 1598, being only admitted in the presence of “sex Maisteris and twa enterit prenteissis.” As a rule a master mason meant one who was master of his trade, i.e. duly qualified; but it sometimes described employers as distinct from journeymen Freemasons; being also a compliment conferred on honorary members during the 17th century in particular.

In Dr Plot’s History of Staffordshire (1686) is a remarkable account of the “Society of Freemasons,” which, being by an unfriendly critic, is all the more valuable. He states that the custom had spread “more or less all over the nation”; persons of the most eminent quality did not disdain to enter the Fellowship; they had “a large parchment volum containing the History and Rules of the Craft of Masonry”; St Amphibal, St Alban, King Athelstan and Edwin are mentioned, and these “charges and manners” were “after perusal approved by King Hen. 6 and his council, both as to Masters and Fellows of this right Worshipfull craft.” It is but fair to add that notwithstanding the service he rendered the Society by his lengthy description, that credulous historian remarks of its history that there is nothing he ever “met with more false or incoherent.”

The author of the Academie of Armory, previously noted, knew better what he was writing about in that work of 1688 in which he declares: “I cannot but Honor the Fellowship of the Masons because of its Antiquity; and the more, as being a member of that Society, called Free Masons” Mr Rylands states that in Harl. MS. 5955 is a collection of the engraved plates for a second volume of this important work, one being devoted to the Arms of the Society, the columns, as supporters, having globes thereon, from which possibly are derived the two pillars, with such ornaments or additions seen in lodge rooms at a later period.

In the same year “A Tripos or Speech delivered at a commencement in the University of Dublin held there July 11, 1688, by John Jones, then A.B., afterwards D.D.,” contained “notable evidence concerning Freemasonry in Dublin.” The Tripos was included in Sir Walter Scott’s edition of Dean Swift’s works (1814), but as Dr Chetwode Crawley points out, though noticed by the Rev. Dr George Oliver (the voluminous Masonic author), he failed to realize its historical importance. The satirical and withal amusing speech was partly translated from the Latin by Dr Crawley for his scholarly introduction to the Masonic Reprints, &c., by Henry Sadler. “The point seems to be that Ridley (reputed to have been an informer against priests under the barbarous penal laws) was, or ought to have been, hanged; that his carcase, anatomized and stuffed, stood in the library; and that frath scoundrellus discovered on his remains the Freemasons’ Mark.” The importance of the references to the craft in Ireland is simply owing to the year in which they were made, as illustrative of the influence of the Society at that time, of which records are lacking.

It is primarily to Scotland, however, that we have to look for such numerous particulars of the activity of the fraternity from 1599 to the establishment of its Grand Lodge in 1736, for an excellent account of which we are indebted to Lyon, the Scottish masonic historian. As early as 1600 (8th of June) the attendance of John Boswell, Esq., the laird of Auchinleck, is entered in the minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh; he attested the record and added his mark, as did the other members; so it was not his first appearance. Many noblemen and other gentlemen joined this ancient atelier, notably Lord Alexander, Sir Anthony Alexander and Sir Alexander Strachan in 1634, the king’s Master of Work (Herrie Alexander) in 1638, General Alexander Hamilton in 1640, Dr Hamilton in 1647, and many other prominent and distinguished men later; “James Neilsone, Master Sklaitter to His Majestie,” who was “entered and past in the Lodge of Linlithgow, being elected a joining member,” 2nd March 1654. Quarter-Master General Robert Moray (or Murray) was initiated by members of the Lodge of Edinburgh, at Newcastle on the 20th of May 1641, while the Scottish army was in occupation. On due report to their Alma Mater such reception was allowed, the occurrence having been considered the first of its kind in England until the ancient Records of the Masons’ Company were published.

The minute-books of a number of Scottish Lodges, which are still on the register, go back to the 17th century, and abundantly confirm the frequent admission of speculatives as members and officers, especially those of the venerable “Mother Lodge Kilwinning,” of which the earl of Cassillis was the deacon in 1672, who was succeeded by Sir Alexander Cunningham, and the earl of Eglinton, who like the first of the trio was but an apprentice. There were three Head Lodges according to the Scottish Code of 1599, Edinburgh being “the first and principall,” Kilwinning “the secund,” and Stirling “the third ludge.”

The Aberdeen Lodge (No. 1 tris) has records preserved from 1670, in which year what is known as the Mark Book begins, containing the oldest existing roll of members, numbering 49, all of whom have their marks registered, save two, though only ten were operatives. The names of the earls of Finlater, Erroll and Dunfermline, Lord Forbes, several ministers and professional men are on the list, which was written by a glazier, all of whom had been enlightened as to the “benefit of the measson word,” and inserted in order as they “were made fellow craft.” The Charter (Old Charges) had to be read at the “entering of everie prenteise,” and the officers included a master and two wardens.

The lodge at Melrose (No. 1 bis) with records back to 1674 did not join the Grand Lodge until 1891, and was the last of those working (possibly centuries before that body was formed) to accept the modern system of government. Of the many noteworthy lodges mention should be made of that of “Canongate Kilwinning No. 2,” Edinburgh, the first of the numerous pendicles of “Mother Lodge Kilwinning, No. 0,” Ayrshire, started in 1677; and of the Journeymen No 8, formed in 1707, which was a secession from the Lodge of Edinburgh; the Fellow Crafts or Journeymen not being satisfied with their treatment by the Freemen Masters of the Incorporation of Masons, &c. This action led to a trial before the Lords of Council and Session, when finally a “Decreet Arbitral” was subscribed to by both parties, and the junior organization was permitted “to give the mason word as it is called” in a separate lodge. The presbytery of Kelso7 in 1652 sustained the action of the Rev. James Ainslie in becoming a Freemason, declaring that “there is neither sinne nor scandale in that word” (i.e. the “Mason Word”), which is often alluded to but never revealed in the old records already referred to.8 One Scottish family may be cited in illustration of the continuous working of Freemasonry, whose membership is enshrined in the records of the ancient Lodge of “Scoon and Perth No. 3” and others. A venerable document, lovingly cared for by No. 3, bears date 1658, and recites how John Mylne came to Perth from the “North Countrie,” and was the king’s Master Mason and W.M. of the Lodge, his successor being his son, who entered “King James the sixt as ffreman measone and fellow craft”; his third son John was a member of Lodge No. 1 and Master Mason to Charles I., 1631-1636, and his eldest son was a deacon of No. 1 eleven times during thirty years. To him was apprenticed his nephew, who was warden in 1663-1664 and deacon several times. William Mylne was a warden in 1695, Thomas (eldest son) was Master in 1735, and took part in the formation of the Grand Lodge of Scotland. Others of the family continued to join the Lodge No. 1, until Robert, the last of the Mylnes as Freemasons, was initiated in 1754, died in 1811, and “was buried in St Paul’s cathedral, having been Surveyor to that Edifice for fifty years,” and the last of the masonic Mylnes for five generations. The “St John’s Lodge,” Glasgow (No. 3 bis), has some valuable old records and a “Charter Chest” with the words carved thereon “God save the King and Masons Craft, 1684.” Loyalty and Charity are the watchwords of the Society.

The Craft Gilds (Corps d’État) of France, and their progeny the Companionage, have been fully described by Mr Gould, and the Steinmetzen of Germany would require too detailed notice if we were to particularize its rules, customs and general character, from about the 12th century onward. Much as there was in common between the Stonemasons of Germany and the Freemasons of Great Britain and Ireland, it must be conceded that the two societies never united and were all through this long period wholly separate and independent; a knowledge of Freemasonry and authority to hold lodges in Germany being derived from the Grand Lodge of England during the first half of the 18th century. The theory of the derivation of the Freemasons from the Steinmetzen was first propounded in 1779 by the abbÉ Grandidier, and has been maintained by more modern writers, such as Fallou, Heideloff and Schneider, but a thorough examination of their statements has resulted in such an origin being generally discredited. Whether the Steinmetzen had secret signs of recognition or not, is not quite clear, but that the Freemasons had, for centuries, cannot be doubted, though precisely what they were may be open to question, and also what portions of the existing ceremonies are reminiscent of the craft anterior to the Revival of 1717. Messrs Speth and Gould favour the notion that there were two distinct and separate degrees prior to the third decade of the 18th century (Ars Q.C., 1898 and 1903), while other authorities have either supported the One degree theory, or consider there is not sufficient evidence to warrant a decision. Recent discoveries, however, tend in favour of the first view noted, such as the Trinity College MS., Dublin (“Free Masonry, Feb. 1711”), and the invaluable9 Chetwode Crawley MS. (Grand Lodge Library, Dublin); the second being read in connexion with the Haughfoot Lodge Records, beginning 1702 (Hist, of Freemasonry, by W. F. Vernon, 1893).

Two of the most remarkable lodges at work during the period of transition (1717-1723), out of the many then existing in England, assembled at Alnwick and at York. The origin of the first noted is not known, but there are minutes of the meetings from 1703, the Rules are of 1701, signed by quite a number of members, and a transcript of the Old Charges begins the volume. In 1708-1709 a minute provided for a masonic procession, at which the brethren were to walk “with their aprons on and Comon Square.” The Lodge consisted mainly of operative “free Brothers,” and continued for many years, a code of by-laws being published in 1763, but it never united with the Grand Lodge, giving up the struggle for existence a few years further on.

The other lodge, the most noteworthy of all the English predecessors of the Grand Lodge of England, was long held at York, the Mecca of English Freemasons.10 Its origin is unknown, but there are traces of its existence at an early date, and possibly it was a survival of the Minster Lodge of the 14th century. Assuming that the York MS. No. 4 of 1693 was the property of the lodge in that year (which Roll was presented by George Walker of Wetherby in 1777), the entry which concludes that Scroll is most suggestive, as it gives “The names of the Lodge” (members) and the “Lodge Ward(en).” Its influence most probably may be also noted at Scarborough, where “A private Lodge” was held on the 10th of July 1705, at which the president “William Thompson, Esq., and severall others brethren ffree Masons” were present, and six gentlemen (named) “were then admitted into the said ffraternity.” These particulars are endorsed on the Scarborough MS. of the Old Charges, now owned by the Grand Lodge of Canada at Toronto. “A narrow folio manuscript Book beginning 7th March 1705-1706,” which was quoted from in 1778, has long been missing, which is much to be regretted, as possibly it gave particulars of the lodge which assembled at Bradford, Yorkshire, “when 18 Gentlemen of the first families in that neighbourhood were made Masons.” There is, however, another roll of records from 1712 to 1730 happily preserved of this “Ancient Honble. Society and Fraternity of Free Masons,” sometimes styled “Company” or “Society of Free and Accepted Masons.”

Not to be behind the London fratres, the York brethren formed a Grand Lodge on the 27th of December 1725 (the “Grand Lodge of all England” was its modest title), and was flourishing for years, receiving into their company many county men of great influence. Some twenty years later there was a brief period of somnolence, but in 1761 a revival took place, with Francis Drake, the historian, as Grand Master, ten lodges being chartered in Yorkshire, Cheshire and Lancashire, 1762-1790, and a Grand Lodge of England, south of the Trent, in 1779, at London, which warranted two lodges. Before the century ended all these collapsed or joined the Grand Lodge of England, so there was not a single representative of “York Masonry” left on the advent of the next century.

The premier Grand Lodge of England soon began to constitute new Lodges in the metropolis, and to reconstitute old ones that applied for recognition, one of the earliest of 1720-1721 being still on the Roll as No. 6, thus having kept company ever since with the three “time immemorial Lodges,” Nos. 2, 4 and 12. Applications for constitution kept coming in, the provinces being represented from 1723 to 1724, before which time it is likely the Grand Lodge of Ireland11 had been started, about which the most valuable Caementaria Hibernica by Dr Chetwode Crawley may be consulted with absolute confidence. Provincial Grand Lodges were formed to ease the authorities at headquarters, and, as the society spread, also for the Continent, and gradually throughout the civilized globe. Owing to the custom prevailing before the 18th century, a few brethren were competent to form lodges on their own initiative anywhere, and hence the registers of the British Grand Lodges are not always indicative of the first appearance of the craft abroad. In North America12 lodges were held before what is known as the first “regular” lodge was formed at Boston, Mass., in 1733, and probably in Canada13 likewise. The same remark applies to Denmark, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden and other countries. Of the many scores of military lodges, the first warrant was granted by Ireland in 1732. To no other body of Freemasons has the craft been so indebted for its prosperity in early days as to their military brethren. There were rivals to the Grand Lodge of England during the 18th century, one of considerable magnitude being known as the Ancients or Atholl Masons, formed in 1751, but in December 1813 a junction was effected, and from that time the prosperity of the United Grand Lodge of England, with few exceptions, has been extraordinary.

Nothing but a volume to itself could possibly describe the main features of the English Craft from 1717, when Anthony Sayer was elected the first Grand Master of a brilliant galaxy of rulers. The first nobleman to undertake that office was the duke of Montagu in 1721, the natural philosopher J. T. Desaguliers being his immediate predecessor, who has been credited (and also the Rev. James Anderson) with the honour of starting the premier Grand Lodge; but like the fable of Sir Christopher Wren having been Grand Master, evidence is entirely lacking. Irish and Scottish peers share with those of England the distinction of presiding over the Grand Lodge, and from 1782 to 1813 their Royal Highnesses the duke of Cumberland, the prince of Wales, or the duke of Sussex occupied the masonic throne. From 1753 to 1813 the rival Grand Lodge had been busy, but ultimately a desire for a united body prevailed, and under the “ancient” Grand Master, H.R.H. the duke of Kent, it was decided to amalgamate with the original ruling organization, H.R.H. the duke of Sussex becoming the Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge. On the decease of the prince in 1843 the earl of Zetland succeeded, followed by the marquess of Ripon in 1874, on whose resignation H.R.H. the prince of Wales became the Grand Master. Soon after succeeding to the throne, King Edward VII. ceased to govern the English craft, and was succeeded by H.R.H. the duke of Connaught. From 1737 to 1907 some sixteen English princes of the royal blood joined the brotherhood.

From 1723 to 1813 the number of lodges enrolled in England amounted to 1626, and from 1814 to the end of December 1909 as many as 3352 were warranted, making a grand total of 4978, of which the last then granted was numbered 3185. There were in 1909 still 2876 on the register, notwithstanding the many vacancies created by the foundation of new Grand Lodges in the colonies and elsewhere.14

Distribution and Organization.—The advantage of the cosmopolitan basis of the fraternity generally (though some Grand Lodges still preserve the original Christian foundation) has been conspicuously manifested and appreciated in India and other countries where the votaries of numerous religious systems congregate; but the unalterable basis of a belief in the Great Architect of the Universe remains, for without such a recognition there can be no Freemasonry, and it is now, as it always has been, entirely free from party politics. The charities of the Society in England, Ireland and Scotland are extensive and well organized, their united cost per day not being less than £500, and with those of other Grand Lodges throughout the world must amount to a very large sum, there being over two millions of Freemasons. The vast increase of late years, both of lodges and members, however, calls for renewed vigilance and extra care in selecting candidates, that numbers may not be a source of weakness instead of strength.

In its internal organization, the working of Freemasonry involves an elaborate system of symbolic ritual,15 as carried out at meetings of the various lodges, uniformity as to essentials being the rule. The members are classified in numerous degrees, of which the first three are “Entered Apprentice,” “Fellow Craft” and “Master Mason,” each class of which, after initiation, can only be attained after passing a prescribed ordeal or examination, as a test of proficiency, corresponding to the “essays” of the operative period.

The lodges have their own by-laws for guidance, subject to the Book of Constitutions of their Grand Lodge, and the regulations of the provincial or district Grand Lodge if located in counties or held abroad.

It is to be regretted that on the continent of Europe Freemasonry has sometimes developed on different lines from that of the “Mother Grand Lodge” and Anglo-Saxon Grand Lodges generally, and through its political and anti-religious tendencies has come into contact or conflict with the state authorities16 or the Roman Catholic church. The “Grand Orient of France” (but not the Supreme Council 33o, and its Grand Lodge) is an example of this retrograde movement, by its elimination of the paragraph referring to a belief in the “Great Architect of the Universe” from its Statuts et rÈglements gÉnÉraux. This deplorable action has led to the withdrawal of all regular Grand Lodges from association with that body, and such separation must continue until a return is made to the ancient and inviolable landmark of the society, which makes it impossible for an atheist either to join or continue a member of the fraternity.

The Grand Lodge of England constituted its first lodge in Paris in the year 1732, but one was formed still earlier on the continent at Gibraltar 1728-1729. Others were also opened in Germany 1733, Portugal 1735, Holland 1735, Switzerland 1740, Denmark 1745, Italy 1763, Belgium 1765, Russia 1771, and Sweden 1773. In most of these countries Grand Lodges were subsequently created and continue to this date, save that in Austria (not Hungary) and Russia no masonic lodges have for some time been permitted to assemble. There is a union of Grand Lodges of Germany, and an annual Diet is held for the transaction of business affecting the several masonic organizations in that country, which works well. H.R.H. Prince Frederick Leopold was in 1909 Protector, or the “Wisest Master” (Vicarius Salomonis). King Gustav V. was the Grand Master ☩ of the freemasons in Sweden, and the sovereign of the “Order of Charles XIII.,” the only one of the kind confined to members of the fraternity.

Lodges were constituted in India from 1730 (Calcutta), 1752 (Madras), and 1758 (Bombay); in Jamaica 1742, Antigua 1738, and St Christopher 1739; soon after which period the Grand Lodges of England, Ireland and Scotland had representatives at work throughout the civilized world.

In no part, however, outside Great Britain has the craft flourished so much as in the United States of America, where the first “regular” lodge (i.e. according to the new regime) was opened in 1733 at Boston, Mass. Undoubtedly lodges had been meeting still earlier, one of which was held at Philadelphia, Penna., with records from 1731, which blossomed into a Grand Lodge, but no authority has yet been traced for its proceedings, save that which may be termed “time immemorial right,” which was enjoyed by all lodges and brethren who were at work prior to the Grand Lodge era (1716-1717) or who declined to recognize the autocratic proceedings of the premier Grand Lodge of England, just as the brethren did in the city of York. A “deputation” was granted to Daniel Coxe, Esq. of New Jersey, by the duke of Norfolk, Grand Master, 5th of June 1730, as Prov. Grand Master of the “Provinces of New York, New Jersey and Pensilvania,” but there is no evidence that he ever constituted any lodges or exercised any masonic authority in virtue thereof. Henry Price as Prov. Grand Master of New England, and his lodge, which was opened on the 31st of August 1733, in the city of Boston, so far as is known, began “regular” Freemasonry in the United States, and the older and independent organization was soon afterwards “regularized.” Benjamin Franklin (an Initiate of the lodge of Philadelphia) printed and published the Book of Constitutions, 1723 (of London, England), in the “City of Brotherly Love” in 1734, being the oldest masonic work in America. English and Scottish Grand Lodges were soon after petitioned to grant warrants to hold lodges, and by the end of the 18th century several Grand Lodges were formed, the Craft becoming very popular, partly no doubt by reason of so many prominent men joining the fraternity, of whom the chief was George Washington, initiated in a Scottish lodge at Fredericksburg, Virginia, in 1752-1753. In 1907 there were fifty Grand Lodges assembling in the United States, with considerably over a million members.

In Canada in 1909 there were eight Grand Lodges, having about 64,000 members. Freemasonry in the Dominion is believed to date from 1740. The Grand Lodges are all of comparatively recent organization, the oldest and largest, with 40,000 members, being for Ontario; those of Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Quebec numbering about 5000 each. There are some seven Grand Lodges in Australia; South Australia coming first as a “sovereign body,” followed closely by New South Wales and Victoria (of 1884-1889 constitution), the whole of the lodges in the Commonwealth probably having fully 50,000 members on the registers.

There are many additional degrees which may be taken or not (being quite optional), and dependent on a favourable ballot; the difficulty, however, of obtaining admission increases as progress is made, the numbers accepted decreasing rapidly with each advancement. The chief of these are arranged in separate classes and are governed either by the “Grand Chapter of the Royal Arch,” the “Mark Grand Lodge,” the “Great Priory of Knights Templars” or the “Ancient and Accepted Rite,” these being mutually complementary and intimately connected as respects England, and more or less so in Ireland, Scotland, North America and wherever worked on a similar basis; the countries of the continent of Europe have also their own Hautes Grades.

(W. J. H.*)

1

If history be no ancient Fable

Free Masons came from Tower of Babel.

(“The Freemasons; an Hudibrastic poem,” London, 1723.)

2 The Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry and Medieval Builders, by Mr G. F. Fort (U.S.A.), and the Cathedral Builders: The Magestri Comacini, by “Leader Scott” (the late Mrs Baxter), take rather a different view on this point and ably present their arguments. The Rev. C. Kingsley in Roman and Teuton writes of the Comacini, “Perhaps the original germ of the great society of Freemasons.”

3 The service rendered by Dr W. Begemann (Germany) in his “Attempt to Classify the Old Charges of the British Masons” (vol. 1 Trans. of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge, London) has been very great, and the researches of the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford and G. W. Speth have also been of the utmost consequence.

4 Findel claims that his Treatise on the society was the cause which “first impelled England to the study of masonic history and ushered in the intellectual movement which resulted in the writings of Bros. Hughan, Lyon, Gould and others.” Great credit was due to the late German author for his important work, but before its advent the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford, D. Murray Lyon and others in Great Britain were diligent masonic students on similar lines.

5 It is not considered necessary to refer at length to the Fratres Pontis, or other imaginary bodies of freemasons, as such questions may well be left to the curious and interested student.

6 “No distinct trace of the general employment of large migratory bands of masons, going from place to place as a guild, or company, or brotherhood” (Prof. T. Hayter-Lewis, Brit. Arch. Assoc., 1889).

7 The Associate Synod which met at Edinburgh, March 1755, just a century later, took quite an opposite view, deciding to depose from office any of their brethren who would not give up their masonic membership (Scots Mag., 1755, p. 158). Papal Bulls have also been issued against the craft, the first being in 1738; but neither interdicts nor anathemata have any influence with the fraternity, and fall quite harmless.

8

“We have the Mason Word and second sight,

Things for to come we can fortell aright.”

(The Muses Threnodie, by H. Adamson, Edin., 1638.)

9 The Chetwode Crawley MS., by W. J. Hughan (Ars. Q.C., 1904).

10 The York Grand Lodge, by Messrs. Hughan and Whytehead (Ars Q.C., 1900), and Masonic Sketches and Reprints (1871), by the former.

11 The celebrated “Lady Freemason,” the Hon. Mrs Aldworth (nÉe Miss St Leger, daughter of Lord Doneraile), was initiated in Ireland, but at a much earlier date than popularly supposed; certainly not later than 1713, when the venturesome lady was twenty. All early accounts of the occurrence must be received with caution, as there are no contemporary records of the event.

12 History of Freemasonry, by Dr A. G. Mackey (New York, 1898), and the History of the Fraternity Publishing Company, Boston, Mass., give very full particulars as to the United States.

13 See History of Freemasonry in Canada (Toronto, 1899), by J. Ross Robertson.

14 The Masonic Records 1717-1894, by John Lane, and the excellent Masonic Yearbook, published annually by the Grand Lodge of England, are the two standard works on Lodge enumeration, localization and nomenclature. For particulars of the Grand Lodges, and especially that of England, Gould’s History is most useful and trustworthy; and for an original contribution to the history of the rival Grand Lodge or Atholl Masons, Sadler’s Masonic Facts and Fictions.

15 “A peculiar system of Morality, veiled in Allegory and illustrated by Symbols” (old definition of Freemasonry).

16 The British House of Commons in 1799 and 1817, in acts of parliament, specifically recognized the laudable character of the society and provided for its continuance on definite lines.

FREEPORT, a city and the county-seat of Stephenson county, Illinois, in the N.W. part of the state, on the Pecatonica river, 30 m. from its mouth and about 100 m. N.W. of Chicago. Pop. (1890) 10,189; (1900) 13,258, of whom 2264 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 17,567. The city is served by the Chicago & North-Western, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St Paul, and the Illinois Central railways, and by the Rockford & Interurban electric railway. The Illinois Central connects at South Freeport, about 3 m. S. of Freeport, with the Chicago Great Western railway. Among Freeport’s manufactures are foundry and machine shop products, carriages, hardware specialties, patent medicines, windmills, engines, incubators, organs, beer and shoes. The Illinois Central has large railway repair shops here. The total value of the city’s factory product in 1905 was $3,109,302, an increase of 14.8% since 1900. In the surrounding country cereals are grown, and swine and poultry are raised. Dairying is an important industry also. The city has a Carnegie library (1901). In the Court House Square is a monument, 80 ft. high, in memory of the soldiers who died in the Civil War. At the corner of Douglas Avenue and Mechanic Street a granite boulder commemorates the famous debate between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, held in Freeport on the 27th of August 1858. In that debate Lincoln emphasized the differences between himself and the radical anti-slavery men, and in answer to one of Lincoln’s questions Douglas declared that the people of a territory, through “unfriendly” laws or denial of legislative protection, could exclude slavery, and that “it matters not what way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide on the abstract question whether slavery may or may not go into a territory under the Constitution.” This, the so-called “Freeport doctrine,” greatly weakened Douglas in the presidential election of 1860. Freeport was settled in 1835, was laid out and named Winneshiek in 1836, and in 1837 under its present name was made the county-seat of Stephenson county. It was incorporated as a town in 1850 and chartered as a city in 1855.

FREE PORTS, a term, strictly speaking, given to localities where no customs duties are levied, and where no customs supervision exists. In these ports (subject to payment for specific services rendered, wharfage, storage, &c., and to the observance of local police and sanitary regulations) ships load and unload, cargoes are deposited and handled, industries are exercised, manufactures are carried on, goods are bought and sold, without any action on the part of fiscal authorities. Ports are likewise designated “free” where a space or zone exists within which commercial operations are conducted without payment of import or export duty, and without active interference on the part of customs authorities. The French and German designations for these two descriptions of ports are—for the former La Ville franche, Freihafen; for the latter Le Port franc, Freibezirk or Freilager. The English phrase free port applies to both.1 The leading conditions under which free ports in Europe derived their origin were as follows:—(1) When public order became re-established during the middle ages, trading centres were gradually formed. Marts for the exchange and purchase of goods arose in different localities. Many Italian settlements, constituting free zones, were established in the Levant. The Hanseatic towns arose in the 12th century. Great fairs became recognized—the Leipzig charter was granted in 1268. These localities were free as regards customs duties, although dues of the nature of octroi charges were often levied. (2) Until the 19th century European states were numerous, and often of small size. Accordingly uniform customs tariffs of wide application did not exist. Uniform rates of duty were fixed In England by the Subsidy Act of 1660. In France, before the Revolution (besides the free ports), Alsace and the Lorraine Bishoprics were in trade matters treated as foreign countries. The unification of the German customs tariff began in 1834 with the Steuerverein and the Zollverein. The Spanish fiscal system did not include the Basque provinces until about 1850. The uniform Italian tariff dates from 1861. Thus until very recent times on the Continent free ports were compatible with the fiscal policy and practice of different countries. (3) Along the Mediterranean coast, up to the 19th century, convenient shelter was needed from corsairs. In other continental countries the prevalent colonial and mercantile policy sought to create trans-oceanic trade. Free ports were advantageous from all these points of view.

In following the history of these harbours in Europe, it is to be observed that in Great Britain free ports have never existed. In 1552 it was contemplated to place Hull and Southampton on this footing, but the design was abandoned. Subsequently the bonding and not the free port system was adopted in the United Kingdom.

Austria-Hungary.—Fiume and Trieste were respectively free ports during the periods 1722-1893 and 1719-1893.

Belgium.—The emperor Joseph II. during his visit to the Austrian Netherlands in June 1781 endeavoured to create a direct trade between that country and India. Ostend was made a free port, and large bonding facilities were afforded at Bruges, Brussels, Ghent and Louvain. In 1796, however, the revolutionary government abolished the Ostend privileges.

Denmark.—In November 1894 an area of about 150 acres at Copenhagen was opened as a free port, and great facilities are afforded for shipping and commercial operations in order that the Baltic trade may centre there.

France.—Marseilles was a free port in the middle ages, and so was Dunkirk when it formed part of Flanders. In 1669 these privileges were confirmed, and extended to Bayonne. In 1784 there was a fresh confirmation, and Lorient and St Jean de Luz were included in the ordonnance. The National Assembly in 1790 maintained this policy, and created free ports in the French West Indies. In 1795, however, all such privileges were abolished, but large bonding facilities were allowed at Marseilles to favour the Levant trade. The government of Louis XVIII. in 1814 restored, and in 1871 again revoked, the free port privileges of Marseilles. There are now no free ports in France or in French possessions; the bonding system is in force.

Germany.—Bremen, Hamburg and LÜbeck were reconstituted free towns and ports under the treaties of 1814-1815. Certain minor ports, and several landing-stages on the Rhine and the Neckar, were also designated free. As the Zollverein policy became accepted throughout Germany, previous privileges were gradually lessened, and since 1888 only Hamburg remains a free port. There an area of about 2500 acres is exempt from customs duties and control, and is largely used for shipping and commercial purposes. Bremerhaven has a similar area of nearly 700 acres. Brake, Bremen, Cuxhaven, Emden, GeestemÜnde, Neufahrwasser and Stettin possess Freibezirke areas, portions of the larger port. Heligoland is outside the Zollverein—practically a foreign country.

In Italy free ports were numerous and important, and possessed privileges which varied at different dates. They were—Ancona, during the period 1696-1868; Brindisi, 1845-1862; Leghorn (in the 17th and 18th centuries a very important Mediterranean harbour), 1675-1867; Messina, 1695-1879; Senigallia, 1821-1868, during the month of the local fair. Venice possessed warehouses, equivalent to bonded stores, for German and Turkish trade during the Republic, and was a free port 1851-1873. Genoa was a free port in the time of the Republic and under the French Empire, and was continued as such by the treaties of 1814-1815. The free port was, however, changed into a “deposito franco” by a law passed in 1865, and only storing privileges now remain.

Rumania.—Braila, Galatz and Kustenji were free ports (for a period of about forty years) up to 1883, when bonded warehouses were established by the Rumanian government. Sulina remains free.

Russia.—Archangel was a free port, at least for English goods, from 1553 to 1648. During this period English products were admitted into Russia via Archangel without any customs payment for internal consumption, and also in transit to Persia. The tsar Alexis revoked this grant on the execution of Charles I. Free ports were opened in 1895 at Kola, in Russian Lapland. Dalny, adjoining Port Arthur, was a free port during the Russian occupation; and Japan after the war decided to renew this privilege as soon as practicable.

The number of free ports outside Europe has also lessened. The administrative policy of European countries has been gradually adopted in other parts of the world, and customs duties have become almost universal, conjoined with bonding and transhipment facilities. In British colonies and possessions, under an act of parliament passed in 1766, and repealed in 1867, two ports in Dominica and four in Jamaica were free, Malacca, Penang and Singapore have been free ports since 1824, Hong-Kong since 1842, and Weihaiwei since it was leased to Great Britain in 1898. Zanzibar was a free port during 1892-1899. Aden, Gibraltar, St Helena and St Thomas (West Indies) are sometimes designated free ports. A few duties are, however, levied, which are really octroi rather than customs charges. These places are mainly stations for coaling and awaiting orders.

Some harbours in the Netherlands East Indies were free ports between 1829 and 1899; but these privileges were withdrawn by laws passed in 1898-1899, in order to establish uniformity of customs administration. Harbours where custom houses are not maintained will be practically closed to foreign trade, though the governor-general may in special circumstances vary the application of the new regulations.

Macao has been a free port since 1845. Portugal has no other harbour of this character.

The American Republics have adopted the bonding system. In 1896 a free wharf was opened at New Orleans in imitation of the recent European plan. Livingstone (Guatemala) was a free port during the period 1882-1888.

The privileges enjoyed under the old free port system benefited the towns and districts where they existed; and their abolition has been, locally, injurious. These places were, however, “foreign” to their own country, and their inland intercourse was restricted by the duties levied on their products, and by the precautions adopted to prevent evasion of these charges. With fiscal usages involving preferential and deferential treatment of goods and places, the drawbacks thus arising did not attract serious attention. Under the limited means of communication within and beyond the country, in former times, these conveniences were not much felt. But when finance departments became more completely organized, the free port system fell out of favour with fiscal authorities: it afforded opportunities for smuggling, and impeded uniformity of action and practice. It became, in fact, out of harmony with the administrative and financial policy of later times. Bonding and entrepot facilities, on a scale commensurate with local needs, now satisfy trade requirements. In countries where high customs duties are levied, and where fiscal regulations are minute and rigid, if an extension of foreign trade is desired, and the competition which it involves is a national aim, special facilities must be granted for this purpose. In these circumstances a free zone sufficiently large to admit of commercial operations and transhipments on a scale which will fulfil these conditions (watched but not interfered with by the customs) becomes indispensable. The German government have, as we have seen, maintained a free zone of this nature at Hamburg. And when the free port at Copenhagen was opened, counter measures were adopted at Danzig and Stettin. An agitation has arisen in France to provide at certain ports free zones similar to those at Copenhagen and Hamburg, and to open free ports in French possessions. A bill to this effect was submitted to the chamber of deputies on the 12th of April 1905. Colonial free ports, such as Hong-Kong and Singapore, do not interfere with the uniformity of the home customs and excise policy. These two harbours in particular have become great shipping resorts and distributing centres. The policy which led to their establishment as free ports has certainly promoted British commercial interests.

See the Parliamentary Paper on “Continental Free Ports,” 1904.

(C. M. K.)

1 In China at the present time (1902) certain ports are designated “free and open.” This phrase means that the ports in question are (1) open to foreign trade, and (2) that vessels engaged in oversea voyages may freely resort there. Exemption from payment of customs duties is not implied, which is a matter distinct from the permission granted under treaty engagements to foreign vessels to carry cargoes to and from the “treaty ports.”

FREE REED VIBRATOR (Fr. anche libre, Ger. durchschlagende Zunge, Ital. ancia or lingua libera), in musical instruments, a thin metal tongue fixed at one end and vibrating freely either in surrounding space, as in the accordion and concertina, or enclosed in a pipe or channel, as in certain reed stops of the organ or in the harmonium. The enclosed reed, in its typical and theoretical form, is fixed over an aperture of the same shape but just large enough to allow it to swing freely backwards and forwards, alternately opening and closing the aperture, when driven by a current of compressed air. We have to deal with air under three different conditions in considering the phenomenon of the sound produced by free reeds. (1) The stationary column or stratum in pipe or channel containing the reed, which is normally at rest. (2) The wind or current of air fed from the bellows with a variable velocity and pressure, which is broken up into periodic air puffs as its entrance into pipe or channel is alternately checked or allowed by the vibrator. (3) The disturbed condition of No. 1 when acted upon by the metal vibrator and by No 2, whereby the air within the pipe is forced into alternate pulses of condensation and rarefaction. The free reed is therefore not the tone-producer but only the exciting agent, that is to say, the sound is not produced by the communication of the free reed’s vibrations to the surrounding air,1 as in the case of a vibrating string, but by the series of air puffs punctuated by infinitesimal pauses, which it produces by alternately opening and almost closing the aperture.2 A musical sound is thus produced the pitch of which depends on the length and thickness of the metal tongue; the greater the length, the slower the vibrations and the lower the pitch, while on the contrary, the thicker the reed near the shoulder at the fixed end, the higher the pitch. It must be borne in mind that the periodic vibrations of the reed determine the pitch of the sound solely by the frequency per second they impose upon the pulses of rarefaction and condensation within the pipe.

From J. B. Biot, TraitÉ de physique expÉrimentale.
Fig. 1.—Grenie’s organ pipe fitted with free-reed vibrator.

A, Tuning wire.

D, Free reed.

R, Reed-box.

B, C, Feed pipe with conical foot.

T, Part of resonating pipe, the upper end with cap and vent hole being shown separately at the side.

The most valuable characteristic of the free reed is its power of producing all the delicate gradations of tone between forte and piano by virtue of a law of acoustics governing the vibration of free reeds, whereby increased pressure of wind produces a proportional increase in the volume of tone. The pitch of any sound depends upon the frequency of the sound-waves, that is, the number per second which reach the ear; the fullness of sound depends upon the amplitude of the waves, or, more strictly speaking, of the swing of the transmitting particles of the medium—greater pressure in the air current (No. 2 above) which sets the vibrator in motion producing amplitude of vibration in the air within the receptacle (No. 3 above) serving as resonating medium. The sound produced by the free reed itself is weak and requires to be reinforced by means of an additional stationary column or stratum of air. Free reed instruments are therefore classified according to the nature of the resonant medium provided:—(1) Free reeds vibrating in pipes, such as the reed stops of church organs on the continent of Europe (in England the reed pipes are generally provided with beating reeds, see Reed Instruments and Clarinet). (2) Free reeds vibrating in reed compartments and reinforced by air chambers of various shapes and sizes as in the harmonium (q.v.). (3) Instruments like the accordion and concertina having the free reed set in vibration through a valve, but having no reinforcing medium.

Fig. 2.—Organ pipe fitted with beating reed.

AL, Beating reed.

R, Reed box.

Ff, Tuning wire.

TV, Feed pipe.

VV, Conical foot.

S, Hole through which compressed air is fed.

The arrangement of the free reed in an organ pipe is simple, and does not differ greatly from that of the beating reed shown in fig. 2 for the purpose of comparison. The reed-box, a rectangular wooden pipe, is closed at the bottom and covered on one face with a thin plate of copper having a rectangular slit over which is fixed the thin metal vibrating tongue or reed as described above. The reed-box, itself open at the top, is enclosed in a feed pipe having a conical foot pierced with a small hole through which the air current is forced by the action of the bellows. The impact of the incoming compressed air against the reed tongue sets it swinging through the slit, thus causing a disturbance or series of pulsations within the reed-box. The air then finds an escape through the resonating medium of a pipe fitting over the reed-box and terminating in an inverted cone covered with a cap in the top of which is pierced a small hole or vent. The quality of tone of free reeds is due to the tendency of air set in periodic pulsations to divide into aliquot vibrations or loops, producing the phenomenon known as harmonic overtones or upper partials, which may, in the highly composite clang of free reeds, be discerned as far as the 16th or 20th of the series. The more intermittent and interrupted the air current becomes, the greater the number of the upper partials produced.3 The power of the overtones and their relation to the fundamental note depend greatly upon the form of the tongue, its position and the amount of the clearance left as it swings through the aperture.

Free reeds not associated with resonating media as in the concertina are peculiarly rich in harmonics, but as the higher harmonics lie very close together, disagreeable dissonances and a harsh tone result. The resonating pipe or chamber when suitably accommodated to the reed greatly modifies the tone by reinforcing the harmonics proper to itself, the others sinking into comparative insignificance. In order to produce a full rich tone, a resonator should be chosen whose deepest note coincides with the fundamental tone of the reed. The other upper partials will also be reinforced thereby, but to a less degree the higher the harmonics.4

For the history of the application of the free reed to keyboard instruments see Harmonium.

(K. S.)

1 See H. Helmholtz, Die Lehre von den Tonempfindungen (Brunswick, 1877), p. 166.

2 See also Ernst Heinrich and Wilhelm Weber, Wellenlehre (Leipzig, 1825), where a particularly lucid explanation of the phenomenon is given, pp. 526-530.

3 See Helmholtz, op. cit. p. 167.

4 These phenomena are clearly explained at greater length by Sedley Taylor in Sound and Music (London, 1896), pp. 134-153 and pp. 74-86. See also Friedrich Zamminer, Die Musik und die musikalischen Instrumente, &c. (Giessen, 1855), p. 261.

FREESIA, in botany, a genus of plants belonging to the Iris family (Iridaceae), and containing a single species, F. refracta, native at the Cape of Good Hope. The plants grow from a corm (a solid bulb, as in Gladiolus) which sends up a tuft of long narrow leaves and a slightly branched stem bearing a few leaves and loose one-sided spikes of fragrant narrowly funnel-shaped flowers. Several varieties are known in cultivation, differing in the colour of the flower, which is white, cream or yellow. They form pretty greenhouse plants which are readily increased from seed. They are extensively grown for the market in Guernsey, England and America. By potting successively throughout the autumn a supply of flowers is obtained through winter and spring. Some very fine large-flowered varieties, including rose-coloured ones, are now being raised by various growers in England, and are a great improvement on the older forms.

FREE SOIL PARTY, a political party in the United States, which was organized in 1847-1848 to oppose the extension of slavery into the Territories. It was a combination of the political abolitionists—many of whom had formerly been identified with the more radical Liberty party—the anti-slavery Whigs, and the faction of the Democratic party in the state of New York, called “Barnburners,” who favoured the prohibition of slavery, in accordance with the “Wilmot Proviso” (see Wilmot, David), in the territory acquired from Mexico. The party was prominent in the presidential campaigns of 1848 and 1852. At the national convention held in Buffalo, N.Y., on the 9th and 10th of August 1848, they secured the nomination to the presidency of ex-President Martin Van Buren, who had failed to secure nomination by the Democrats in 1844 because of his opposition to the annexation of Texas, and of Charles Francis Adams, of Massachusetts, for the vice-presidency, taking as their “platform” a Declaration that Congress, having “no more power to make a slave than to make a king,” was bound to restrict slavery to the slave states, and concluding, “we inscribe on our banner ‘Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor and Free Man,’ and under it we will fight on and fight ever, until a triumphant victory shall reward our exertions.” The Liberty party had previously, in November 1847, nominated John P. Hale and Leicester King as president and vice-president respectively, but in the spring of 1848 it withdrew its candidates and joined the “free soil” movement. Representatives of eighteen states, including Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, attended the Buffalo convention. In the ensuing presidential election Van Buren and Adams received a popular vote of 291,263, of which 120,510 were cast in New York. They received no electoral votes, all these being divided between the Whig candidate, Zachary Taylor, who was elected, and the Democratic candidate, Lewis Cass. The “free soilers,” however, succeeded in sending to the thirty-first Congress two senators and fourteen representatives, who by their ability exercised an influence out of proportion to their number.

Between 1848 and 1852 the “Barnburners” and the “Hunkers,” their opponents, became partially reunited, the former returning to the Democratic ranks, and thus greatly weakening the Free Soilers. The party held its national convention at Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, on the 11th of August 1852, delegates being present from all the free states, and from Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and Kentucky; and John P. Hale, of New Hampshire, and George W. Julian of Indiana, were nominated for the presidency and the vice-presidency respectively, on a platform which declared slavery “a sin against God and a crime against man,” denounced the Compromise Measures of 1850, the fugitive slave law in particular, and again opposed the extension of slavery in the Territories. These candidates, however, received no electoral votes and a popular vote of only 156,149, of which but 25,329 were polled in New York. By 1856 they abandoned their separate organization and joined the movement which resulted in the formation of the powerful Republican party (q.v.), of which the Free Soil party was the legitimate precursor.

FREE-STONE (a translation of the O. Fr. franche pere or pierre, i.e. stone of good quality; the modern French equivalent is pierre de taille, and Ital. pietra molle), stone used in architecture for mouldings, tracery and other work required to be worked with the chisel. The oolitic stones are generally so called, although in some countries soft sandstones are used; in some churches an indurated chalk called “clunch” is employed for internal lining and for carving.

FREETOWN, capital of the British colony of Sierra Leone, West Africa, on the south side of the Sierra Leone estuary, about 5 m. from the cape of that name, in 8° 29′ N., 13° 10′ W. Pop. (1901) 34,463. About 500 of the inhabitants are Europeans. Freetown is picturesquely situated on a plain, closed in behind by a succession of wooded hills, the Sierra Leone, rising to a height of 1700 ft. As nearly every house is surrounded by a courtyard or garden, the town covers an unusually large area for the number of its inhabitants. It possesses few buildings of architectural merit. The principal are the governor’s residence and government offices, the barracks, the cathedral, the missionary institutions, the fruit market, Wilberforce Hall, courts of justice, the railway station and the grammar school. Several of these institutions are built on the slopes of the hills, and on the highest point, Sugar Loaf Mountain, is a sanatorium. The botanic gardens form a pleasant and favourite place of resort. The roads are wide but badly kept. Horses do not live, and all wheeled traffic is done by manual labour—hammocks and sedan-chairs are the customary means of locomotion. Notwithstanding that Freetown possesses an abundant and pure water-supply, drawn from the adjacent hills, it is enervating and unhealthy, and it was particularly to the capital, often spoken of as Sierra Leone, that the designation “White Man’s Grave” applied. Since the beginning of the 20th century strenuous efforts have been made to improve the sanitary condition by a new system of drainage, a better water service, the filling up of marshes wherein the malarial mosquito breeds, and in other directions. A light railway 6 m. long, opened in 1904, has been built to Hill Station (900 ft. high), where, on a healthy site, are the residences of the government officials and of other Europeans. As a consequence the public health has improved, the highest death-rate in the years 1901-1907 being 29.6 per 1000. The town is governed by a municipality (created in 1893) with a mayor and councillors, the large majority being elective. Freetown was the first place in British West Africa granted local self-government.

Both commercially and strategically Freetown is a place of importance. Its harbour affords ample accommodation for the largest fleets, it is a coaling station for the British navy, the headquarters of the British military forces in West Africa, the sea terminus of the railway to the rich oil-palm regions of Mendiland, and a port of call for all steamers serving West Africa. Its inhabitants are noted for their skill as traders; the town itself produces nothing in the way of exports.

In consequence of the character of the original settlement (see Sierra Leone), 75% of the inhabitants are descended from non-indigenous Negro races. As many as 150 different tribes are represented in the Sierra Leonis of to-day. Their semi-Europeanization is largely the result of missionary endeavour. The only language of the lower class is pidgin-English—quite incomprehensible to the newcomer from Great Britain,—but a large proportion of the inhabitants are highly educated men who excel as lawyers, clergymen, clerks and traders. Many members of the upper, that is, the best-educated, class have filled official positions of great responsibility. The most noted citizens are Bishop Crowther and Sir Samuel Lewis, chief justice of Sierra Leone 1882-1894. Both were full-blooded Africans. The Kru-men form a distinct section of the community, living in a separate quarter and preserving their tribal customs.

Since 1861-1862 there has been an independent Episcopal Native Church; but the Church Missionary Society, which in 1804 sent out the first missionaries to Sierra Leone, still maintains various agencies. Furah Bay College, built by the society on the site of General Charles Turner’s estate (1½ m. E. of Freetown), and opened in 1828 with six pupils, one of whom was Bishop Crowther, was affiliated in 1876 to Durham University and has a high-class curriculum. The Wesleyans have a high school, a theological college, and other educative agencies. The Moslems, who are among the most law-abiding and intelligent citizens of Freetown, have several state-aided primary schools.

FREE TRADE, an expression which has now come to be appropriated to the economic policy of encouraging the greatest possible commercial intercourse, unrestricted by “protective” duties (see Protection), between any one country and its neighbours. This policy was originally advocated in France, and it has had its adherents in many countries, but Great Britain stands alone among the great commercial nations of the world in having adopted it systematically from 1846 onwards as the fundamental principle of her economic policy.

In the economic literature of earlier periods, it may be noted that the term “free trade” is employed in senses which have no relation to modern usage. The term conveyed no suggestion of unrestricted trade or national liberty when it first appeared in controversial pamphlets;1 it stood for a freedom conferred and maintained by authority—like that of a free town. The merchants desired to have good regulations for trade so that they might be free from the disabilities imposed upon them by foreign princes or unscrupulous fellow-subjects. After 1640 the term seems to have been commonly current in a different sense. When the practice which had been handed down from the middle ages—of organizing the trade with particular countries by means of privileged companies, which professed to regulate the trade according to the state of the market so as to secure its steady development in the interest of producers and traders—was seriously called in question under the Stuarts and at the Revolution, the interlopers and opponents of the companies insisted on the advantages of a “Free Trade”; they meant by this that the various branches of commerce should not be confined to particular persons or limited in amount, but should be thrown open to be pursued by any Englishman in the way he thought most profitable himself.2 Again, in the latter half of the 18th century, till Pitt’s financial reforms3 were brought into operation, the English customs duties on wine and brandy were excessive; and those who carried on a remunerative business by evading these duties were known as Fair Traders or Free Traders.4 Since 1846 the term free trade has been popularly used, in England, to designate the policy of Cobden (q.v.) and others who advocated the abolition of the tax on imported corn (see Corn Laws); this is the only one of the specialized senses of the term which is at all likely to be confused with the economic doctrine. The Anti-Corn Law movement was, as a matter of fact, a special application of the economic principle; but serious mistakes have arisen from the blunder of confusing the part with the whole, and treating the remission of one particular duty as if it were the essential element of a policy in which it was only an incident. W. E. Gladstone, in discussing the effect of improvements in locomotion on British trade, showed what a large proportion of the stimulus to commerce during the 19th century was to be credited to what he called the “liberalizing legislation” of the free-trade movement in the wide sense in which he used the term. “I rank the introduction of cheap postage for letters, documents, patterns and printed matter, and the abolition of all taxes on printed matter, in the category of Free Trade Legislation. Not only thought in general, but every communication, and every publication, relating to matters of business, was thus set free. These great measures, then, may well take their place beside the abolition of prohibitions and protective duties, the simplifying of revenue laws, and the repeal of the Navigation Act, as forming together the great code of industrial emancipation. Under this code, our race, restored to freedom in mind and hand, and braced by the powerful stimulus of open competition with the world, has upon the whole surpassed itself and every other, and has won for itself a commercial primacy more evident, more comprehensive, and more solid than it had at any previous time possessed.”5 In this large sense free trade may be almost interpreted as the combination of the doctrines of the division of labour and of laissez-faire in regard to the world as a whole. The division of labour between different countries of the world—so that each concentrates its energies in supplying that for the production of which it is best fitted—appears to offer the greatest possibility of production; but this result cannot be secured unless trade and industry are treated as the primary elements in the welfare of each community, and political considerations are not allowed to hamper them.

Stated in its simplest form, the principle which underlies the doctrine of free trade is almost a truism; it is directly deducible from the very notion of exchange (q.v.). Adam Smith and his successors have demonstrated that in every case of voluntary exchange each party gains something that is of greater value-in-use to him than that with which he parts, and that consequently in every exchange, either between individuals or between nations, both parties are the gainers. Hence it necessarily follows that, since both parties gain through exchanging, the more facilities there are for exchange the greater will be the advantage to every individual all round.6 There is no difficulty in translating this principle into the terms of actual life, and stating the conditions in which it holds good absolutely. If, at any given moment, the mass of goods in the world were distributed among the consumers with the minimum of restriction on interchange, each competitor would obtain the largest possible share of the things he procures in the world’s market. But the argument is less conclusive when the element of time is taken into account; what is true of each moment separately is not necessarily true of any period in which the conditions of production, or the requirements of communities, may possibly change. Each individual is likely to act with reference to his own future, but it may often be wise for the statesman to look far ahead, beyond the existing generation.7 Owing to the neglect of this element of time, and the allowance which must be made for it, the reasoning as to the advantages of free trade, which is perfectly sound in regard to the distribution of goods already in existence, may become sophistical,8 if it is put forward as affording a complete demonstration of the benefits of free trade as a regular policy. After all, human society is very complex, and any attempt to deal with its problems off-hand by appealing to a simple principle raises the suspicion that some important factor may have been left out of account. When there is such mistaken simplification, the reasoning may seem to have complete certainty, and yet it fails to produce conviction, because it does not profess to deal with the problem in all its aspects. When we concentrate attention on the phenomena of exchange, we are viewing society as a mechanism in which each acts under known laws and is impelled by one particular force—that of self-interest; now, society is, no doubt, in this sense a mechanism, but it is also an organism,9 and it is only for very short periods, and in a very limited way, that we can venture to neglect its organic character without running the risk of falling into serious mistakes.

The doctrine of free trade maintains that in order to secure the greatest possible mass of goods in the world as a whole, and the greatest possibility of immediate comfort for the consumer, it is expedient that there should be no restriction on the exchange of goods and services either between individuals or communities. The controversies in regard to this doctrine have not turned on its certainty as a hypothetical principle, but on the legitimacy of the arguments based upon it. It certainly supplies a principle in the light of which all proposed trade regulations should be criticized. It gives us a basis for examining and estimating the expense at which any particular piece of trade restriction is carried out; but thus used, the principle does not necessarily condemn the expenditure; the game may be worth the candle or it may not, but at least it is well that we should know how fast the candle is being burnt. It was in this critical spirit that Adam Smith examined the various restrictions and encouragements to trade which were in vogue in his day; he proved of each in turn that it was expensive, but he showed that he was conscious that the final decision could not be taken from this standpoint, since he recognized in regard to the Navigation Acts that “defence is more than opulence.”10 In more recent times, the same sort of attitude was taken by Henry Sidgwick,11 who criticizes various protective expedients in turn, in the light of free trade, but does not treat it as conveying an authoritative decision on their merits.

But other exponents of the doctrine have not been content to employ it in this fashion. They urge it in a more positive manner, and insist that free trade pure and simple is the foundation on which the economic life of the community ought to be based. By men who advocate it in this way, free trade is set forward as an ideal which it is a duty to realize, and those who hold aloof from it or oppose it have been held up to scorn as if they were almost guilty of a crime.12 The development of the material resources of the world is undoubtedly an important element in the welfare of mankind; it is an aim which is common to the whole race, and may be looked upon as contributing to the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Competition in the open market seems to secure that each consumer shall obtain the best possible terms; and again, since all men are consumers whether they produce or not, or whatever they produce, the greatest measure of comforts for each seems likely to be attainable on these lines. For those who are frankly cosmopolitan, and who regard material prosperity as at all events the prime object at which public policy should aim, the free-trade doctrine is readily transformed, from a mere principle of criticism, till it comes to be regarded as the harbinger of a possible Utopia. It was in this fashion that it was put forward by French economists and proved attractive to some leading American statesmen in the 18th century. Turgot regarded the colonial systems of the European countries as at once unfair to their dependencies and dangerous to the peace of the world. “It will be a wise and happy thing for the nation which shall be the first to modify its policy according to the new conditions, and be content to regard its colonies as if they were allied provinces and not subjects of the mother country.” It will be a wise and happy thing for the nation which is the first to be convinced that the secret of “success, so far as commercial policy is concerned, consists in employing all its land in the manner most profitable for the proprietary, all the hands in the manner most advantageous to the workman personally, that is to say, in the manner in which each would employ them, if we could let him be simply directed by his own interest, and that all the rest of the mercantile policy is vanity and vexation of spirit. When the entire separation of America shall have forced the whole world to recognize this truth and purged the European nations of commercial jealousy there will be one great cause of war less in the world.”13 Pitt, under the influence of Adam Smith, was prepared to admit the United States to the benefit of trade with the West Indian Colonies; and Jefferson, accepting the principles of his French teachers, would (in contradistinction to Alexander Hamilton) have been willing to see his country renounce the attempt to develop manufactures of her own.14 It seemed as if a long step might be taken towards realizing the free-trade ideal for the Anglo-Saxon race; but British shipowners insisted on the retention of their privileges, and the propitious moment passed away with the failure of the negotiations of 1783.15 Free trade ceased to be regarded as a gospel, even in France, till the ideal was revived in the writings of Bastiat, and helped to mould the enthusiasm of Richard Cobden.16 Through his zealous advocacy, the doctrine secured converts in almost every part of the world; though it was only in Great Britain that a great majority of the citizens became so far satisfied with it that they adopted it as the foundation of the economic policy of the country.

It is not difficult to account for the conversion of Great Britain to this doctrine; in the special circumstances of the first half of the 19th century it was to the interest of the most vigorous factors in the economic life of the country to secure the greatest possible freedom for commercial intercourse. Great Britain had, through her shipping, access to all the markets of the world; she had obtained such a lead in the application of machinery to manufactures that she had a practical monopoly in textile manufactures and in the hardware trades; by removing every restriction, she could push her advantage to its farthest extent, and not only undersell native manufactures in other lands, but secure food, and the raw materials for her manufactures, on the cheapest possible terms. Free trade thus seemed to offer the means of placing an increasing distance between Britain and her rivals, and of rendering the industrial monopoly which she had attained impregnable. The capitalist employer had superseded the landowner as the mainstay of the resources and revenue of the realm, and insisted that the prosperity of manufactures was the primary interest of the community as a whole. The expectation, that a thoroughgoing policy of free trade would not only favour an increase of employment, but also the cheapening of food, could only have been roused in a country which was obliged to import a considerable amount of corn. The exceptional weakness, as well as the exceptional strength, of Great Britain, among European countries, made it seem desirable to adopt the principle of unrestricted commercial intercourse, not merely in the tentative fashion in which it had been put in operation by Huskisson, but in the thoroughgoing fashion in which it at last commended itself to the minds of Peel and Gladstone. The “Manchester men” saw clearly where their interest lay; and the fashionable political economy was ready to demonstrate that in pursuing their own interest they were conferring the benefit of cheap clothing on all the most poverty-stricken races of mankind. It seemed probable, in the ’forties and early ’fifties, that other countries would take a similar view of their own interests and would follow the example which Great Britain had set.17 That they have not done so, is partly due to the fact that none of them had such a direct, or such a widely diffused, interest in increased commercial intercourse as existed in Great Britain; but their reluctance has been partly the result of the criticism to which the free-trade doctrine has been subjected. The principles expressed in the writings of Friedrich List have taken such firm hold, both in America and in Germany, that these countries have preferred to follow on the lines by which Great Britain successfully built up her industrial prosperity in the 17th and 18th century, rather than on those by which they have seen her striving to maintain it since 1846.

Free trade was attractive as an ideal, because it appeared to offer the greatest production of goods to the world as a whole, and the largest share of material goods to each consumer; it is cosmopolitan, and it treats consumption, and the interest of the consumer, as such, as the end to be considered. Hence it lies open to objections which are partly political and partly economic.

As cosmopolitan, free-trade doctrine is apt to be indifferent to national tradition and aspiration. In so far indeed as patriotism is a mere aesthetic sentiment, it may be tolerated, but in so far as it implies a genuine wish and intention to preserve and defend the national habits and character to the exclusion of alien elements, the cosmopolitan mind will condemn it as narrow and mischievous. In the first half of the 19th century there were many men who believed that national ambitions and jealousies of every kind were essentially dynastic, and that if monarchies were abolished there would be fewer occasions of war, so that the expenses of the business of government would be enormously curtailed. For Cobden and his contemporaries it was natural to regard the national administrative institutions as maintained for the benefit of the “classes” and without much advantage to the “masses.” But in point of fact, modern times have shown the existence in democracies of a patriotic sentiment which is both exclusive and aggressive; and the burden of armaments has steadily increased. It was by means of a civil war that the United States attained to a consciousness of national life; while such later symptoms as the recent interpretations of the Monroe doctrine, or the war with Spain, have proved that the citizens of that democratic country cannot be regarded as destitute of self-aggrandizing national ambition.

In Germany the growth of militarism and nationalism have gone on side by side under constitutional government, and certainly in harmony with predominant public opinion. Neither of these communities is willing to sink its individual conception of progress in those of the world at large; each is jealous of the intrusion of alien elements which cannot be reconciled with its own political and social system. And a similar recrudescence of patriotic feeling has been observable in other countries, such as Norway and Hungary: the growth of national sentiment is shown, not only in the attempts to revive and popularize the use of a national language, but still more decidedly in the determination to have a real control over the economic life of the country. It is here that the new patriotism comes into direct conflict with the political principles of free trade as advocated by Bastiat and Cobden; for them the important point was that countries, by becoming dependent on one another, would be prevented from engaging in hostilities. The new nations are determined that they will not allow other countries to have such control over their economic condition, as to be able to exercise a powerful influence on their political life. Each is determined to be the master in his own house, and each has rejected free trade because of the cosmopolitanism which it involves.

Economically, free trade lays stress on consumption as the chief criterion of prosperity. It is, of course, true that goods are produced with the object of being consumed, and it is plausible to insist on taking this test; but it is also true that consumption and production are mutually interdependent, and that in some ways production is the more important of the two. Consumption looks to the present, and the disposal of actual goods; production looks to the future, and the conditions under which goods can continue to be regularly provided and thus become available for consumption in the long run. As regards the prosperity of the community in the future it is important that goods should be consumed in such a fashion as to secure that they shall be replaced or increased before they are used up; it is the amount of production rather than the amount of consumption that demands consideration, and gives indication of growth or of decadence. In these circumstances there is much to be said for looking at the economic life of a country from the point of view which free-traders have abandoned or ignore. It is not on the possibilities of consumption in the present, but on the prospects of production in the future, that the continued wealth of the community depends; and this principle is the only one which conforms to the modern conception of the essential requirements of sociological science in its wider aspect (see Sociology). This is most obviously true in regard to countries of which the resources are very imperfectly developed. If their policy is directed to securing the greatest possible comfort for each consumer in the present, it is certain that progress will be slow; the planting of industries for which the country has an advantage may be a tedious process; and in order to stimulate national efficiency temporary protection—involving what is otherwise unnecessary immediate cost to the consumer—may seem to be abundantly justified. Such a free trader as John Stuart Mill himself admits that a case may be made out for treating “infant industries” as exceptions;18 and if this exception be admitted it is likely to establish a precedent. After all, the various countries of the world are all in different stages of development; some are old and some are new; and even the old countries differ greatly in the progress they have made in distinct arts. The introduction of machinery has everywhere changed the conditions of production, so that some countries have lost and others have gained a special advantage. Most of the countries of the world are convinced that the wisest economy is to attend to the husbanding of their resources of every kind, and to direct their policy not merely with a view to consumption in the present, but rather with regard to the possibilities of increased production in the future.

This deliberate rejection of the doctrine of free trade between nations, both in its political and economic aspects, has not interfered, however, with the steady progress of free commercial intercourse within the boundaries of a single though composite political community. “Internal free trade,” though the name was not then current in this sense, was one of the burning questions in England in the 17th century; it was perhaps as important a factor as puritanism in the fall of Charles I. Internal free trade was secured in France in the 18th century; thanks to Hamilton,19 it was embodied in the constitution of the United States; it was introduced into Germany by Bismarck; and was firmly established in the Dominion of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia. It became in consequence, where practicable, a part of the modern federal idea as usually interpreted. There are thus great areas, externally self-protecting, where free trade, as between internal divisions, has been introduced with little, if any, political difficulty, and with considerable economic advantage. These cases are sometimes quoted as justifying the expectation that the same principle is likely to be adopted sooner or later in regard to external trading relations. There is some reason, however, for raising the question whether free trade has been equally successful, not only in its economic, but in its social results, in all the large political communities where it has been introduced. In a region like the United States of America, it is probably seen at its best; there is an immense variety of different products throughout that great zone of the continent, so that the mutual co-operation of the various parts is most beneficial, while the standard of habit and comfort is so far uniform20 throughout the whole region, and the facilities for the change of employment are so many, that there is little injurious competition between different districts. In the British empire the conditions are reversed; but though the great self-governing colonies have withdrawn from the circle, in the hope of building up their own economic life in their own way, free trade is still maintained over a very large part of the British empire. Throughout this area, there are very varied physical conditions; there is also an extraordinary variety of races, each with its own habits, and own standard of comfort; and in these circumstances it may be doubted whether the free competition, involved in free trade, is really altogether wholesome. Within this sphere the ideal of Bastiat and his followers is being realized. England, as a great manufacturing country, has more than held her own; India and Ireland are supplied with manufactured goods by England, and in each case the population is forced to look to the soil for its means of support, and for purchasing power. In each case the preference for tillage, as an occupation, has rendered it comparatively easy to keep the people on the land; but there is some reason to believe that the law of diminishing returns is already making itself felt, at all events in India, and is forcing the people into deeper poverty.21 It may be doubtful in the case of Ireland how far the superiority of England in industrial pursuits has prevented the development of manufactures; the progress in the last decades of the 18th century was too short-lived to be conclusive; but there is at least a strong impression in many quarters that the industries of Ireland might have flourished if they had had better opportunities allowed them.22 In the case of India we know that the hereditary artistic skill, which had been built up in bygone generations, has been stamped out. It seems possible that the modern unrest in India, and the discontent in Ireland, may be connected with the economic conditions in these countries, on which free trade has been imposed without their consent. So far the population which subsists on the cheaper food, and has the lower standard of life, has been the sufferer; but the mischief might operate in another fashion. The self-governing colonies at all events feel that competition in the same market between races with different standards of comfort has infinite possibilities of mischief. It is easy to conjure up conditions under which the standard of comfort of wage-earners in England would be seriously threatened.

Since the 9th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica was published it has become clear that the free-trade doctrines of Bastiat and Cobden have not been gaining ground in the world at large, and at the opening of the 20th century it could hardly be said with confidence that the question was “finally settled” so far as England was concerned. As to whether the interests of Great Britain still demanded that she should continue on the line she adopted in the exceptional conditions of the middle of the 19th century, expert opinion was conspicuously divided;23 but there remained no longer the old enthusiasm for free trade as the harbinger of an Utopia. The old principles of the bourgeois manufacturers had been taken up by the proletariat and shaped to suit themselves. Socialism, like free trade, is cosmopolitan in its aims, and is indifferent to patriotism and hostile to militarism. Socialism, like free trade, insists on material welfare as the primary object to be aimed at in any policy, and, like free trade, socialism tests welfare by reference to possibilities of consumption. In one respect there is a difference; throughout Cobden’s attack on the governing classes there are signs of his jealousy of the superior status of the landed gentry, but socialism has a somewhat wider range of view and demands “equality of opportunity” with the capitalist as well.

Bibliography.—Reference has already been made to the principal works which deal critically with the free-trade policy. Professor Fawcett’s Free Trade is a good exposition of free-trade principles; so also is Professor Bastable’s Commerce of Nations. Among authors who have restated the principles with special reference to the revived controversy on the subject may be mentioned Professor W. Smart, The Return to Protection, being a Restatement of the Case for Free Trade (2nd ed., 1906), and A. C. Pigou, Protective and Preferential Import Duties (1906).

(W. Cu.)

1 E. Misselden, Free Trade or the Meanes to make Trade Flourish (1622), p. 68; G. Malynes, The Maintenance of Free Trade (1622), p. 105.

2 H. Parker, Of a Free Trade (1648), p. 8.

3 (1787), 27 Geo. III. c. 13.

4 Sir Walter Scott, Guy Mannering, chapter v.

5 Gladstone, “Free Trade, Railways and Commerce,” in Nineteenth Century (Feb. 1880), vol. vii. p. 370.

6 Parker states a similar argument in the form in which it suited the special problem of his day. “If merchandise be good for the commonweal, then the more common it is made, the more open it is laid, the more good it will convey to us.” Op. cit. 20.

7 Schmoller, Grundriss der allgemeinen Volkswirtschaftslehre (1904), ii. 607.

8 Byles, Sophisms of Free Trade; L. S. Amery, Fundamental Fallacies of Free Trade, 13.

9 W. Cunningham, Rise and Decline of the Free Trade Movement, PP. 5-11.

10 Wealth of Nations, book iv. chap. ii.

11 Principles of Political Economy, 485.

12 J. Morley, Life of Cobden, i. 230.

13 “MÉmoire,” 6 April 1776, in Œuvres, viii. 460.

14 Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 275. See also the articles on Jefferson and Hamilton, Alexander.

15 One incidental effect of the failure to secure free trade was that the African slave trade, with West Indies as a depot for supplying the American market, ceased to be remunerative, and the opposition to the abolition of the trade was very much weaker than it would otherwise have been; see Hochstetter, “Die wirtschaftlichen und politischen Motive fÜr die Abschaffung des britischen Sklavenhandels,” in Schmoller, Staats und Sozialwissenschaftliche Forschungen, xxv. i. 37.

16 J. Welsford, “Cobden’s Foreign Teacher,” in National Review (December 1905).

17 Compatriot Club Lectures (1905), p. 306.

18 J. S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy, book v. chapter x. § 1.

19 F. S. Oliver, Alexander Hamilton, 142.

20 The standard is, of course, lower among the negroes and mean whites in the South than in the North and West.

21 F. Beauclerk, “Free Trade in India,” in Economic Review (July 1907), xvii. 284.

22 A. E. Murray, History of the Commercial and Financial Relations between England and Ireland, 294.

23 For the tariff reform movement in English politics see the article on Chamberlain, J. Among continental writers G. Schmoller (Grundriss der allgemeinen Volkswirtschaftslehre, ii. 641) and A. Wagner (Preface to M. Schwab’s Chamberlains Handelspolitik) pronounce in favour of a change, as Fuchs did by anticipation. Schulze-Gaevernitz (Britischer Imperialismus und englischer Freihandel), Aubry (Étude critique de la politique commerciale de l’Angleterre À l’Égard de ses colonies), and Blondel (La politique Protectionniste en Angleterre un nouveau danger pour la France) are against it.

FREGELLAE, an ancient town of Latium adiectum, situated on the Via Latina, 11 m. W.N.W. of Aquinum, near the left branch of the Liris. It is said to have belonged in early times to the Opici or Oscans, and later to the Volscians. It was apparently destroyed by the Samnites a little before 330 B.C., in which year the people of Fabrateria Vetus (mod. Ceccano) besought the help of Rome against them, and in 328 B.C. a Latin colony was established there. The place was taken in 320 B.C. by the Samnites, but re-established by the Romans in 313 B.C. It continued henceforward to be faithful to Rome; by breaking the bridges over the Liris it interposed an obstacle to the advance of Hannibal on Rome in 212 B.C., and it was a native of Fregellae who headed the deputation of the non-revolting colonies in 209 B.C. It appears to have been a very important and flourishing place owing to its command of the crossing of the Liris, and to its position in a fertile territory, and it was here that, after the rejection of the proposals of M. Fulvius Flaccus for the extension of Roman burgess-rights in 125 B.C., a revolt against Rome broke out. It was captured by treachery in the same year and destroyed; but its place was taken in the following year by the colony of Fabrateria Nova, 3 m. to the S.E. on the opposite bank of the Liris, while a post station Fregellanum (mod. Ceprano) is mentioned in the itineraries; Fregellae itself, however, continued to exist as a village even under the empire. The site is clearly traceable about ½ m. E. of Ceprano, but the remains of the city are scanty.

See G. Colasanti, Fregellae, storia e topografia (1906).

(T. As.)

FREIBERG, or Freyberg, a town of Germany in the kingdom of Saxony, on the MÜnzbach, near its confluence with the Mulde, 19 m. S.W. of Dresden on the railway to Chemnitz, with a branch to Nossen. Pop. (1905) 30,896. Its situation, on the rugged northern slope of the Erzgebirge, is somewhat bleak and uninviting, but the town is generally well built and makes a prosperous impression. A part of its ancient walls still remains; the other portions have been converted into public walks and gardens. Freiberg is the seat of the general administration of the mines throughout the kingdom, and its celebrated mining academy (Bergakademie), founded in 1765, is frequented by students from all parts of the world. Connected with it are extensive collections of minerals and models, a library of 50,000 volumes, and laboratories for chemistry, metallurgy and assaying. Among its distinguished scholars it reckons Abraham Gottlob Werner (1750-1817), who was also a professor there, and Alexander von Humboldt. Freiberg has extensive manufactures of gold and silver lace, woollen cloths, linen and cotton goods, iron, copper and brass wares, gunpowder and white-lead. It has also several large breweries. In the immediate vicinity are its famous silver and lead mines, thirty in number, and of which the principal ones passed into the property of the state in 1886. The castle of Freudenstein or Freistein, as rebuilt by the elector Augustus in 1572, is situated in one of the suburbs and is now used as a military magazine. In its grounds a monument was erected to Werner in 1851. The cathedral, rebuilt in late Gothic style after its destruction by fire in 1484 and restored in 1893, was founded in the 12th century. Of the original church a magnificent German Romanesque doorway, known as the Golden Gate (Goldene Pforte), survives. The church contains numerous monuments, among others one to Prince Maurice of Saxony. Adjoining the cathedral is the mausoleum (BegrÄbniskapelle), built in 1594 in the Italian Renaissance style, in which are buried the remains of Henry the Pious and his successors down to John George IV., who died in 1694. Of the other four Protestant churches the most noteworthy is the Peterskirche which, with its three towers, is a conspicuous object on the highest point of the town. Among the other public buildings are the old town-hall, dating from the 15th century, the antiquarian museum, and the natural history museum. There are a classical and modern, a commercial and an agricultural school, and numerous charitable institutions.

Freiberg owes its origin to the discovery of its silver mines (c. 1163). The town, with the castle of Freudenstein, was built by Otto the Rich, margrave of Meissen, in 1175, and its name, which first appears in 1221, is derived from the extensive mining franchises granted to it about that time. In all the partitions of the territories of the Saxon house of Wettin, from the latter part of the 13th century onward, Freiberg always remained common property, and it was not till 1485 (the mines not till 1537) that it was definitively assigned to the Albertine line. The Reformation was introduced into Freiberg in 1536 by Henry the Pious, who resided here. The town suffered severely during the Thirty Years’ War, and again during the French occupation from 1806 to 1814, during which time it had to support an army of 700,000 men and find forage for 200,000 horses.

See H. Gerlach, Kleine Chronik von Freiberg (2nd ed., Freiberg, 1898); H. Ermisch, Das Freiberger Stadtrecht (Leipzig, 1889); Ermisch and O. Posse, Urkundenbuch der Stadt Freiberg, in Codex diplom. Sax. reg. (3 vols., Leipzig, 1883-1891); Freibergs Berg- und HÜttenwesen, published by the BergmÄnnischer Verein (Freiberg, 1883); Ledebur, Über die Bedeutung der Freiberger Bergakademie (ib. 1903); Steche, Bau- und KunstdenkmÄler der Amtshauptmannschaft Freiberg (Dresden, 1884).

FREIBURG, a town of Germany in Prussian Silesia, on the Polsnitz, 35 m. S.W. of Breslau, on the railway to Halbstadt. Pop. (1905) 9917. It has an Evangelical and Roman Catholic church, and its industries include watch-making, linen-weaving and distilling. In the neighbourhood are the old and modern castles of the FÜrstenstein family, whence the town is sometimes distinguished as Freiburg unter dem FÜrstenstein. At Freiburg, on the 22nd of July 1762, the Prussians defended themselves successfully against the superior forces of the Austrians.

FREIBURG IM BREISGAU, an archiepiscopal see and city of Germany in the grand duchy of Baden, 12 m. E. of the Rhine, beautifully situated on the Dreisam at the foot of the Schlossberg, one of the heights of the Black Forest range, on the railway between Basel and Mannheim, 40 m. N. of the former city. Pop. (1905) 76,285. The town is for the most part well built, having several wide and handsome streets and a number of spacious squares. It is kept clean and cool by the waters of the river, which flow through the streets in open channels; and its old fortifications have been replaced by public walks, and, what is more unusual, by vineyards. It possesses a famous university, the Ludovica Albertina, founded by Albert VI., archduke of Austria, in 1457, and attended by about 2000 students. The library contains upwards of 250,000 volumes and 600 MSS., and among the other auxiliary establishments are an anatomical hall and museum and botanical gardens. The Freiburg minster is considered one of the finest of all the Gothic churches of Germany, being remarkable alike for the symmetry of its proportions, for the taste of its decorations, and for the fact that it may more correctly be said to be finished than almost any other building of the kind. The period of its erection probably lies for the most part between 1122 and 1252; but the choir was not built till 1513. The tower, which rises above the western entrance, is 386 ft. in height, and it presents a skilful transition from a square base into an octagonal superstructure, which in its turn is surmounted by a pyramidal spire of the most exquisite open work in stone. In the interior of the church are some beautiful stained glass windows, both ancient and modern, the tombstones of several of the dukes of ZÄhringen, statues of archbishops of Freiburg, and paintings by Holbein and by Hans Baldung (c. 1470-1545), commonly called GrÜn. Among the other noteworthy buildings of Freiburg are the palaces of the grand duke and the archbishop, the old town-hall, the theatre, the Kaufhaus or merchants’ hall, a 16th-century building with a handsome faÇade, the church of St Martin, with a graceful spire restored 1880-1881, the new town-hall, completed 1901, in Renaissance style, and the Protestant church, formerly the church of the abbey of Thennenbach, removed hither in 1839. In the centre of the fish-market square is a fountain surmounted by a statue of Duke Berthold III. of ZÄhringen; in the Franziskaner Platz there is a monument to Berthold Schwarz, the traditional discoverer here, in 1259, of gunpowder; the Rotteck Platz takes its name from the monument of Karl Wenzeslaus von Rotteck (1775-1840), the historian, which formerly stood on the site of the Schwarz statue; and in Kaiser Wilhelm Strasse a bronze statue was erected in 1876 to the memory of Herder, who in the early part of the 19th century founded in Freiburg an institute for draughtsmen, engravers and lithographers, and carried on a famous bookselling business. On the Schlossberg above the town there are massive ruins of two castles destroyed by the French in 1744; and about 2 m. to the N.E. stands the castle of ZÄhringen, the original seat of the famous family of the counts of that name. Situated on the ancient road which runs by the HÖllenpass between the valleys of the Danube and the Rhine, Freiburg early acquired commercial importance, and it is still the principal centre of the trade of the Black Forest. It manufactures buttons, chemicals, starch, leather, tobacco, silk thread, paper, and hempen goods, as well as beer and wine.

Freiburg is of uncertain foundation. In 1120 it became a free town, with privileges similar to those of Cologne; but in 1219 it fell into the hands of a branch of the family of Urach. After it had vainly attempted to throw off the yoke by force of arms, it purchased its freedom in 1366; but, unable to reimburse the creditors who had advanced the money, it was, in 1368, obliged to recognize the supremacy of the house of Hapsburg. In the 17th and 18th centuries it played a considerable part as a fortified town. It was captured by the Swedes in 1632, 1634 and 1638; and in 1644 it was seized by the Bavarians, who shortly after, under General Mercy, defeated in the neighbourhood the French forces under Enghien and Turenne. The French were in possession from 1677 to 1697, and again in 1713-1714 and 1744; and when they left the place in 1748, at the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, they dismantled the fortifications. The Baden insurgents gained a victory at Freiburg in 1848, and the revolutionary government took refuge in the town in June 1849, but in the following July the Prussian forces took possession and occupied it until 1851. Since 1821 Freiburg has been the seat of an archbishop with jurisdiction over the sees of Mainz, Rottenberg and Limburg.

See Schreiber, Geschichte und Beschreibung des MÜnsters zu Freiburg (1820 and 1825); Geschichte der Stadt und UniversitÄt Freiburgs (1857-1859); Der Schlossberg bei Freiburg (1860); and Albert, Die Geschichtsschreibung der Stadt Freiburg (1902).

Battles of Freiburg, 3rd, 5th and 10th of August 1644.—During the Thirty Years’ War the neighbourhood of Freiburg was the scene of a series of engagements between the French under Louis de Bourbon, due d’Enghien (afterwards called the great CondÉ), and Henri de la Tour d’Auvergne, vicomte de Turenne, and the Bavarians and Austrians commanded by Franz, Freiherr von Mercy.

At the close of the campaign of 1643 the French “Army of Weimar,” having been defeated and driven into Alsace by the Bavarians, had there been reorganized under the command of Turenne, then a young general of thirty-two and newly promoted to the marshalate. In May 1644 he opened the campaign by recrossing the Rhine and raiding the enemy’s posts as far as Überlingen on the lake of Constance and Donaueschingen on the Danube. The French then fell back with their booty and prisoners to Breisach, a strong garrison being left in Freiburg. The Bavarian commander, however, revenged himself by besieging Freiburg (June 27th), and Turenne’s first attempt to relieve the place failed. During July, as the siege progressed, the French government sent the duc d’Enghien, who was ten years younger still than Turenne, but had just gained his great victory of Rocroy, to take over the command. Enghien brought with him a veteran army, called the “Army of France,” Turenne remaining in command of the Army of Weimar. The armies met at Breisach on the 2nd of August, by which date Freiburg had surrendered. At this point most commanders of the time would have decided not to fight, but to manoeuvre Mercy away from Freiburg; Enghien, however, was a fighting general, and Mercy’s entrenched lines at Freiburg seemed to him a target rather than an obstacle. A few hours after his arrival, therefore, without waiting for the rearmost troops of his columns, he set the combining armies in motion for Krozingen, a village on what was then the main road between Breisach and Freiburg. The total force immediately available numbered only 16,000 combatants. Enghien and Turenne had arranged that the Army of France was to move direct upon Freiburg by Wolfenweiter, while the Army of Weimar was to make its way by hillside tracks to Wittnau and thence to attack the rear of Mercy’s lines while Enghien assaulted them in front. Turenne’s march (August 3rd, 1644) was slow and painful, as had been anticipated, and late in the afternoon, on passing Wittnau, he encountered the enemy. The Weimarians carried the outer lines of defence without much difficulty, but as they pressed on towards Merzhausen the resistance became more and more serious. Turenne’s force was little more than 6000, and these were wearied with a long day of marching and fighting on the steep and wooded hillsides of the Black Forest. Thus the turning movement came to a standstill far short of Uffingen, the village on Mercy’s line of retreat that Turenne was to have seized, nor was a flank attack possible against Mercy’s main line, from which he was separated by the crest of the SchÖnberg. Meanwhile, Enghien’s army had at the prearranged hour (4 P.M.) attacked Mercy’s position on the Ebringen spur. A steep slope, vineyards, low stone walls and abatis had all to be surmounted, under a galling fire from the Bavarian musketeers, before the Army of France found itself, breathless and in disorder, in front of the actual entrenchments of the crest. A first attack failed, as did an attempt to find an unguarded path round the shoulder of the SchÖnberg. The situation was grave in the extreme, but Enghien resolved on Turenne’s account to renew the attack, although only a quarter of his original force was still capable of making an effort. He himself and all the young nobles of his staff dismounted and led the infantry forward again, the prince threw his baton into the enemy’s lines for the soldiers to retrieve, and in the end, after a bitter struggle, the Bavarians, whose reserves had been taken away to oppose Turenne in the Merzhausen defile, abandoned the entrenchments and disappeared into the woods of the adjoining spur. Enghien hurriedly re-formed his troops, fearing at every moment to be hurled down the hill by a counter-stroke; but none came. The French bivouacked in the rain, Turenne making his way across the mountain to confer with the prince, and meanwhile Mercy quietly drew off his army in the dark to a new set of entrenchments on the ridge on which stood the Loretto Chapel. On the 4th of August the Army of France and the Army of Weimar met at Merzhausen, the rearmost troops of the Army of France came in, and the whole was arranged by the major-generals in the plain facing the Loretto ridge. This position was attacked on the 5th. Enghien had designed his battle even more carefully than before, but as the result of a series of accidents the two French armies attacked prematurely and straight to their front, one brigade after another, and though at one moment Enghien, sword in hand, broke the line of defence with his last intact reserve, a brilliant counterstroke, led by Mercy’s brother Kaspar (who was killed), drove out the assailants. It is said that Enghien lost half his men on this day and Mercy one-third of his, so severe was the battle. But the result could not be gainsaid; it was for the French a complete and costly failure.

For three days after this the armies lay in position without fighting, the French well supplied with provisions and comforts from Breisach, the Bavarians suffering somewhat severely from want of food, and especially forage, as all their supplies had to be hauled from Villingen over the rough roads of the Black Forest. Enghien then decided to make use of the Glotter Tal to interrupt altogether this already unsatisfactory line of supply, and thus to force the Bavarians either to attack him at a serious disadvantage, or to retreat across the hills with the loss of their artillery and baggage and the disintegration of their army by famine and desertion. With this object, the Army of Weimar was drawn off on the morning of the 9th of August and marched round by Betzenhausen and Lehen to Langen Denzling. The infantry of the Army of France, then the trains, followed, while Enghien with his own cavalry faced Freiburg and the Loretto position.

Before dawn on the 10th the advance guard of Turenne’s army was ascending the Glotter Tal. But Mercy had divined his adversary’s plan, and leaving a garrison to hold Freiburg, the Bavarian army had made a night march on the 9/10th to the Abbey of St Peter, whence on the morning of the 10th Mercy fell back to Graben, his nearest magazine in the mountains. Turenne’s advanced guard appeared from the Glotter Tal only to find a stubborn rearguard of cavalry in front of the abbey. A sharp action began, but Mercy hearing the drums and fifes of the French infantry in the Glotter Tal broke it off and continued his retreat in good order. Enghien thus obtained little material result from his manoeuvre. Only two guns and such of Mercy’s wagons that were unable to keep up fell into the hands of the French. Enghien and Turenne did not continue the chase farther than Graben, and Mercy fell back unmolested to Rothenburg on the Tauber.

The moral results of this sanguinary fighting were, however, important and perhaps justified the sacrifice of so many valuable soldiers. Enghien’s pertinacity had not achieved a decision with the sword, but Mercy had been so severely punished that he was unable to interfere with his opponent’s new plan of campaign. This, which was carried out by the united armies and by reinforcements from France, while Turenne’s cavalry screened them by bold demonstrations on the Tauber, led to nothing less than the conquest of the Rhine Valley from Basel to Coblenz, a task which was achieved so rapidly that the Army of France and its victorious young leader were free to return to France in two months from the time of their appearance in Turenne’s quarters at Breisach.

FREIDANK (VrÎdanc), the name by which a Middle High German didactic poet of the early 13th century is known. It has been disputed whether the word, which is equivalent to “free-thought,” is to be regarded as the poet’s real name or only as a pseudonym; the latter is probably the case. Little is known of Freidank’s life. He accompanied Frederick II. on his crusade to the Holy Land, where, in the years 1228-1229, a portion at least of his work was composed; and it is said that on his tomb (if indeed it was not the tomb of another Freidank) at Treviso there was inscribed, with allusion to the character of his style, “he always spoke and never sang.” Wilhelm Grimm originated the hypothesis that Freidank was to be identified with Walther von der Vogelweide; but this is no longer tenable. Freidank’s work bears the name of Bescheidenheit, i.e. “practical wisdom,” “correct judgment,” and consists of a collection of proverbs, pithy sayings, and moral and satirical reflections, arranged under general heads. Its popularity till the end of the 16th century is shown by the great number of MSS. extant.

Sebastian Brant published the Bescheidenheit in a modified form in 1508. Wilhelm Grimm’s edition appeared in 1834 (2nd ed. 1860), H. F. Bezzenberger’s in 1872. A later edition is by F. Sandvoss (1877). The old Latin translation, Fridangi Discretio, was printed by C. Lemcke in 1868; and there are two translations into modern German, A. Bacmeister’s (1861) and K. Simrock’s (1867). See also F. Pfeiffer, Über Freidank (Zur deutschen Literaturgeschichte, 1855), and H. Paul, Über die ursprÜngliche Anordnung von Freidanks Bescheidenheit (1870).

FREIENWALDE, a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Prussia, on the Oder, 28 m. N.E. of Berlin, on the Frankfort-AngermÜnde railway. Pop. (1905) 7995. It has a small palace, built by the Great Elector, an Evangelical and a Roman Catholic church, and manufactures of furniture, machinery, &c. The neighbouring forests and its medicinal springs make it a favourite summer resort of the inhabitants of Berlin. A new tower commands a fine view of the Oderbruch (see Oder). Freienwalde, which must be distinguished from the smaller town of the same name in Pomerania, first appears as a town in 1364.

FREIESLEBENITE, a rare mineral consisting of sulphantimonite of silver and lead, (Pb, Ag2)5Sb4S11. The monoclinic crystals are prismatic in habit, with deeply striated prism and dome faces. The colour is steel-grey, and the lustre metallic; hardness 2½, specific gravity 6.2. It occurs with argentite, chalybite and galena in the silver veins of the HimmelsfÜrst mine at Freiberg, Saxony, where it has been known since 1720. The species was named after J. K. Freiesleben, who had earlier called it Schilf-Glaserz. Other localities are Hiendelaencina near Guadalajara in Spain, Kapnik-BÁnya in Hungary, and Guanajuato in Mexico. A species separated from freieslebenite by V. von Zepharovich in 1871, because of differences in crystalline form, is known as diaphorite (from διαφορά, “difference”); it is very similar to freieslebenite in appearance and has perhaps the same chemical composition (or possibly Ag2PbSb2S5), but is orthorhombic in crystallization. A third mineral also very similar to freieslebenite in appearance is the orthorhombic andorite, AgPbSb3S6, which is mined as a silver ore at Oruro in Bolivia.

FREIGHT, (pronounced like “weight”; derived from the Dutch vracht or vrecht, in Fr. fret, the Eng. “fraught” being the same word, and formerly used for the same thing, but now only as an adjective = “laden”), the lading or cargo of a ship, and the hire paid for their transport (see Affreightment); from the original sense of water-transport of goods the word has also come to be used for land-transit (particularly in America, by railroad), and by analogy for any load or burden.

FREILIGRATH, FERDINAND (1810-1876), German poet, was born at Detmold on the 17th of June 1810. He was educated at the gymnasium of his native town, and in his sixteenth year was sent to Soest, with a view to preparing him for a commercial career. Here he had also time and opportunity to acquire a taste for French and English literature. The years from 1831 to 1836 he spent in a bank at Amsterdam, and 1837 to 1839 in a business house at Barmen. In 1838 his Gedichte appeared and met with such extraordinary success that he gave up the idea of a commercial life and resolved to devote himself entirely to literature. His repudiation of the political poetry of 1841 and its revolutionary ideals attracted the attention of the king of Prussia, Frederick William IV., who, in 1842, granted him a pension of 300 talers a year. He married, and, to be near his friend Emanuel Geibel, settled at St Goar. Before long, however, Freiligrath was himself carried away by the rising tide of liberalism. In the poem Ein Glaubensbekenntnis (1844) he openly avowed his sympathy with the political movement led by his old adversary, Georg Herwegh; the day, he declared, of his own poetic trifling with Romantic themes was over; Romanticism itself was dead. He laid down his pension, and, to avoid the inevitable political persecution, took refuge in Switzerland. As a sequel to the Glaubensbekenntnis he published Ça ira! (1846), which strained still further his relations with the German authorities. He fled to London, where he resumed the commercial life he had broken off seven years before. When the Revolution of 1848 broke out, it seemed to Freiligrath, as to all the liberal thinkers of the time, the dawn of an era of political freedom; and, as may be seen from the poems in his collection of Politische und soziale Gedichte (1849-1851), he welcomed it with unbounded enthusiasm. He returned to Germany and settled in DÜsseldorf; but it was not long before he had again called down upon himself the ill-will of the ruling powers by a poem, Die Toten an die Lebenden (1848). He was arrested on a charge of lÈse-majestÉ, but the prosecution ended in his acquittal. New difficulties arose; his association with the democratic movement rendered him an object of constant suspicion, and in 1851 he judged it more prudent to go back to London, where he remained until 1868. In that year he returned to Germany, settling first in Stuttgart and in 1875 in the neighbouring town of Cannstatt, where he died on the 18th of March 1876.

As a poet, Freiligrath was the most gifted member of the German revolutionary group. Coming at the very close of the Romantic age, his own purely lyric poetry re-echoes for the most part the familiar thoughts and imagery of his Romantic predecessors; but at an early age he had been attracted by the work of French contemporary poets, and he reinvigorated the German lyric by grafting upon it the orientalism of Victor Hugo. In this reconciliation of French and German romanticism lay Freiligrath’s significance for the development of the lyric in Germany. His remarkable power of assimilating foreign literatures is also to be seen in his translations of English and Scottish ballads, of the poetry of Burns, Mrs Hemans, Longfellow and Tennyson (Englische Gedichte aus neuerer Zeit, 1846; The Rose, Thistle and Shamrock, 1853, 6th ed. 1887); he also translated Shakespeare’s Cymbeline, Winter’s Tale and Venus and Adonis, as well as Longfellow’s Hiawatha (1857). Freiligrath is most original in his revolutionary poetry. His poems of this class suffer, it is true, under the disadvantage of all political poetry—purely temporary interest and the unavoidable admixture of much that has no claim to be called poetry at all—but the agitator Freiligrath, when he is at his best, displays a vigour and strength, a power of direct and cogent poetic expression, not to be found in any other political singer of the age.

Freiligrath’s Gedichte have passed through some fifty editions, and his Gesammelte Dichtungen, first published in 1870, have reached a sixth edition (1898). Nachgelassenes (including a translation of Byron’s Mazeppa) was published in 1883. A selection of Freiligrath’s best-known poems in English translation was edited by his daughter, Mrs Freiligrath-Kroeker, in 1869; also Songs of a Revolutionary Epoch were translated by J. L. Joynes in 1888. Cp. E. Schmidt-Weissenfels, F. Freiligrath, eine Biographie (1876); W. Buchner, F. Freiligrath, ein Dichterleben in Briefen (2 vols., 1881); G. Freiligrath, Erinnerungen an F. Freiligrath (1889); P. Besson, Freiligrath (Paris, 1899); K. Richter, Freiligrath als Übersetzer (1899).

(J. G. R.)

FREIND, JOHN (1675-1728), English physician, younger brother of Robert Freind (1667-1751), headmaster of Westminster school, was born in 1675 at Croton in Northamptonshire. He made great progress in classical knowledge under Richard Busby at Westminster, and at Christ Church, Oxford, under Dean Aldrich, and while still very young, produced, along with Peter Foulkes, an excellent edition of the speeches of Aeschines and Demosthenes on the affair of Ctesiphon. After this he began the study of medicine, and having proved his scientific attainments by various treatises was appointed a lecturer on chemistry at Oxford in 1704. In the following year he accompanied the English army, under the earl of Peterborough, into Spain, and on returning home in 1707, wrote an account of the expedition, which attained great popularity. Two years later he published his Prelectiones chimicae, which he dedicated to Sir Isaac Newton. Shortly after his return in 1713 from Flanders, whither he had accompanied the British troops, he took up his residence in London, where he soon obtained a great reputation as a physician. In 1716 he became fellow of the college of physicians, of which he was chosen one of the censors in 1718, and Harveian orator in 1720. In 1722 he entered parliament as member for Launceston in Cornwall, but, being suspected of favouring the cause of the exiled Stuarts, he spent half of that year in the Tower. During his imprisonment he conceived the plan of his most important work, The History of Physic, of which the first part appeared in 1725, and the second in the following year. In the latter year he was appointed physician to Queen Caroline, an office which he held till his death on the 26th of July 1728.

A complete edition of his Latin works, with a Latin translation of the History of Physic, edited by Dr John Wigan, was published in London in 1732.

FREINSHEIM [Freinshemius], JOHANN (1608-1660), German classical scholar and critic, was born at Ulm on the 16th of November 1608. After studying at the universities of Marburg, Giessen and Strassburg, he visited France, where he remained for three years. He returned to Strassburg in 1637, and in 1642 was appointed professor of eloquence at Upsala. In 1647 he was summoned by Queen Christina to Stockholm as court librarian and historiographer. In 1650 he resumed his professorship at Upsala, but early in the following year he was obliged to resign on account of ill-health. In 1656 he became honorary professor at Heidelberg, and died on the 31st of August 1660. Freinsheim’s literary activity was chiefly devoted to the Roman historians. He first introduced the division into chapters and paragraphs, and by means of carefully compiled indexes illustrated the lexical peculiarities of each author. He is best known for his famous supplements to Quintus Curtius and Livy, containing the missing books written by himself. He also published critical editions of Curtius and Florus.

FREIRE, FRANCISCO JOSÉ (1719-1773), Portuguese historian and philologist, was born at Lisbon on the 3rd of January 1719. He belonged to the monastic society of St Philip Neri, and was a zealous member of the literary association known as the Academy of Arcadians, in connexion with which he adopted the pseudonym of Candido Lusitano. He contributed much to the improvement of the style of Portuguese prose literature, but his endeavour to effect a reformation in the national poetry by a translation of Horace’s Ars poËtica was less successful. The work in which he set forth his opinions regarding the vicious taste pervading the current Portuguese prose literature is entitled Maximas sobre a Arte Oratoria (1745) and is preceded by a chronological table forming almost a social and physical history of Portugal. His best known work, however, is his Vida do Infante D. Henrique (1758), which has given him a place in the first rank of Portuguese historians, and has been translated into French (Paris, 1781). He also wrote a poetical dictionary (Diccionario poetico) and a translation of Racine’s Athalie (1762), and his RÉflexions sur la langue portugaise was published in 1842 by the Lisbon society for the promotion of useful knowledge. He died at Mafra on the 5th of July 1773.

FREISCHÜTZ, in German folklore, a marksman who by a compact with the devil has obtained a certain number of bullets destined to hit without fail whatever object he wishes. As the legend is usually told, six of the Freikugeln or “free bullets” are thus subservient to the marksman’s will, but the seventh is at the absolute disposal of the devil himself. Various methods were adopted in order to procure possession of the marvellous missiles. According to one the marksman, instead of swallowing the sacramental host, kept it and fixed it on a tree, shot at it and caused it to bleed great drops of blood, gathered the drops on a piece of cloth and reduced the whole to ashes, and then with these ashes added the requisite virtue to the lead of which his bullets were made. Various vegetable or animal substances had the reputation of serving the same purpose. Stories about the FreischÜtz were especially common in Germany during the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries; but the first time that the legend was turned to literary profit is said to have been by Apel in the Gespensterbuch or “Book of Ghosts.” It formed the subject of Weber’s opera Der FreischÜtz (1821), the libretto of which was written by Friedrich Kind, who had suggested Apel’s story as an excellent theme for the composer. The name by which the FreischÜtz is known in French is Robin des Bois.

See Kind, FreyschÜtzbuch (Leipzig, 1843); Revue des deux mondes (February 1855); GrÄsse, Die Quelle des FreischÜtz (Dresden, 1875).

FREISING, a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Bavaria, on the Isar, 16 m. by rail N.N.E. of Munich. Pop. (1905) 13,538. Among its eight Roman Catholic churches the most remarkable is the cathedral, which dates from about 1160 and is famous for its curious crypt. Noteworthy also are the old palace of the bishops, now a clerical seminary, the theological lyceum and the town-hall. There are several schools in the town, and there is a statue to the chronicler, Otto of Freising, who was bishop here from 1138 to 1158. Freising has manufactures of agricultural machinery and of porcelain, while printing and brewing are carried on. Near the town is the site of the Benedictine abbey of Weihenstephan, which existed from 725 to 1803. This is now a model farm and brewery. Freising is a very ancient town and is said to have been founded by the Romans. After being destroyed by the Hungarians in 955 it was fortified by the emperor Otto II. in 976 and by Duke Welf of Bavaria in 1082. A bishopric was established here in 724 by St Corbinianus, whose brother Erimbert was consecrated second bishop by St Boniface in 739. Later on the bishops acquired considerable territorial power and in the 17th century became princes of the Empire. In 1802 the see was secularized, the bulk of its territories being assigned to Bavaria and the rest to Salzburg, of which Freising had been a suffragan bishopric. In 1817 an archbishopric was established at Freising, but in the following year it was transferred to Munich. The occupant of the see is now called archbishop of Munich and Freising.

See C. Meichelbeck, Historiae Frisingensis (Augsburg, 1724-1729, new and enlarged edition 1854).

FRÉJUS, a town in the department of the Var in S.E. France. Pop. (1906) 3430. It is 28½ m. S.E. of Draguignan (the chief town of the department), and 22½ m. S.W. of Cannes by rail. It is only important on account of the fine Roman remains that it contains, for it is now a mile from the sea, its harbour having been silted up by the deposits of the Argens river. Since the 4th century it has been a bishop’s see, which is in the ecclesiastical province of Aix en Provence. In modern times the neighbouring fishing village at St RaphaËl (2½ m. by rail S.E., and on the seashore) has become a town of 4865 inhabitants (in 1901); in 1799 Napoleon disembarked there, on his return from Egypt, and reembarked for Elba in 1814, while nowadays it is much frequented as a health resort, as is also Valescure (2 m. N.W. on the heights above). The cathedral church in part dates from the 12th century, but only small portions of the old medieval episcopal palace are now visible, as it was rebuilt about 1823. The ramparts of the old town can still be traced for a long distance, and there are fragments of two moles, of the theatre and of a gate. The amphitheatre, which seated 12,000 spectators, is in a better state of preservation. The ruins of the great aqueduct which brought the waters of the Siagnole, an affluent of the Siagne, to the town, can still be traced for a distance of nearly 19 m. The original hamlet was the capital of the tribe of the Oxybii, while the town of Forum Julii was founded on its site by Julius Caesar in order to secure to the Romans a harbour independent of that of Marseilles. The buildings of which ruins exist were mostly built by Caesar or by Augustus, and show that it was an important naval station and arsenal. But the town suffered much at the hands of the Arabs, of Barbary pirates, and of its inhabitants, who constructed many of their dwellings out of the ruined Roman buildings. The ancient harbour (really but a portion of the lagoons, which had been deepened) is now completely silted up. Even in early times a canal had to be kept open by perpetual digging, while about 1700 this was closed, and now a sandy and partly cultivated waste extends between the town and the seashore.

See J. A. Aubenas, Histoire de FrÉjus (FrÉjus, 1881); Ch. LenthÉric, La Provence Maritime ancienne et moderne (Paris, 1880), chap. vii.

(W. A. B. C.)

FRELINGHUYSEN, FREDERICK THEODORE (1817-1885), American lawyer and statesman, of Dutch descent, was born at Millstone, New Jersey, on the 4th of August 1817. His grandfather, Frederick Frelinghuysen (1753-1804), was an eminent lawyer, one of the framers of the first New Jersey constitution, a soldier in the War of Independence, and a member (1778-1779 and 1782-1783) of the Continental Congress from New Jersey, and in 1793-1796 of the United States senate; and his uncle, Theodore (1787-1862), was attorney-general of New Jersey from 1817 to 1829, was a United States senator from New Jersey in 1829-1835, was the Whig candidate for vice-president on the Clay ticket in 1844, and was chancellor of the university of New York in 1839-1850 and president of Rutgers College in 1850-1862. Frederick Theodore, left an orphan at the age of three, was adopted by his uncle, graduated at Rutgers in 1836, and studied law in Newark with his uncle, to whose practice he succeeded in 1839, soon after his admission to the bar. He became attorney for the Central Railroad of New Jersey, the Morris Canal and Banking Company, and other corporations, and from 1861 to 1867 was attorney-general of New Jersey. In 1861 he was a delegate to the peace congress at Washington, and in 1866 was appointed by the governor of New Jersey, as a Republican, to fill a vacancy in the United States senate. In the winter of 1867 he was elected to fill the unexpired term, but a Democratic majority in the legislature prevented his re-election in 1869. In 1870 he was nominated by President Grant, and confirmed by the senate, as United States minister to England to succeed John Lothrop Motley, but declined the mission. From 1871 to 1877 he was again a member of the United States senate, in which he was prominent in debate and in committee work, and was chairman of the committee on foreign affairs during the Alabama Claims negotiations. He was a strong opponent of the reconstruction measures of President Johnson, for whose conviction he voted (on most of the specific charges) in the impeachment trial. He was a member of the joint committee which drew up and reported (1877) the Electoral Commission Bill, and subsequently served as a member of the commission. On the 12th of December 1881 he was appointed secretary of state by President Arthur to succeed James G. Blaine, and served until the inauguration of President Cleveland in 1885. Retiring, with his health impaired by overwork, to his home in Newark, he died there on the 20th of May, less than three months after relinquishing the cares of office.

FREMANTLE, a seaport of Swan county, Western Australia, at the mouth of the Swan river, 12 m. by rail S.W. of Perth. It is the terminus of the Eastern railway, and is a town of some industrial activity, shipbuilding, soap-boiling, saw-milling, smelting, iron-founding, furniture-making, flour-milling, brewing and tanning being its chief industries. The harbour, by the construction of two long moles and the blasting away of the rocks at the bar, has been rendered secure. The English, French and German mail steamers call at the port. Fremantle became a municipality in 1871; but there are now three separate municipalities—Fremantle, with a population in 1901 of 14,704; Fremantle East (2494); and Fremantle North (3246). At Rottnest Island, off the harbour, there are government salt-works and a residence of the governor, also penal and reformatory establishments.

FRÉMIET, EMMANUEL (1824-  ), French sculptor, born in Paris, was a nephew and pupil of Rude; he chiefly devoted himself to animal sculpture and to equestrian statues in armour. His earliest work was in scientific lithography (osteology), and for a while he served in times of adversity in the gruesome office of “painter to the Morgue.” In 1843 he sent to the Salon a study of a “Gazelle,” and after that date was very prolific in his works. His “Wounded Bear” and “Wounded Dog” were produced in 1850, and the Luxembourg Museum at once secured this striking example of his work. From 1855 to 1859 FrÉmiet was engaged on a series of military statuettes for Napoleon III. He produced his equestrian statue of “Napoleon I.” in 1868, and of “Louis d’OrlÉans” in 1869 (at the ChÂteau de Pierrefonds) and in 1874 the first equestrian statue of “Joan of Arc,” erected in the Place des Pyramides, Paris; this he afterwards (1889) replaced with another and still finer version. In the meanwhile he had exhibited his masterly “Gorilla and Woman” which won him a medal of honour at the Salon of 1887. Of the same character, and even more remarkable, is his “Ourang-Outangs and Borneo Savage” of 1895, a commission from the Paris Museum of Natural History. FrÉmiet also executed the statue of “St Michael” for the summit of the spire of the Église St Michel, and the equestrian statue of Velasquez for the Jardin de l’Infante at the Louvre. He became a member of the AcadÉmie des Beaux-Arts in 1892, and succeeded Barye as professor of animal drawing at the Natural History Museum of Paris.

FRÉMONT, JOHN CHARLES (1813-1890), American explorer, soldier and political leader, was born in Savannah, Georgia, on the 21st of January 1813. His father, a native of France, died when the boy was in his sixth year, and his mother, a member of an aristocratic Virginia family, then removed to Charleston, South Carolina. In 1828, after a year’s special preparation, young FrÉmont entered the junior class of the college of Charleston, and here displayed marked ability, especially in mathematics; but his irregular attendance and disregard of college discipline led to his expulsion from the institution, which, however, conferred upon him a degree in 1836. In 1833 he was appointed teacher of mathematics on board the sloop of war “Natchez,” and was so engaged during a cruise along the South American coast which was continued for about two and a half years. Soon after returning to Charleston he was appointed professor of mathematics in the United States navy, but he chose instead to serve as assistant engineer of a survey undertaken chiefly for the purpose of finding a pass through the mountains for a proposed railway from Charleston to Cincinnati. In July 1838 he was appointed second lieutenant of Topographical Engineers in the United States army, and for the next three years he was assistant to the French explorer, Jean Nicholas Nicollet (1786-1843), employed by the war department to survey and map a large part of the country lying between the upper waters of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. In 1841 FrÉmont surveyed, for the government, the lower course of the Des Moines river. In the same year he married Jessie, the daughter of Senator Thomas H. Benton of Missouri, and it was in no small measure through Benton’s influence with the government that FrÉmont was enabled to accomplish within the next few years the exploration of much of the territory between the Mississippi Valley and the Pacific Ocean.

When the claim of the United States to the Oregon territory was being strengthened by occupation, FrÉmont was sent, at his urgent request, to explore the frontier beyond the Missouri river, and especially the Rocky Mountains in the vicinity of the South Pass, through which the American immigrants travelled. Within four months (1842) he surveyed the Pass and ascended to the summit of the highest of the Wind River Mountains, since known as FrÉmont’s Peak, and the interest aroused by his descriptions was such that in the next year he was sent on a second expedition to complete the survey across the continent along the line of travel from Missouri to the mouth of the Columbia river. This time he not only carried out his instructions but, by further explorations together with interesting descriptions, dispelled general ignorance with respect to the main features of the country W. of the Rocky Mountains: the Great Salt Lake, the Great Basin, the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and the fertile river basins of the Mexican province of California.

His report of this expedition upon his return to Washington, D.C., in 1844, aroused much solicitude for California, which, it was feared, might, in the event of war then threatening between the United States and Mexico, be seized by Great Britain. In the spring of 1845 FrÉmont was despatched on a third expedition for the professed purposes of further exploring the Great Basin and the Pacific Coast, and of discovering the easiest lines of communication between them, as well as for the secret purpose of assisting the United States, in case of war with Mexico, to gain possession of California. He and his party of sixty-two arrived there in January 1846. Owing to the number of American immigrants who had settled in California, the Mexican authorities there became suspicious and hostile, and ordered FrÉmont out of the province. Instead of obeying he pitched his camp near the summit of a mountain overlooking Monterey, fortified his position, and raised the United States flag. A few days later he was proceeding toward the Oregon border when new instructions from Washington caused him to retrace his steps and, perhaps, to consider plans for provoking war. The extent of his responsibility for the events that ensued is not wholly clear, and has been the subject of much controversy; his defenders have asserted that he was not responsible for the seizure of Sonoma or for the so-called “Bear-Flag War”; and that he played a creditable part throughout. (For an opposite view see California.) Commodore John D. Sloat, after seizing Monterey, transferred his command to Commodore Robert Field Stockton (1795-1866), who made FrÉmont major of a battalion; and by January 1847 Stockton and FrÉmont completed the conquest of California. In the meantime General Stephen Watts Kearny (1794-1848) had been sent by the Government to conquer it and to establish a government. This created a conflict of authority between Stockton and Kearny, both of whom were FrÉmont’s superior officers. Stockton, ignoring Kearny, commissioned FrÉmont military commandant and governor. But Kearny’s authority being confirmed about the 1st of April, FrÉmont, for repeated acts of disobedience, was sent under arrest to Washington, where he was tried by court-martial, found guilty (January 1847) of mutiny, disobedience and conduct prejudicial to military discipline, and sentenced to dismissal from the service. President Polk approved of the verdict except as to mutiny, but remitted the penalty, whereupon FrÉmont resigned.

With the mountain-traversed region he had been exploring acquired by the United States, FrÉmont was eager for a railway from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and in October 1848 he set out at his own and Senator Benton’s expense to find passes for such a railway along a line westward from the headwaters of the Rio Grande. But he had not gone far when he was led astray by a guide, and after the loss of his entire outfit and several of his men, and intense suffering of the survivors from cold and hunger, he turned southward through the valley of the Rio Grande and then westward through the valley of the Gila into southern California. Late in the year 1853, however, he returned to the place where the guide had led him astray, found passes through the mountains to the westward between latitudes 37° and 38° N., and arrived in San Francisco early in May 1854. From the conclusion of his fourth expedition until March 1855, when he removed to New York city, he lived in California, and in December 1849 was elected one of the first two United States senators from the new state. But as he drew the short term, he served only from the 10th of September 1850 to the 3rd of March 1851. Although a candidate for re-election, he was defeated by the pro-slavery party. His opposition to slavery, however, together with his popularity—won by the successes, hardships and dangers of his exploring expeditions, and by his part in the conquest of California—led to his nomination, largely on the ground of “availability,” for the presidency in 1856 by the Republicans (this being their first presidential campaign), and by the National Americans or “Know-Nothings.” In the ensuing election he was defeated by James Buchanan by 174 to 114 electoral votes.

Soon after the Civil War began, FrÉmont was appointed major-general and placed in command of the western department with headquarters at St Louis, but his lack of judgment and of administrative ability soon became apparent, the affairs of his department fell into disorder, and FrÉmont seems to have been easily duped by dishonest contractors whom he trusted. On the 30th of August 1861 he issued a proclamation in which he declared the property of Missourians in rebellion confiscated and their slaves emancipated. For this he was applauded by the radical Republicans, but his action was contrary to an act of congress of the 6th of August and to the policy of the Administration. On the 11th of September President Lincoln, who regarded the action as premature and who saw that it might alienate Kentucky and other border states, whose adherence he was trying to secure, annulled these declarations. Impelled by serious charges against FrÉmont, the president sent Montgomery Blair, the postmaster-general, and Montgomery C. Meigs, the quartermaster-general, to investigate the department; they reported that FrÉmont’s management was extravagant and inefficient; and in November he was removed. Out of consideration for the “Radicals,” however, FrÉmont was placed in command of the Mountain Department of Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee. In the spring and summer of 1862 he co-operated with General N. P. Banks against “Stonewall” Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley, but showed little ability as a commander, was defeated by General Ewell at Cross Keys, and when his troops were united with those of Generals Banks and McDowell to form the Army of Virginia, of which General John Pope was placed in command, FrÉmont declined to serve under Pope, whom he outranked, and retired from active service. On the 31st of May 1864 he was nominated for the presidency by a radical faction of the Republican party, opposed to President Lincoln, but his following was so small that on the 21st of September he withdrew from the contest. From 1878 to 1881 he was governor of the territory of Arizona, and in the last year of his life he was appointed by act of congress a major-general and placed on the retired list. He died in New York on the 13th of July 1890.

See J. C. FrÉmont, Report of the Exploring Expedition to the Rocky Mountains, 1842, and to Oregon and North California, 1843-1844 (Washington, 1845); FrÉmont’s Memoirs of my Life (New York, 1887); and J. Bigelow, Memoirs of the Life and Public Services of John C. FrÉmont (New York, 1856).

FREMONT, a city and the county-seat of Dodge county, Nebraska, U.S.A., about 37 m. N.W. of Omaha, on the N. bank of the Platte river, which here abounds in picturesque bluffs and wooded islands. Pop. (1890) 6747; (1900) 7241 (1303 foreign-born); (1910) 8718. It is on the main line of the Union Pacific railway, on a branch of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy system, and on the main western line of the Chicago & North-Western railway, several branches of which (including the formerly independent Fremont, Elkhorn & Missouri Valley and the Sioux City & Pacific) converge here. The city has an attractive situation and is beautifully shaded. It has a public library and is the seat of the Fremont College, Commercial Institute and School of Pharmacy (1875), a private institution. There is considerable local trade with the rich farming country of the Platte and Elkhorn valleys; and the wholesale grain interests are especially important. Among the manufactures are flour, carriages, saddlery, canned vegetables, furniture, incubators and beer. The city owns and operates its electric-lighting plant and water-works. Fremont was founded in 1856, and became the county-seat in 1860. It was chartered as a city (second-class) in 1871, and became a city of the first class in 1901.

FREMONT, a city and the county-seat of Sandusky county, Ohio, U.S.A., on the Sandusky river, 30 m. S.E. of Toledo. Pop. (1890) 7141; (1900) 8439, of whom 1074 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 9939. Fremont is served by the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern, the Lake Shore Electric, the Lake Erie & Western, and the Wheeling & Lake Erie railways. The river is navigable to this point. Spiegel Grove, the former residence of Rutherford B. Hayes, is of interest, and the city has a public library (1873) and parks, in large measure the gifts of his uncle, Sardis Birchard. Fremont is situated in a good agricultural region; oil and natural gas abound in the vicinity; and the city has various manufactures, including boilers, electro-carbons, cutlery, bricks, agricultural implements, stoves and ranges, safety razors, carriage irons, sash, doors, blinds, furniture, beet sugar, canned vegetables, malt extract, garters and suspenders. The total factory product was valued at $2,833,385 in 1905, an increase of 23.4% over that of 1900. Fremont is on the site of a favourite abode of the Indians, and a trading post was at times maintained here; but the place is best known in history as the site of Fort Stephenson, erected during the War of 1812, and on the 2nd of August 1813 gallantly and successfully defended by Major George Croghan (1791-1849), with 160 men, against about 1000 British and Indians under Brigadier-General Henry A. Proctor. In 1906 Croghan’s remains were re-interred on the site of the old fort. Until 1849, when the present name was adopted in honour of J. C. FrÉmont, the place was known as Lower Sandusky; it was incorporated as a village in 1829 and was first chartered as a city in 1867.

FRÉMY, EDMOND (1814-1894), French chemist, was born at Versailles on the 29th of February 1814. Entering Gay-Lussac’s laboratory in 1831, he became prÉparateur at the École Polytechnique in 1834 and at the CollÈge de France in 1837. His next post was that of rÉpÉtiteur at the École Polytechnique, where in 1846 he was appointed professor, and in 1850 he succeeded Gay-Lussac in the chair of chemistry at the MusÉum d’Histoire Naturelle, of which he was director, in succession to M. E. Chevreul, from 1879 to 1891. He died at Paris on the 3rd of February 1894. His work included investigations of osmic acid, of the ferrates, stannates, plumbates, &c., and of ozone, attempts to obtain free fluorine by the electrolysis of fused fluorides, and the discovery of anhydrous hydrofluoric acid and of a series of acides sulphazotÉs, the precise nature of which long remained a matter of discussion. He also studied the colouring matters of leaves and flowers, the composition of bone, cerebral matter and other animal substances, and the processes of fermentation, in regard to the nature of which he was an opponent of Pasteur’s views. Keenly alive to the importance of the technical applications of chemistry, he devoted special attention as a teacher to the training of industrial chemists. In this field he contributed to our knowledge of the manufacture of iron and steel, sulphuric acid, glass and paper, and in particular worked at the saponification of fats with sulphuric acid and the utilization of palmitic acid for candle-making. In the later years of his life he applied himself to the problem of obtaining alumina in the crystalline form, and succeeded in making rubies identical with the natural gem not merely in chemical composition but also in physical properties.

FRENCH, DANIEL CHESTER (1850-  ), American sculptor, was born at Exeter, New Hampshire, on the 20th of April 1850, the son of Henry Flagg French, a lawyer, who for a time was assistant-secretary of the United States treasury. After a year at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, French spent a month in the studio of John Q. A. Ward, then began to work on commissions, and at the age of twenty-three received from the town of Concord, Massachusetts, an order for his well-known statue “The Minute Man,” which was unveiled (April 19, 1875) on the centenary of the battle of Concord. Previously French had gone to Florence, Italy, where he spent a year with Thomas Ball. French’s best-known work is “Death Staying the Hand of the Sculptor,” a memorial for the tomb of the sculptor Martin Milmore, in the Forest Hills cemetery, Boston; this received a medal of honour at Paris, in 1900. Among his other works are: a monument to John Boyle O’Reilly, Boston; “Gen. Cass,” National Hall of Statuary, Washington; “Dr Gallaudet and his First Deaf-Mute Pupil,” Washington; the colossal “Statue of the Republic,” for the Columbian Exposition at Chicago; statues of Rufus Choate (Boston), John Harvard (Cambridge, Mass.), and Thomas Starr King (San Francisco, California), a memorial to the architect Richard M. Hunt, in Fifth Avenue, opposite the Lenox library, New York, and a large “Alma Mater,” near the approach to Columbia University, New York. In collaboration with Edward C. Potter he modelled the “Washington,” presented to France by the Daughters of the American Revolution; the “General Grant” in Fairmount Park, Philadelphia, and the “General Joseph Hooker” in Boston. French became a member of the National Academy of Design (1901), the National Sculpture Society, the Architectural League, and the Accademia di San Luca, of Rome.

FRENCH, NICHOLAS (1604-1678), bishop of Ferns, was an Irish political pamphleteer, who was born at Wexford. He was educated at Louvain, and returning to Ireland became a priest at Wexford, and before 1646 was appointed bishop of Ferns. Having taken a prominent part in the political disturbances of this period, French deemed it prudent to leave Ireland in 1651, and the remainder of his life was passed on the continent of Europe. He acted as coadjutor to the archbishops of Santiago de Compostella and Paris, and to the bishop of Ghent, and died at Ghent on the 23rd of August 1678. In 1676 he published his attack on James Butler, marquess of Ormonde, entitled “The Unkinde Desertor of Loyall Men and True Frinds,” and shortly afterwards “The Bleeding Iphigenia.” The most important of his other pamphlets is the “Narrative of the Earl of Clarendon’s Settlement and Sale of Ireland” (Louvain, 1668).

The Historical Works of Bishop French, comprising the three pamphlets already mentioned and some letters, were published by S. H. Bindon at Dublin in 1846. See T. D. McGee, Irish Writers of the 17th Century (Dublin, 1846); Sir J. T. Gilbert, Contemporary History of Affairs in Ireland, 1641-1652 (Dublin, 1879-1880); and T. Carte, Life of James, Duke of Ormond (new ed., Oxford, 1851).

FRENCH CONGO, the general name of the French possessions in equatorial Africa. They have an area estimated at 700,000 sq. m., with a population, also estimated, of 6,000,000 to 10,000,000. The whites numbered (1906) 1278, of whom 502 were officials. French Congo, officially renamed French Equatorial Africa in 1910, comprises—(1) the Gabun Colony, (2) the Middle Congo Colony, (3) the Ubangi-Shari Circumscription, (4) the Chad Circumscription. The two last-named divisions form the Ubangi-Shari-Chad Colony.

The present article treats of French Congo as a unit. It is of highly irregular shape. It is bounded W. by the Atlantic, N. by the (Spanish) Muni River Settlements, the German colony of Cameroon and the Sahara, E. by the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, and S. by Belgian Congo and the Portuguese territory of Kabinda. In the greater part of its length the southern frontier is the middle course of the Congo and the Ubangi and Mbomu, the chief northern affluents of that stream, but in the south-west the frontier keeps north of the Congo river, whose navigable lower course is partitioned between Belgium and Portugal. The coast line, some 600 m. long, extends from 5° S. to 1° N. The northern frontier, starting inland from the Muni estuary, after skirting the Spanish settlements follows a line drawn a little north of 2° N. and extending east to 16° E. North of this line the country is part of Cameroon, German territory extending so far inland from the Gulf of Guinea as to approach within 130 m. of the Ubangi. From the intersection of the lines named, at which point French Congo is at its narrowest, the frontier runs north and then east until the Shari is reached in 10° 40′ N. The Shari then forms the frontier up to Lake Chad, where French Congo joins the Saharan regions of French West Africa. The eastern frontier, separating the colony from the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, is the water-parting between the Nile and the Congo. The Mahommedan sultanates of Wadai and Bagirmi occupy much of the northern part of French Congo (see Wadai and Bagirmi).

Physical Features.—The coast line, beginning in the north at Corisco Bay, is shortly afterwards somewhat deeply indented by the estuary of the Gabun, south of which the shore runs in a nearly straight line until the delta of the OgowÉ is reached, where Cape Lopez projects N.W. From this point the coast trends uniformly S.E. without presenting any striking features, though the Bay of Mayumba, the roadstead of Loango, and the Pointe Noire may be mentioned. A large proportion of the coast region is occupied by primeval forest, with trees rising to a height of 150 and 200 ft., but there is a considerable variety of scenery—open lagoons, mangrove swamps, scattered clusters of trees, park-like reaches, dense walls of tangled underwood along the rivers, prairies of tall grass and patches of cultivation. Behind the coast region is a ridge which rises from 3000 to 4500 ft., called the Crystal Mountains, then a plateau with an elevation varying from 1500 to 2800 ft., cleft with deep river-valleys, the walls of which are friable, almost vertical, and in some places 760 ft. high.

The coast rivers flowing into the Atlantic cross four terraces. On the higher portion of the plateau their course is over bare sand; on the second terrace, from 1200 to 2000 ft. high, it is over wide grassy tracts; then, for some 100 m., the rivers pass through virgin forest, and, lastly, they cross the shore region, which is about 10 m. broad. The rivers which fall directly into the Atlantic are generally unnavigable. The most important, the OgowÉ (q.v.), is, however, navigable from its mouth to N’Jole, a distance of 235 m. Rivers to the south of the OgowÉ are the Nyanga, 120 m. long, and the Kwilu. The latter, 320 m. in length, is formed by the Kiasi and the LuÉtÉ; it has a very winding course, flowing by turns from north to south, from east to west, from south to north-west and from north to south-west. It is encumbered with rocks and eddies, and is navigable only over 38 m., and for five months in the year. The mouth is 1100 ft. wide. The Muni river, the northernmost in the colony, is obstructed by cataracts in its passage through the escarpment to the coast.

Nearly all the upper basin of the Shari (q.v.) as well as the right bank of the lower river is within French Congo. The greater part of the country belongs, however, to the drainage area of the Congo river. In addition to the northern banks of the Mbomu and Ubangi, 330 m. of the north shore of the Congo itself are in the French protectorate as well as numerous subsidiary streams. For some 100 m. however, the right bank of the Sanga, the most important of these subsidiary streams, is in German territory (see Congo).

Geology.—Three main divisions are recognized in the French Congo:—(1) the littoral zone, covered with alluvium and superficial deposits and underlain by Tertiary and Cretaceous rocks; (2) the mountain zone of the Crystal Mountains, composed of granite, metamorphic and ancient sediments; (3) the plateau of the northern portion of the Congo basin, occupied by Karroo sandstones. The core of the Crystal Mountains consists of granite and schists. Infolded with them, and on the flanks, are three rock systems ascribed to the Silurian, Devonian and Carboniferous. These are unfossiliferous, but fossils of Devonian age occur on the Congo (see Congo Free State). Granite covers wide areas north-west of the Crystal Mountains. The plateau sandstones lie horizontally and consist of a lower red sandstone group and an upper white sandstone group. They have not yielded fossils. Limestones of Lower Cretaceous age, with Schloenbachia inflata, occur north of the Gabun and in the OgowÉ basin. Marls and limestones with fossils of an Eocene facies overlie the Cretaceous rocks on the Gabun. A superficial iron-cemented sand, erroneously termed laterite, covers large areas in the littoral zone, on the flanks of the mountains and on the high plateau.

Climate.—The whole of the country being in the equatorial region, the climate is everywhere very hot and dangerous for Europeans. On the coast four seasons are distinguished: the dry season (15th of May to 15th of September), the rainy season (15th of September to 15th of January), then a second dry season (15th of January to 1st of March), and a second rainy season (1st of March to 15th of May). The rainfall at Libreville is about 96 in. a year.

Flora and Fauna.—The elephant, the hippopotamus, the crocodile and several kinds of apes—including the chimpanzee and the rare gorilla—are the most noteworthy larger animals; the birds are various and beautiful—grey parrots, shrikes, fly-catchers, rhinoceros birds, weaver birds (often in large colonies on the palm-trees), ice-birds, from the Cecyle Sharpii to the dwarfish Alcedo cristata, butterfly finches, and helmet-birds (Turacus giganteus), as well as more familiar types. Snakes are extremely common. The curious climbing-fish, which frequents the mangroves, the Protopterus or lung-fish, which lies in the mud in a state of lethargy during the dry season, the strange and poisonous Tetrodon guttifer, and the herring-like Pellona africana, often caught in great shoals—are the more remarkable of the fishes. Oysters are got in abundance from the lagoons, and the huge Cardisoma armatum or heart-crab is fattened for table. Fireflies, mosquitoes and sandflies are among the most familiar forms of insect life. A kind of ant builds very striking bent-house or umbrella-shaped nests rising on the tree trunks one above the other.

Among the more characteristic forms of vegetation are baobabs, silk-cotton trees, screw-pines and palms—especially Hyphaene guineensis (a fan-palm), Raphia (the wine-palm), and Elaeis guineensis (the oil-palm). Anonaceous plants (notably Anona senegalensis), and the pallabanda, an olive-myrtle-like tree, are common in the prairies; the papyrus shoots up to a height of 20 ft. along the rivers; the banks are fringed by the cottony Hibiscus tiliaceus, ipomaeas and fragrant jasmines; and the thickets are bound together in one inextricable mass by lianas of many kinds. In the upper Shari region, and that of the Kotto tributary of the Ubangi, are species of the coffee tree, one species attaining a height of over 60 ft. Its bean resembles that of Abyssinian coffee of medium quality. Among the fruit trees are the mango and the papaw, the orange and the lemon. Negro-pepper (a variety of capsicum) and ginger grow wild.

Inhabitants and Chief Towns.—A census, necessarily imperfect, taken in 1906 showed a total population, exclusive of Wadai, of 3,652,000, divided in districts as follows:—Gabun, 376,000; Middle Congo, 259,000; Ubangi-Shari, 2,130,000; Chad, 885,000. The country is peopled by diverse negro races, and, in the regions bordering Lake Chad and in Wadai, by Fula, Hausa, Arabs and semi-Arab tribes. Among the best-known tribes living in French Congo are the Fang (Fans), the Bakalai, the Batekes and the Zandeh or Niam-Niam. Several of the tribes are cannibals and among many of them the fetish worship characteristic of the West African negroes prevails. Their civilization is of a low order. In the northern regions the majority of the inhabitants are Mahommedans, and it is only in those districts that organized and powerful states exist. Elsewhere the authority of a chief or “king” extends, ordinarily, little beyond the village in which he lives. (An account of the chief tribes is given under their names.) The European inhabitants are chiefly of French nationality, and are for the most part traders, officials and missionaries.

The chief towns are Libreville (capital of the Gabun colony) with 3000 inhabitants; Brazzaville, on the Congo on the north side of Stanley Pool (opposite the Belgian capital of Leopoldville), the seat of the governor-general; Franceville, on the upper OgowÉ; Loango, an important seaport in 4° 39′ S.; N’Jole, a busy trading centre on the lower OgowÉ; Chekna, capital of Bagirmi, which forms part of the Chad territory; Abeshr, the capital of Wadai, Bangi on the Ubangi river, the administrative capital of the Ubangi-Shari-Chad colony. Kunde, Lame and Binder are native trading centres near the Cameroon frontier.

Communications.—The rivers are the chief means of internal communication. Access to the greater part of the colony is obtained by ocean steamers to Matadi on the lower Congo, and thence round the falls by the Congo railway to Stanley Pool. From Brazzaville on Stanley Pool there is 680 m. of uninterrupted steam navigation N.E. into the heart of Africa, 330 m. being on the Congo and 350 m. on the Ubangi. The farthest point reached is Zongo, where rapids block the river, but beyond that port there are several navigable stretches of the Ubangi, and for small vessels access to the Nile is possible by means of the Bahr-el-Ghazal tributaries. The Sanga, which joins the Congo, 270 m. above Brazzaville, can be navigated by steamers for 350 m., i.e. up to and beyond the S.E. frontier of the German colony of Cameroon. The Shari is also navigable for a considerable distance and by means of its affluent, the Logone, connects with the Benue and Niger, affording a waterway between the Gulf of Guinea and Lake Chad. Stores for government posts in the Chad territory are forwarded by this route. There is, however, no connecting link between the coast rivers—Gabun, OgowÉ and Kwilu and the Congo system. A railway, about 500 m. long, from the Gabun to the Sanga is projected and the surveys for the purpose made. Another route surveyed for a railway is that from Loango to Brazzaville. A narrow-gauge line, 75 m. long, from Brazzaville to Mindule in the cataracts region was begun in November 1908, the first railway to be built in French Congo. The district served by the line is rich in copper and other minerals. From Wadai a caravan route across the Sahara leads to Bengazi on the shores of the Mediterranean. Telegraph lines connect Loango with Brazzaville and Libreville, there is telegraphic communication with Europe by submarine cable, and steamship communication between Loango and Libreville and Marseilles, Bordeaux, Liverpool and Hamburg.

Trade and Agriculture.—The chief wealth of the colony consists in the products of its forests and in ivory. The natives, in addition to manioc, their principal food, cultivate bananas, ground nuts and tobacco. On plantations owned by Europeans coffee, cocoa and vanilla are grown. European vegetables are raised easily. Gold, iron and copper are found. Copper ores have been exported from Mindule since 1905. The chief exports are rubber and ivory, next in importance coming palm nuts and palm oil, ebony and other woods, coffee, cocoa and copal. The imports are mainly cotton and metal goods, spirits and foodstuffs. In the Gabun and in the basin of the OgowÉ the French customs tariff, with some modifications, prevails, but in the Congo basin, that is, in the greater part of the country, by virtue of international agreements, no discrimination can be made between French and other merchandise, whilst customs duties must not exceed 10% ad valorem.1 In the Shari basin and in Wadai the Anglo-French declaration of March 1899 accorded for thirty years equal treatment to British and French goods. The value of the trade rose in the ten years 1896-1905 from £360,000 to £850,000, imports and exports being nearly equal. The bulk of the export trade is with Great Britain, which takes most of the rubber, France coming second and Germany third. The imports are in about equal proportions from France and foreign countries.

Land Tenure. The Concessions RÉgime.—Land held by the natives is governed by tribal law, but the state only recognizes native ownership in land actually occupied by the aborigines. The greater part of the country is considered a state domain. Land held by Europeans is subject to the Civil Code of France except such estates as have been registered under the terms of a decree of the 28th of March 1899, when, registration having been effected, the title to the land is guaranteed by the state. Nearly the whole of the colony has been divided since 1899 into large estates held by limited liability companies to whom has been granted the sole right of exploiting the land leased to them. The companies holding concessions numbered in 1904 about forty, with a combined capital of over £2,000,000, whilst the concessions varied in size from 425 sq. m. to 54,000 sq. m. One effect of the granting of concessions was the rapid decline in the business of non-concessionaire traders, of whom the most important were Liverpool merchants established in the Gabun before the advent of the French. As by the Act of Berlin of 1885, to which all the European powers were signatories, equality of treatment in commercial affairs was guaranteed to all nations in the Congo basin, protests were raised against the terms of the concessions. The reply was that the critics confused the exercise of the right of proprietorship with the act of commerce, and that in no country was the landowner who farmed his land and sold the produce regarded as a merchant. Various decisions by the judges of the colony during 1902 and 1903 and by the French cour de cassation in 1905 confirmed that contention. The action of the companies was, however, in most cases, neither beneficial to the country nor financially successful, whilst the native cultivators resented the prohibition of their trading direct with their former customers. The case of the Liverpool traders was taken up by the British government and it was agreed that the dispute should be settled by arbitration. In September 1908 the French government issued a decree reorganizing and rendering more stringent the control exercised by the local authorities over the concession companies, especially in matters concerning the rights of natives and the liberty of commerce.

History.—The Gabun was visited in the 15th century by the Portuguese explorers, and it became one of the chief seats of the slave trade. It was not, however, till well on in the 19th century that Europeans made any more permanent settlement than was absolutely necessary for the maintenance of their commerce. In 1839 Captain (afterwards Admiral) BouËt-Willaumez obtained for France the right of residence on the left bank, and in 1842 he secured better positions on the right bank. The primary object of the French settlement was to secure a port wherein men-of-war could revictual. The chief establishment, Libreville, was founded in 1849, with negroes taken from a slave ship. The settlement in time acquired importance as a trading port. In 1867 the troops numbered about 1000, and the civil population about 5000, while the official reports about the same date claimed for the whole colony an area of 8000 sq. m. and a population of 186,000. Cape Lopez had been ceded to France in 1862, and the colony’s coast-line extended, nominally, to a length of 200 m. In consequence of the war with Germany the colony was practically abandoned in 1871, the establishment at Libreville being maintained as a coaling depot merely. In 1875, however, France again turned her attention to the Gabun estuary, the hinterland of which had already been partly explored. Paul du Chaillu penetrated (1855-1859 and 1863-1865) to the south of the OgowÉ; Walker, an English merchant, explored the Ngunye, an affluent of the OgowÉ, in 1866. In 1872-1873 Alfred Marche, a French naturalist, and the marquis de CompiÈgne2 explored a portion of the OgowÉ basin, but it was not until the expedition of 1875-1878 that the country east of the OgowÉ was reached. This expedition was led by Savorgnan de Brazza (q.v.), who was accompanied by Dr Noel EugÈne Ballay, and, for part of the time, by Marche. De Brazza’s expedition, which was compelled to remain for many months at several places, ascended the OgowÉ over 400 m., and beyond the basin of that stream discovered the Alima, which was, though the explorers were ignorant of the fact, a tributary of the Congo. From the Alima, de Brazza and Ballay turned north and finally reached the Gabun in November 1878, the journey being less fruitful in results than the time it occupied would indicate. Returning to Europe, de Brazza learned that H. M. Stanley had revealed the mystery of the Congo, and in his next journey, begun December 1879, the French traveller undertook to find a way to the Congo above the rapids via the OgowÉ. In this he was successful, and in September 1880 reached Stanley Pool, on the north side of which Brazzaville was subsequently founded. Returning to the Gabun by the lower Congo, de Brazza met Stanley. Both explorers were nominally in the service of the International African Association (see Congo Free State), De Brazza’s treaties. but de Brazza in reality acted solely in the interests of France and concluded treaties with Makoko, “king of the Batekes,” and other chieftains, placing very large areas under the protection of that country. The conflicting claims of the Association (which became the Congo Free State) and France were adjusted by a convention signed in February 1885.3 In the meantime de Brazza and Ballay had more fully explored the country behind the coast regions of Gabun and Loango, the last-named seaport being occupied by France in 1883. The conclusion of agreements with Germany (December 1885 and February-March 1894) and with Portugal (May 1886) secured France in the possession of the western portion of the colony as it now exists, whilst an arrangement with the Congo Free State in 1887 settled difficulties which had arisen in the Ubangi district.

The extension of French influence northward towards Lake Chad and eastward to the verge of the basin of the Nile followed, though not without involving the country in serious disputes with the other European powers possessing rights in The advance towards the Nile: Fashoda. those regions. By creating the posts of Bangi (1890), Wesso and Abiras (1891), France strengthened her hold over the Ubangi and the Sanga. But at the same time the Congo Free State passed the parallel of 4° N.—which, after the compromise of 1887, France had regarded as the southern boundary of her possessions—and, occupying the sultanate of Bangasso (north of the Ubangi river), pushed on as far as 9° N. The dispute which ensued was only settled in 1894 and after the signature of the convention between Great Britain and the Congo State of the 12th of May of that year, against which both the German and the French governments protested, the last named because it erected a barrier against the extension of French territory to the Nile valley. By a compromise of the 14th of August the boundary was definitely drawn and, in accordance with this pact, which put the frontier back to about 4° N., France from 1895 to 1897 took possession of the upper Ubangi, with Bangasso, Rafai and Zemio. Then began the French encroachment on the Bahr-el-Ghazal; the Marchand expedition, despatched to the support of Victor Liotard, the lieutenant-governor of the upper Ubangi, reached Tambura in July 1897 and Fashoda in July 1898. A dispute with Great Britain arose, and it was decided that the expedition should evacuate Fashoda. The declaration of the 21st of March 1899 finally terminated the dispute, fixing the eastern frontier of the French colony as already stated. Thus, after the Franco-Spanish treaty of June 1900 settling the limits of the Spanish territory on the coast, the boundaries of the French Congo on all its frontiers were determined in broad outline. The Congo-Cameroon frontier was precisely defined by another Franco-German agreement in April 1908, following a detailed survey made by joint commissioners in 1905 and 1906. For a comprehensive description of these international rivalries see Africa, § 5, and for the conquest of the Chad regions see Bagirmi and Rabah Zobeir. In the other portions of the colony French rule was accepted by the natives, for the most part, peaceably. For the relations of France with Wadai see that article.

Following the acquisitions for France of de Brazza, the ancient Gabun colony was joined to the Congo territories. From 1886 to 1889 Gabun was, however, separately administered. By decree of the 11th of December 1888 the whole of the French possessions were created one “colony” under the style of Congo franÇais, with various subdivisions; they were placed under a commissioner-general (de Brazza) having his residence at Brazzaville. This arrangement proved detrimental to the economic development of the Gabun settlements, which being outside the limits of the free trade conventional basin of the Congo (see Africa, § 5) enjoyed a separate tariff. By decree of the 29th of December 1903 (which became operative in July 1904) Congo franÇais was divided into four parts as named in the opening paragraph. The first commissioner-general under the new scheme was Emile Gentil, the explorer of the Shari and Chad. In 1905 de Brazza was sent out from France to investigate charges of cruelty and maladministration brought against officials of the colony, several of which proved well founded. De Brazza died at Dakar when on his way home. The French government, after considering the report he had drawn up, decided to retain Gentil as commissioner-general, making however (decree of 15th of February 1906) various changes in administration with a view to protect the natives and control the concession companies. Gentil, who devoted the next two years to the reorganization of the finances of the country and the development of its commerce, resigned his post in February 1908. He was succeeded by M. Merlin, whose title was changed (June 1908) to that of governor-general.

Administration and Revenue.—The governor-general has control over the whole of French Congo, but does not directly administer any part of it, the separate colonies being under lieutenant-governors. The Gabun colony includes the Gabun estuary and the whole of the coast-line of French Congo, together with the basin of the OgowÉ river. The inland frontier is so drawn as to include all the hinterland not within the Congo free-trade zone (the Chad district excepted). The Middle Congo has for its western frontier the Gabun colony and Cameroon, and extends inland to the easterly bend of the Ubangi river; the two circumscriptions extend east and north of the Middle Congo. There is a general budget for the whole of French Congo; each colony has also a separate budget and administrative autonomy. As in other French colonies the legislative power is in the French chambers only, but in the absence of specific legislation presidential decrees have the force of law. A judicial service independent of the executive exists, but the district administrators also exercise judicial functions. Education is in the hands of the missionaries, upwards of 50 schools being established by 1909. The military force maintained consists of natives officered by Europeans.

Revenue is derived from taxes on land, rent paid by concession companies, a capitation or hut tax on natives, and customs receipts, supplemented by a subvention from France. In addition to defraying the military expenses, about £100,000 a year, a grant of £28,000 yearly was made up to 1906 by the French chambers towards the civil expenses. In 1907 the budget of the Congo balanced at about £250,000 without the aid of this subvention. In 1909 the chambers sanctioned a loan for the colony of £840,000, guaranteed by France and to be applied to the establishment of administrative stations and public works.

Bibliography.—Fernand Rouget, L’Expansion coloniale au Congo franÇais (Paris, 1906), a valuable monograph, with bibliography and maps; A. Chevalier, L’Afrique centrale franÇaise (Paris, 1907). For special studies see Lacroix, RÉsultats minÉralogiques et zoologiques des rÉcentes explorations de l’Afrique occidentale franÇaise et de la rÉgion du Tchad (Paris, 1905); M. Barrat, Sur la gÉologie du Congo franÇais (Paris, 1895), and Ann. des mines, sÉr. q. t. vii. (1895); J. Cornet, “Les Formations post-primaires du bassin du Congo,” Ann. soc, gÉol. belg. vol. xxi. (1895). The Paris Bulletin du MusÉum for 1903 and 1904 contains papers on the zoology of the country. For flora see numerous papers by A. Chevalier in Comptes rendus de l’acadÉmie des sciences (1902-1904), and the Journal d’agriculture pratique des pays chauds (1901, &c.). For history, besides Rouget’s book, see J. Ancel, “Étude historique. La formation de la colonie du Congo franÇais, 1843-1882,” containing an annotated bibliography, in Bull. Com. l’Afrique franÇaise, vol. xii. (1902); the works cited under Brazza; and E. Gentil, La Chute de l’empire de Rabah (Paris, 1902). Of earlier books of travels the most valuable are:—Paul du Chaillu, Explorations and Adventures in Equatorial Africa (London, 1861); A Journey to Ashonga Land (London, 1867); and Sir R. Burton, Two Trips to Gorilla Land (London, 1876). Of later works see Mary H. Kingsley, Travels in West Africa (London, 1897); A. B. de MÉziÈres, Rapport de mission sur le Haut Oubangui, le M’Bomou et le Bahr-el-Ghazal (Paris, 1903); and C. Maistre, A travers l’Afrique centrale du Congo au Niger, 1892-1893 (Paris, 1895). For the story of the concession companies see E. D. Morel, The British Case in French Congo (London, 1903).

(F. R. C.)

1 Berlin Act of 1885; Brussels conference of 1890 (see Africa: History).

2 Louis EugÈne Henri Dupont, marquis de CompiÈgne (1846-1877), on his return from the West coast replaced Georg Schweinfurth at Cairo as president of the geographical commission. Arising out of this circumstance de CompiÈgne was killed in a duel by a German named Mayer.

3 A Franco-Belgian agreement of the 23rd of Dec. 1908 defined precisely the frontier in the lower Congo. Bamu Island in Stanley Pool was recognized as French.

FRENCH GUINEA, a French colony in West Africa, formerly known as RiviÈres du Sud. It is bounded W. by the Atlantic, N. by Portuguese Guinea and Senegal, E. by Upper Senegal and the Ivory Coast, and S. by Liberia and Sierra Leone. With a sea-board running N.N.W. and S.S.E. from 10° 50′ N. to 9° 2′ N., a distance, without reckoning the indentations, of 170 m., the colony extends eastward 450 m. in a straight line and attains a maximum width N. to S. of nearly 300 m., covering fully 100,000 sq. m., and containing a population estimated at 2,000,000 to 2,500,000.

Physical Features.—Though in one or two places rocky headlands jut into the sea, the coast is in general sandy, low, and much broken by rivers and deep estuaries, dotted with swampy islands, giving it the appearance of a vast delta. In about 9° 30′ N., off the promontory of Konakry, lie the Los Islands (q.v.), forming part of the colony. The coast plain, formed of alluvial deposits, is succeeded about 30 m. inland by a line of cliffs, the Susu Hills, which form the first step in the terrace-like formation of the interior, culminating in the massif of Futa Jallon, composed chiefly of Archean and granite rocks. While the coast lands are either densely forested or covered with savannas or park-like country, the Futa Jallon tableland is mainly covered with short herbage. This tableland, the hydrographic centre of West Africa, is most elevated in its southern parts, where heights of 5000 ft. are found. Near the Sierra Leone frontier this high land is continued westward to within 20 m. of the sea, where Mount Kakulima rises over 3300 ft. East and south of Futa Jallon the country slopes to the basin of the upper Niger, the greater part of which is included in French Guinea. The southern frontier is formed by the escarpments which separate the Niger basin from those of the coast rivers of Liberia. Besides the Niger, Gambia and Senegal, all separately noticed, a large number of streams running direct to the Atlantic rise in Futa Jallon. Among them are the Great and Little Scarcies, whose lower courses are in Sierra Leone, and the Rio Grande which enters the sea in Portuguese Guinea. Those whose courses are entirely in French Guinea include the Cogon (or Componi), the Rio NuÑez, the Fatalla (which reaches the sea through an estuary named Rio Pongo), the Konkure, whose estuary is named Rio Bramaya, the Forekaria and the Melakori. The Cogon, Fatallah and Konkure are all large rivers which descend from the plateaus through deep, narrow valleys in rapids and cataracts, and are only navigable for a few miles from their mouth.

Climate.—The climate of the coast district is hot, moist and unhealthy, with a season of heavy rain lasting from May to November, during which time variable winds, calms and tornadoes succeed one another. The mean temperature in the dry season, when the “harmattan” is frequent, is 62° Fahr., in the wet season 86°. Throughout the year the humidity of the air is very great. There is much rain in the Futa Jallon highlands, but the Niger basin is somewhat drier. In that region and in the highlands the climate is fairly healthy for Europeans and the heat somewhat less than on the coast.

Flora and Fauna.—The seashore and the river banks are lined with mangroves, but the most important tree of the coast belt is the oil-palm. The dense forests also contain many varieties of lianas or rubber vines, huge bombax and bamboos. Gum-producing and kola trees are abundant, and there are many fruit trees, the orange and citron growing well in the Susu and Futa Jallon districts. The cotton and coffee plants are indigenous; banana plantations surround the villages. The baobab and the karite (shea butter tree) are found only in the Niger districts. The fauna is not so varied as was formerly the case, large game having been to a great extent driven out of the coast regions. The elephant is rare save in the Niger regions. The lion is now only found in the northern parts of Futa Jallon; panthers, leopards, hyenas and wild cats are more common and the civet is found. Hippopotamus, otter and the wild boar are numerous; a species of wild ox of small size with black horns and very agile is also found. The forests contain many kinds of monkeys, including huge chimpanzees; antelope are widespread but rather rare. Serpents are very common, both venomous and non-venomous; the pythons attain a great size. Fights between these huge serpents and the crocodiles which infest all the rivers are said to be not uncommon. Turtles are abundant along the coasts and in the Los Islands. Oysters are found in large numbers in the estuaries and fixed to the submerged parts of the mangroves. Freshwater oysters, which attain a large size, are also found in the rivers, particularly in the Niger. Fish are abundant, one large-headed species, in the Susu tongue called khokon, is so numerous as to have given its name to a province, Kokunia. Birds are very numerous; they include various eagles, several kinds of heron, the egret, the marabout, the crane and the pelican; turacos or plantain-eaters, are common, as are other brilliantly plumaged birds. Green and grey parrots, ravens, swallows and magpies are also common.

Inhabitants.—On the banks of the Cogon dwell the Tendas and Iolas, primitive Negro tribes allied to those of Portuguese Guinea (q.v.). All other inhabitants of French Guinea are regarded as comparatively late arrivals from the interior who have displaced the aborigines.1 Among the earliest of the new comers are the Baga, the Nalu, the Landuman and the Timni, regarded as typical Negroes (q.v.). This migration southward appears to have taken place before the 17th century. To-day the Baga occupy the coast land between the Cogon and the Rio Pongo, and the Landuman the country immediately behind that of the Baga. The other tribes named are but sparsely represented in French Guinea, the coast region south of the NuÑez and all the interior up to Futa Jallon being occupied by the Susu, a tribe belonging to the great Mandingan race, which forced its way seaward about the beginning of the 18th century and pressed back the Timni into Sierra Leone. Futa Jallon is peopled principally by Fula (q.v.), and the rest of the country by MalinkÉ and other tribes of Mandingo (q.v.). The Mandingo, the Fula and the Susu are Mahommedans, though the Susu retain many of their ancient rites and beliefs—those associated with spirit worship and fetish, still the religion of the Baga and other tribes. In the north-west part of Futa Jallon are found remnants of the aborigines, such as the Tiapi, Koniagui and the Bassari, all typical Negro tribes. The white inhabitants number a few hundreds only and are mainly French. Many of the coast peoples show, however, distinct traces of white blood, the result chiefly of the former presence of European slave traders. Thus at the Rio Pongo there are numerous mulattos. South of that river the coast tribes speak largely pidgin English.

Towns.—The principal towns are Konakry the capital, BokÉ, on the Rio NuÑez, Dubreka, on the coast, a little north of Konakry, Benty, on the Melakori, Timbo and Labe, the chief towns of Futa Jallon, Heremakono and Kindia, on the main road to the Niger, Kurussa and Siguiri, on a navigable stretch of that river, and Bissandugu, formerly Samory’s capital, an important military station east of the Niger. Konakry, in 9° 30′ N., 13° 46′ W., population about 20,000, is the one port of entry on the coast. It is built on the little island of Tombo which lies off the promontory of Konakry, the town being joined to the mainland by an iron bridge. During the administration of NoËl Ballay (1848-1902), governor of the colony 1890-1900, Konakry was transformed from a place of small importance to one of the chief ports on the west coast of Africa and a serious rival to Freetown, Sierra Leone. It has since grown considerably, and is provided with wharves and docks and a jetty 1066 ft. long. There is an ample supply of good water, and a large public garden in the centre of the town. In front of Government House is a statue of M. Ballay. Konakry is a port of call for French, British and German steamship companies, and is in telegraphic communication with Europe. It is the starting-point of a railway to the Niger (see below). The retail trade is in the hands of Syrians. The town is governed by a municipality.

Products and Industry.—French Guinea possesses a fertile soil, and is rich in tropical produce. The chief products are rubber, brought from the interior, and palm oil and palm kernels, obtained in the coast regions. Cotton is cultivated in the Niger basin. Gum copal, ground-nuts and sesame are largely cultivated, partly for export. Among minor products are coffee, wax and ivory. Large herds of cattle and flocks of sheep are raised in Futa Jallon; these are sent in considerable numbers to Sierra Leone, Liberia and French Congo. The trade in hides is also of considerable value. The chief grain raised is millet, the staple food of the people. The rubber is mainly exported to England, the palm products to Germany, and the ground-nuts to France.

The principal imports are cotton goods, of which 80% come from Great Britain, rice, kola nuts, chiefly from Liberia, spirits, tobacco, building material, and arms and ammunition, chiefly “trade guns.” The average annual value of the trade for the period 1900-1907 was about £1,250,000, the annual export of rubber alone being worth £400,000 or more. The great bulk of the trade of the colony is with France and Great Britain, the last-named country taking about 45% of the total; Germany comes third. Since April 1905 a surtax of 7% has been imposed on all goods of other than French origin.

Communications.—The railway from Konakry to the Niger at Kurussa, by the route chosen a distance of 342 m., was begun in 1900, and from 1902 has been built directly by the colony. The first section to Kindia, 93 m., was opened in 1904. The second section, to near Timbo in Futa Jallon, was completed in 1907, and the rails reached Kurussa in 1910. From Kurussa the Niger is navigable at high water all the way to Bamako in Upper Senegal, whence there is communication by rail and river with St Louis and Timbuktu. Besides the railway there is an excellent road, about 390 m. long, from Konakry to Kurussa, the road in its lower part being close to the Sierra Leone frontier, with the object of diverting trade from that British colony. Several other main roads have been built by the French, and there is a very complete telegraphic system, the lines having been connected with those of Senegal in 1899.

History.—This part of the Guinea coast was made known by the Portuguese voyagers of the 15th century. In consequence, largely, of the dangers attending its navigation, it was not visited by the European traders of the 16th-18th centuries so frequently as other regions north and east, but in the Rio Pongo, at Matakong (a diminutive island near the mouth of the Forekaria), and elsewhere, slave traders established themselves, and ruins of the strongholds they built, and defended with cannon, still exist. When driven from other parts of Guinea the slavers made this difficult and little known coast one of their last resorts, and many barracoons were built in the late years of the 18th century. It was not until after the restoration of Goree to her at the close of the Napoleonic wars that France evinced any marked interest in this region. At that time the British, from their bases at the Gambia and Sierra Leone, were devoting considerable attention to these RiviÈres du Sud (i.e. south of Senegal) and also to Futa Jallon. RenÉ CailliÉ, who started his journey to Timbuktu from BokÉ in 1827, did much to quicken French interest in the district, and from 1838 onward French naval officers, BouËt-Willaumez and his successors, made detailed studies of the coast. About the time that the British government became wearied of its efforts to open up the interior of West Africa, General Faidherbe was appointed governor of Senegal (1854), and under his direction vigorous efforts were made to consolidate French influence. Already in 1848 treaty relations had been entered into with the Nalu, and between that date and 1865 treaties of protectorate were signed with several of the coast tribes. During 1876-1880 new treaties were concluded with the chief tribes, and in 1881 the almany (or emir) of Futa Jallon placed his country under French protection, the French thus effectually preventing the junction, behind the coast lands, of the British colonies of the Gambia and Sierra Leone. The right of France to the littoral as far south as the basin of the Melakori was recognized by Great Britain in 1882; Germany (which had made some attempt to acquire a protectorate at Konakry) abandoned its claims in 1885, while in 1886 the northern frontier was settled in agreement with Portugal, which had ancient settlements in the same region (see Portuguese Guinea). In 1899 the limits of the colony were extended, on the dismemberment of the French Sudan, to include the upper Niger districts. In 1904 the Los Islands were ceded by Great Britain to France, in part return for the abandonment of French fishing rights in Newfoundland waters. (See also Senegal: History.)

French Guinea was made a colony independent of Senegal in 1891, but in 1895 came under the supreme authority of the newly constituted governor-generalship of French West Africa. Guinea has a considerable measure of autonomy and a separate budget. It is administered by a lieutenant-governor, assisted by a nominated council. Revenue is raised principally from customs and a capitation tax, which has replaced a hut tax. The local budget for 1907 balanced at £205,000. Over the greater part of the country the native princes retain their sovereignty under the superintendence of French officials. The development of agriculture and education are objects of special solicitude to the French authorities. In general the natives are friendly towards their white masters.

See M. Famechon, Notice sur la GuinÉe franÇaise (Paris, 1900); J. Chautard, Étude gÉophysique et gÉologique sur le Fouta-Djallon (Paris, 1905); AndrÉ Arcin, La GuinÉe franÇaise (Paris, 1906), a valuable monograph; J. Machat, Les RiviÈres du Sud et la Fouta-Diallon (Paris, 1906), another valuable work, containing exhaustive bibliographies. Consult also F. Rouget, La GuinÉe (Paris, 1908), an official publication, the annual Reports on French West Africa, published by the British Foreign Office, and the Carte de la GuinÉe franÇaise by A. MÉunier in 4 sheets on the scale 1:500,000 (Paris, 1902).

1 Numerous remains of a stone age have been discovered, both on the coast and in the hinterland. See L. Desplagnes, “L’ArchÉologie prÉhistorique en GuinÉe franÇaise,” in Bull. Soc. GÉog. Comm. de Bordeaux, March 1907, and the authorities there cited.

FRENCH LANGUAGE. I. Geography.—French is the general name of the north-north-western group of Romanic dialects, the modern Latin of northern Gaul (carried by emigration to some places—as lower Canada—out of France). In a restricted sense it is that variety of the Parisian dialect which is spoken by the educated, and is the general literary language of France. The region in which the native language is termed French consists of the northern half of France (including Lorraine) and parts of Belgium and Switzerland; its boundaries on the west are the Atlantic Ocean and the Celtic dialects of Brittany; on the north-west and north, the English Channel; on the north-east and east the Teutonic dialects of Belgium, Germany and Switzerland. In the south-east and south the boundary is to a great extent conventional and ill-defined, there being originally no linguistic break between the southern French dialects and the northern ProvenÇal dialects of southern France, north-western Italy and south-western Switzerland. It is formed partly by spaces of intermediate dialects (some of whose features are French, others ProvenÇal), partly by spaces of mixed dialects resulting from the invasion of the space by more northern and more southern settlers, partly by lines where the intermediate dialects have been suppressed by more northern (French) and more southern (ProvenÇal) dialects without these having mixed. Starting in the west at the mouth of the Gironde, the boundary runs nearly north soon after passing Bordeaux; a little north of AngoulÊme it turns to the east, and runs in this direction into Switzerland to the north of Geneva.

II. External History.—(a) Political.—By the Roman conquests the language of Rome was spread over the greater part of southern and western Europe, and gradually supplanted the native tongues. The language introduced was at first nearly uniform over the whole empire, Latin provincialisms and many more or less general features of the older vulgar language being suppressed by the preponderating influence of the educated speech of the capital. As legions became stationary, as colonies were formed, and as the natives adopted the language of their conquerors, this language split up into local dialects, the distinguishing features of which are due, as far as can be ascertained (except, to some extent, as to the vocabulary), not to speakers of different nationalities misspeaking Latin, each with the peculiarities of his native language, but to the fact that linguistic changes, which are ever occurring, are not perfectly uniform over a large area, however homogeneous the speakers. As Gaul was not conquered by Caesar till the middle of the first century before our era, its Latin cannot have begun to differ from that of Rome till after that date; but the artificial retention of classical Latin as the literary and official language after the popular spoken language had diverged from it, often renders the chronology of the earlier periods of the Romanic languages obscure. It is, however, certain that the popular Latin of Gaul had become differentiated from that of central Italy before the Teutonic conquest of Gaul, which was not completed till the latter half of the 5th century; the invaders gradually adopted the language of their more civilized subjects, which remained unaffected, except in its vocabulary. Probably by this time it had diverged so widely from the artificially preserved literary language that it could no longer be regarded merely as mispronounced Latin; the Latin documents of the next following centuries contain many clearly popular words and forms, and the literary and popular languages are distinguished as latina and romana. The term gallica, at first denoting the native Celtic language of Gaul, is found applied to its supplanter before the end of the 9th century, and survives in the Breton gallek, the regular term for “French.” After the Franks in Gaul had abandoned their native Teutonic language, the term francisca, by which this was denoted, came to be applied to the Romanic one they adopted, and, under the form franÇaise, remains its native name to this day; but this name was confined to the Romanic of northern Gaul, which makes it probable that this, at the time of the adoption of the name francisca, had become distinct from the Romanic of southern Gaul. Francisca is the Teutonic adjective frankisk, which occurs in Old English in the form frencise; this word, with its umlauted e from a with following i, survives under the form French, which, though purely Teutonic in origin and form, has long been exclusively applied to the Romanic language and inhabitants of Gaul. The German name franzose, with its accent on, and o in, the second syllable, comes from franÇois, a native French form older than franÇais, but later than the Early Old French franceis. The Scandinavian settlers on the north-west coast of France early in the 10th century quickly lost their native speech, which left no trace except in some contributions to the vocabulary of the language they adopted. The main feature since is the growth of the political supremacy of Paris, carrying with it that of its dialect; in 1539 Francis I. ordered that all public documents should be in French (of Paris), which then became the official language of the whole kingdom, though it is still foreign to nearly half its population.

The conquest of England in 1066 by William, duke of Normandy, introduced into England, as the language of the rulers and (for a time) most of the writers, the dialects spoken in Normandy (see also Anglo-Norman Literature). Confined in their native country to definite areas, these dialects, following their speakers, became mixed in England, so that their forms were used to some extent indifferently; and the constant communication with Normandy maintained during several reigns introduced also later forms of continental Norman. As the conquerors learned the language of the conquered, and as the more cultured of the latter learned that of the former, the Norman of England (including that of the English-speaking Lowlands of Scotland) became anglicized; instead of following the changes of the Norman of France, it followed those of English. The accession in 1154 of Henry II. of Anjou disturbed the Norman character of Anglo-French, and the loss of Normandy under John in 1204 gave full play to the literary importance of the French of Paris, many of whose forms afterwards penetrated to England. At the same time English, with a large French addition to its vocabulary, was steadily recovering its supremacy, and is officially employed (for the first time since the Conquest) in the Proclamation of Henry III., 1258. The semi-artificial result of this mixture of French of different dialects and of different periods, more or less anglicized according to the date or education of the speaker or writer, is generally termed “the Anglo-Norman dialect”; but the term is misleading for a great part of its existence, because while the French of Normandy was not a single dialect, the later French of England came from other French provinces besides Normandy, and being to a considerable extent in artificial conditions, was checked in the natural development implied by the term “dialect.” The disuse of Anglo-French as a natural language is evidenced by English being substituted for it in legal proceedings in 1362, and in schools in 1387; but law reports were written in it up to about 1600, and, converted into modern literary French, it remains in official use for giving the royal assent to bills of parliament.

(b) Literary.—Doubtless because the popular Latin of northern Gaul changed more rapidly than that of any other part of the empire, French was, of all the Romanic dialects, the first to be recognized as a distinct language, and the first to be used in literature; and though the oldest specimen now extant is probably not the first, it is considerably earlier than any existing documents of the allied languages. In 813 the council of Tours ordered certain homilies to be translated into Rustic Roman or into German; and in 842 Louis the German, Charles the Bald, and their armies confirmed their engagements by taking oaths in both languages at Strassburg. These have been preserved to us by the historian Nithard (who died in 853); and though, in consequence of the only existing manuscript (at Paris) being more than a century later than the time of the author, certain alterations have occurred in the text of the French oaths, they present more archaic forms (probably of North-Eastern French) than any other document. The next memorials are a short poem, probably North-Eastern, on St Eulalia, preserved in a manuscript of the 10th century at Valenciennes, and some autograph fragments (also at Valenciennes) of a homily on the prophet Jonah, in mixed Latin and Eastern French, of the same period. To the same century belong a poem on Christ’s Passion, apparently in a mixed (not intermediate) language of French and ProvenÇal, and one, probably in South-Eastern French, on St Leger; both are preserved, in different handwritings, in a MS. at Clermont-Ferrand, whose scribes have introduced many ProvenÇal forms. After the middle of the 11th century literary remains are comparatively numerous; the chief early representative of the main dialects are the following, some of them preserved in several MSS., the earliest of which, however (the only ones here mentioned), are in several cases a generation or two later than the works themselves. In Western French are a verse life of St Alexius (Alexis), probably Norman, in an Anglo-Norman MS. at Hildesheim; the epic poem of Roland, possibly also Norman, in an A.-N. MS. at Oxford; a Norman verbal translation of the Psalms, in an A.-N. MS. also at Oxford; another later one, from a different Latin version, in an A.-N. MS. at Cambridge; a Norman translation of the Four Books of Kings, in a probably A.-N. MS. at Paris. The earliest work in the Parisian dialect is probably the Travels of Charlemagne, preserved in a late Anglo-Norman MS. with much altered forms. In Eastern French, of rather later date, there are translations of the Dialogues of Pope Gregory, in a MS. at Paris, containing also fragments of Gregory’s Moralities, and (still later) of some Sermons of St Bernard, in a MS. also in Paris. From the end of the 12th century literary and official documents, often including local charters, abound in almost every dialect, until the growing influence of Paris caused its language to supersede in writing the other local ones. This influence, occasionally apparent about the end of the 12th century, was overpowering in the 15th, when authors, though often displaying provincialisms, almost all wrote in the dialect of the capital; the last dialect to lose its literary independence was the North-Eastern, which, being the Romanic language of Flanders, had a political life of its own, and (modified by Parisian) was used in literature after 1400.

III. Internal History.—Though much has been done in recent years, in the scientific investigation of the sounds, inflexions, and syntax of the older stages and dialects of French, much still remains to be done, and it must suffice here to give a sketch, mainly of the dialects which were imported into England by the Normans—in which English readers will probably take most interest, and especially of the features which explain the forms of English words of French origin. Dates and places are only approximations, and many statements are liable to be modified by further researches. The primitive Latin forms given are often not classical Latin words, but derivatives from these; and reference is generally made to the Middle English (Chaucerian) pronunciation of English words, not the modern.

(a) Vocabulary.—The fundamental part of the vocabulary of French is the Latin imported into Gaul, the French words being simply the Latin words themselves, with the natural changes undergone by all living speech, or derivatives formed at various dates. Comparatively few words were introduced from the Celtic language of the native inhabitants (bec, lieue from the Celtic words given by Latin writers as beccus, leuca), but the number adopted from the language of the Teutonic conquerors of Gaul is large (guerre = werra; laid = laidh; choisir = kausjan). The words were imported at different periods of the Teutonic supremacy, and consequently show chronological differences in their sounds (haÏr = hatan; franÇais = frankisk; Écrevisse = krebiz; Échine = skina). Small separate importations of Teutonic words resulted from the Scandinavian settlement in France, and the commercial intercourse with the Low German nations on the North Sea (friper = Norse hripa; chaloupe = Dutch sloop; est = Old English eÁst). In the meantime, as Latin (with considerable alterations in pronunciation, vocabulary, &c.) continued in literary, official and ecclesiastical use, the popular language borrowed from time to time various more or less altered classical Latin words; and when the popular language came to be used in literature, especially in that of the church, these importations largely increased (virginitet Eulalia = virginitātem; imagena Alexis = imāginem—the popular forms would probably have been vergedet, emain). At the Renaissance they became very abundant, and have continued since, stifling to some extent the developmental power of the language. Imported words, whether Teutonic, classical Latin or other, often receive some modification at their importation, and always take part in all subsequent natural phonetic changes in the language (Early Old French adversarie, Modern French adversaire) . Those French words which appear to contradict the phonetic laws were mostly introduced into the language after the taking place (in words already existing in the language) of the changes formulated by the laws in question; compare the late imported laÏque with the inherited lai, both from Latin laicum. In this and many other cases the language possesses two forms of the same Latin word, one descended from it, the other borrowed (meuble and mobile from mōbilem). Some Oriental and other foreign words were brought in by the crusaders (amiral from amir); in the 16th century, wars, royal marriages and literature caused a large number of Italian words (soldat = soldato; brave = bravo; caresser = carezzare) to be introduced, and many Spanish ones (alcÔve = alcoba; hÂbler = hablar). A few words have been furnished by ProvenÇal (abeille, cadenas), and several have been adopted from other dialects into the French of Paris (esquiver Norman or Picard for the Paris-French eschiver). German has contributed a few (blocus = blochūs; choucroute = sūrkrūt); and recently a considerable number have been imported from England (drain, confortable, flirter). In Old French, new words are freely formed by derivation, and to a less extent by composition; in Modern French, borrowing from Latin or other foreign languages is the more usual course. Of the French words now obsolete some have disappeared because the things they express are obsolete; others have been replaced by words of native formation, and many have been superseded by foreign words generally of literary origin; of those which survive, many have undergone considerable alterations in meaning. A large number of Old French words and meanings, now extinct in the language of Paris, were introduced into English after the Norman Conquest; and though some have perished, many have survived—strife from Old French estrif (Teutonic strīt); quaint from cointe (cognitum); remember from remembrer (rememorāre); chaplet (garland) from chapelet (Modern French “chaplet of beads”); appointment (rendezvous) from appointement (now “salary”). Many also survive in other French dialects.

(b) Dialects.—The history of the French language from the period of its earliest extant literary memorials is that of the dialects composing it. But as the popular notion of a dialect as the speech of a definite area, possessing certain peculiarities confined to and extending throughout that area, is far from correct, it will be advisable to drop the misleading divisions into “Norman dialect,” “Picard dialect” and the like, and take instead each important feature in the chronological order (as far as can be ascertained) of its development, pointing out roughly the area in which it exists, and its present state. The local terms used are intentionally vague, and it does not, for instance, at all follow that because “Eastern” and “Western” are used to denote the localities of more than one dialectal feature, the boundary line between the two divisions is the same in each case. It is, indeed, because dialectal differences as they arise do not follow the same boundary lines (much less the political divisions of provinces), but cross one another to any extent, that to speak of the dialect of a large area as an individual whole, unless that area is cut off by physical or alien linguistic boundaries, creates only confusion. Thus the Central French of Paris, the ancestor of classical Modern French, agrees with a more southern form of Romanic (Limousin, Auvergne, Forez, Lyonnais, DauphinÉ) in having ts, not tsh, for Latin k (c) before i and e; tsh, not k, for k (c) before a; and with the whole South in having gu, not w, for Teutonic w; while it belongs to the East in having oi for earlier ei; and to the West in having É, not ei, for Latin a; and i, not ei, from Latin ĕ + i. It may be well to denote that Southern French does not correspond to southern France, whose native language is ProvenÇal. “Modern French” means ordinary educated Parisian French.

(e) Phonology.—The history of the sounds of a language is, to a considerable extent, that of its inflections, which, no less than the body of a word, are composed of sounds. This fact, and the fact that unconscious changes are much more reducible to law than conscious ones, render the phonology of a language by far the surest and widest foundation for its dialectology, the importance of the sound-changes in this respect depending, not on their prominence, but on the earliness of their date. For several centuries after the divergence between spoken and written Latin, the history of these changes has to be determined mainly by reasoning, aided by a little direct evidence in the misspellings of inscriptions the semi-popular forms in glossaries, and the warnings of Latin grammarians against vulgarities. With the rise of Romanic literature the materials for tracing the changes become abundant, though as they do not give us the sounds themselves, but only their written representations, much difficulty, and some uncertainty, often attach to deciphering the evidence. Fortunately, early Romanic orthography, that of Old French included (for which see next section), was phonetic, as Italian orthography still is; the alphabet was imperfect, as many new sounds had to be represented which were not provided for in the Roman alphabet from which it arose, but writers aimed at representing the sounds they uttered, not at using a fixed combination of letters for each word, however they pronounced it.

The characteristics of French as distinguished from the allied languages and from Latin, and the relations of its sounds, inflections and syntax to those of the last-named language, belong to the general subject of the Romanic languages. It will be well, however, to mention here some of the features in which it agrees with the closely related ProvenÇal, and some in which it differs. As to the latter, it has already been pointed out that the two languages glide insensibly into one another, there being a belt of dialects which possess some of the features of each. French and ProvenÇal of the 10th century—the earliest date at which documents exist in both—agree to a great extent in the treatment of Latin final consonants and the vowels preceding them, a matter of great importance for inflections (numerous French examples occur in this section), (1) They reject all vowels, except a, of Latin final (unaccented) syllables, unless preceded by certain consonant combinations or followed by nt (here, as elsewhere, certain exceptions cannot be noticed); (2) they do not reject a similarly situated; (3) they reject final (unaccented) m; (4) they retain final s. French and Northern ProvenÇal also agree in changing Latin Ü from a labio-guttural to a labio-palatal vowel; the modern sound (German Ü) of the accented vowel of French lune, ProvenÇal luna, contrasting with that in Italian and Spanish luna, appears to have existed before the earliest extant documents. The final vowel laws generally apply to the unaccented vowel preceding the accented syllable, if it is preceded by another syllable, and followed by a single consonant—matin (mātūtinum), dortoir (dormītōrium), with vowel dropped; canevas (cannabāceum), armedure, later armËure, now armure (armātūram), with e = ǝ, as explained below.

On the other hand, French differs from ProvenÇal: (1) in uniformly preserving (in Early Old French) Latin final t, which is generally rejected in ProvenÇal—French aimet (Latin amat), ProvenÇal ama; aiment (amant), Prov. aman; (2) in always rejecting, absorbing or consonantizing the vowel of the last syllable but one, if unaccented; in such words as angele (often spelt angle), the e after the g only serves to show its soft sound—French veintre (now vaincre, Latin vincere), Prov. vencer, with accent on first syllable; French esclandre (scandalum), Prov. escandol; French olie (dissyllabic, i = y consonant, now huile), Prov. oli (oleum); (3) in changing accented a not in position into ai before nasals and gutturals and not after a palatal, and elsewhere into É (West French) or ei (East French), which develops an i before it when preceded by a palatal—French main (Latin manum), Prov. man; aigre (ācrem), agre; ele (ālam), East French eile, Prov. ala; meitiÉ (medietātem), East French moitieit, Prov. meitat; (4) in changing a in unaccented final syllables into the vowel ǝ, intermediate to a and e; this vowel is written a in one or two of the older documents, elsewhere e—French aime (Latin amā), Prov. ama; aimes (amās), Prov. amas; aimet (amat), Prov. ama; (5) in changing original au into Ò—French or (aurum), Prov. aur; rober (Teutonic raubōn), Prov. raubar; (6) in changing general Romanic É, from accented ē and ĭ not in position, into ei—French veine (vēnam), Prov. vena; peil (pilum), Prov. pel.

As some of the dialectal differences were in existence at the date of the earliest extant documents, and as the existing materials, till the latter half of the 11th century, are scanty and of uncertain locality, the chronological order (here adopted) of the earlier sound-changes is only tentative.

(1) Northern French has tsh (written c or ch) for Latin k (c) and t before palatal vowels, where Central and Southern French have ts (written c or z)—North Norman and Picard chire (cēram), brach (brāchium), plache (plateam); Parisian, South Norman, &c., cire, braz, place. Before the close of the Early Old French period (12th century) ts loses its initial consonant, and the same happened to tsh a century or two later; with this change the old distinction is maintained—Modern Guernsey and Picard chire, Modern Picard plache (in ordinary Modern French spelling); usual French cire, place. English, having borrowed from North and South Norman (and later Parisian), has instances of both tsh and s, the former in comparatively small number—chisel (Modern French ciseau = (?) caesellum), escutcheon (Écusson, scūtiōnem); city (citÉ, cīvitātem), place. (2) Initial Teutonic w is retained in the north-east and along the north coast; elsewhere, as in the other Romance languages, g was prefixed—Picard, &c., warde (Teutonic warda), werre (werra); Parisian, &c., guarde, guerre. In the 12th century the u or w of gu dropped, giving the Modern French garde, guerre (with gu = g); w remains in Picard and Walloon, but in North Normandy it becomes v—Modern Guernsey vÂson, Walloon wazon, Modern French gazon (Teutonic wason). English has both forms, sometimes in words originally the same—wage and gage (Modern French gage, Teutonic wadi); warden and guardian (gardien, warding). (3) Latin b after accented a in the imperfect of the first conjugation, which becomes v in Eastern French, in Western French further changes to w, and forms the diphthong ou with the preceding vowel—Norman amowe (amābam), portout (portābat); Burgundian ameve, portevet. -eve is still retained in some places, but generally the imperfect of the first conjugation is assimilated to that of the others—amoit, like avoit (habēbat). (4) The palatalization of every then existing k and g (hard) when followed by a, i or e, after having caused the development of i before the e (East French ei) derived from a not in position, is abandoned in the north, the consonants returning to ordinary k or g, while in the centre and south they are assibilated to tsh or dzh—North Norman and Picard cachier (captiāre), kier (cārum), cose (causam), eskiver (Teutonic skiuhan), wiket (Teutonic wik + ittum), gal (gallum), gardin (from Teutonic gard); South Norman and Parisian chacier, chier, chose, eschiver, guichet, jal, jardin. Probably in the 14th century the initial consonant of tsh, dzh disappeared, giving the modern French chasser, jardin with ch = sh and j = zh; but tsh is retained in Walloon, and dzh in Lorraine. The Northern forms survive—Modern Guernsey cachier, gardÌn; Picard cacher, gardin. English possesses numerous examples of both forms, sometimes in related words—catch and chase; wicket, eschew; garden, jaundice (jaunisse, from galbanum). (5) For Latin accented a not in position Western French usually has É, Eastern French ei, both of which take an i before them when a palatal precedes—Norman and Parisian per (parem), oiez (audiātis); Lorraine peir, oieis. In the 17th and 18th centuries close É changed to open È, except when final or before a silent consonant—amer (amārum) now having È, aimer (amāre) retaining É. English shows the Western close É—peer (Modern French pair, Old French per), chief (chef, caput); Middle High German the Eastern ei—lameir (Modern French l’amer, l’aimer, la mer = Latin mare). (6) Latin accented e not in position, when it came to be followed in Old French by i unites with this to form i in the Western dialects, while the Eastern have the diphthongs ei—Picard, Norman and Parisian pire (pejor), piz (pectus); Burgundian peire, peiz. The distinction is still preserved—Modern French pire, pis; Modern Burgundian peire, pei. English words show always i—price (prix, pretium) spite (dÉpit, dēspectum). (7) The nasalization of vowels followed by a nasal consonant did not take place simultaneously with all the vowels. A and e before ṇ (guttural n, as in sing), Ñ (palatal n), n and m were nasal in the 11th century, such words as tant (tantum) and gent (gentem) forming in the Alexis assonances to themselves, distinct from the assonances with a and e before non-nasal consonants. In the Roland umbre (ombre, umbram) and culchet (couche, collocat), fier (ferum) and chiens (canēs), dit (dictum) and vint (vēnit), ceinte (ciṇctam) and veie (voie, viam), brun (Teutonic brūn) and fut (fuit) assonate freely, though o (u) before nasals shows a tendency to separation. The nasalization of i and u (= Modern French u) did not take place till the 16th century; and in all cases the loss of the following nasal consonant is quite modern, the older pronunciation of tant, ombre being tÃnt, Õmbrǝ, not as now tÃ, Õbrh. The nasalization took place whether the nasal consonant was or was not followed by a vowel, femme (fēminam), honneur (honōrem) being pronounced with nasal vowels m the first syllable till after the 16th century, as indicated by the doubling of the nasal consonant in the spelling and by the phonetic change (in femme and other words) next to be mentioned. English generally has au (now often reduced to a) for Old French ×vaunt (vanter, vānitāre), tawny (tannÉ (?) Celtic). (8) The assimilation of ē (nasal e) to à (nasal a) did not begin till the middle of the 11th century, and is not yet universal, in France, though generally a century later. In the Alexis nasal a (as in tant) is never confounded with nasal e (as in gent) in the assonances, though the copyist (a century later) often writes a for nasal e in unaccented syllables, as in amfant (enfant, infantem); in the Roland there are several cases of mixture in the assonances, gent, for instance, occurring in ant stanzas, tant in ent ones. English has several words with a for e before nasals—rank (rang, Old French renc, Teutonic hriṇga), pansy (pensÉe, pēnsātam); but the majority show e—enter (entrer, intrāre), fleam (flamme, Old French fleme, phlebotomum). The distinction is still preserved in the Norman of Guernsey, where an and en, though both nasal, have different sounds—lÀnchier (lancer, laṇceāre), but mÈntrie (Old French menterie, from mentīrī). (9) The loss of s, or rather z, before voiced consonants began early, s being often omitted or wrongly inserted in 12th century MSS.—Earliest Old French masle (masculum), sisdre (sīceram); Modern French mÂle, cidre. In English it has everywhere disappeared—male, cider; except in two words, where it appears, as occasionally in Old French, as d—meddle (mÊler, misculāre), medlar (nÉflier, Old French also meslier, mespilārium). The loss of s before voiceless consonants (except f) is about two centuries later, and it is not universal even in Parisian—Early Old French feste (festam), escuier (scūtārium); Modern French fÊte, Écuyer, but espÉrer (spērāre). In the north-east s before t is still retained—Walloon chestai (chÂteau, castellum), fiess (fÊte). English shows s regularly—feast, esquire. (10) Medial dh (soft th, as in then), and final th from Latin t or d between vowels, do not begin to disappear till the latter half of the 11th century. In native French MSS. dh is generally written d, and th written t; but the German scribe of the Oaths writes adjudha (adjūtam), cadhuna (Greek katÁ and ūnam); and the English one of the Alexis cuntretha (contrātam), lothet (laudātum), and that of the Cambridge Psalter heriteth (hērēditātem). Medial dh often drops even in the last-named MSS., and soon disappears; the same is true for final th in Western French—Modern French contrÉe, louÉ. But in Eastern French final th, to which Latin t between vowels had probably been reduced through d and dh, appears in the 12th century and later as t, rhyming on ordinary French final t—Picard and Burgundian pechiet (peccātum) apeleit (appellātum). In Western French some final ths were saved by being changed to f—Modern French soif (sitim), moeuf (obsolete, modum). English has one or two instances of final th, none of medial dh—faith (foi, fidem); Middle English cariteÞ (charitÉ, caritātem), drutÐ (Old French dru, Teutonic drūd); generally the consonant is lost—country, charity. Middle High German shows the Eastern French final consonant—moraliteit (moralitÉ, mōrālitātem). (11) T from Latin final t, if in an Old French unaccented syllable, begins to disappear in the Roland, where sometimes aimet (amat), sometimes aime, is required by the metre, and soon drops in all dialects. The Modern French t of aime-t-il and similar forms is an analogical insertion from such forms as dort-il (dormit), where the t has always existed. (12) The change of the diphthong ai to Èi and afterwards to ÈÈ (the doubling indicates length) had not taken place in the earliest French documents, words with ai assonating only on words with a; in the Roland such assonances occur, but those of ai on È are more frequent—faire (facere) assonating on parastre (patraster) and on estes (estis); and the MS. (half a century later than the poem) occasionally has ei and e for ai—recleimet (reclāmat), desfere (disfacere), the latter agreeing with the Modern French sound. Before nasals (as in laine = lānam) and iÉ (as in payÉ = pācātum), ai remained a diphthong up to the 16th century, being apparently ei, whose fate in this situation it has followed. English shows ai regularly before nasals and when final, and in a few other words—vain (vain, vānum), pay (payer, pācāre), wait (guetter, Teutonic wahtēn); but before most consonants it has usually ÈÈ—peace (pais, pācum), feat (fait, factum). (13) The loss or transposition of i (= y-consonant) following the consonant ending an accented syllable begins in the 12th century—Early Old French glorie (glōriam), estudie (studium), olie (oleum); Modern French gloire, Étude, huile. English sometimes shows the earlier form—glory, study; sometimes the later—dower (douaire, Early Old French doarie, dōtārium), oil (huile). (14) The vocalization of l preceded by a vowel and followed by a consonant becomes frequent at the end of the 12th century; when preceded by open È, an a developed before the l while this was a consonant—11th century salse (salsa), beltet (bellitatem), solder (solidāre); Modern French sauce, beautÉ, souder. In Parisian, final Èl followed the fate of Èl before a consonant, becoming the triphthong Èau, but in Norman the vocalization did not take place, and the l was afterwards rejected—Modern French ruisseau, Modern Guernsey russÉ (rīvicellum). English words of French origin sometimes show l before a consonant, but the general form is u—scald (Échauder, excalidāre), Walter (Gautier, Teutonic Waldhari); sauce, beauty, soder. Final Èl is kept—veal (veau, vitellum), seal (sceau, sigillum). (15) In the east and centre Éi changes to Òi, while the older sound is retained in the north-west and west—Norman estreit (Étroit, strictum), preie (proie, praedam), 12th century Picard, Parisian, &c., estroit, proie. But the earliest (10th century) specimens of the latter group of dialects have Éi—pleier (ployer, plicāre) Eulalia, mettreiet (mettrait, mittere habēbat) Jonah. Parisian Òi, whether from ei or from Old French Òi, Ói, became in the 15th century uÈ (spellings with oue or oe are not uncommon—mirouer for miroir, mīrātōrium), and in the following, in certain words, È, now written ai—franÇais, connaÎtre, from franÇois (franceis, franciscum), conoistre (conuistre, cognōscere); where it did not undergo the latter change it is now ua or wa—roi (rei, rēgem), croix (cruis, crūcem). Before nasals and palatal l, ei (now = È) was kept—veine (vēna), veille (vigilā), and it everywhere survives unlabialized in Modern Norman—Guernsey Ételle (Étoile, stēlla) with É, ser (soir, sērum) with È. English shows generally ei (or ai) for original ei—strait (estreit), prey (preie); but in several words the later Parisian oi—coy (coi, qviētum), loyal (loyal, lēgālem). (16) The splitting of the vowel-sound from accented Latin ō or u not in position, represented in Old French by o and u indifferently, into u, o (before nasals), and eu (the latter at first a diphthong, now = German Ö), is unknown to Western French till the 12th century, and is not general in the east. The sound in 11th century Norman was much nearer to u (Modern French ou) than to Ó (Modern French Ô), as the words borrowed by English show uu (at first written u, afterwards ou or ow), never ÓÓ; but was probably not quite u, as Modern Norman shows the same splitting of the sound as Parisian. Examples are—Early Old French espose or espuse (spōnsam), nom or num (nōmen), flor or flur (flōrem); Modern French Épouse, nom, fleur; Modern Guernsey goule (gueule, gulam), nom, flleur. Modern Picard also shows u, which is the regular sound before r—flour; but Modern Burgundian often keeps the original Old French Ó—vo (vous, vōs). English shows almost always uu—spouse, noun, flower (Early Middle English spuse, nun, flur); but nephew with Éu (neveu, nepōtem). (17) The loss of the u (or w) of qu dates from the end of the 12th century—Old French quart (qvartum), quitier (qviētāre) with qu = kw, Modern French quart, quitter with qu = k. In Walloon the w is preserved—couÂr (quart), cuitter; as is the case in English—quart, quit. The w of gw seems to have been lost rather earlier, English having simple g—gage (gage, older guage, Teutonic wadi), guise (guise, Teutonic wīsa). (18) The change of the diphthong Òu to uu did not take place till after the 12th century, such words as Anjou (Andegāvum) assonating in the Roland on fort (fortem); and did not occur in Picardy, where Òu became au caus from older cÒus, cÒls (cous, collōs) coinciding with caus from calz (chauds, calidōs). English keeps Òu distinct from uu—vault for vaut (Modern French voÛte, volvitam), soder (souder, solidāre). (19) The change of the diphthong iÉ to simple É is specially Anglo-Norman, in Old French of the Continent these sounds never rhyme, in that of England they constantly do, and English words show, with rare exceptions, the simple vowel—fierce (Old French fiers, ferus), chief (chief, caput), with ie = ee; but pannier (panier, panārium). At the beginning of the modern period, Parisian dropped the i of ie when preceded by ch or j—chef, abrÉger (Old French abregier, abbreviāre); elsewhere (except in verbs) ie is retained—fier (ferum), pitiÉ (pietātem). Modern Guernsey retains ie after ch—ap’rchier (approcher, adpropeāre).(20) Some of the Modern French changes have found their places under older ones; those remaining to be noticed are so recent that English examples of the older forms are superfluous. In the 16th century the diphthong au changed to ao and then to Ó, its present sound, rendering, for instance, maux (Old French mals, malōs) identical with mots (muttōs). The au of eau underwent the same change, but its e was still sounded as ǝ (the e of que); in the next century this was dropped, making veaux (Old French vËels, vitellōs) identical with vaux (vals, vallēs). (21) A more general and very important change began much earlier than the last; this is the loss of many final consonants. In Early Old French every consonant was pronounced as written; by degrees many of them disappeared when followed by another consonant, whether in the same word (in which case they were generally omitted in writing) or in a following one. This was the state of things in the 16th century; those final consonants which are usually silent in Modern French were still sounded, if before a vowel or at the end of a sentence or a line of poetry, but generally not elsewhere. Thus a large number of French words had two forms; the Old French fort appeared as fÒr (though still written fort) before a consonant, fÒrt elsewhere. At a later period final consonants were lost (with certain exceptions) when the word stood at the end of a sentence or of a line of poetry; but they are generally kept when followed by a word beginning with a vowel. (22) A still later change is the general loss of the vowel (written e) of unaccented final syllables; this vowel preserved in the 16th century the sound ǝ, which it had in Early Old French. In later Anglo-Norman final ǝ (like every other sound) was treated exactly as the same sound in Middle English; that is, it came to be omitted or retained at pleasure, and in the 15th century disappeared. In Old French the loss of final ǝ is confined to a few words and forms; the 10th century saveiet (sapēbat for sapiēbat) became in the 11th saveit, and ore (ad hōram), ele (illam) develop the abbreviated or, el. In the 15th century ǝ before a vowel generally disappears—mÛr, Old French mËur (mātūrum); and in the 16th, though still written, ǝ after an unaccented vowel, and in the syllable ent after a vowel, does the same—vraiment, Old French vraiement (vērācā mente); avoient two syllables, as now (avaient), in Old French three syllables (as habēbant). These phenomena occur much earlier in the anglicized French of England—13th century aveynt (Old French aveient). But the universal loss of final e, which has clipped a syllable from half the French vocabulary, did not take place till the 18th century, after the general loss of final consonants; fort and forte, distinguished at the end of a sentence or line in the 16th century as fÒrt and fÒrtǝ, remain distinguished, but as fÒr and fÒrt. The metre of poetry is still constructed on the obsolete pronunciation, which is even revived in singing; “dÎtes, la jeune belle,” actually four syllables (dit, la zhoen bÈl), is considered as seven, fitted with music accordingly, and sung to fit the music (ditǝ, la zhoena bÈlǝ). (23) In Old French, as in the other Romanic languages, the stress (force, accent) is on the syllable which was accented in Latin; compare the treatment of the accented and unaccented vowels in latrō amās, giving lÉre, Áime, and in latrōnem, amātis, giving larÓn, amÉz, the accented vowels being those which rhyme or assonate. At present, stress in French is much less marked than in English, German or Italian, and is to a certain extent variable; which is partly the reason why most native French scholars find no difficulty in maintaining that the stress in living Modern French is on the same syllable as in Old French. The fact that stress in the French of to-day is independent of length (quantity) and pitch (tone) largely aids the confusion; for though the final and originally accented syllable (not counting the silent e as a syllable) is now generally pronounced with less force, it very often has a long vowel with raised pitch. In actual pronunciation the chief stress is usually on the first syllable (counting according to the sounds, not the spelling), but in many polysyllables it is on the last but one; thus in caution the accented (strong) syllable cau, in occasion it is ca. Poetry is still written according to the original place of the stress; the rhyme-syllables of larron, aimez are still ron and mez, which when set to music receive an accented (strong) note, and are sung accordingly, though in speech the la and ai generally have the principal stress. In reading poetry, as distinguished from singing, the modern pronunciation is used, both as to the loss of the final ǝ and the displacement of the stress, the result being that the theoretical metre in which the poetry is written disappears. (24) In certain cases accented vowels were lengthened in Old French, as before a lost s; this was indicated in the 16th century by a circumflex—bÊte, Old French beste (bestiam), Âme, Old French anme (anima). The same occurred in the plural of many nouns, where a consonant was lost before the s of the flection; thus singular coc with short vowel, plural cos with long. The plural cos, though spelt cogs instead of cÔ (= kÓÓ), is still sometimes to be heard, but, like other similar ones, is generally refashioned after the singular, becoming kÒk. In present French, except where a difference of quality has resulted, as in cÔte (Old French coste, costam) with Ò and cotte (Old French cote), with Ò, short and long vowels generally run together, quantity being now variable and uncertain; but at the beginning of this century the Early Modern distinctions appear to have been generally preserved.

(d) Orthography.—The history of French spelling is based on that of French sounds; as already stated, the former (apart from a few Latinisms in the earliest documents) for several centuries faithfully followed the latter. When the popular Latin of Gaul was first written, its sounds were represented by the letters of the Roman alphabet; but these were employed, not in the values they had in the time of Caesar, but in those they had acquired in consequence of the phonetic changes that had meantime taken place. Thus, as the Latin sound u had become Ó (close o) and ū had become y (French u, German Ü), the letter u was used sometimes to denote the sound Ó, sometimes the sound y; as Latin k (written c) had become tsh or ts, according to dialect, before e and i, c was used to represent those sounds as well as that of k. The chief features of early French orthography (apart from the specialities of individual MSS., especially the earliest) are therefore these:—c stood for k and tsh or ts; d for d and dh (soft th); e for É, È, and ǝ; g for g and dzh; h was often written in words of Latin origin where not sounded; i (j) stood for i, y consonant, and dzh; o for Ó (Anglo-Norman u) and Ò; s for s and z; t for t and th; u (v) for Ó (Anglo-Norman u), y and v; y (rare) for i; z for dz and ts. Some new sounds had also to be provided for: where tsh had to be distinguished from non-final ts, ch—at first, as in Italian, denoting k before i and e (chi = ki from qvī)—was used for it; palatal l was represented by ill, which when final usually lost one l, and after i dropped its i; palatal n by gn, ng or ngn, to which i was often prefixed; and the new letter w, originally uu (vv), and sometimes representing merely uv or vu, was employed for the consonant-sound still denoted by it in English. All combinations of vowel-letters represented diphthongs; thus ai denoted a followed by i, ou either Óu or Òu, ui either Ói (Anglo-Norman ui) or yi, and similarly with the others—ei, eu, oi, iu, ie, ue (and oe), and the triphthong ieu. Silent letters, except initial h in Latin words, are very rare; though MSS. copied from older ones often retain letters whose sounds, though existing in the language of the author, had disappeared from that of the more modern scribe. The subsequent changes in orthography are due mainly to changes of sound, and find their explanation in the phonology. Thus, as Old French progresses, s, having become silent before voiced consonants, indicates only the length of the preceding vowel; e before nasals, from the change of ē (nasal e) to à (nasal a), represents Ã; c, from the change of ts to s, represents s; qu and gu, from the loss of the w of kw and gw, represent k and g (hard); ai, from the change of ai to È, represents È; ou, from the change of Òu and Óu to u, represents u; ch and g, from the change of tsh and dzh to sh and zh, represent sh and zh; eu and ue, originally representing diphthongs, represent oe (German Ö); z, from the change of ts and dz to s and z, represents s and z. The new values of some of these letters were applied to words not originally spelt with them: Old French k before i and e was replaced by qu (evesque, eveske, Latin episcopum); Old French u and o for Ó, after this sound had split into eu and u, were replaced in the latter case by ou (rous, for ros or rus, Latin russum); s was accidentally inserted to mark a long vowel (pasle, pale, Latin pallidum); eu replaced ue and oe (neuf, nuef, Latin novum and novem); z replaced s after É (nez, nes, nāsum). The use of x for final s is due to an orthographical mistake; the MS. contraction of us being something like x was at last confused with it (iex for ieus, oculōs), and, its meaning being forgotten, u was inserted before the x (yeux) which thus meant no more than s, and was used for it after other vowels (voix for vois, vōcem). As literature came to be extensively cultivated, traditional as distinct from phonetic spelling began to be influential; and in the 14th century, the close of the Old French period, this influence, though not overpowering, was strong—stronger than in England at that time. About the same period there arose etymological as distinct from traditional spelling. This practice, the alteration of traditional spelling by the insertion or substitution of letters which occurred (or were supposed to occur) in the Latin (or supposed Latin) originals of the French words, became very prevalent in the three following centuries, when such forms as debvoir (dēbēre) for devoir, faulx (falsum) for faus, autheur (auctōrem, supposed to be authōrem) for auteur, poids (supposed to be from pondus, really from pēnsum) for pois, were the rule. But besides the etymological, there was a phonetic school of spelling (Ramus, in 1562, for instance, writes Èime, Èimates—with e = É, È = È, and ę = ǝ—for aimai, aimastes), which, though unsuccessful on the whole, had some effect in correcting the excesses of the other, so that in the 17th century most of these inserted letters began to drop; of those which remain, some (flegme for flemme or fleume, Latin phlegma) have corrupted the pronunciation. Some important reforms—as the dropping of silent s, and its replacement by a circumflex over the vowel when this was long; the frequent distinction of close and open e by acute and grave accents; the restriction of i and u to the vowel sound, of j and v to the consonant; and the introduction from Spain of the cedilla to distinguish c = s from c = k before a, u and o—are due to the 16th century. The replacement of oi, where it had assumed the value È, by ai, did not begin till the last century, and was not the rule till the present one. Indeed, since the 16th century the changes in French spelling have been small, compared with the changes of the sounds; final consonants and final e (unaccented) are still written, though the sounds they represent have disappeared.

Still, a marked effort towards the simplification of French orthography was made in the third edition of the Dictionary of the French Academy (1740), practically the work of the AbbÉ d’Olivet. While in the first (1694) and second (1718) editions of this dictionary words were overburdened with silent letters, supposed to represent better the etymology, in the third edition the spelling of about 5000 words (out of about 18,000) was altered and made more in conformity with the pronunciation. So, for instance, c was dropped in beinfaicteur and object, Ç in sÇavoir, d in advocat, s in accroistre, albastre, aspre and bastard, e in the past part. creu, deu, veu, and in such words as alleure, souilleure; y was replaced by i in cecy, celuy, gay, joye, &c. But those changes were not made systematically, and many pedantic spellings were left untouched, while many inconsistencies still remain in the present orthography (siffler and persifler, souffler and boursoufler, &c). The consequence of those efforts in contrary directions is that French orthography is now quite as traditional and unphonetic as English, and gives an even falser notion than this of the actual state of the language it is supposed to represent. Many of the features of Old French orthography, early and late, are preserved in English orthography; to it we owe the use of c for s (Old English c = k only), of j (i) for dzh, of v (u) for v (in Old English written f), and probably of ch for tsh. The English w is purely French, the Old English letter being the runic Þ. When French was introduced into England, kw had not lost its w, and the French qu, with that value, replaced the Old English cÞ (queen for cÞen). In Norman, Old French Ó had become very like u, and in England went entirely into it; o, which was one of its French signs, thus came to be often used for u in English (come for cume). U, having often in Old French its Modern French value, was so used in England, and replaced the Old English y (busy for bysi, Middle English brud for brŷd), and y was often used for i (day for dai). In the 13th century, when ou had come to represent u in France, it was borrowed by English, and used for the long sound of that vowel (sour for sūr); and gu, which had come to mean simply g (hard), was occasionally used to represent the sound g before i and e (guess for gesse). Some of the Early Modern etymological spellings were imitated in England; fleam and autour were replaced by phlegm and authour, the latter spelling having corrupted the pronunciation.

(e) Inflections.—In the earliest Old French extant, the influence of analogy, especially in verbal forms, is very marked when these are compared with Latin (thus the present participles of all conjugations take ant, the ending of the first, Latin antem), and becomes stronger as the language progresses. Such isolated inflectional changes as saveit into savoit, which are cases of regular phonetic changes, are not noticed here.

(i.) Verbs.—(1) In the oldest French texts the Latin pluperfect (with the sense of the perfect) occasionally occurs—avret (habuerat), roveret (rogāverat); it disappears before the 12th century. (2) The u of the ending of the 1st pers. plur. mus drops in Old French, except in the perfect, where its presence (as ǝ) is not yet satisfactorily explained—amoms (amāmus, influenced by sūmus), but amames (amāvimus). In Picard the atonic ending mes is extended to all tenses, giving amomes, &c. (3) In the present indicative, 2nd person plur., the ending ez of the first conjugation (Latin atis) extends, even in the earliest documents, to all verbs—avez, recevez, oez (habetis, recipĭtis, auditis) like amez (amatis); such forms as dites, faites (dicĭtis, facĭtis) being exceptional archaisms. This levelling of the conjugation does not appear at such an early time in the future (formed from the infinitive and from habētis reduced to ētis); in the Roland both forms occur, portereiz (portare habētis) assonating on rei (roi, rēgem), and the younger porterez on citet (citÉ, cīvitātem), but about the end of the 13th century the older form -eiz, -oiz, is dropped, and -ez becomes gradually the uniform ending for this 2nd person of the plural in the future tense. (4) In Eastern French the 1st plur., when preceded by i, has e, not o, before the nasal, while Western French has u (or o), as in the present; posciomes (posseāmus) in the Jonah homily makes it probable that the latter is the older form—Picard aviemes, Burgundian aviens, Norman aviums (habēbāmus). (5) The subjunctive of the first conjugation has at first in the singular no final e, in accordance with the final vowel laws—plur, plurs, plurt (plōrem, plōrēs, plōret). The forms are gradually assimilated to those of the other conjugations, which, deriving from Latin am, as, at, have e, es, e(t); Modern French pleure, pleures, pleure, like perde, perdes, perde (perdam, perdās, perdat). (6) In Old French the present subjunctive and the 1st sing. pres. ind. generally show the influence of the i or e of the Latin iam, eam, iō, eō—Old French muire or moerge (moriat for moriātur), tiegne or tienge (teneat), muir or moerc (moriō for morior), tieng or tienc (teneō). By degrees these forms are levelled under the other present forms—Modern French meure and meurs following meurt (morit for morītur), tienne and tiens following tient (tenet). A few of the older forms remain—the vowel of aie (habeam) and ai (habeō) contrasting with that of a (habet). (7) A levelling of which instances occur in the 11th century, but which is not yet complete, is that of the accented and unaccented stem-syllables of verbs. In Old French many verb-stems with shifting accent vary in accordance with phonetic laws—parler (parabolāre), amer (amāre) have in the present indicative parol (parabolō), paroles (parabolās), parolet (parabolat), parlums (parabolāmus), parlez (parabolātis), parolent (parabolant); aim (amō), aimes (amās), aimet (amat), amums (amāmus), amez (amātis), aiment (amant). In the first case the unaccented, in the second the accented form has prevailed—Modern French parle, parler; aime, aimer. In several verbs, as tenir (tenēre), the distinction is retained—tiens, tiens, tient, tenons, tenez, tiennent. (8) In Old French, as stated above, iÉ instead of É from a occurs after a palatal (which, if a consonant, often split into i with a dental); the diphthong thus appears in several forms of many verbs of the 1st conjugation—preier (= prei-ier, precāre), vengier (vindicāre), laissier (laxāre), aidier (adjūtāre). At the close of the Old French period, those verbs in which the stem ends in a dental replace ie by the e of other verbs—Old French laissier, aidier, laissiez (laxātis), aidiez (adjūtātis); Modern French laisser, aider, laissez, aidez, by analogy of aimer, aimez. The older forms generally remain in Picard—laissier, aidier. (9) The addition of e to the 1st sing. pres. ind. of all verbs of the first conjugation is rare before the 13th century, but is usual in the 15th; it is probably due to the analogy of the third person—Old French chant (cantō), aim (amō); Modern French chante, aime. (10) In the 13th century s is occasionally added to the 1st pers. sing., except those ending in e (= ǝ) and ai, and to the 2nd sing. of imperatives; at the close of the 16th century this becomes the rule, and extends to imperfects and conditionals in oie after the loss of their e. It appears to be due to the influence of the 2nd pers. sing.—Old French vend (vendō and vende), vendoie (vendēbam), parti (partīvī), ting (tenuī); Modern French vends, vendais, partis, tins; and donne (dōnā) in certain cases becomes donnes. (11) The 1st and 2nd plur. of the pres. subj., which in Old French were generally similar to those of the indicative, gradually take an i before them, which is the rule after the 16th century—Old French perdons (perdāmus), perdez (perdātis); Modern French perdions, perdiez, apparently by analogy of the imp. ind. (12) The loss in Late Old French of final s, t, &c., when preceding another consonant, caused many words to have in reality (though often concealed by orthography) double forms of inflection—one without termination, the other with. Thus in the 16th century the 2nd sing. pres. ind. dors (dormīs) and the 3rd dort (dormit) were distinguished as dÒrz and dÒrt when before a vowel, as dÒrs and dÒrt at the end of a sentence or line of poetry, but ran together as dÒr when followed by a consonant. Still later, the loss of the final consonant when not followed by a vowel further reduced the cases in which the forms were distinguished, so that the actual French conjugation is considerably simpler than is shown by the customary spellings, except when, in consequence of an immediately following vowel, the old terminations occasionally appear. Even here the antiquity is to a considerable extent artificial or delusive, some of the insertions being due to analogy, and the popular language often omitting the traditional consonant or inserting a different one. (13) The subsequent general loss of e = ǝ in unaccented final syllables has still further reduced the inflections, but not the distinctive forms—perd (perdit) and perde (perdat) being generally distinguished as pÈr and pÈrd, and before a vowel as pÈrt and pÈrd.

(ii.) Substantives.—(1) In Early Old French (as in ProvenÇal) there are two main declensions, the masculine and the feminine; with a few exceptions the former distinguishes nominative and accusative in both numbers, the latter in neither. The nom. and acc. sing, and acc. plur. mas. correspond to those of the Latin 2nd or 3rd declension, the nom. plur. to that of the 2nd declension. The sing, fem. corresponds to the nom. and acc. of the Latin 1st declension, or to the acc. of the 3rd; the plur. fem. to the acc. of the 1st declension, or to the nom. and acc. of the 3rd. Thus masc. tors (taurus), lere (latrō); tor (taurum), laron (latrōnem); tor (taurī), laron (latrōnī for -nēs); tors (taurōs), larons (latrōnēs); but fem. only ele (āla and ālam), flor (flōrem); eles (ālās), flors (flōrēs nom. and acc.). About the end of the 11th century feminines not ending in e = ǝ take, by analogy of the masculines, s in the nom. sing., thus distinguishing nom. flors from acc. flor. A century later, masculines without s in the nom. sing. take this consonant by analogy of the other masculines, giving leres as nom. similar to tors. In Anglo-Norman the accusative forms very early begin to replace the nominative, and soon supersede them, the language following the tendency of contemporaneous English. In continental French the declension-system was preserved much longer, and did not break up till the 14th century, though acc. forms are occasionally substituted for nom. (rarely nom. for acc.) before that date. It must be noticed, however, that in the current language the reduction of the declension to one case (generally the accusative) per number appears much earlier than in the language of literature proper and poetry; Froissart, for instance, c. 1400, in his poetical works is much more careful of the declension than in his Chronicles. In the 15th century the modern system of one case is fully established; the form kept is almost always the accusative (sing. without s, plural with s), but in a few words, such as fils (fīlius), soeur (soror), pastre (pastor), and in proper names such as Georges, Gilles, &c., often used as vocative (therefore with the form of nom.); the nom. survives in the sing. Occasionally both forms exist, in different senses—sire (senior) and seigneur (seniōrem), on (homō) and homme (hominem). (2) Latin neuters are generally masculine in Old French, and inflected according to their analogy, as ciels (caelus for caelum nom.), ciel (caelum acc.), ciel (caelī for caela nom.), ciels (caelōs for caela acc.); but in some cases the form of the Latin neuter is preserved, as in cors, now corps, Lat. corpus; tens, now temps, Lat. tempus. Many neuters lose their singular form and treat the plural as a feminine singular, as in the related languages—merveille (mīrābilia), feuille (folia). But in a few words the neuter plural termination is used, as in Italian, in its primitive sense—carre (carra, which exists as well as carrī), paire (Lat. paria); Modern French chars, paires. (3) In Old French the inflectional s often causes phonetic changes in the stem; thus palatal l before s takes t after it, and becomes dental l, which afterwards changes to u or drops—fil (fīlium and fīlii) with palatal l, filz (fīlius and fīliōs), afterwards fiz, with z = ts (preserved in English Fitz), and then fis, as now (spelt fils). Many consonants before s, as the t of fiz, disappear, and l is vocalized—vif (vīvum), mal (malum), nominative sing. and acc. plur. vis, maus (earlier mals). These forms of the plural are retained in the 16th century, though often etymologically spelt with the consonant of the singular, as in vifs, pronounced vis; but in Late Modern French many of them disappear, vifs, with f sounded as in the singular, being the plural of vif, bals (formerly baux) that of bal. In many words, as chant (cantūs) and champs (campōs) with silent t and p (Old French chans in both cases), maux (Old French mals, sing. mal), yeux (oculōs, Old French oelz, sing. oeil) the old change in the stem is kept. Sometimes, as in cieux (caelōs) and ciels, the old traditional and the modern analogical forms coexist, with different meanings. (4) The modern loss of final s (except when kept as z before a vowel) has seriously modified the French declension, the singulars fort (fÒr) and forte (fÒrt) being generally undistinguishable from their plurals forts and fortes. The subsequent loss of ǝ in finals has not affected the relation between sing. and plur. forms; but with the frequent recoining of the plural forms on the singular present Modern French has very often no distinction between sing. and plur., except before a vowel. Such plurals as maux have always been distinct from their singular mal; in those whose singular ends in s there never was any distinction, Old French laz (now spelt lacs) corresponding to laqveus, laqveum, laqveī and laqveōs.

(iii.) Adjectives.—(1) The terminations of the cases and numbers of adjectives are the same as those of substantives, and are treated in the preceding paragraph. The feminine generally takes no e if the masc. has none, and if there is no distinction in Latin—fem. sing. fort (fortem), grant (grandem), fem. plur. forz (fortēs), granz (grandēs), like the acc. masc. Certain adjectives of this class, and among them all the adjectives formed with the Latin suffix -ensis, take regularly, even in the oldest French, the feminine ending e, in ProvenÇal a (courtois, fem. courtoise; commun, fem. commune). To these must not be added dous (Mod. Fr. dolz, dous), fem. douce, which probably comes from a Low Latin dulcius, dulcia. In the 11th century some other feminines, originally without e, begin in Norman to take this termination—grande (in a feminine assonance in the Alexis), plur. grandes; but other dialects generally preserve the original form till the 14th century. In the 16th century the e is general in the feminine, and is now universal, except in a few expressions—grand’mÈre (with erroneous apostrophe, grandem, mātrem), lettres royaux (literās rēgālēs), and most adverbs from adjectives in -ant, -ent—couramment (currante for -ente mente), sciemment (sciente mente). (2) Several adjectives have in Modern French replaced the masc. by the feminine—Old French masc. roit (rigidum), fem. roide (rigidam); Modern French roide for both genders. (3) In Old French several Latin simple comparatives are preserved—maiur (majōrem), nom. maire (major); graignur (grandiōrem), nom. graindre (grandior); only a few of these now survive—pire (pejor), meilleur (meliōrem), with their adverbial neuters pis (pejus), mieux (melius). The few simple superlatives found in Old French, as merme (minimum), pesme (pessimus), proisme (proximum), haltisme (altissimum), this last one being clearly a literary word, are now extinct, and, when they existed, had hardly the meaning of a superlative. (4) The modern loss of many final consonants when not before vowels, and the subsequent loss of final ǝ, have greatly affected the distinction between the masc. and fem. of adjectives—fort and forte are still distinguished as fÒr and fÒrt, but amer (amārum) and amÈre (amāram), with their plurals amers and amÈres, have run together.

(f) Derivation.—Most of the Old French prefixes and suffixes are descendants of Latin ones, but a few are Teutonic (ard = hard), and some are later borrowings from Latin (arie, afterwards aire, from ārium). In Modern French many old affixes are hardly used for forming new words; the inherited ier (ārium) is yielding to the borrowed aire, the popular contre (contrā) to the learned anti (Greek), and the native Ée (ātam) to the Italian ade. The suffixes of many words have been assimilated to more common ones; thus sengler (singulārem) is now sanglier.

(g) Syntax.—Old French syntax, gradually changing from the 10th to the 14th century, has a character of its own, distinct from that of Modern French; though when compared with Latin syntax it appears decidedly modern.

(1) The general formal distinction between nominative and accusative is the chief feature which causes French syntax to resemble that of Latin and differ from that of the modern language; and as the distinction had to be replaced by a comparatively fixed word-order, a serious loss of freedom ensued. If the forms are modernized while the word-order is kept, the Old French l’archevesque ne puet flechir li reis Henris (Latin archiepiscopum nōn potest flectere rex Henricus) assumes a totally different meaning—l’archevÊque ne peut flÉchir le roi Henri. (2) The replacement of the nominative form of nouns by the accusative is itself a syntactical feature, though treated above under inflection. A more modern instance is exhibited by the personal pronouns, which, when not immediately the subject of a verb, occasionally take even in Old French, and regularly in the 16th century, the accusative form; the Old French je qui sui (ego qvī sum) becomes moi qui suis, though the older usage survives in the legal phrase je soussignÉ.... (3) The definite article is now required in many cases where Old French dispenses with it—jo cunquis Engleterre, suffrir mort (as Modern French avoir faim); Modern French l’Angleterre, la mort. (4) Old French had distinct pronouns for “this” and “that”—cest (ecce istum) and cel (ecce illium), with their cases. Both exist in the 16th century, but the present language employs cet as adjective, cel as substantive, in both meanings, marking the old distinction by affixing the adverbs ci and lÀ—cet homme-ci, cet homme-lÀ; celui-ci, celui-lÀ. (5) In Old French, the verbal terminations being clear, the subject pronoun is usually not expressed—si ferai (sīc facere habeō), est durs (dūrus est), que feras (quid facere habēs)? In the 16th century the use of the pronoun is general, and is now universal, except in one or two impersonal phrases, as n’importe, peu s’en faut. (6) The present participle in Old French in its uninflected form coincided with the gerund (amant = amantem and amandō), and in the modern language has been replaced by the latter, except where it has become adjectival; the Old French complaingnans leur dolours (Latin plaṇgentēs) is now plaignant leurs douleurs (Latin plaṇgendō). The now extinct use of estre with the participle present for the simple verb is not uncommon in Old French down to the 16th century—sont disanz (sunt dīcentēs) = Modern French ils disent (as English they are saying). (7) In present Modern French the preterite participle when used with avoir to form verb-tenses is invariable, except when the object precedes (an exception now vanishing in the conversational language)—j’ai Écrit les lettres, les lettres que j’ai Écrites. In Old French down to the 16th century, formal concord was more common (though by no means necessary), partly because the object preceded the participle much oftener than now—ad la culur muÉe (habet colōrem mūtātam), ad faite sa venjance, les turs ad rendues. (8) The sentences just quoted will serve as specimens of the freedom of Old French word-order—the object standing either before verb and participle, between them, or after both. The predicative adjective can stand before or after the verb—halt sunt li pui (Latin podia), e tenebrus e grant. (9) In Old French ne (Early Old French nen, Latin nōn) suffices for the negation without pas (passum), point (puṇctum) or mie (mīcam, now obsolete), though these are frequently used—jo ne sui lis sire (je ne suis pas ton seigneur), autre feme nen ara (il n’aura pas autre femme). In principal sentences Modern French uses ne by itself only in certain cases—je ne puis marcher, je n’ai rien. The slight weight as a negation usually attached to ne has caused several originally positive words to take a negative meaning—rien (Latin rem) now meaning “nothing” as well as “something.” (10) In Old French interrogation was expressed with substantives as with pronouns by putting them after the verb—est Saul entre les prophÈtes? In Modern French the pronominal inversion (the substantive being prefixed) or a verbal periphrasis must be used—Saul est-il? or est-ce que Saul est?

(h) Summary.—Looking at the internal history of the French language as a whole, there is no such strongly marked division as exists between Old and Middle English, or even between Middle and Modern English. Some of the most important changes are quite modern, and are concealed by the traditional orthography; but, even making allowance for this, the difference between French of the 11th century and that of the 20th is less than that between English of the same dates. The most important change in itself and for its effects is probably that which is usually made the division between Old and Modern French, the loss of the formal distinction between nominative and accusative; next to this are perhaps the gradual loss of many final consonants, the still recent loss of the vowel of unaccented final syllables, and the extension of analogy in conjugation and declension. In its construction Old French is distinguished by a freedom strongly contrasting with the strictness of the modern language, and bears, as might be expected, a much stronger resemblance than the latter to the other Romanic dialects. In many features, indeed, both positive and negative, Modern French forms a class by itself, distinct in character from the other modern representatives of Latin.

IV. Bibliography.—The few works which treat of French philology as a whole are now in many respects antiquated, and the important discoveries of recent years, which have revolutionized our ideas of Old French phonology and dialectology, are scattered in various editions, periodicals, and separate treatises. For many things Diez’s Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen (4th edition—a reprint of the 3rd—Bonn, 1876-1877; French translation, Paris, 1872-1875) is still very valuable; Burguy’s Grammaire de la Langue d’OÏl (2nd edition—a reprint of the 1st—Berlin, 1869-1870) is useful only as a collection of examples. Schwan’s Grammatik des AltfranzÖsischen, as revised by Behrens in the 3rd edition (Leipzig, 1898; French translation, Leipzig and Paris, 1900), is by far the best old French grammar we possess. For the history of French language in general see F. Brunot, Histoire de la langue franÇaise des origines À 1900 (Paris, 1905, 1906, &c.). For the history of spelling, A. F. Didot, Observations sur l’orthographe ou ortografie franÇaise suivies d’une histoire de la rÉforme orthographique depuis le XVe siÈcle jusqu’À nos jours (2nd ed., Paris, 1868). For the history of French sounds: Ch. Thurot, De la prononciation franÇaise depuis le commencement du XVIe siÈcle, d’aprÈs les tÉmoignages des grammairiens (2 vols., Paris, 1881-1883). For the history of syntax, apart from various grammatical works of a general character, much is to be gathered from Ad. Tobler’s Vermischte BeitrÄge zur franzÖsischen Grammatik (3 parts, 1886, 1894, 1899, parts i. and ii. in second editions, 1902, 1906). G. Paris’s edition of La Vie de S. Alexis (Paris, 1872) was the pioneer of, and retains an important place among, the recent original works on Old French. Darmesteter and Hatzfeld’s Le SeiziÈme SiÈcle (Paris, 1878) contains the first good account of Early Modern French. LittrÉ’s Dictionnaire de la langue franÇaise (4 vols., Paris, 1863-1869, and a Supplement, 1877); and Hatzfeld, Darmesteter and Thomas, Dict. gÉnÉral de la langue franÇaise, more condensed (2 vols., Paris, 1888-1900), contain much useful and often original information about the etymology and history of French words. For the etymology of many French (and also ProvenÇal) words, reference must be made to Ant. Thomas’s Essais de philologie franÇaise (Paris, 1897) and Nouveaux essais de philologie franÇaise (Paris, 1904). But there is no French dictionary properly historical. A Dictionnaire historique de la langue franÇaise was begun by the AcadÉmie franÇaise (4 vols., 1859-1894), but it was, from the first, antiquated. It contains only one letter (A) and has not been continued. The leading periodicals now in existence are the Romania (Paris), founded (in 1872) and edited by P. Meyer and G. Paris (with Ant. Thomas since the death of G. Paris in 1903), and the Zeitschrift fÜr romanische Philologie (Halle), founded (in 1877) and edited by G. GrÖber. To these reference should be made for information as to the very numerous articles, treatises and editions by the many and often distinguished scholars who, especially in France and Germany, now prosecute the scientific study of the language. It may be well to mention that, Old French phonology especially being complicated, and as yet incompletely investigated, these publications, the views in which are of various degrees of value, require not mere acquiescent reading, but critical study. The dialects of France in their present state (patois) are now being scientifically investigated. The special works on the subject (dictionaries, grammars, &c.) cannot be fully indicated here; we must limit ourselves to the mention of Behren’s Bibliographie des patois gallo-romans (2nd ed., revised Berlin, 1893), and of GilliÉron and Edmont’s Atlas linguistique de la France (1902 et seq.), a huge publication planned to contain about 1800 maps.

(H. N.; P. M.)




<
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Clyx.com


Top of Page
Top of Page