Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net









Transcriber's notes:

(1) Numbers following letters (without space) like C2 were originally
      printed in subscript. Letter subscripts are preceded by an
      underscore, like C_n.

(2) Characters following a carat (^) were printed in superscript.

(3) Side-notes were relocated to function as titles of their respective
      paragraphs.

(4) Macrons and breves above letters and dots below letters were not
      inserted.

(5) [root] stands for the root symbol; [alpha], [beta], etc. for greek
      letters.

(6) The following typographical errors have been corrected:

    AUTHOR LIST: "W. L. F. Walter Lynwood Fleming, M.A., Ph.D." 'M.A.'
      amended from 'A.M.'.

    ARTICLE FRANCS-TIREURS: "... and prevented him from gaining
      information, and that their soldierly qualities improved with
      experience." 'improved' amended from 'inproved'.

    ARTICLE FRANKLIN, SIR JOHN: "... (which, as Franklin discovered,
      was erroneously placed four degrees of latitude too much to the
      north) ..." 'degrees' amended from 'degress'.

    ARTICLE FRANKLIN, SIR JOHN: "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." 'instructions' amended from
      'intructions'.

    ARTICLE FRAUENBURG: "Frauenburg was founded in 1287 and received
      the rights of a town in 1310." 'Frauenburg' amended from
      'Frauenberg'.

    ARTICLE FREEMAN, EDWARD AUGUSTUS: "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." 'detestation'
      amended from 'destestation'.

    ARTICLE FREEMASONRY: "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 ..."
      'brethern' amended from 'brethen'.

    ARTICLE FRENCH LANGUAGE: "... perd (perdit) and perde (perdat)
      being generally distinguished as pèr and pèrd, and before a vowel
      as pèrt and pèrd." 'distinguished' amended from 'ditinguished'.

    ARTICLE FRENCH LANGUAGE: "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." 'distinguishes'
      amended from 'ditinguishes'.




  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, 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 (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 (of Brandenburg)
  FRANKINCENSE                      FRÉDÉRICK-LEMAÎTRE, ANTOINE 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)   FRENCH GUINEA
  FREDERICK III. (king of Denmark)  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.

    Ghazali.

  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 XI^e
      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 XIII^e 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.




PRINCIPAL UNSIGNED ARTICLES

  Franz Josef Land.       Galicia.                Geraniaceae.
  Free Church Federation. Galway.                 Geranium.
  French Guinea.          Gambia.                 German Baptist Brethren.
  French West Africa.     Gawain.                 German Catholics.
  Friedland.              Gelatin.                Gettysburg.
  Frisian Islands.        Genius.                 Geyser.
  Frisians.               Gentian.                Ghazni.
  Fronde, The.            Gentianaceae.           Ghent.
  Fuero.                  George, Saint.          Ghor.
  Furnace.                George Junior Republic. Giant.
  Galapagos Islands.      Georgia (U.S.A.).


FOOTNOTE:

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




  ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

  ELEVENTH EDITION

  VOLUME XI




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.


  Strategic deployment of the German armies.

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 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:           /   (I. corps, v. Manteuffel)
    General v. Steinmetz    <   VII.   "    v. Zastrow
    (C. of S., v. Sperling)  | VIII.   "    v. Goeben
                             \ (1st) and 3rd cavalry divisions

                                                     Total       85,000

                             /  Guard Pr. August of Württemberg
                             |  (II. corps, v. Fransecky)
                             |  III.   "    v. Alvensleben II.
          II. Army:          |   IV.   "    v. Alvensleben I.
  Prince Frederick Charles  <    IX.   "    v. Manstein
   (C. of S., v. Stiehle)    |    X.   "    v. Voigts-Rhetz
                             |  XII.   "    (Saxons) crown prince
                             |               of Saxony
                             \  5th and 6th cavalry divisions

                                                     Total      210,000

                             /    V. corps, v. Kirchbach
                             |  (VI.)  "    v. Tümpling
                             |   XI.   "    v. Bose
          III. Army:         |    I. Bavarian, v. der Tann
   crown prince of Prussia  <    II.    "      v. Hartmann
  (C. of S., v. Blumenthal)  |  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.)


  Positions of the French forces.

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 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


  Action of Saarbrücken.

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 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.


  Moltke, Prince Frederick Charles and Steinmetz.

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 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.


  Battle of Spicheren.

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 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.


  Action of Weissenburg.

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 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.


  Battle of Wörth.

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 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.


  Movements on the Saar.

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 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.


  Advance to the Moselle.

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 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.


  Battle of Colombey-Borny.

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). 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.


  Battle of Vionville-Mars-la-Tour.

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 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).


  The 17th of August.

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 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. corps[3] 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.


  Battle of Gravelotte-Saint Privat.

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 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.


  Bazaine in Metz.

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 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.


  Campaign of Sedan.

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 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.)


  Later operations.

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, 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 "Défense Nationale."

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 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.


  The Orleans campaign.

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 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.


  Le Mans.

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 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.


  Faidherbe's campaign.

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
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.


  The campaign in the East.

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 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.)


FOOTNOTES:

  [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 OLIBANUM[2] (Gr. [Greek: libanôtos], later [Greek:
thyos]; Lat., _tus_ or _thus_; Heb., _lebonah_;[3] Ar., _luban_;[4]
Turk., _ghyunluk_; Hind., _ganda-birosa_[5]), 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
Dhofar,[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 lb., 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 mass[12] (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.)


FOOTNOTES:

  [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 [Greek: o libanos]"
    (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 Dhafar. 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 Luban,
    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 Braddock[2]
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 money[8] 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's[12] "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 scientist[13] 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.)


FOOTNOTES:

  [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.)


FOOTNOTES:

  [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
  Himala 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.*)


FOOTNOTE:

  [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
Podebrad, 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, G_eschichte 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 I^er_ (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 Gloucester[1] 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).


FOOTNOTE:

  [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, 396[10] 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.     (J. S. Bl.)

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.*)


FOOTNOTES:

  [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).


FOOTNOTE:

  [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.


FOOTNOTE:

  [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 _un_free," 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 _free_masons. As to the prefix
being derived from the word _frere_, a sufficient answer is the fact
that frequent reference is made to "Brother _free_masons," 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
Kelso[7] 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 invaluable[9] _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 Ireland[11] 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
America[12] lodges were held before what is known as the first "regular"
lodge was formed at Boston, Mass., in 1733, and probably in Canada[13]
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 authorities[16] or the Roman Catholic church. The "Grand Orient of
France" (but not the Supreme Council 33^o, 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 [cross] 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.*).


FOOTNOTES:

  [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.)


FOOTNOTE:

  [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.

[Illustration: 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.

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.

[Illustration: 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.]

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.)


FOOTNOTES:

  [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 reforms[3]
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 uniform[20] 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.)


FOOTNOTES:

  [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 _Oeuvres_, 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.

[Illustration: Map-Battle of Freiburg.]

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
[Greek: diaphora], "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.

  [Illustration: Map of French Congo.]

  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.


  De Brazza's treaties.

_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 Compiègne[2] 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), 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 advance towards the Nile: Fashoda.

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 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.)


FOOTNOTES:

  [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).


FOOTNOTE:

  [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 =
_virginitatem_; _imagena_ Alexis = _imaginem_--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
_mobilem_). 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_ = _blochus_;
_choucroute_ = _surkrut_); 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 _strit_); _quaint_ from _cointe_
(_cognitum_); _remember_ from _remembrer_ (_rememorare_); _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 _e_ + _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_
(_matutinum_), _dortoir_ (_dormitorium_), with vowel dropped; _canevas_
(_cannabaceum_), _armedure_, later _armëure_, now _armure_
(_armaturam_), with _e_ = _[schwa]_, 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_
(_acrem_), _agre_; _ele_ (_alam_), East French _eile_, Prov. _ala_;
_meitié_ (_medietatem_), East French _moitieit_, Prov. _meitat_; (4) in
changing _a_ in unaccented final syllables into the vowel _[schwa]_,
intermediate to _a_ and _e_; this vowel is written _a_ in one or two of
the older documents, elsewhere _e_--French _aime_ (Latin _ama_), Prov.
_ama_; _aimes_ (_amas_), Prov. _amas_; _aimet_ (_amat_), Prov. _ama_;
(5) in changing original _au_ into _ò_--French _or_ (_aurum_), Prov.
_aur_; _rober_ (Teutonic _raubon_), Prov. _raubar_; (6) in changing
general Romanic _é_, from accented _e_ and _i_ not in position, into
_ei_--French _veine_ (_venam_), 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_
  (_ceram_), _brach_ (_brachium_), _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_, _scutionem_); _city_
  (_cité_, _civitatem_), _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_
  (_amabam_), _portout_ (_portabat_); 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_ (_habebat_). (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_ (_captiare_), _kier_ (_carum_), _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_ (_audiatis_); Lorraine _peir_, _oieis_. In the 17th and 18th
  centuries close _é_ changed to open _è_, except when final or before a
  silent consonant--_amer_ (_amarum_) now having _è_, _aimer_ (_amare_)
  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_, _despectum_). (7) The nasalization of vowels
  followed by a nasal consonant did not take place simultaneously with
  all the vowels. _A_ and _e_ before _n_ (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_ (_canes_), _dit_ (_dictum_) and _vint_ (_venit_), _ceinte_
  (_cinctam_) and _veie_ (_voie_, _viam_), _brun_ (Teutonic _brun_) 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_, _õmbr[schwa]_, not as
  now _tã_, _õbrh_. The nasalization took place whether the nasal
  consonant was or was not followed by a vowel, _femme_ (_feminam_),
  _honneur_ (_honorem_) 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 _ã_--_vaunt_ (_vanter_,
  _vanitare_), _tawny_ (_tanné_ (?) Celtic). (8) The assimilation of
  _[~e]_ (nasal _e_) to _ã_ (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 _hringa_), _pansy_ (_pensée_,
  _pensatam_); but the majority show _e_--_enter_ (_entrer_, _intrare_),
  _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_,
  _lanceare_), but _mèntrie_ (Old French _menterie_, from _mentiri_).
  (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_ (_siceram_);
  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_,
  _misculare_), _medlar_ (_néflier_, Old French also _meslier_,
  _mespilarium_). 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_
  (_scutarium_); Modern French _fête_, _écuyer_, but _espérer_
  (_sperare_). 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_
  (_adjutam_), _cadhuna_ (Greek _katá_ and _unam_); and the English one
  of the Alexis _cuntretha_ (_contratam_), _lothet_ (_laudatum_), and
  that of the Cambridge Psalter _heriteth_ (_hereditatem_). 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_ (_peccatum_) _apeleit_
  (_appellatum_). 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_, _caritatem_), _drutð_ (Old French _dru_, Teutonic _drud_);
  generally the consonant is lost--_country_, _charity_. Middle High
  German shows the Eastern French final consonant--_moraliteit_
  (_moralité_, _moralitatem_). (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_
  (_reclamat_), _desfere_ (_disfacere_), the latter agreeing with the
  Modern French sound. Before nasals (as in _laine_ = _lanam_) and _ié_
  (as in _payé_ = _pacatum_), _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_, _vanum_), _pay_ (_payer_,
  _pacare_), _wait_ (_guetter_, Teutonic _wahten_); but before most
  consonants it has usually _èè_--_peace_ (_pais_, _pacum_), _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_ (_gloriam_),
  _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_, _dotarium_), _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_ (_solidare_);
  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_ (_rivicellum_). English words of French origin sometimes show
  _l_ before a consonant, but the general form is _u_--_scald_
  (_échauder_, _excalidare_), _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_, _plicare_) Eulalia,
  _mettreiet_ (_mettrait_, _mittere habebat_) 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_, _miratorium_), and in the following, in certain words,
  _è_, now written _ai_--_français_, _connaître_, from _françois_
  (_franceis_, _franciscum_), _conoistre_ (_conuistre_, _cognoscere_);
  where it did not undergo the latter change it is now _ua_ or
  _wa_--_roi_ (_rei_, _regem_), _croix_ (_cruis_, _crucem_). Before
  nasals and palatal _l_, _ei_ (now = _è_) was kept--_veine_ (_vena_),
  _veille_ (_vigila_), and it everywhere survives unlabialized in Modern
  Norman--Guernsey _ételle_ (_étoile_, _stella_) with _é_, _ser_
  (_soir_, _serum_) 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_, _qvietum_), _loyal_
  (_loyal_, _legalem_). (16) The splitting of the vowel-sound from
  accented Latin _o_ 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_ (_sponsam_), _nom_ or _num_ (_nomen_),
  _flor_ or _flur_ (_florem_); 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_, _vos_). English shows almost always _uu_--_spouse_, _noun_,
  _flower_ (Early Middle English _spuse_, _nun_, _flur_); but _nephew_
  with _éu_ (_neveu_, _nepotem_). (17) The loss of the _u_ (or _w_) of
  _qu_ dates from the end of the 12th century--Old French _quart_
  (_qvartum_), _quitier_ (_qvietare_) 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 _wisa_). (18)
  The change of the diphthong _òu_ to _uu_ did not take place till after
  the 12th century, such words as _Anjou_ (_Andegavum_) assonating in
  the Roland on _fort_ (_fortem_); and did not occur in Picardy, where
  _òu_ became _au caus_ from older _còus_, _còls_ (_cous_, _collos_)
  coinciding with _caus_ from _calz_ (_chauds_, _calidos_). English
  keeps _òu_ distinct from _uu_--_vault_ for _vaut_ (Modern French
  _voûte_, _volvitam_), _soder_ (_souder_, _solidare_). (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_, _panarium_). At
  the beginning of the modern period, Parisian dropped the _i_ of _ie_
  when preceded by _ch_ or _j_--_chef_, _abréger_ (Old French
  _abregier_, _abbreviare_); elsewhere (except in verbs) _ie_ is
  retained--_fier_ (_ferum_), _pitié_ (_pietatem_). Modern Guernsey
  retains _ie_ after _ch_--_ap'rchier_ (_approcher_, _adpropeare_).(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_, _malos_) identical
  with _mots_ (_muttos_). The _au_ of _eau_ underwent the same change,
  but its _e_ was still sounded as _[schwa]_ (the _e_ of _que_); in the
  next century this was dropped, making _veaux_ (Old French _vëels_,
  _vitellos_) identical with _vaux_ (_vals_, _valles_). (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 _[schwa]_, which it had in Early Old French. In
  later Anglo-Norman final _[schwa]_ (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 _[schwa]_ is confined to
  a few words and forms; the 10th century _saveiet_ (_sapebat_ for
  _sapiebat_) became in the 11th _saveit_, and _ore_ (_ad horam_), _ele_
  (_illam_) develop the abbreviated _or, el_. In the 15th century
  _[schwa]_ before a vowel generally disappears--_mûr_, Old French
  _mëur_ (_maturum_); and in the 16th, though still written, _[schwa]_
  after an unaccented vowel, and in the syllable _ent_ after a vowel,
  does the same--_vraiment_, Old French _vraiement_ (_veraca mente_);
  _avoient_ two syllables, as now (_avaient_), in Old French three
  syllables (as _habebant_). 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 _fòrt[schwa]_, 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 (_dit[schwa], la zhoena bèl[schwa]_). (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 _latro amas_, giving _lére, áime_,
  and in _latronem, amatis_, 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 _[schwa]_ 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 _u_ 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 _[schwa]_; _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 _qvi_)--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 _[~e]_ (nasal _e_) to _ã_ (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_, _nasum_). 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_, _oculos_), 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_, _vocem_). 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_ (_debere_)
for _devoir_, _faulx_ (_falsum_) for _faus_, _autheur_ (_auctorem_,
supposed to be _authorem_) for _auteur_, _poids_ (supposed to be from
_pondus_, really from _pensum_) 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 _e_ = _[schwa]_--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 _cÞ_en). 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 _bryd_), 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 _sur_); 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_ (_rogaverat_); 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
  _[schwa]_) is not yet satisfactorily explained--_amoms_ (_amamus_,
  influenced by _sumus_), but _amames_ (_amavimus_). 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_, _recipitis,
  auditis_) like _amez_ (_amatis_); such forms as _dites_, _faites_
  (_dicitis_, _facitis_) 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 _habetis_ reduced to _etis_); in
  the Roland both forms occur, _portereiz_ (_portare habetis_)
  assonating on _rei_ (_roi, regem_), and the younger _porterez_ on
  _citet_ (_cité_, _civitatem_), 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_ (_posseamus_) in the Jonah homily makes
  it probable that the latter is the older form--Picard _aviemes_,
  Burgundian _aviens_, Norman _aviums_ (_habebamus_). (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_ (_plorem_, _plores_, _ploret_). 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_, _perdas_, _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_, _io_, _eo_--Old French
  _muire_ or _moerge_ (_moriat_ for _moriatur_), _tiegne_ or _tienge_
  (_teneat_), _muir_ or _moerc_ (_morio_ for _morior_), _tieng_ or
  _tienc_ (_teneo_). By degrees these forms are levelled under the other
  present forms--Modern French _meure_ and _meurs_ following _meurt_
  (_morit_ for _moritur_), _tienne_ and _tiens_ following _tient_
  (_tenet_). A few of the older forms remain--the vowel of _aie_
  (_habeam_) and _ai_ (_habeo_) 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_ (_parabolare_),
  _amer_ (_amare_) have in the present indicative _parol_ (_parabolo_),
  _paroles_ (_parabolas_), _parolet_ (_parabolat_), _parlums_
  (_parabolamus_), _parlez_ (_parabolatis_), _parolent_ (_parabolant_);
  _aim_ (_amo_), _aimes_ (_amas_), _aimet_ (_amat_), _amums_ (_amamus_),
  _amez_ (_amatis_), _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_ (_tenere_), 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_, _precare_), _vengier_
  (_vindicare_), _laissier_ (_laxare_), _aidier_ (_adjutare_). 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_ (_laxatis_), _aidiez_ (adjutatis);
  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_ (_canto_), _aim_
  (_amo_); Modern French _chante_, _aime_. (10) In the 13th century _s_
  is occasionally added to the 1st pers. sing., except those ending in
  _e_ (= _[schwa]_) 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_ (_vendo_ and _vende_), _vendoie_ (_vendebam_), _parti_
  (_partivi_), _ting_ (_tenui_); Modern French _vends_, _vendais_,
  _partis_, _tins_; and _donne_ (_dona_) 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_ (_perdamus_), _perdez_ (_perdatis_); 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_ (_dormis_) 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_ = _[schwa]_ 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_ (_latro_); _tor_
  (_taurum_), _laron_ (_latronem_); _tor_ (_tauri_), _laron_ (_latroni_
  for _-nes_); _tors_ (_tauros_), _larons_ (_latrones_); but fem. only
  _ele_ (_ala_ and _alam_), _flor_ (_florem_); _eles_ (_alas_), _flors_
  (_flores_ nom. and acc.). About the end of the 11th century feminines
  not ending in _e_ = _[schwa]_ 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_ (_filius_), _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_ (_seniorem_), _on_ (_homo_)
  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_ (_caeli_
  for _caela_ nom.), _ciels_ (_caelos_ 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_ (_mirabilia_),
  _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 _carri_), _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_ (_filium_ and _filii_) with palatal _l_, _filz_
  (_filius_ and _filios_), 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_ (_vivum_), _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_ (_cantus_) and _champs_
  (_campos_) with silent _t_ and _p_ (Old French _chans_ in both cases),
  _maux_ (Old French _mals_, sing. _mal_), _yeux_ (_oculos_, Old French
  _oelz_, sing. _oeil_) the old change in the stem is kept. Sometimes,
  as in _cieux_ (_caelos_) 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 _[schwa]_ 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_, _laqvei_ and _laqveos_.

  (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_ (_fortes_),
  _granz_ (_grandes_), 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_,
  _matrem_), _lettres royaux_ (_literas regales_), 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_ (_majorem_), nom. _maire_ (_major_); _graignur_
  (_grandiorem_), nom. _graindre_ (_grandior_); only a few of these now
  survive--_pire_ (_pejor_), _meilleur_ (_meliorem_), 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 _[schwa]_, have greatly affected the
  distinction between the masc. and fem. of adjectives--_fort_ and
  _forte_ are still distinguished as _fòr_ and _fòrt_, but _amer_
  (_amarum_) and _amère_ (_amaram_), 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
_arium_). In Modern French many old affixes are hardly used for forming
new words; the inherited _ier_ (_arium_) is yielding to the borrowed
_aire_, the popular _contre_ (_contra_) to the learned anti (Greek), and
the native _ée_ (_atam_) to the Italian _ade_. The suffixes of many
words have been assimilated to more common ones; thus _sengler_
(_singularem_) 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 non 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 qvi
  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_ (_sic facere habeo_),
  _est durs_ (_durus est_), _que feras_ (_quid facere habes_)? 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 _amando_), and
  in the modern language has been replaced by the latter, except where
  it has become adjectival; the Old French _complaingnans leur dolours_
  (Latin _plangentes_) is now _plaignant leurs douleurs_ (Latin
  _plangendo_). 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 dicentes_) = 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 colorem mutatam_), _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 _non_) suffices for the negation
  without _pas_ (_passum_), _point_ (_punctum_) or _mie_ (_micam_, 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 XV^e 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 XVI^e 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.)