{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_37806/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_37806","id":"gutenberg_37806","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37806","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Encyclopedias/Dictionaries/Reference","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Encyclopedias and dictionaries"],"text":"Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's notes:\n\n(1) Numbers following letters (without space) like C2 were originally\n      printed in subscript. Letter subscripts are preceded by an\n      underscore, like C_n.\n\n(2) Characters following a carat (^) were printed in superscript.\n\n(3) Side-notes were relocated to function as titles of their respective\n      paragraphs.\n\n(4) Macrons and breves above letters and dots below letters were not\n      inserted.\n\n(5) [root] stands for the root symbol; [alpha], [beta], etc. for greek\n      letters.\n\n(6) The following typographical errors have been corrected:\n\n    AUTHOR LIST: \"W. L. F. Walter Lynwood Fleming, M.A., Ph.D.\" 'M.A.'\n      amended from 'A.M.'.\n\n    ARTICLE FRANCS-TIREURS: \"... and prevented him from gaining\n      information, and that their soldierly qualities improved with\n      experience.\" 'improved' amended from 'inproved'.\n\n    ARTICLE FRANKLIN, SIR JOHN: \"... (which, as Franklin discovered,\n      was erroneously placed four degrees of latitude too much to the\n      north) ...\" 'degrees' amended from 'degress'.\n\n    ARTICLE FRANKLIN, SIR JOHN: \"The alternative course permitted\n      Franklin by his instructions had been attempted but not pursued,\n      and in the autumn of 1846 he had followed that route which was\n      specially commended to him.\" 'instructions' amended from\n      'intructions'.\n\n    ARTICLE FRAUENBURG: \"Frauenburg was founded in 1287 and received\n      the rights of a town in 1310.\" 'Frauenburg' amended from\n      'Frauenberg'.\n\n    ARTICLE FREEMAN, EDWARD AUGUSTUS: \"Historical and religious\n      sentiment combined with his detestation of all that was tyrannical\n      to inspire him with hatred of the Turk and sympathy with the\n      smaller and subject nationalities of eastern Europe.\" 'detestation'\n      amended from 'destestation'.\n\n    ARTICLE FREEMASONRY: \"Elias Ashmole (who according to his diary was\n      \"made a Free Mason of Warrington with Colonel Henry Mainwaring,\"\n      seven brethern being named as in attendance at the lodge ...\"\n      'brethern' amended from 'brethen'.\n\n    ARTICLE FRENCH LANGUAGE: \"... perd (perdit) and perde (perdat)\n      being generally distinguished as per and perd, and before a vowel\n      as pert and perd.\" 'distinguished' amended from 'ditinguished'.\n\n    ARTICLE FRENCH LANGUAGE: \"In Early Old French (as in Provencal)\n      there are two main declensions, the masculine and the feminine;\n      with a few exceptions the former distinguishes nominative and\n      accusative in both numbers, the latter in neither.\" 'distinguishes'\n      amended from 'ditinguishes'.\n\n\n\n\n  THE\n\n  ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA\n\n  ELEVENTH EDITION\n\n\n\n\n  FIRST  edition, published in three    volumes, 1768-1771.\n  SECOND    \"        \"        ten          \"     1777-1784.\n  THIRD     \"        \"        eighteen     \"     1788-1797.\n  FOURTH    \"        \"        twenty       \"     1801-1810.\n  FIFTH     \"        \"        twenty       \"     1815-1817.\n  SIXTH     \"        \"        twenty       \"     1823-1824.\n  SEVENTH   \"        \"        twenty-one   \"     1830-1842.\n  EIGHTH    \"        \"        twenty-two   \"     1853-1860.\n  NINTH     \"        \"        twenty-five  \"     1875-1889.\n  TENTH     \"   ninth edition and eleven\n                  supplementary volumes,         1902-1903.\n  ELEVENTH  \"  published in twenty-nine volumes, 1910-1911.\n\n\n  COPYRIGHT\n\n  in all countries subscribing to the Bern Convention\n\n  by\n\n  THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS AND SCHOLARS\n  of the\n  UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE\n\n\n  _All rights reserved_\n\n\n\n\n  THE\n\n  ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA\n\n  A DICTIONARY OF\n  ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE AND GENERAL INFORMATION\n\n  ELEVENTH EDITION\n\n  VOLUME XI\n  FRANCISCANS to GIBSON\n\n  New York\n\n  Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.\n  342 Madison Avenue\n\n\n  Copyright, in the United States of America, 1910,\n  by\n  The Encyclopaedia Britannica Company.\n\n\n        VOLUME XI, SLICE I\n\n  Franciscans to French Language\n\n\n\n\nARTICLES IN THIS SLICE:\n\n\n  FRANCISCANS                       FREDERICK I. (king of Prussia)\n  FRANCK                            FREDERICK II. (king of Prussia)\n  FRANCK, CESAR                     FREDERICK III. (king of Prussia)\n  FRANCK, SEBASTIAN                 FREDERICK III. (king of Sicily)\n  FRANCKE, AUGUST HERMANN           FREDERICK I. (elector of Brandenburg)\n  FRANCKEN                          FREDERICK I. (elector of the Rhine)\n  FRANCO-GERMAN WAR                 FREDERICK II. (elector of the Rhine)\n  FRANCOIS DE NEUFCHATEAU, LOUIS    FREDERICK III. (elector of the Rhine)\n  FRANCONIA                         FREDERICK IV. (elector of the Rhine)\n  FRANCS-ARCHERS                    FREDERICK V. (elector of the Rhine)\n  FRANCS-TIREURS                    FREDERICK I. (duke of Saxony)\n  FRANEKER                          FREDERICK II. (duke of Saxony)\n  FRANK, JAKOB                      FREDERICK III. (elector of Saxony)\n  FRANK-ALMOIGN                     FREDERICK (Maryland, U.S.A.)\n  FRANKEL, ZECHARIAS                FREDERICK AUGUSTUS I.\n  FRANKENBERG                       FREDERICK AUGUSTUS II.\n  FRANKENHAUSEN                     FREDERICK CHARLES (KARL NIKOLAUS)\n  FRANKENSTEIN                      FREDERICK HENRY\n  FRANKENTHAL                       FREDERICK LOUIS\n  FRANKENWALD                       FREDERICK WILLIAM I.\n  FRANKFORT (Indiana, U.S.A.)       FREDERICK WILLIAM II.\n  FRANKFORT (Kentucky, U.S.A.)      FREDERICK WILLIAM III.\n  FRANKFORT-ON-MAIN                 FREDERICK WILLIAM IV.\n  FRANKFORT-ON-ODER                 FREDERICK WILLIAM (of Brandenburg)\n  FRANKINCENSE                      FREDERICK-LEMAITRE, ANTOINE PROSPER\n  FRANKING                          FREDERICKSBURG\n  FRANKL, LUDWIG AUGUST             FREDERICTON\n  FRANKLAND, SIR EDWARD             FREDONIA\n  FRANKLIN, BENJAMIN                FREDRIKSHALD\n  FRANKLIN, SIR JOHN                FREDRIKSTAD\n  FRANKLIN, WILLIAM BUEL            FREE BAPTISTS\n  FRANKLIN (district of Canada)     FREEBENCH\n  FRANKLIN (Massachusetts, U.S.A.)  FREE CHURCH FEDERATION\n  FRANKLIN (New Hampshire, U.S.A.)  FREE CHURCH OF ENGLAND\n  FRANKLIN (Pennsylvania, U.S.A.)   FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND\n  FRANKLIN (Tennessee, U.S.A.)      FREEDMEN'S BUREAU\n  FRANKLIN (freeman)                FREEHOLD (New Jersey, U.S.A.)\n  FRANKLINITE                       FREEHOLD (law)\n  FRANK-MARRIAGE                    FREELAND\n  FRANKPLEDGE                       FREEMAN, EDWARD AUGUSTUS\n  FRANKS, SIR AUGUSTUS WOLLASTON    FREEMAN\n  FRANKS                            FREEMASONRY\n  FRANZ, ROBERT                     FREEPORT\n  FRANZEN, FRANS MIKAEL             FREE PORTS\n  FRANZENSBAD                       FREE REED VIBRATOR\n  FRANZ JOSEF LAND                  FREESIA\n  FRANZOS, KARL EMIL                FREE SOIL PARTY\n  FRASCATI                          FREE-STONE\n  FRASER, ALEXANDER CAMPBELL        FREETOWN\n  FRASER, JAMES                     FREE TRADE\n  FRASER, JAMES BAILLIE             FREGELLAE\n  FRASER, SIR WILLIAM AUGUSTUS      FREIBERG\n  FRASER (river)                    FREIBURG\n  FRASERBURGH                       FREIBURG IM BREISGAU\n  FRASERVILLE                       FREIDANK\n  FRATER                            FREIENWALDE\n  FRATERNITIES, COLLEGE             FREIESLEBENITE\n  FRATICELLI                        FREIGHT\n  FRAUD                             FREILIGRATH, FERDINAND\n  FRAUENBURG                        FREIND, JOHN\n  FRAUENFELD                        FREINSHEIM, JOHANN\n  FRAUENLOB                         FREIRE, FRANCISCO JOSE\n  FRAUNCE, ABRAHAM                  FREISCHUeTZ\n  FRAUNHOFER, JOSEPH VON            FREISING\n  FRAUSTADT                         FREJUS\n  FRAYSSINOUS, DENIS ANTOINE LUC    FRELINGHUYSEN, FREDERICK THEODORE\n  FRECHETTE, LOUIS HONORE           FREMANTLE\n  FREDEGOND                         FREMIET, EMMANUEL\n  FREDERIC, HAROLD                  FREMONT, JOHN CHARLES\n  FREDERICIA                        FREMONT (Nebraska, U.S.A.)\n  FREDERICK (name)                  FREMONT (Ohio, U.S.A.)\n  FREDERICK I. (Roman emperor)      FREMY, EDMOND\n  FREDERICK II. (Roman emperor)     FRENCH, DANIEL CHESTER\n  FREDERICK III. (Roman emperor)    FRENCH, NICHOLAS\n  FREDERICK III. (German king)      FRENCH CONGO\n  FREDERICK II. (king of Denmark)   FRENCH GUINEA\n  FREDERICK III. (king of Denmark)  FRENCH LANGUAGE\n  FREDERICK VIII. (king of Denmark)\n\n\n\n\nINITIALS USED IN VOLUME XI. TO IDENTIFY INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTORS,[1] WITH\nTHE HEADINGS OF THE ARTICLES IN THIS VOLUME SO SIGNED.\n\n\n  A. B. R.\n    ALFRED BARTON RENDLE, M.A., D.SC., F.R.S., F.L.S.\n\n      Keeper, Department of Botany, British Museum. Author of _Text Book\n      on Classification of Flowering Plants_; &c.\n\n    Fruit.\n\n  A. B. W. K.\n    SIR ALEXANDER BLACKIE WILLIAM KENNEDY, LL.D., F.R.S.\n\n      Emeritus Professor of Engineering, University College, London.\n      Consulting Engineer to Board of Ordnance.\n\n    Friction.\n\n  A. Ca.\n    ARTHUR CAYLEY, LL.D., F.R.S.\n\n      See the biographical article, CAYLEY, ARTHUR.\n\n    Gauss.\n\n  A. E. H. L.\n    AUGUSTUS EDWARD HOUGH LOVE, M.A., D.SC., F.R.S.\n\n      Sedleian Professor of Natural Philosophy in the University of\n      Oxford. Hon. Fellow of Queen's College; formerly Fellow of St\n      John's College, Cambridge. Secretary to the London Mathematical\n      Society.\n\n    Function: _Functions of Real Variables_.\n\n  A. E. S.\n    ARTHUR EVERETT SHIPLEY, M.A., D.SC., F.R.S.\n\n      Master of Christ's College, Cambridge. Reader in Zoology,\n      Cambridge University. Joint-editor of the _Cambridge Natural\n      History_.\n\n    Gastrotricha.\n\n  A. Ge.\n    SIR ARCHIBALD GEIKIE, LL.D.\n\n      See the biographical article, GEIKIE, SIR A.\n\n    Geology.\n\n  A. Go.*\n    REV. ALEXANDER GORDON, MA.\n\n      Lecturer on Church History in the University of Manchester.\n\n    Franck, Sebastian;\n    Gallars.\n\n  A. G. B.*\n    HON. ARCHIBALD GRAEME BELL, M.INST.C.E.\n\n      Director of Public Works and Inspector of Mines, Trinidad. Member\n      of Executive and Legislative Councils, Inst.C.E.\n\n    Georgetown, British Guiana.\n\n  A. G. D.\n    ARTHUR GEORGE DOUGHTY, C.M.G., M.A., LITT.D., F.R., HIST.S.\n\n      Dominion Archivist of Canada. Member of the Geographical Board of\n      Canada. Author of _The Cradle of New France_; &c. Joint-editor\n      of _Documents relating to the Constitutional History of Canada_.\n\n    Frontenac et Palluau.\n\n  A. H. Sm.\n    ARTHUR HAMILTON SMITH, M.A., F.S.A.\n\n      Keeper of the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities in the\n      British Museum. Member of the Imperial German Archaeological\n      Institute. Author of _Catalogue of Greek Sculpture in the British\n      Museum_; &c.\n\n    Gem: II. (_in part_).\n\n  A. M.*\n    REV. ALLEN MENZIES, D.D.\n\n      Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism, University of St\n      Andrews. Author of _History of Religion_; &c. Editor of _Review\n      of Theology and Philosophy_.\n\n    Free Church of Scotland (_in part_).\n\n  A. M. C.\n    AGNES MARY CLERKE.\n\n      See the biographical article, CLERKE, AGNES M.\n\n    Galileo.\n\n  A. N.\n    ALFRED NEWTON, F.R.S.\n\n      See the biographical article, NEWTON, ALFRED.\n\n    Frigate-Bird;\n    Gadwall;\n    Gannet;\n    Gare Fowl.\n\n  A. N. B.\n    ALFRED NEAVE BRAYSHAW, LL.B.\n\n      Author of _Bible Notes on the Hebrew Prophets_.\n\n      Friends, Society of.\n\n  A. N. W.\n    ALFRED NORTH WHITEHEAD, M.A., D.SC., F.R.S.\n\n      Fellow and Lecturer in Mathematics, Trinity College, Cambridge.\n      Author of _A Treatise on Universal Algebra_; &c.\n\n    Geometry: VI. (_in part_) and VII.\n\n  A. R. C.\n    ALEXANDER ROSS CLARKE, C.B., F.R.S.\n\n      Colonel, Royal Engineers. Royal Medallist, Royal Society, 1887. In\n      charge of the trigonometrical operations of the Ordnance Survey,\n      1854-1881.\n\n    Geodesy (_in part_).\n\n  A. S. M.\n    ALEXANDER STUART MURRAY, LL.D.\n\n      See the biographical article, MURRAY, ALEXANDER STUART.\n\n    Gem: II. (_in part_).\n\n  A. W. H.*\n    ARTHUR WILLIAM HOLLAND.\n\n      Formerly Scholar of St John's College, Oxford. Bacon Scholar of\n      Gray's Inn, 1900.\n\n    Frederick II., _Roman Emperor_;\n    French Revolution: _Republican Calendar_;\n    Germany: _History (in part) and Bibliography_.\n\n  A. W. W.\n    ADOLPHUS WILLIAM WARD, LITT.D., LL.D.\n\n      See the biographical article, WARD, A. W.\n\n    Garrick, David (_in part_).\n\n  B. A. W. R.\n    HON. BERTRAND ARTHUR WILLIAM RUSSELL, M.A., F.R.S.\n\n      Formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Author of\n      _Foundations of Geometry; Principles of Mathematics; &c._\n\n    Geometry: VI. (_in part_).\n\n  B. S. P.\n    BERTHA SURTEES PHILPOTTS, M.A. (Dublin).\n\n      Formerly Librarian of Girton College, Cambridge.\n\n    Germany: _Archaeology_.\n\n  C. B.*\n    CHARLES BEMONT, LITT.D. (Oxon.).\n\n      See the biographical article, Bemont, C.\n\n    Fustel De Coulanges;\n    Gascony.\n\n  C. D. W.\n    HON. CARROLL DAVIDSON WRIGHT.\n\n      See the biographical article, WRIGHT, HON. CARROLL DAVIDSON.\n\n    Friendly Societies: _United States_.\n\n  C. E.*\n    CHARLES EVERITT, M.A., F.C.S., F.G.S., F.R.A.S.\n\n      Sometime Scholar of Magdalen College, Oxford.\n\n    Geometry: _History_.\n\n  C. F. A.\n    CHARLES FRANCIS ATKINSON.\n\n      Formerly Scholar of Queen's College, Oxford. Captain, 1st City of\n      London (Royal Fusiliers). Author of _The Wilderness and Cold\n      Harbour_.\n\n    Franco-German War (_in part_);\n    French Revolutionary Wars: _Military Operations_;\n    Germany: _Army_;\n    Gibraltar: _History_.\n\n  C. H. Ha.\n    CARLTON HUNTLEY HAYES, M.A., PH.D.\n\n      Assistant Professor of History in Columbia University, New York\n      City. Member of the American Historical Association.\n\n    Gelasius II.\n\n  C. K. S.\n    CLEMENT KING SHORTER.\n\n      Editor of _The Sphere_. Author of _Sixty Years of Victorian\n      Literature_; _Immortal Memories_; _The Brontes, Life and Letters_;\n      &c.\n\n    Gaskell, Elizabeth.\n\n  C. Mi.\n    CHEDOMILLE MIJATOVICH.\n\n      Senator of the Kingdom of Servia. Envoy Extraordinary and Minister\n      Plenipotentiary of the King of Servia to the Court of St James's,\n      1895-1900 and 1902-1903.\n\n    Garashanin.\n\n  C. M. K.\n    SIR CHARLES MALCOLM KENNEDY, K.C.M.G., C.B. (1831-1908).\n\n      Head of Commercial Department, Foreign Office, 1872-1893. Lecturer\n      on International Law, University College, Bristol. Commissioner in\n      the Levant, 1870-1871, at Paris, 1872-1886. Plenipotentiary,\n      Treaty of the Hague, 1882. Editor of Kennedy's _Ethnological and\n      Linguistic Essays_; _Diplomacy and International Law_.\n\n    Free Ports.\n\n  C. Pf.\n    CHRISTIAN PFISTER, D.-ES.-L.\n\n      Professor at the Sorbonne, Paris. Chevalier of the Legion of\n      Honour. Author of _Etudes sur le regne de Robert le Pieux_; _Le\n      Duche merovingien d'Alsace et la legende de Sainte-Odile_.\n\n    Franks;\n    Fredegond;\n    Germanic Laws, Early.\n\n  C. R. B.\n    CHARLES RAYMOND BEAZLEY, M.A., D.LITT., F.R.G.S., F.R.HIST.S.\n\n      Professor of Modern History in the University of Birmingham.\n      Formerly Fellow of Merton College, Oxford, and University Lecturer\n      in the History of Geography. Lothian Prizeman, Oxford, 1889.\n      Lowell Lecturer, Boston, 1908. Author of _Henry the Navigator_;\n      _The Dawn of Modern Geography_; &c.\n\n    Gerard of Cremona.\n\n  C. R. C.\n    CLAUDE REGNIER CONDER, LL.D.\n\n      Colonel, Royal Engineers. Formerly in command of Survey of\n      Palestine. Author of _The City of Jerusalem_; _The Bible and the\n      East_; _The Hittites and their Language_; &c.\n\n    Galilee (_in part_);\n    Galilee, Sea of (_in part_).\n\n  C. T.*\n    REV. CHARLES TAYLOR, M.A., D.D., LL.D. (1840-1908).\n\n      Formerly Master of St John's College, Cambridge. Vice-Chancellor,\n      Cambridge University, 1887-1888. Author of _Geometrical Conies_;\n      &c.\n\n    Geometrical Continuity.\n\n  C. We.\n    CECIL WEATHERLY.\n\n      Formerly Scholar of Queen's College, Oxford. Barrister-at-Law.\n\n    Gate.\n\n  C. W. W.\n    SIR CHARLES WILLIAM WILSON, K.C.B., K.C.M.G., F.R.S. (1836-1907).\n\n      Major-General, Royal Engineers. Secretary to the North American\n      Boundary Commission, 1858-1862. British Commissioner on the\n      Servian Boundary Commission. Director-General of the Ordnance\n      Survey, 1886-1894. Director-General of Military Education,\n      1895-1898. Author of _From Korti to Khartoum_; _Life of Lord\n      Clive_; &c.\n\n    Galilee, Sea of (_in part_).\n\n  D. C.\n    DUGALD CLERK, M.INST.C.E., F.R.S.\n\n      Director of the National Gas Engine Co., Ltd. Inventor of the\n      Clerk Cycle Gas Engine.\n\n    Gas Engine.\n\n  D. F. T.\n    DONALD FRANCIS TOVEY.\n\n      Balliol College, Oxford. Author of _Essays in Musical Analysis_,\n      comprising _The Classical Concerto_, _The Goldberg Variations_,\n      and analyses of many other classical works.\n\n    Fugue.\n\n  D. H.\n    DAVID HANNAY.\n\n      Formerly British Vice-consul at Barcelona. Author of _Short\n      History of Royal Navy, 1217-1688_; _Life of Emilio Castelar_;\n      &c.\n\n    French Revolutionary Wars: _Naval Operations_.\n\n  E. Br.\n    ERNEST BARKER, M.A.\n\n      Fellow of, and Lecturer in Modern History at, St John's College,\n      Oxford. Formerly Fellow and Tutor of Merton College. Craven\n      Scholar, 1895.\n\n    Fulk, King of Jerusalem.\n\n  E. B. El.\n    EDWIN BAILEY ELLIOTT, M.A., F.R.S., F.R.A.S.\n\n      Waynflete Professor of Pure Mathematics, and Fellow of Magdalen\n      College, Oxford. Formerly Fellow of Queen's College, Oxford.\n      President of London Mathematical Society, 1896-1898. Author of\n      _Algebra of Quantics_; &c.\n\n    Geometry, IV.\n\n  E. C. B.\n    RIGHT REV. EDWARD CUTHBERT BUTLER; O.S.B., D.LITT. (Dublin).\n\n      Abbot of Downside Abbey, Bath. Author of \"The Lausiac History of\n      Palladius\" in _Cambridge Texts and Studies_.\n\n    Franciscans;\n    Friar.\n\n  E. E.\n    LADY EASTLAKE.\n\n      See the biographical article, EASTLAKE, SIR C. L.\n\n    Gibson, John.\n\n  E. G.\n    EDMUND GOSSE, LL.D.\n\n      See the biographical article, GOSSE, EDMUND.\n\n    Fryxell;\n    Garland, John.\n\n  E. J. D.\n    EDWARD JOSEPH DENT, M.A., MUS.BAC.\n\n      Formerly Fellow of King's College, Cambridge.\n\n    Galuppi.\n\n  E. O.*\n    EDMUND OWEN, M.B., F.R.C.S., LL.D., D.SC.\n\n      Consulting Surgeon to St Mary's Hospital, London, and to the\n      Children's Hospital, Great Ormond Street; late Examiner in Surgery\n      at the Universities of Cambridge, Durham and London. Author of _A\n      Manual of Anatomy for Senior Students_.\n\n    Gastric Ulcer.\n\n  E. Pr.\n    EDGAR PRESTAGE.\n\n      Special Lecturer in Portuguese Literature in the University of\n      Manchester. Commendador Portuguese Order of S. Thiago.\n      Corresponding Member of Lisbon Royal Academy of Sciences and\n      Lisbon Geographical Society; &c.\n\n    Garcao;\n    Garrett,\n\n  E. W. B.\n    SIR EDWARD WILLIAM BRABROOK, C.B., F.S.A.\n\n      Barrister-at-Law, Lincoln's Inn. Chief Registrar of Friendly\n      Societies, 1891-1904. Author of _Building Societies_; _Provident\n      Societies and Industrial Welfare_; _Institutions of Thrift_; &c.\n\n    Friendly Societies.\n\n  F. C. C.\n    FREDERICK CORNWALLIS CONYBEARE, M.A., D.TH. (Geissen).\n\n      Fellow of the British Academy. Formerly Fellow of University\n      College, Oxford. Author of _The Ancient Armenian Texts of\n      Aristotle_; _Myth, Magic and Morals_; &c.\n\n    Funeral Rites.\n\n  F. C. M.\n    FRANCIS CHARLES MONTAGUE, M.A.\n\n      Astor Professor of European History, University College, London.\n      Formerly Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. Author of _Limits of\n      Individual Liberty_; chapters in _Cambridge Modern History_; &c.\n\n    French Revolution.\n\n  F. F.*\n    SIR JAMES FORTESCUE-FLANNERY, BART., M.P., M.INST.C.E.\n\n      Ex-President of the Institute of Marine Engineers. M.P. for the\n      Maldon Division of Essex, 1910. M.P. for the Shipley Division of\n      Yorkshire, 1895-1906.\n\n    Fuel: _Liquid_.\n\n  F. G. M. B.\n    FREDERICK GEORGE MEESON BECK, M.A.\n\n      Fellow and Lecturer in Classics, Clare College, Cambridge.\n\n    Germany: _Ethnography and Early History_.\n\n  F. H. B.\n    FRANCIS HENRY BUTLER, M.A.\n\n      Worcester College, Oxford. Associate of Royal School of Mines.\n\n    Frankincense;\n    Galls.\n\n  F. J. H.\n    FRANCIS JOHN HAVERFIELD, M.A., LL.D., F.S.A.\n\n      Camden Professor of Ancient History in the University of Oxford.\n      Fellow of Brasenose College. Fellow of the British Academy.\n      Formerly Censor, Student, Tutor and Librarian of Christ Church,\n      Oxford. Ford's Lecturer, 1906-1907. Author of Monographs on Roman\n      History, especially Roman Britain; &c.\n\n    Gaul.\n\n  F. N. M.\n    COLONEL FREDERIC NATUSCH MAUDE, C.B.\n\n      Lecturer in Military History, Manchester University. Author of\n      _War and the World's Policy_; _The Leipzig Campaign_; _The Jena\n      Campaign_.\n\n    Franco-German War (_in part_).\n\n  F. R. C.\n    FRANK R. CANA.\n\n      Author of _South Africa from the Great Trek to the Union_.\n\n    French Congo;\n    German East Africa;\n    German South-West Africa.\n\n  F. R. H.\n    FRIEDRICH ROBERT HELMERT, PH.D., D.ING.\n\n      Professor of Geodesy, University of Berlin.\n\n    Geodesy (_in part_).\n\n  F. S.\n    FRANCIS STORR.\n\n      Editor of the _Journal of Education_, London. Officer d'Academie\n      (Paris).\n\n    Games, Classical.\n\n  F. W. R.*\n    FREDERICK WILLIAM RUDLER, I.S.O., F.G.S.\n\n      Curator and Librarian of the Museum of Practical Geology, London,\n      1879-1902. President of the Geologists' Association, 1887-1889.\n\n    Garnet;\n    Gem: I.\n\n  G. E.\n    REV. GEORGE EDMUNDSON, M.A., F.R.HIST.S.\n\n      Formerly Fellow and Tutor of Brasenose College, Oxford. Ford's\n      Lecturer, 1909.\n\n    Gelderland (_Duchy_).\n\n  G. L.\n    GEORG LUNGE.\n\n      See the biographical article. LUNGE, G.\n\n    Fuel: _Gaseous_;\n    Gas: _Manufacture_, II.\n\n  G. Sa.\n    GEORGE SAINTSBURY, D.C.L., LL.D.\n\n      See the biographical article, SAINTSBURY, G.\n\n    French Literature;\n    Gautier.\n\n  G. W. T.\n    REV. GRIFFITHS WHEELER THATCHER, M.A., B.D.\n\n      Warden of Camden College, Sydney, N.S.W. Formerly Tutor in Hebrew\n      and Old Testament History at Mansfield College, Oxford.\n\n    Ghazali.\n\n  H. B.\n    HILARY BAUERMANN, F.G.S. (d. 1909).\n\n      Formerly Lecturer on Metallurgy at the Ordnance College, Woolwich.\n      Author of _A Treatise on the Metallurgy of Iron_.\n\n    Fuel: _Solid_.\n\n  H. B. W.\n    HORACE BOLINGBROKE WOODWARD, F.R.S., F.G.S.\n\n      Late Assistant Director, Geological Survey of England and Wales.\n      Wollaston Medallist, Geological Society. Author of _The History of\n      the Geological Society of London_; &c.\n\n    Gaudry.\n\n  H. Ch.\n    HUGH CHISHOLM, M.A.\n\n      Formerly Scholar of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. Editor of the\n      11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica; Co-editor of the\n      10th edition.\n\n    Gambetta;\n    Garnett, Richard;\n    George IV. (_in part_).\n\n  H. C. L.\n    HON. HENRY CABOT LODGE.\n\n      See the biographical article, LODGE, HENRY CABOT.\n\n    Gallatin.\n\n  H. F. Ba.\n    HENRY FREDERICK BAKER, M.A., D.SC., F.R.S.\n\n      Fellow and Lecturer of St John's College, Cambridge. Cayley\n      Lecturer in Mathematics in the University. Author of _Abel's\n      Theorem and the Allied Theory_; &c.\n\n    Function: _Functions of Complex Variables_.\n\n  H. L. C.\n    HUGH LONGBOURNE CALLENDAR, F.R.S., LL.D.\n\n      Professor of Physics, Royal College of Science, London. Formerly\n      Professor of Physics in MacGill College, Montreal, and in\n      University College, London.\n\n    Fusion.\n\n  H. M.*\n    HUGH MITCHELL.\n\n      Barrister-at-Law, Inner Temple.\n\n    Gibraltar (_in part_).\n\n  H. M. W.\n    H. MARSHALL WARD, M.A., D.SC., F.R.S. (d. 1905).\n\n      Formerly Professor of Botany, Cambridge. President of the British\n      Mycological Society. Author of _Timber and Some of its Diseases_;\n      _The Oak_; _Sach's Lectures on the Physiology of Plants_;\n      _Diseases in Plants_; &c.\n\n    Fungi (_in part_).\n\n  H. N.\n    HENRY NICOL.\n\n    French Language (_in part_).\n\n  H. R. M.\n    HUGH ROBERT MILL, D.SC., LL.D.\n\n      Director of British Rainfall Organization. Editor of _British\n      Rainfall_. Formerly President of the Royal Meteorological Society.\n      Hon. Member of Vienna Geographical Society. Hon. Corresponding\n      Member of Geographical Societies of Paris, Berlin, Budapest, St\n      Petersburg, Amsterdam, &c. Author of _The Realm of Nature_; _The\n      International Geography_; &c.\n\n    Geography.\n\n  H. W. C. D.\n    HENRY WILLIAM CARLESS DAVIS, M.A.\n\n      Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College, Oxford. Fellow of All Souls\n      College, Oxford, 1895-1902. Author of _England under the Normans\n      and Angevins_; _Charlemagne_.\n\n    Geoffrey, _Archbishop of York_;\n    Geoffrey of Monmouth;\n    Gerard;\n    Gervase of Canterbury;\n    Gervase of Tilbury.\n\n  H. W. S.\n    H. WICKHAM STEED.\n\n      Correspondent of _The Times_ at Rome (1897-1902) and Vienna.\n\n    Garibaldi.\n\n  I. A.\n    ISRAEL ABRAHAMS, M.A.\n\n      Reader in Talmudic and Rabbinic Literature in the University of\n      Cambridge. Formerly President, Jewish Historical Society of\n      England. Author of _A Short History of Jewish Literature_; _Jewish\n      Life in the Middle Ages_; _Judaism_; &c.\n\n    Frank, Jakob;\n    Frankel, Zecharias;\n    Frankl, Ludwig A.;\n    Friedmann, Meir;\n    Gaon;\n    Geiger (_in part_);\n    Gersonides.\n\n  J. A. F.\n    JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING, M.A., D.SC., F.R.S.\n\n      Pender Professor of Electrical Engineering in the University of\n      London. Fellow of University College, London. Formerly Fellow of\n      St John's College, Cambridge, and Lecturer on Applied Mechanics in\n      the University. Author of _Magnets and Electric Currents_.\n\n    Galvanometer.\n\n  J. A. H.\n    JOHN ALLEN HOWE, B.SC.\n\n      Curator and Librarian of the Museum of Practical Geology, London.\n      Author of _The Geology of Building Stones_.\n\n    Fuller's Earth.\n\n  J. B. B.\n    JOHN BAGNALL BURY, LL.D., D.C.L.\n\n      See the biographical article, BURY, J. B.\n\n    Gibbon, Edward.\n\n  J. B. McM.\n    JOHN BACH MCMASTER, LL.D.\n\n      Professor of American History in the University of Pennsylvania.\n      Author of _A History of the People of the United States_; &c.\n\n    Garfield, James Abram.\n\n  J. Ga.\n    JAMES GAIRDNER, LL.D., C.B.\n\n      See the biographical article, GAIRDNER, J.\n\n    Gardiner, Stephen.\n\n  J. G. C. A.\n    JOHN GEORGE CLARK ANDERSON, M.A.\n\n      Censor and Tutor of Christ Church, Oxford. Formerly Fellow of\n      Lincoln College; Craven Fellow, Oxford, 1896. Conington Prizeman,\n      1893.\n\n    Galatia.\n\n  J. G. R.\n    JOHN GEORGE ROBERTSON, M.A., PH.D.\n\n      Professor of German, University of London. Author of _History of\n      German Literature_; _Schiller after a Century_; &c.\n\n    Freiligrath;\n    German Literature.\n\n  J. Hn.\n    JUSTUS HASHAGEN, PH.D.\n\n      Privat-dozent in Medieval and Modern History, University of Bonn.\n      Author of _Das Rheinland und die franzoesische Herrschaft_.\n\n    Frederick Augustus I. and II.;\n    Frederick William I.\n\n  J. H. Gr.\n    JOHN HILTON GRACE, M.A., F.R.S.\n\n      Lecturer in Mathematics at Peterhouse and Pembroke College,\n      Cambridge. Fellow of Peterhouse.\n\n    Geometry, V.\n\n  J. H. H.\n    JOHN HENRY HESSELS, M.A.\n\n      Author of _Gutenberg: an Historical Investigation_.\n\n    Fust.\n\n  J. H. R.\n    JOHN HORACE ROUND, M.A., LL.D. (Edin.).\n\n      Author of _Feudal England_; _Studies in Peerage and Family\n      History_; _Peerage and Pedigree_; &c.\n\n    Geoffrey De Montbray.\n\n  J. Hl. R.\n    JOHN HOLLAND ROSE, M.A., LITT.D.\n\n      Christ's College, Cambridge. Lecturer on Modern History to the\n      Cambridge University Local Lectures Syndicate. Author of _Life of\n      Napoleon I._; _Napoleonic Studies_; _The Development of the\n      European Nations_; _The Life of Pitt_; &c.\n\n    Gardane.\n\n  J. Mt.\n    JAMES MOFFATT, M.A., D.D.\n\n      Jowett Lecturer, London, 1907. Author of _Historical New\n      Testament_; &c.\n\n    Galatians, Epistle to the.\n\n  J. P.-B.\n    JAMES GEORGE JOSEPH PENDEREL-BRODHURST.\n\n      Editor of the _Guardian_ (London).\n\n    Furniture.\n\n  J. Si.\n    JAMES SIME, M.A. (1843-1895).\n\n      Author of _A History of Germany_; &c.\n\n    Frederick the Great (_in part_).\n\n  J. S. Bl.\n    JOHN SUTHERLAND BLACK, M.A., LL.D.\n\n      Assistant Editor 9th edition _Encyclopaedia Britannica_.\n      Joint-editor of the _Encyclopaedia Biblica_.\n\n    Free Church of Scotland (_in part_).\n\n  J. S. F.\n    JOHN SMITH FLETT, D.SC., F.G.S.\n\n      Petrographer to the Geological Survey. Formerly Lecturer on\n      Petrology in Edinburgh University. Neill Medallist of the Royal\n      Society of Edinburgh. Bigsby Medallist of the Geological Society\n      of London.\n\n    Fulgurite;\n    Gabbro.\n\n  J. T. Be.\n    JOHN T. BEALBY.\n\n      Joint-author of Stanford's _Europe_. Formerly Editor of the\n      _Scottish Geographical Magazine_. Translator of Sven Hedin's\n      _Through Asia, Central Asia and Tibet_; &c.\n\n    Georgia (Russia), (_in part_).\n\n  J. T. C.\n    JOSEPH THOMAS CUNNINGHAM, M.A., F.Z.S.\n\n      Lecturer on Zoology at the South-Western Polytechnic, London.\n      Formerly Fellow of University College, Oxford. Assistant Professor\n      of Natural History in the University of Edinburgh. Naturalist to\n      the Marine Biological Association.\n\n    Gastropoda.\n\n  J. V. B.\n    JAMES VERNON BARTLET, M.A., D.D. (St. Andrews).\n\n      Professor of Church History, Mansfield College, Oxford. Author of\n      _The Apostolic Age_; &c.\n\n    Frommel.\n\n  J. Ws.\n    JOHN WEATHERS, F.R.H.S.\n\n      Lecturer on Horticulture to the Middlesex County Council. Author\n      of _Practical Guide to Garden Plants_; _French Market Gardening_;\n      &c.\n\n    Fruit and Flower Farming (_in part_).\n\n  J. W. He.\n    JAMES WYCLIFFE HEADLAM, M.A.\n\n      Staff Inspector of Secondary Schools under the Board of Education.\n      Formerly Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. Professor of Greek\n      and Ancient History at Queen's College, London. Author of\n      _Bismarck and the Foundation of the German Empire_; &c.\n\n    Frederick III. of Prussia;\n    Germany: _History (in part)_.\n\n  K. S.\n    KATHLEEN SCHLESINGER.\n\n      Author of _The Instruments of the Orchestra_; &c. Editor of the\n      _Portfolio of Musical Archaeology_.\n\n    Free Reed Vibrator;\n    Geige.\n\n  L. D.\n    LOUIS DUCHESNE.\n\n      See the biographical article, DUCHESNE, L. M. O.\n\n    Gelasius I.\n\n  L. H.*\n    LOUIS HALPHEN, D.-ES.-L.\n\n      Principal of the course of the Faculty of Letters in the\n      University of Bordeaux. Author of _Le Comte d'Anjou au XI^e\n      siecle; Recueil des actes angevines_; &c.\n\n    Fulk Nerra;\n    Geoffrey, Count of Anjou;\n    Geoffrey Plantaganet.\n\n  L. J. S.\n    LEONARD JAMES SPENCER, M.A.\n\n      Assistant in Department of Mineralogy, British Museum. Formerly\n      Scholar of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, and Harkness Scholar.\n      Editor of the _Mineralogical Magazine_.\n\n    Galena.\n\n  L. V.\n    LINDA MARY VILLARI.\n\n      See the biographical article, VILLARI, PASQUALE.\n\n    Frederick III. King of Sicily.\n\n  M. G.\n    MOSES GASTER, PH.D.\n\n      Chief Rabbi of the Sephardic communities of England.\n      Vice-President, Zionist Congress, 1898, 1899, 1900. Ilchester\n      Lecturer at Oxford on Slavonic and Byzantine Literature, 1886 and\n      1891. President, Folk-lore Society of England. Vice-President,\n      Anglo-Jewish Association. Author of _History of Rumanian Popular\n      Literature_; _A New Hebrew Fragment of Ben-Sira_; _The Hebrew\n      Version of the Secretum Secretorum of Aristotle_.\n\n    Ghica.\n\n  M. N. T.\n    MARCUS NIEBUHR TOD, M.A.\n\n      Fellow and Tutor of Oriel College, Oxford. University Lecturer in\n      Epigraphy. Joint-author of _Catalogue of the Sparta Museum_.\n\n    Gerousia.\n\n  O. Ba.\n    OSWALD BARRON, F.S.A.\n\n      Editor of The Ancestor, 1902-1905. Hon. Genealogist to Standing\n      Council of the Honourable Society of the Baronetage.\n\n    Genealogy: _Modern_.\n\n  O. H.\n    OLAUS MAGNUS FRIEDRICH HENRICI, PH.D., LL.D., F.R.S.\n\n      Professor of Mechanics and Mathematics in the Central Technical\n      College of the City and Guilds of London Institute. Author of\n      _Vectors and Rotors_; _Congruent Figures_; &c.\n\n    Geometry, I., II., and III.\n\n  P. A.\n    PAUL DANIEL ALPHANDERY.\n\n      Professor of the History of Dogma, Ecole pratique des hautes\n      etudes, Sorbonne, Paris. Author of _Les Idees morales chez les\n      heterodoxes latines au debut du XIII^e siecle_.\n\n    Fraticelli.\n\n  P. A. A.\n    PHILIP A. ASHWORTH, M.A., DOC.JURIS.\n\n      New College, Oxford. Barrister-at-Law. Translator of H. R. von\n      Gneist's _History of the English Constitution_.\n\n    Germany: _Geography_.\n\n  P. Gi.\n    PETER GILES, M.A., LL.D., LITT.D.\n\n      Fellow and Classical Lecturer of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and\n      University Reader in Comparative Philology. Formerly Secretary of\n      the Cambridge Philological Society. Author of _Manual of\n      Comparative Philology_; &c.\n\n    G.\n\n  P. La.\n    PHILIP LAKE, M.A., F.G.S.\n\n      Lecturer on Physical and Regional Geography in Cambridge\n      University. Formerly of the Geological Survey of India. _Author of\n      Monograph of British Cambrian Trilobites_. Translator and editor\n      of Kayser's _Comparative Geology_.\n\n    Germany: _Geology_.\n\n  P. M.\n    PAUL MEYER.\n\n      See the biographical article, MEYER, M. P. H.\n\n    French Language (_in part_).\n\n  R. Ad.\n    ROBERT ADAMSON, LL.D.\n\n      See the biographical article. ADAMSON, ROBERT.\n\n    Gassendi (_in part_).\n\n  R. A. S. M.\n    ROBERT ALEXANDER STEWART MACALISTER, M.A., F.S.A.\n\n      St John's College, Cambridge. Director of Excavations for the\n      Palestine Exploration Fund.\n\n    Gadara;\n    Galilee (_in part_);\n    Galilee, Sea of (_in part_);\n    Gerasa;\n    Gerizim;\n    Gezer;\n    Gibeon.\n\n  R. Ca.\n    ROBERT CARRUTHERS, LL.D. (1799-1878).\n\n      Editor of the _Inverness Courier_, 1828-1878. Part-editor of\n      Chambers's _Cyclopaedia of English Literature_; Lecturer at the\n      Philosophical Institution, Edinburgh. Author of _History of\n      Huntingdon_; _Life of Pope_.\n\n    Garrick, David (_in part_).\n\n  R. H. Q.\n    REV. ROBERT HEBERT QUICK, M.A., (1831-1891).\n\n      Formerly Lecturer on Education, University of Cambridge. Author of\n      _Essays on Educational Reformers_.\n\n    Froebel.\n\n  R. L.*\n    RICHARD LYDEKKER, F.R.S., F.Z.S., F.G.S.\n\n      Member of the Staff of the Geological Survey of India, 1874-1882.\n      Author of Catalogues of _Fossil Mammals, Reptiles and Birds in\n      British Museum_; _The Deer of all Lands_; &c.\n\n    Galago;\n    Galeopithecus;\n    Ganodonta;\n    Gelada;\n    Gibbon.\n\n  R. N. B.\n    ROBERT NISBET BAIN (d. 1909).\n\n      Assistant Librarian, British Museum, 1883-1909. Author of\n      _Scandinavia, the Political History of Denmark, Norway and Sweden,\n      1513-1900_; _The First Romanovs, 1613 to 1725_; _Slavonic Europe,\n      the Political History of Poland and Russia from 1469 to 1796_;\n      &c.\n\n    Frederick II. and III. of Denmark and Norway;\n    Gedymin.\n\n  R. Pr.\n    ROBERT PRIEBSCH, PH.D.\n\n      Professor of German Philology, University of London. Author of\n      _Deutsche Handschriften in England_; &c.\n\n    German Language.\n\n  R. P. S.\n    R. PHENE SPIERS, F.S.A., F.R.I.B.A.\n\n      Formerly Master of the Architectural School, Royal Academy,\n      London. Past President of Architectural Association. Associate and\n      Fellow of King's College, London. Corresponding Member of the\n      Institute of France. Editor of Fergusson's _History of\n      Architecture_. _Author of Architecture: East and West_; &c.\n\n    Garnier, J.\n\n  R. We.\n    RICHARD WEBSTER, M.A. (Princeton).\n\n      Formerly Fellow in Classics, Princeton University. Editor of _The\n      Elegies of Maximianus_; &c.\n\n    Franklin, Benjamin.\n\n  S. A. C.\n    STANLEY ARTHUR COOK, M.A.\n\n      Editor for Palestine Exploration Fund. Lecturer in Hebrew and\n      Syriac, and formerly Fellow, Gonville and Caius College,\n      Cambridge. Examiner in Hebrew and Aramaic, London University,\n      1904-1908. Council of Royal Asiatic Society, 1904-1905. Author of\n      _Glossary of Aramaic Inscriptions_; _The Laws of Moses and the\n      Code of Hammurabi_; _Critical Notes on Old Testament History_;\n      _Religion of Ancient Palestine, &c._\n\n    Genealogy: _Biblical_;\n    Genesis.\n\n  St. C.\n    VISCOUNT ST CYRES.\n\n      See the biographical article, IDDESLEIGH, 1ST EARL OF.\n\n    Gallicanism.\n\n  S. R. G.\n    SAMUEL RAWSON GARDINER, LL.D., D.C.L.\n\n      See the biographical article, GARDINER, S. R.\n\n    George I., II., III.;\n    George IV. (_in part_).\n\n  T. As.\n    THOMAS ASHBY, M.A., D.LITT. (Oxon.).\n\n      Director of British School of Archaeology at Rome. Formerly\n      Scholar at Christ Church, Oxford. Craven Fellow, 1897, Conington\n      Prizeman, 1906. Member of the Imperial German Archaeological\n      Institute.\n\n    Frascati Fregellae;\n    Frascati;\n    Fregellae;\n    Fucino,Lago Di;\n    Fulginiae;\n    Fusaro, Lago;\n    Gabii;\n    Gaeta;\n    Gallipoli (Italy);\n    Gela;\n    Genoa.\n\n  T. Ba.\n    SIR THOMAS BARCLAY, M.P.\n\n      Member of the Institute of International Law. Member of the\n      Supreme Council of the Congo Free State. Officer of the Legion of\n      Honour. Author of _Problems of International Practice and\n      Diplomacy_; &c. M.P. for Blackburn, 1910.\n\n    Geneva Convention.\n\n  T. C. H.\n    THOMAS CALLAN HODSON.\n\n      Registrar, East London College, University of London. Late Indian\n      Civil Service. Author of _The Metheis_; &c.\n\n    Genna.\n\n  T. E. H.\n    THOMAS ERSKINE HOLLAND, K.C., D.C.L., LL.D.\n\n      Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. Professor of International\n      Law and Diplomacy in the University of Oxford, 1874-1910. Fellow\n      of the British Academy. Bencher of Lincoln's Inn. Author of\n      _Studies in International Law_; _The Elements of Jurisprudence_;\n      _Alberici Gentilis de jure belli_; _The Laws of War on Land_;\n      _Neutral Duties in a Maritime War_; &c.\n\n    Gentili.\n\n  T. G. S.\n    THOMAS GASKELL SHEARMAN (d. 1900).\n\n      Author of _The Single Tax_; _Natural Taxation_; _Distribution of\n      Wealth_; &c.\n\n    George, Henry.\n\n  T. H. H.*\n    COLONEL SIR THOMAS HUNGERFORD HOLDICH, K.C.M.G., K.C.I.E., D.SC.\n\n      Superintendent Frontier Surveys, India, 1892-1898. Gold Medallist,\n      R.G.S. (London), 1887. Author of _The Indian Borderland_; _The\n      Countries of the King's Award_; _India_; _Tibet_; &c.\n\n    Ganges.\n\n  T. M. L.\n    REV. THOMAS MARTIN LINDSAY, D.D.\n\n      Principal and Professor of Church History, United Free Church\n      College, Glasgow. Author of _Life of Luther_; &c.\n\n    Gerson (_in part_).\n\n  V. B. L.\n    VIVIAN BYAM LEWES, F.I.C., F.C.S.\n\n      Professor of Chemistry, Royal Naval College, Greenwich. Chief\n      Superintending Gas Examiner to City of London.\n\n    Gas: _Manufacture_, I.\n\n  V. H. B.\n    VERNON HERBERT BLACKMAN, M.A., D.SC.\n\n      Professor of Botany in the University of Leeds. Formerly Fellow of\n      St John's College, Cambridge.\n\n    Fungi (_in part_).\n\n  W. A. B. C.\n    REV. WILLIAM AUGUSTUS BREVOORT COOLIDGE, M.A., F.R.G.S., PH.D.\n      (Bern).\n\n      Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. Professor of English History,\n      St David's College, Lampeter, 1880-1881. Author of _Guide du Haut\n      Dauphine_; _The Range of the Toedi_; _Guide to Grindelwald_; _Guide\n      to Switzerland_; _The Alps in Nature and in History_; &c. Editor\n      of _The Alpine Journal_, 1880-1881; &c.\n\n    Frauenfeld;\n    Frejus;\n    Fribourg;\n    Gap;\n    Garda, Lake of;\n    Gemmi Pass;\n    Geneva;\n    Geneva, Lake of.\n\n  W. A. P.\n    WALTER ALISON PHILLIPS, M.A.\n\n      Formerly Exhibitioner of Merton College and Senior Scholar of St\n      John's College, Oxford. Author of _Modern Europe_; &c.\n\n    Frederick II. of Prussia (_in part_);\n    Gentleman;\n    Gentz, Friedrich;\n    Germany: _History_ (_in part_)\n\n  W. Ba.\n    WILLIAM BACHER, PH.D.\n\n      Professor of Biblical Science at the Rabbinical Seminary,\n      Budapest.\n\n    Gamaliel.\n\n  W. Be.\n    SIR WALTER BESANT.\n\n      See the biographical article, BESANT, SIR W.\n\n    Froissart.\n\n  W. C.\n    SIR WILLIAM CROOKES, F.R.S.\n\n      See the biographical article, CROOKES, SIR WILLIAM.\n\n    Gem, Artificial.\n\n  W. Cu.\n    THE VEN. WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, M.A., D.D.\n\n      Archdeacon of Ely. Birkbeck Lecturer in Ecclesiastical History,\n      Trinity College, Cambridge. Fellow of the British Academy. Fellow\n      of Trinity College, Cambridge. Author of _Growth of English\n      Industry and Commerce_; &c.\n\n    Free Trade.\n\n  W. E. D.\n    WILLIAM ERNEST DALBY, M.A., M.INST.C.E., M.I.M.E.\n\n      Professor of Civil and Mechanical Engineering at the City and\n      Guilds of London Institute Central Technical College, South\n      Kensington. Formerly University Demonstrator in the Engineering\n      Department of Cambridge University. Author of _The Balancing of\n      Engines_; _Valves and Valve Gear Mechanism_; &c.\n\n    Friction (_in part_).\n\n  W. Fr.\n    WILLIAM FREAM, LL.D. (d. 1906).\n\n      Formerly Lecturer on Agricultural Entomology, University of\n      Edinburgh, and Agricultural Correspondent of The Times.\n\n    Fruit and Flower Farming (_in part_).\n\n  W. F. C.\n    WILLIAM FEILDEN CRAIES, M.A.\n\n      Barrister-at-Law, Inner Temple. Lecturer on Criminal Law, King's\n      College, London. Editor of Archbold's _Criminal Pleading_ (23rd\n      edition).\n\n    Game Laws;\n    Gaming and Wagering.\n\n  W. Hu.\n    REV. WILLIAM HUNT, M.A., LITT.D.\n\n      President of the Royal Historical Society 1905-1909. Author of\n      _History of English Church_, 597-1066; _The Church of England in\n      the Middle Ages_; _Political History of England, 1760-1801_; &c.\n\n    Freeman, Edward A.;\n    Froude;\n    Gardiner, Samuel Rawson.\n\n  W. J. H.*\n    WILLIAM JAMES HUGHAN.\n\n      Past S.G.D. of the Grand Lodge of England. Author of _Origin of\n      the English Rite of Freemasonry_.\n\n    Freemasonry.\n\n  W. L. F.\n    WALTER LYNWOOD FLEMING, M.A., PH.D.\n\n      Professor of History in Louisiana State University. Author of\n      _Documentary History of Reconstruction_; &c.\n\n    Freedmen's Bureau.\n\n  W. L. G.\n    WILLIAM LAWSON GRANT, M.A.\n\n      Professor of Colonial History, Queen's University, Kingston,\n      Canada. Formerly Beit Lecturer in Colonial History, Oxford\n      University. Editor of _Acts of the Privy Council_ (Canadian\n      Series).\n\n    Gait, Sir Alexander T.\n\n  W. M. R.\n    WILLIAM MICHAEL ROSSETTI.\n\n      See the biographical article, ROSSETTI, DANTE G.\n\n    Fuseli;\n    Gaddi;\n    Gainsborough;\n    Ghirlandajo, Domenico;\n    Ghirlandajo, Ridolfo.\n\n  W. R. B.*\n    WILLIAM RAIMOND BAIRD, LL.D.\n\n      Author of _Manual of American College Fraternities_; &c. Editor\n      of _The Beta Theta Pi_.\n\n    Fraternities, College.\n\n  W. S. P.\n    WALTER SUTHERLAND PARKER.\n\n      Deputy Chairman, Fur Section, London Chamber of Commerce.\n\n    Fur.\n\n\n\n\nPRINCIPAL UNSIGNED ARTICLES\n\n  Franz Josef Land.       Galicia.                Geraniaceae.\n  Free Church Federation. Galway.                 Geranium.\n  French Guinea.          Gambia.                 German Baptist Brethren.\n  French West Africa.     Gawain.                 German Catholics.\n  Friedland.              Gelatin.                Gettysburg.\n  Frisian Islands.        Genius.                 Geyser.\n  Frisians.               Gentian.                Ghazni.\n  Fronde, The.            Gentianaceae.           Ghent.\n  Fuero.                  George, Saint.          Ghor.\n  Furnace.                George Junior Republic. Giant.\n  Galapagos Islands.      Georgia (U.S.A.).\n\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n  [1] A complete list, showing all individual contributors, appears in\n    the final volume.\n\n\n\n\n  ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA\n\n  ELEVENTH EDITION\n\n  VOLUME XI\n\n\n\n\nFRANCISCANS (otherwise called Friars Minor, or Minorites; also the\nSeraphic Order; and in England Grey Friars, from the colour of the\nhabit, which, however, is now brown rather than grey), a religious order\nfounded by St Francis of Assisi (q.v.). It was in 1206 that St Francis\nleft his father's house and devoted himself to a life of poverty and to\nthe service of the poor, the sick and the lepers; and in 1209 that he\nfelt the call to add preaching to his other ministrations, and to lead a\nlife in the closest imitation of Christ's life. Within a few weeks\ndisciples began to join themselves to him; the condition was that they\nshould dispose of all their possessions. When their number was twelve\nFrancis led the little flock to Rome to obtain the pope's sanction for\ntheir undertaking. Innocent III. received them kindly, but with some\nmisgivings as to the feasibility of the proposed manner of life; these\ndifficulties were overcome, and the pope accorded a provisional approval\nby word of mouth: they were to become clerics and to elect a superior.\nFrancis was elected and made a promise of obedience to the pope, and the\nothers promised obedience to Francis.\n\nThis formal inauguration of the institute was in 1209 or (as seems more\nprobable) 1210. Francis and his associates were first known as\n\"Penitents of Assisi,\" and then Francis chose the title of \"Minors.\" On\ntheir return to Assisi they obtained from the Benedictine abbey on Mount\nSubasio the use of the little chapel of St Mary of the Angels, called\nthe Portiuncula, in the plain below Assisi, which became the cradle and\nheadquarters of the order. Around the Portiuncula they built themselves\nhuts of branches and twigs, but they had no fixed abode; they wandered\nin pairs over the country, dressed in the ordinary clothes of the\npeasants, working in the fields to earn their daily bread, sleeping in\nbarns or in the hedgerows or in the porches of the churches, mixing with\nthe labourers and the poor, with the lepers and the outcasts, ever\njoyous--the \"joculatores\" or \"jongleurs\" of God--ever carrying out their\nmission of preaching to the lowly and to the wretched religion and\nrepentance and the kingdom of God. The key-note of the movement was the\nimitation of the public life of Christ, especially the poverty of\nChrist. Francis and his disciples were to aim at possessing nothing,\nabsolutely nothing, so far as was compatible with life; they were to\nearn their bread from day to day by the work of their hands, and only\nwhen they could not do so were they to beg; they were to make no\nprovision for the morrow, lay by no store, accumulate no capital,\npossess no land; their clothes should be the poorest and their dwellings\nthe meanest; they were forbidden to receive or to handle money. On the\nother hand they were bound only to the fast observed in those days by\npious Christians, and were allowed to eat meat--the rule said they\nshould eat whatever was set before them; no austerities were imposed,\nbeyond those inseparable from the manner of life they lived.\n\nThus the institute in its original conception was quite different from\nthe monastic institute, Benedictine or Canon Regular. It was a\nconfraternity rather than an order, and there was no formal novitiate,\nno organization. But the number of brothers increased with extraordinary\nrapidity, and the field of work soon extended itself beyond the\nneighbourhood of Assisi and even beyond Umbria--within three or four\nyears there were settlements in Perugia, Cortona, Pisa, Florence and\nelsewhere, and missions to the Saracens and Moors were attempted by\nFrancis himself. About 1217 Franciscan missions set out for Germany,\nFrance, Spain, Hungary and the Holy Land; and in 1219 a number of\nprovinces were formed, each governed by a provincial minister. These\ndevelopments, whereby the little band of Umbrian apostles had grown into\nan institute spread all over Europe and even penetrating to the East,\nand numbering thousands of members, rendered impossible the continuance\nof the original free organization whereby Francis's word and example\nwere the sufficient practical rule of life for all: it was necessary as\na condition of efficiency and even of existence and permanence that some\nkind of organization should be provided. From an early date yearly\nmeetings or chapters had been held at the Portiuncula, at first attended\nby the whole body of friars; but as the institute extended this became\nunworkable, and after 1219 the chapter consisted only of the officials,\nprovincial ministers and others. During Francis's absence in the East\n(1219-1220) a deliberate movement was initiated by the two vicars whom\nhe had left in charge of the order, towards assimilating it to the\nmonastic orders. Francis hurried back, bringing with him Elias of\nCortona, the provincial minister of Syria, and immediately summoned an\nextraordinary general chapter (September 1220). Before it met he had an\ninterview on the situation with Cardinal Hugolino of Ostia (afterwards\nGregory IX.), the great friend and supporter of both Francis and\nDominic, and he went to Honorius III. at Orvieto and begged that\nHugolino should be appointed the official protector of the order. The\nrequest was granted, and a bull was issued formally approving the order\nof Friars Minor, and decreeing that before admission every one must pass\na year's novitiate, and that after profession it was not lawful to leave\nthe order. By this bull the Friars Minor were constituted an order in\nthe technical sense of the word. When the chapter assembled, Francis, no\ndoubt from a genuine feeling that he was not able to govern a great\nworld-wide order, practically abdicated the post of minister-general by\nappointing a vicar, and the policy of turning the Friars Minor into a\ngreat religious order was consistently pursued, especially by Elias, who\na year later became Francis's vicar.\n\n  St Francis's attitude towards this change is of primary importance for\n  the interpretation of Franciscan history. There can be little doubt\n  that his affections never altered from his first love, and that he\n  looked back regretfully on the \"Umbrian idyll\" that had passed away;\n  on the other hand, there seems to be no reason for doubting that he\n  saw that the methods of the early days were now no longer possible,\n  and that he acquiesced in the inevitable. This seems to be Professor\n  Goetz's view, who holds that Sabatier's picture of Francis's agonized\n  sadness at witnessing the destruction of his great creation going on\n  under his eyes, has no counterpart in fact, and who rejects the view\n  that the changes were forced on Francis against his better judgment by\n  Hugolino and Elias (see \"Note on Sources\" at end of article FRANCIS OF\n  ASSISI; also ELIAS OF CORTONA); Goetz holds that the only conflict was\n  the inevitable one between an unrealizable ideal and its practical\n  working among average men. But there does seem to be evidence that\n  Francis deplored tendencies towards a departure from the severe\n  simplicity of life and from the strict observance of poverty which he\n  considered the ground-idea of his institute. In the final redaction of\n  his Rule made in 1223 and in his Testament, made after it, he again\n  clearly asserts his mind on these subjects, especially on poverty; and\n  in the Testament he forbids any glosses in the interpretation of the\n  Rule, declaring that it is to be taken simply as it stands. Sabatier's\n  view as to the difference between the \"First Rule\" and that of 1223 is\n  part of his general theory, and is, to say the least, a grave\n  exaggeration. No doubt the First Rule, which is fully four times as\n  long, gives a better picture of St Francis's mind and character; the\n  later Rule has been formed from the earlier by the elimination of the\n  frequent scripture texts and the edificatory element; but the greater\n  portion of it stood almost verbally in the earlier.\n\nOn Francis's death in 1226 the government of the order rested in the\nhands of Elias until the chapter of 1227. At this chapter Elias was not\nelected minister-general; the building of the great basilica and\nmonastery at Assisi was so manifest a violation of St Francis's ideas\nand precepts that it produced a reaction, and John Parenti became St\nFrancis's first successor. He held fast to St Francis's ideas, but was\nnot a strong man. At the chapter of 1230 a discussion arose concerning\nthe binding force of St Francis's Testament, and the interpretation of\ncertain portions of the Rule, especially concerning poverty, and it was\ndetermined to submit the questions to Pope Gregory IX., who had been St\nFrancis's friend and had helped in the final redaction of the Rule. He\nissued a bull, _Quo elongati_, which declared that as the Testament had\nnot received the sanction of the general chapter it was not binding on\nthe order, and also allowed trustees to hold and administer money for\nthe order. John Parenti and those who wished to maintain St Francis's\ninstitute intact were greatly disturbed by these relaxations; but a\nmajority of the chapter of 1232, by a sort of _coup d'etat_, proclaimed\nElias minister-general, and John retired, though in those days the\noffice was for life. Under Elias the order entered on a period of\nextraordinary extension and prosperity: the number of friars in all\nparts of the world increased wonderfully, new provinces were formed, new\nmissions to the heathen organized, the Franciscans entered the\nuniversities and vied with the Dominicans as teachers of theology and\ncanon law, and as a body they became influential in church and state.\nWith all this side of Elias's policy the great bulk of the order\nsympathized; but his rule was despotic and tyrannical and his private\nlife was lax--at least according to any Franciscan standard, for no\ncharge of grave irregularity was ever brought against him. And so a\nwidespread movement against his government arose, the backbone of which\nwas the university element at Paris and Oxford, and at a dramatic scene\nin a chapter held in the presence of Gregory IX. Elias was deposed\n(1239).\n\n  The story of these first years after St Francis's death is best told\n  by Ed. Lempp, _Frere Elie de Cortone_ (1901) (but see the warning at\n  the end of the article ELIAS OF CORTONA).\n\nAt this time the Franciscans were divided into three parties: there were\nthe Zealots, or Spirituals, who called for a literal observance of St\nFrancis's Rule and Testament; they deplored all the developments since\n1219, and protested against turning the institute into an order, the\nfrequentation of the universities and the pursuit of learning; in a\nword, they wished to restore the life to what it had been during the\nfirst few years--the hermitages and the huts of twigs, and the care of\nthe lepers and the nomadic preaching. The Zealots were few in number but\nof great consequence from the fact that to them belonged most of the\nfirst disciples and the most intimate companions of St Francis. They had\nbeen grievously persecuted under Elias--Br. Leo and others had been\nscourged, several had been imprisoned, one while trying to escape was\naccidentally killed, and Br. Bernard, the \"first disciple,\" passed a\nyear in hiding in the forests and mountains hunted like a wild beast. At\nthe other extreme was a party of relaxation, that abandoned any serious\neffort to practise Franciscan poverty and simplicity of life. Between\nthese two stood the great middle party of moderates, who desired indeed\nthat the Franciscans should be really poor and simple in their manner of\nlife, and really pious, but on the other hand approved of the\ndevelopment of the Order on the lines of other orders, of the\nacquisition of influence, of the cultivation of theology and other\nsciences, and of the frequenting of the universities.\n\n  The questions of principle at issue in these controversies is\n  reasonably and clearly stated, from the modern Capuchin standpoint, in\n  the \"Introductory Essay\" to _The Friars and how they came to England_,\n  by Fr. Cuthbert (1903).\n\nThe moderate party was by far the largest, and embraced nearly all the\nfriars of France, England and Germany. It was the Moderates and not the\nZealots that brought about Elias's deposition, and the next general\nministers belonged to this party. Further relaxations of the law of\npoverty, however, caused a reaction, and John of Parma, one of the\nZealots, became minister-general, 1247-1257. Under him the more extreme\nof the Zealots took up and exaggerated the theories of the Eternal\nGospel of the Calabrian Cistercian abbot Joachim of Fiore (Floris); some\nof their writings were condemned as heretical, and John of Parma, who\nwas implicated in these apocalyptic tendencies, had to resign. He was\nsucceeded by St Bonaventura (1257-1274), one of the best type of the\nmiddle party. He was a man of high character, a theologian, a mystic, a\nholy man and a strong ruler. He set himself with determination to effect\na working compromise, and proceeded with firmness against the extremists\non both sides. But controversy and recrimination and persecution had\nstiffened the more ardent among the Zealots into obstinate\nfanatics--some of them threw themselves into a movement that may best be\nbriefly described as a recrudescence of Montanism (see Emile Gebhart's\n_Italie mystique_, 1899, cc. v. and vi.), and developed into a number of\nsects, some on the fringe of Catholic Christianity and others beyond its\npale. But the majority of the Zealot party, or Spirituals, did not go so\nfar, and adopted as the principle of Franciscan poverty the formula \"a\npoor and scanty use\" (_usus pauper et tenuis_) of earthly goods, as\nopposed to the \"moderate use\" advocated by the less strict party. The\nquestion thus posed came before the Council of Vienne, 1312, and was\ndetermined, on the whole, decidedly in favour of the stricter view. Some\nof the French Zealots were not satisfied and formed a semi-schismatical\nbody in Provence; twenty-five of them were tried before the Inquisition,\nand four were burned alive at Marseilles as obstinate heretics, 1318.\nAfter this the schism in the Order subsided. But the disintegrating\nforces produced by the Great Schism and by the other disorders of the\n14th century caused among the Franciscans the same relaxations and\ncorruptions, and also the same reactions and reform movements, as among\nthe other orders.\n\nThe chief of these reforms was that of the Observants, which began at\nFoligno about 1370. The Observant reform was on the basis of the \"poor\nand scanty use\" of worldly goods, but it was organized as an order and\nits members freely pursued theological studies; thus it did not\nrepresent the position of the original Zealot party, nor was it the\ncontinuation of it. The Observant reform spread widely throughout Italy\nand into France, Spain and Germany. The great promoters of the movement\nwere St Bernardine of Siena and St John Capistran. The council of\nConstance, 1415, allowed the French Observant friaries to be ruled by a\nvicar of their own, under the minister-general, and the same privilege\nwas soon accorded to other countries. By the end of the middle ages the\nObservants had some 1400 houses divided into 50 provinces. This movement\nproduced a \"half-reform\" among the Conventuals or friars of the\nmitigated observance; it also called forth a number of lesser imitations\nor congregations of strict observance.\n\nAfter many attempts had been made to bring about a working union among\nthe many observances, in 1517 Leo X. divided the Franciscan order into\ntwo distinct and independent bodies, each with its own minister-general,\nits own provinces and provincials and its own general chapter: (1) The\nConventuals, who were authorized to use the various papal dispensations\nin regard to the observance of poverty, and were allowed to possess\nproperty and fixed income, corporately, like the monastic orders; (2)\nThe Observants, who were bound to as close an observance of St Francis's\nRule in regard to poverty and all else as was practically possible.\n\nAt this time a great number of the Conventuals went over to the\nObservants, who have ever since been by far the more numerous and\ninfluential branch of the order. Among the Observants in the course of\nthe sixteenth century arose various reforms, each striving to approach\nmore and more nearly to St Francis's ideal; the chief of these reforms\nwere the Alcantarines in Spain (St Peter of Alcantara, St Teresa's\nfriend, d. 1562), the Riformati in Italy and the Recollects in France:\nall of these were semi-independent congregations. The Capuchins (q.v.),\nestablished c. 1525, who claim to be the reform which approaches nearest\nin its conception to the original type, became a distinct order of\nFranciscans in 1619. Finally Leo XIII. grouped the Franciscans into\nthree bodies or orders--the Conventuals; the Observants, embracing all\nbranches of the strict observance, except the Capuchins; and the\nCapuchins--which together constitute the \"First Order.\" For the \"Second\nOrder,\" or the nuns, see CLARA, ST, and CLARES, POOR; and for the \"Third\nOrder\" see TERTIARIES. Many of the Tertiaries live a fully monastic life\nin community under the usual vows, and are formed into Congregations of\nRegular Tertiaries, both men and women. They have been and are still\nvery numerous, and give themselves up to education, to the care of the\nsick and of orphans and to good works of all kinds.\n\nNo order has had so stormy an internal history as the Franciscans; yet\nin spite of all the troubles and dissensions and strivings that have\nmarred Franciscan history, the Friars Minor of every kind have in each\nage faithfully and zealously carried on St Francis's great work of\nministering to the spiritual needs of the poor. Always recruited in\nlarge measure from among the poor, they have ever been the order of the\npoor, and in their preaching and missions and ministrations they have\never laid themselves out to meet the needs of the poor. Another great\nwork of the Franciscans throughout the whole course of their history has\nbeen their missions to the Mahommedans, both in western Asia and in\nNorth Africa, and to the heathens in China, Japan and India, and North\nand South America; a great number of the friars were martyred. The news\nof the martyrdom of five of his friars in Morocco was one of the joys of\nSt Francis's closing years. Many of these missions exist to this day. In\nthe Universities, too, the Franciscans made themselves felt alongside of\nthe Dominicans, and created a rival school of theology, wherein, as\ncontrasted with the Aristotelianism of the Dominican school, the\nPlatonism of the early Christian doctors has been perpetuated.\n\nThe Franciscans came to England in 1224 and immediately made foundations\nin Canterbury, London and Oxford; by the middle of the century there\nwere fifty friaries and over 1200 friars in England; at the Dissolution\nthere were some 66 Franciscan friaries, whereof some six belonged to the\nObservants (for list see _Catholic Dictionary_ and F. A. Gasquet's\n_English Monastic Life_, 1904). Though nearly all the English houses\nbelonged to what has been called the \"middle party,\" as a matter of fact\nthey practised great poverty, and the commissioners of Henry VIII. often\nremark that the Franciscan Friary was the poorest of the religious\nhouses of a town. The English province was one of the most remarkable in\nthe order, especially in intellectual achievement; it produced Friar\nRoger Bacon, and, with the single exception of St Bonaventure, all the\ngreatest doctors of the Franciscan theological school--Alexander Hales,\nDuns Scotus and Occam.\n\nThe Franciscans have always been the most numerous by far of the\nreligious orders; it is estimated that about the period of the\nReformation the Friars Minor must have numbered nearly 100,000. At the\npresent day the statistics are roughly (including lay-brothers):\nObservants, 15,000, Conventuals, 1500; to these should be added 9500\nCapuchins, making the total number of Franciscan friars about 26,000.\nThere are various houses of Observants and Capuchins in England and\nIreland; and the old Irish Conventuals survived the penal times and\nstill exist.\n\nThere have been four Franciscan popes: Nicholas IV. (1288-1292), Sixtus\nIV. (1471-1484), Sixtus V. (1585-1590), Clement XIV. (1769-1774); the\nthree last were Conventuals.\n\n  The great source for Franciscan history is Wadding's _Annales_; it has\n  been many times continued, and now extends in 25 vols. fol. to the\n  year 1622. The story is also told by Helyot, _Hist. des ordres\n  religieux_ (1714), vol. vii. Abridgments, with references to recent\n  literature, will be found in Max Heimbucher, _Orden und\n  Kongregationen_ (1896), i. Sec.Sec. 37-51; in Wetzer und Welte,\n  _Kirchenlexicon_ (2nd ed.), articles \"Armut (III.),\" \"Franciscaner\n  orden\" (this article contains the best account of the inner history\n  and the polity of the order up to 1886); in Herzog, _Realencyklopaedie_\n  (3rd ed.), articles \"Franz von Assisi\" (fullest references to\n  literature up to 1899), \"Fraticellen.\" Of modern critical studies on\n  Franciscan origins, K. Mueller's _Anfaenge des Minoritenordens und der\n  Bussbruderschaften_ (1885), and various articles by F. Ehrle in\n  _Archiv fuer Litteratur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters_ and\n  _Zeitschrift fuer Katholische Theologie_, deserve special mention.\n  Eccleston's charming chronicle of \"The Coming of the Friars Minor into\n  England\" has been translated into English by the Capuchin Fr.\n  Cuthbert, who has prefixed an Introductory Essay giving by far the\n  best account in English of \"the Spirit and Genius of the Franciscan\n  Friars\" (_The Friars and how they came to England_, 1903). Fuller\n  information on the English Franciscans will be found in A. G. Little's\n  _Grey Friars in Oxford_ (Oxford Hist. Soc., 1892).     (E. C. B.)\n\n\n\n\nFRANCK. The name of Franck has been given indiscriminately but\nimproperly to painters of the school of Antwerp who belong to the\nfamilies of Francken (q.v.) and Vrancx (q.v.). One artist truly entitled\nto be called Franck is Gabriel, who entered the gild of Antwerp in 1605,\nbecame its president in 1636 and died in 1639. But his works cannot now\nbe traced.\n\n\n\n\nFRANCK, CESAR (1822-1890), French musical composer, a Belgian by birth,\nwho came of German stock, was born at Liege on the 10th of December\n1822. Though one of the most remarkable of modern composers, Cesar\nFranck laboured for many years in comparative obscurity. After some\npreliminary studies at Liege he came to Paris in 1837 and entered the\nconservatoire. He at once obtained the first prize for piano,\ntransposing a fugue at sight to the astonishment of the professors, for\nhe was only fifteen. He won the prize for the organ in 1841, after which\nhe settled down in the French capital as teacher of the piano. His\nearliest compositions date from this period, and include four trios for\npiano and strings, besides several piano pieces. _Ruth_, a biblical\ncantata was produced with success at the Conservatoire in 1846. An opera\nentitled _Le Valet de ferme_ was written about this time, but has never\nbeen performed. For many years Franck led a retired life, devoting\nhimself to teaching and to his duties as organist, first at\nSaint-Jean-Saint-Francois, then at Ste Clotilde, where he acquired a\ngreat reputation as an improviser. He also wrote a mass, heard in 1861,\nand a quantity of motets, organ pieces and other works of a religious\ncharacter.\n\nFranck was appointed professor of the organ at the Paris conservatoire,\nin succession to Benoist, his old master, in 1872, and the following\nyear he was naturalized a Frenchman. Until then he was esteemed as a\nclever and conscientious musician, but he was now about to prove his\ntitle to something more. A revival of his early oratorio, _Ruth_, had\nbrought his name again before the public, and this was followed by the\nproduction of _Redemption_, a work for solo, chorus and orchestra, given\nunder the direction of M. Colonne on the 10th of April 1873. The\nunconventionality of the music rather disconcerted the general public,\nbut the work nevertheless made its mark, and Franck became the central\nfigure of an enthusiastic circle of pupils and adherents whose devotion\natoned for the comparative indifference of the masses. His creative\npower now manifested itself in a series of works of varied kinds, and\nthe name of Franck began gradually to emerge from its obscurity. The\nfollowing is an enumeration of his subsequent compositions: _Rebecca_\n(1881), a biblical idyll for solo, chorus and orchestra; Les Beatitudes,\nan oratorio composed between 1870 and 1880, perhaps his greatest work;\nthe symphonic poems, _Les Eolides_ (1876), _Le Chasseur maudit_ (1883),\n_Les Djinns_ (1884), for piano and orchestra; _Psyche_ (1888), for\norchestra and chorus; symphonic variations for piano and orchestra\n(1885); symphony in D (1889); quintet for piano and strings (1880);\nsonata for piano and violin (1886); string quartet (1889); prelude,\nchoral and fugue for piano (1884); prelude, aria and finale for piano\n(1889); various songs, notably \"La Procession\" and \"Les Cloches du\nSoir.\" Franck also composed two four-act operas, _Hulda_ and _Ghiselle_,\nboth of which were produced at Monte Carlo after his death, which took\nplace in Paris on the 8th of November 1890. The second of these was left\nby the master in an unfinished state, and the instrumentation was\ncompleted by several of his pupils.\n\nCesar Franck's influence on younger French composers has been very\ngreat. Yet his music is German in character rather than French. A more\nsincere, modest, self-respecting composer probably never existed. In the\ncentre of the brilliant French capital he was able to lead a laborious\nexistence consecrated to his threefold career of organist, teacher and\ncomposer. He never sought to gain the suffrages of the public by\nunworthy concessions, but kept straight on his path, ever mindful of an\nideal to be reached and never swerving therefrom. A statue was erected\nto the memory of Cesar Franck in Paris on the 22nd of October 1904, the\noccasion producing a panegyric from Alfred Bruneau, in which he speaks\nof the composer's works as \"cathedrals in sound.\"\n\n\n\n\nFRANCK, or FRANK [latinized FRANCUS], SEBASTIAN (c. 1499-c. 1543),\nGerman freethinker, was born about 1499 at Donauwoerth, whence he\nconstantly styled himself Franck von Woerd. He entered the university of\nIngoldstadt (March 26, 1515), and proceeded thence to the Dominican\nCollege, incorporated with the university, at Heidelberg. Here he met\nhis subsequent antagonists, Bucer and Frecht, with whom he seems to have\nattended the Augsburg conference (October 1518) at which Luther declared\nhimself a true son of the Church. He afterwards reckoned the Leipzig\ndisputation (June-July 1519) and the burning of the papal bull (December\n1520) as the beginning of the Reformation. Having taken priest's orders,\nhe held in 1524 a cure in the neighbourhood of Augsburg, but soon (1525)\nwent over to the Reformed party at Nuremberg and became preacher at\nGustenfelden. His first work (finished September 1527) was a German\ntranslation with additions (1528) of the first part of the _Diallage_,\nor _Conciliatio locorum Scripturae_, directed against Sacramentarians\nand Anabaptists by Andrew Althamer, then deacon of St Sebald's at\nNuremberg. On the 17th of March 1528 he married Ottilie Beham, a gifted\nlady, whose brothers, pupils of Albrecht Duerer, had got into trouble\nthrough Anabaptist leanings. In the same year he wrote a very popular\ntreatise against drunkenness. In 1529 he produced a free version\n(_Klagbrief der armen Duerftigen in England_) of the famous _Supplycacyon\nof the Beggers_, written abroad (1528?) by Simon Fish. Franck, in his\npreface, says the original was in English; elsewhere he says it was in\nLatin; the theory that his German was really the original is\nunwarrantable. Advance in his religious ideas led him to seek the freer\natmosphere of Strassburg in the autumn of 1529. To his translation\n(1530) of a Latin _Chronicle and Description_ of Turkey, by a\nTransylvanian captive, which had been prefaced by Luther, he added an\nappendix holding up the Turks as in many respects an example to\nChristians, and presenting, in lieu of the restrictions of Lutheran,\nZwinglian and Anabaptist sects, the vision of an invisible spiritual\nchurch, universal in its scope. To this ideal he remained faithful. At\nStrassburg began his intimacy with Caspar Schwenkfeld, a congenial\nspirit. Here, too, he published, in 1531, his most important work, the\n_Chronica, Zeitbuch und Geschichtsbibel_, largely a compilation on the\nbasis of the Nuremberg Chronicle (1493), and in its treatment of social\nand religious questions connected with the Reformation, exhibiting a\nstrong sympathy with heretics, and an unexampled fairness to all kinds\nof freedom in opinion. It is too much to call him \"the first of German\nhistorians\"; he is a forerunner of Gottfried Arnold, with more vigour\nand directness of purpose. Driven from Strassburg by the authorities,\nafter a short imprisonment in December 1531, he tried to make a living\nin 1532 as a soapboiler at Esslingen, removing in 1533 for a better\nmarket to Ulm, where (October 28, 1534) he was admitted as a burgess.\n\nHis _Weltbuch_, a supplement to his _Chronica_, was printed at Tuebingen\nin 1534; the publication, in the same year, of his _Paradoxa_ at Ulm\nbrought him into trouble with the authorities. An order for his\nbanishment was withdrawn on his promise to submit future works for\ncensure. Not interpreting this as applying to works printed outside Ulm,\nhe published in 1538 at Augsburg his _Guldin Arch_ (with pagan parallels\nto Christian sentiments) and at Frankfort his _Germaniae chronicon_,\nwith the result that he had to leave Ulm in January 1539. He seems\nhenceforth to have had no settled abode. At Basel he found work as a\nprinter, and here, probably, it was that he died in the winter of\n1542-1543. He had published in 1539 his _Kriegbuechlein des Friedens_\n(pseudonymous), his _Schrifftliche und ganz gruendliche Auslegung des 64\nPsalms_, and his _Das verbuetschierte mit sieben Siegeln verschlossene\nBuch_ (a biblical index, exhibiting the dissonance of Scripture); in\n1541 his _Spruchwoerter_ (a collection of proverbs, several times\nreprinted with variations); in 1542 a new edition of his _Paradoxa_; and\nsome smaller works.\n\nFranck combined the humanist's passion for freedom with the mystic's\ndevotion to the religion of the spirit. His breadth of human sympathy\nled him to positions which the comparative study of religions has made\nfamiliar, but for which his age was unprepared. Luther contemptuously\ndismissed him as a \"devil's mouth.\" Pastor Frecht of Nuremberg pursued\nhim with bitter zeal. But his courage did not fail him, and in his last\nyear, in a public Latin letter, he exhorted his friend John Campanus to\nmaintain freedom of thought in face of the charge of heresy.\n\n  See Hegler, in Hauck's _Realencyklopaedie_ (1899); C. A. Hase,\n  _Sebastian Franck von Woerd_ (1869); J. F. Smith, in _Theological\n  Review_ (April 1874); E. Tausch, _Sebastian Franck von Donauwoerth und\n  seine Lehrer_ (1893).     (A. Go.*)\n\n\n\n\nFRANCKE, AUGUST HERMANN (1663-1727), German Protestant divine, was born\non the 22nd of March 1663 at Luebeck. He was educated at the gymnasium in\nGotha, and afterwards at the universities of Erfurt, Kiel, where he came\nunder the influence of the pietist Christian Kortholt (1633-1694), and\nLeipzig. During his student career he made a special study of Hebrew and\nGreek; and in order to learn Hebrew more thoroughly, he for some time\nput himself under the instructions of Rabbi Ezra Edzardi at Hamburg. He\ngraduated at Leipzig, where in 1685 he became a _Privatdozent_. A year\nlater, by the help of his friend P. Anton, and with the approval and\nencouragement of P. J. Spener, he founded the Collegium Philobiblicum,\nat which a number of graduates were accustomed to meet for the\nsystematic study of the Bible, philologically and practically. He next\npassed some months at Lueneburg as assistant or curate to the learned\nsuperintendent, C. H. Sandhagen (1639-1697), and there his religious\nlife was remarkably quickened and deepened. On leaving Lueneburg he spent\nsome time in Hamburg, where he became a teacher in a private school, and\nmade the acquaintance of Nikolaus Lange (1659-1720). After a long visit\nto Spener, who was at that time a court preacher in Dresden, he\nreturned to Leipzig in the spring of 1689, and began to give Bible\nlectures of an exegetical and practical kind, at the same time resuming\nthe Collegium Philobiblicum of earlier days. He soon became popular as a\nlecturer; but the peculiarities of his teaching almost immediately\naroused a violent opposition on the part of the university authorities;\nand before the end of the year he was interdicted from lecturing on the\nground of his alleged pietism. Thus it was that Francke's name first\ncame to be publicly associated with that of Spener, and with pietism.\nProhibited from lecturing in Leipzig, Francke in 1690 found work at\nErfurt as \"deacon\" of one of the city churches. Here his evangelistic\nfervour attracted multitudes to his preaching, including Roman\nCatholics, but at the same time excited the anger of his opponents; and\nthe result of their opposition was that after a ministry of fifteen\nmonths he was commanded by the civil authorities (27th of September\n1691) to leave Erfurt within forty-eight hours. The same year witnessed\nthe expulsion of Spener from Dresden.\n\nIn December, through Spener's influence, Francke accepted an invitation\nto fill the chair of Greek and oriental languages in the new university\nof Halle, which was at that time being organized by the elector\nFrederick III. of Brandenburg; and at the same time, the chair having no\nsalary attached to it, he was appointed pastor of Glaucha in the\nimmediate neighbourhood of the town. He afterwards became professor of\ntheology. Here, for the next thirty-six years, until his death on the\n8th of June 1727, he continued to discharge the twofold office of pastor\nand professor with rare energy and success. At the very outset of his\nlabours he had been profoundly impressed with a sense of his\nresponsibility towards the numerous outcast children who were growing up\naround him in ignorance and crime. After a number of tentative plans, he\nresolved in 1695 to institute what is often called a \"ragged school,\"\nsupported by public charity. A single room was at first sufficient, but\nwithin a year it was found necessary to purchase a house, to which\nanother was added in 1697. In 1698 there were 100 orphans under his\ncharge to be clothed and fed, besides 500 children who were taught as\nday scholars. The schools grew in importance and are still known as the\n_Francke'sche Stiftungen_. The education given was strictly religious.\nHebrew was included, while the Greek and Latin classics were neglected;\nthe _Homilies_ of Macarius took the place of Thucydides. The same\nprinciple was consistently applied in his university teaching. Even as\nprofessor of Greek he had given great prominence in his lectures to the\nstudy of the Scriptures; but he found a much more congenial sphere when,\nin 1698, he was appointed to the chair of theology. Yet his first\ncourses of lectures in that department were readings and expositions of\nthe Old and New Testament; and to this, as also to hermeneutics, he\nalways attached special importance, believing that for theology a sound\nexegesis was the one indispensable requisite. \"Theologus nascitur in\nscripturis,\" he used to say; but during his occupancy of the theological\nchair he lectured at various times upon other branches of theology also.\nAmongst his colleagues were Paul Anton (1661-1730), Joachim J.\nBreithaupt (1658-1732) and Joachim Lange (1670-1744),--men like-minded\nwith himself. Through their influence upon the students, Halle became a\ncentre from which pietism (q.v.) became very widely diffused over\nGermany.\n\n  His principal contributions to theological literature were:\n  _Manuductio ad lectionem Scripturae Sacrae_ (1693); _Praelectiones\n  hermeneuticae_ (1717); _Commentatio de scopo librorum Veteris et Novi\n  Testamenti_ (1724); and _Lectiones paraeneticae_ (1726-1736). The\n  _Manuductio_ was translated into English in 1813, under the title _A\n  Guide to the Reading and Study of the Holy Scriptures_. An account of\n  his orphanage, entitled _Segensvolle Fussstapfen_, &c. (1709), which\n  subsequently passed through several editions, has also been partially\n  translated, under the title _The Footsteps of Divine Providence: or,\n  The bountiful Hand of Heaven defraying the Expenses of Faith_. See H.\n  E. F. Guericke's _A. H. Francke_ (1827), which has been translated\n  into English (_The Life of A. H. Francke_, 1837); Gustave Kramer's\n  _Beitraege zur Geschichte A. H. Francke's_ (1861), and _Neue Beitraege_\n  (1875); A. Stein, _A. H. Francke_ (3rd ed., 1894); article in\n  Herzog-Hauck's _Realencyklopaedie_ (ed. 1899); Knuth, _Die\n  Francke'schen Stiftungen_ (2nd ed., 1903).\n\n\n\n\n\nFRANCKEN. Eleven painters of this family cultivated their art in Antwerp\nduring the 16th and 17th centuries. Several of these were related to\neach other, whilst many bore the same Christian name in succession.\nHence unavoidable confusion in the subsequent classification of\npaintings not widely differing in style or execution. When Franz\nFrancken the first found a rival in Franz Francken the second, he\ndescribed himself as the \"elder,\" in contradistinction to his son, who\nsigned himself the \"younger.\" But when Franz the second was threatened\nwith competition from Franz the third, he took the name of \"the elder,\"\nwhilst Franz the third adopted that of Franz \"the younger.\"\n\nIt is possible, though not by any means easy, to sift the works of these\nartists. The eldest of the Franckens, Nicholas of Herenthals, died at\nAntwerp in 1596, with nothing but the reputation of having been a\npainter. None of his works remain. He bequeathed his art to three\nchildren. Jerom Francken, the eldest son, after leaving his father's\nhouse, studied under Franz Floris, whom he afterwards served as an\nassistant, and wandered, about 1560, to Paris. In 1566 he was one of the\nmasters employed to decorate the palace of Fontainebleau, and in 1574 he\nobtained the appointment of court painter from Henry III., who had just\nreturned from Poland and visited Titian at Venice. In 1603, when Van\nMander wrote his biography of Flemish artists, Jerom Francken was still\nin Paris living in the then aristocratic Faubourg St Germain. Among his\nearliest works we should distinguish a \"Nativity\" in the Dresden museum,\nexecuted in co-operation with Franz Floris. Another of his important\npieces is the \"Abdication of Charles V.\" in the Amsterdam museum.\nEqually interesting is a \"Portrait of a Falconer,\" dated 1558, in the\nBrunswick gallery. In style these pieces all recall Franz Floris. Franz,\nthe second son of Nicholas of Herenthals, is to be kept in memory as\nFranz Francken the first. He was born about 1544, matriculated at\nAntwerp in 1567, and died there in 1616. He, too, studied under Floris,\nand never settled abroad, or lost the hard and gaudy style which he\ninherited from his master. Several of his pictures are in the museum of\nAntwerp; one dated 1597 in the Dresden museum represents \"Christ on the\nRoad to Golgotha,\" and is signed by him as D. o (Den ouden) F. Franck.\nAmbrose, the third son of Nicholas of Herenthals, has bequeathed to us\nmore specimens of his skill than Jerom or Franz the first. He first\nstarted as a partner with Jerom at Fontainebleau, then he returned to\nAntwerp, where he passed for his gild in 1573, and he lived at Antwerp\ntill 1618. His best works are the \"Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes\" and\nthe \"Martyrdom of St Crispin,\" both large and ambitious compositions in\nthe Antwerp museum. In both these pieces a fair amount of power is\ndisplayed, but marred by want of atmosphere and shadow or by hardness of\nline and gaudiness of tone. There is not a trace in the three painters\nnamed of the influence of the revival which took place under the lead of\nRubens. Franz Francken the first trained three sons to his profession,\nthe eldest of whom, though he practised as a master of gild at Antwerp\nfrom 1600 to 1610, left no visible trace of his labours behind. Jerom\nthe second took service with his uncle Ambrose. He was born in 1578,\npassed for his gild in 1607, and in 1620 produced that curious picture\nof \"Horatius Cocles defending the Sublician Bridge\" which still hangs in\nthe Antwerp museum. The third son of Franz Francken the first is Franz\nFrancken the second, who signed himself in pictures till 1616 \"the\nyounger,\" from 1630 till his death \"the elder\" F. Francken. These\npictures are usually of a small size, and are found in considerable\nnumbers in continental collections. Franz Francken the second was born\nin 1581. In 1605 he entered the gild, of which he subsequently became\nthe president, and in 1642 he died. His earliest composition is the\n\"Crucifixion\" in the Belvedere at Vienna, dated 1606. His latest\ncompositions as \"the younger\" F. Francken are the \"Adoration of the\nVirgin\" (1616) in the gallery of Amsterdam, and the \"Woman taken in\nAdultery\" (1628) in Dresden. From 1616 to 1630 many of his pieces are\nsigned F. Francken; then come the \"Seven Works of Charity\" (1630) at\nMunich, signed \"the elder F. F.,\" the \"Prodigal Son\" (1633) at the\nLouvre, and other almost countless examples. It is in F. Francken the\nsecond's style that we first have evidence of the struggle which\nnecessarily arose when the old customs, hardened by Van Orley and\nFloris, or Breughel and De Vos, were swept away by Rubens. But F.\nFrancken the second, as before observed, always clung to small surfaces;\nand though he gained some of the freedom of the moderns, he lost but\nlittle of the dryness or gaudiness of the earlier Italo-Flemish\nrevivalists. F. Francken the third, the last of his name who deserves to\nbe recorded, passed in the Antwerp gild in 1639 and died at Antwerp in\n1667. His practice was chiefly confined to adding figures to the\narchitectural or landscape pieces of other artists. As Franz Pourbus\nsometimes put in the portrait figures for Franz Francken the second, so\nFranz Francken the third often introduced the necessary personages into\nthe works of Pieter Neefs the younger (museums of St Petersburg, Dresden\nand the Hague). In a \"Moses striking the Rock,\" dated 1654, of the\nAugsburg gallery, this last of the Franckens signs D. o (Den ouden) F.\nFranck. In the pictures of this artist we most clearly discern the\neffects of Rubens's example.\n\n\n\n\nFRANCO-GERMAN WAR (1870-1871). The victories of Prussia in 1866 over the\nAustrians and their German allies (see SEVEN WEEKS' WAR) rendered it\nevident to the statesmen and soldiers of France that a struggle between\nthe two nations could only be a question of time. Army reforms were at\nonce undertaken, and measures were initiated in France to place the\narmament and equipment of the troops on a level with the requirements of\nthe times. The chassepot, a new breech-loading rifle, immensely superior\nto the Prussian needle-gun, was issued; the artillery trains were\nthoroughly overhauled, and a new machine-gun, the _mitrailleuse_, from\nwhich much was expected, introduced. Wide schemes of reorganization (due\nmainly to Marshal Niel) were set in motion, and, since these required\ntime to mature, recourse was had to foreign alliances in the hope of\ndelaying the impending rupture. In the first week of June 1870, General\nLebrun, as a confidential agent of the emperor Napoleon III., was sent\nto Vienna to concert a plan of joint operations with Austria against\nPrussia. Italy was also to be included in the alliance, and it was\nagreed that in case of hostilities the French armies should concentrate\nin northern Bavaria, where the Austrians and Italians were to join them,\nand the whole immense army thus formed should march via Jena on Berlin.\nTo what extent Austria and Italy committed themselves to this scheme\nremains uncertain, but that the emperor Napoleon believed in their _bona\nfides_ is beyond doubt.\n\nWhether the plan was betrayed to Prussia is also uncertain, and almost\nimmaterial, for Moltke's plans were based on an accurate estimate of the\ntime it would take Austria to mobilize and on the effect of a series of\nvictories on French soil. At any rate Moltke was not taken into\nBismarck's confidence in the affair of Ems in July 1870, and it is to be\npresumed that the chancellor had already satisfied himself that the\nschemes of operations prepared by the chief of the General Staff fully\nprovided against all eventualities. These schemes were founded on\nClausewitz's view of the objects to be pursued in a war against\nFrance--in the first place the defeat of the French field armies and in\nthe second the occupation of Paris. On these lines plans for the\nstrategic deployment of the Prussian army were prepared by the General\nStaff and kept up to date year by year as fresh circumstances (e.g. the\nco-operation of the minor German armies) arose and new means of\ncommunication came into existence. The campaign was actually opened on a\nrevise of 1868-1869, to which was added, on the 6th of May 1870, a\nsecret memorandum for the General Staff.\n\n\n  Strategic deployment of the German armies.\n\nUnder the German organization then existing the preliminary to all\nactive operations was of necessity full and complete mobilization. Then\nfollowed transport by road and rail to the line selected for the\n\"strategic deployment,\" and it was essential that no part of these\noperations should be disturbed by action on the part of the enemy. But\nno such delay imposed itself of necessity upon the French, and a\nvigorous offensive was so much in harmony with their traditions that\nthe German plan had to be framed so as to meet such emergencies. On the\nwhole, Moltke concluded that the enemy could not undertake this\noffensive before the eighth day after mobilization. At that date about\nfive French army corps (150,000 men) could be collected near Metz, and\ntwo corps (70,000) near Strassburg; and as it was six days' march from\nMetz to the Rhine, no serious attack could be delivered before the\nfourteenth day, by which day it could be met by superior forces near\nKirchheimbolanden. Since, however, the transport of the bulk of the\nPrussian forces could not begin till the ninth day, their ultimate line\nof detrainment need not be fixed until the French plans were disclosed,\nand, as it was important to strike at the earliest moment possible, the\ndeployment was provisionally fixed to be beyond the Rhine on the line\nWittlich-Neunkirchen-Landau. Of the thirteen North German corps three\nhad to be left behind to guard the eastern frontier and the coast, one\nother, the VIII., was practically on the ground already and could\nconcentrate by road, and the remaining nine were distributed to the nine\nthrough railway lines available. These ten corps were grouped in three\narmies, and as the French might violate Belgian neutrality or endeavour\nto break into southern Germany, two corps (Prussian Guard and Saxon XII.\ncorps) were temporarily held back at a central position around Mainz,\nwhence they could move rapidly up or down the Rhine valley. If Belgian\nneutrality remained unmolested, the reserve would join the III. army on\nthe left wing, giving it a two to one superiority over its adversary;\nall three armies would then wheel to the right and combine in an effort\nto force the French army into a decisive battle on the Saar on or about\nthe twenty-third day. As in this wheel the army on the right formed the\npivot and was required only to stand fast, two corps only were allotted\nto it; two corps for the present formed the III. army, and the remaining\nfive were assigned to the II. army in the centre.\n\nWhen (16th-17th July) the South German states decided to throw in their\nlot with the rest, their three corps were allotted to the III. army, the\nGuards and Saxons to the II. army, whilst the three corps originally\nleft behind were finally distributed one to each army, so that up to the\ninvestment of Metz the order of battle was as follows:\n\n                               Headquarters:\n         The king of Prussia   (General v. Moltke, chief of staff).\n\n          I. Army:           /   (I. corps, v. Manteuffel)\n    General v. Steinmetz    <   VII.   \"    v. Zastrow\n    (C. of S., v. Sperling)  | VIII.   \"    v. Goeben\n                             \\ (1st) and 3rd cavalry divisions\n\n                                                     Total       85,000\n\n                             /  Guard Pr. August of Wuerttemberg\n                             |  (II. corps, v. Fransecky)\n                             |  III.   \"    v. Alvensleben II.\n          II. Army:          |   IV.   \"    v. Alvensleben I.\n  Prince Frederick Charles  <    IX.   \"    v. Manstein\n   (C. of S., v. Stiehle)    |    X.   \"    v. Voigts-Rhetz\n                             |  XII.   \"    (Saxons) crown prince\n                             |               of Saxony\n                             \\  5th and 6th cavalry divisions\n\n                                                     Total      210,000\n\n                             /    V. corps, v. Kirchbach\n                             |  (VI.)  \"    v. Tuempling\n                             |   XI.   \"    v. Bose\n          III. Army:         |    I. Bavarian, v. der Tann\n   crown prince of Prussia  <    II.    \"      v. Hartmann\n  (C. of S., v. Blumenthal)  |  Wuerttemberg div. \\ v. Werder\n                             |  Baden div.       /\n                             \\  (2nd) and 4th cavalry divisions\n\n                                                     Total      180,000\n                                                                -------\n                                               Grand Total      475,000\n\n  (The units within brackets were those at first retained in Germany.)\n\n\n  Positions of the French forces.\n\nOn the French side no such plan of operations was in existence when on\nthe night of the 15th of July _Krieg mobil_ was telegraphed all over\nPrussia. An outline scheme had indeed been prepared as a basis for\nagreement with Austria and Italy, but practically no details were fixed,\nand the troops were without transport and supplies. Nevertheless, since\nspeed was the essence of the contract, the troops were hurried up\nwithout waiting for their reserves, and delivered, as Moltke had\nforeseen, just where the lie of the railways and convenience of\ntemporary supply dictated, and the Prussian Intelligence Department was\nable to inform Moltke on the 22nd of July (seventh day of mobilization)\nthat the French stood from right to left in the following order, on or\nnear the frontier:\n\n  1st corps      Marshal MacMahon, duke of Magenta, Strassburg\n  5th corps      General de Failly, Saargemuend and Bitche\n  2nd corps      General Frossard, St Avold\n  4th corps      General de Ladmirault, Thionville\n                     With, behind them:\n  3rd corps      Marshal Bazaine, Metz\n  Guard          General Bourbaki, Nancy\n  6th corps      Marshal Canrobert, Chalons\n  7th corps      General Felix Douay, Belfort\n\nIf therefore they began a forward movement on the 23rd (eighth day) the\ncase foreseen by Moltke had arisen, and it became necessary to detrain\nthe II. army upon the Rhine. Without waiting for further confirmation of\nthis intelligence, Moltke, with the consent of the king, altered the\narrangements accordingly, a decision which, though foreseen, exercised\nthe gravest influence on the course of events. As it happened this\ndecision was premature, for the French could not yet move. Supply trains\nhad to be organized by requisition from the inhabitants, and even arms\nand ammunition procured for such reserves as had succeeded in joining.\nNevertheless, by almost superhuman exertions on the part of the railways\nand administrative services, all essential deficiencies were made good,\nand by the 28th of July (13th day) the troops had received all that was\nabsolutely indispensable and might well have been led against the enemy,\nwho, thanks to Moltke's premature action, were for the moment at a very\nserious disadvantage. But the French generals were unequal to their\nresponsibilities. It is now clear that, had the great Napoleon and his\nmarshals been in command, they would have made light of the want of\ncooking pots, cholera belts, &c., and, by a series of rapid marches,\nwould have concentrated odds of at least three to one upon the heads of\nthe Prussian columns as they struggled through the defiles of the Hardt,\nand won a victory whose political results might well have proved\ndecisive.\n\nTo meet this pressing danger, which came to his knowledge during the\ncourse of the 29th, Moltke sent a confidential staff officer, Colonel v.\nVerdy du Vernois, to the III. army to impress upon the crown prince the\nnecessity of an immediate advance to distract the enemy's attention from\nthe I. and II. armies; but, like the French generals, the crown prince\npleaded that he could not move until his trains were complete.\nFortunately for the Germans, the French intelligence service not only\nfailed to inform the staff of this extraordinary opportunity, but it\nallowed itself to be hypnotized by the most amazing rumours. In\nimagination they saw armies of 100,000 men behind every forest, and, to\nguard against these dangers, the French troops were marched and\ncounter-marched along the frontiers in the vain hope of discovering an\nideal defensive position which should afford full scope to the power of\ntheir new weapons.\n\nAs these delays were exerting a most unfavourable effect on public\nopinion not only in France but throughout Europe, the emperor decided on\nthe 1st of August to initiate a movement towards the Saar, chiefly as a\nguarantee of good faith to the Austrians and Italians.\n\nOn this day the French corps held the following positions from right to\nleft:\n\n  1st corps      Hagenau\n  2nd corps      Forbach\n  3rd corps      St Avold\n  4th corps      Bouzonville\n  5th corps      Bitche\n  6th corps      Chalons\n  7th corps      Belfort and Colmar\n  Guard          near Metz\n\n\n  Action of Saarbruecken.\n\nThe French 2nd corps was directed to advance on the following morning\ndirect on Saarbruecken, supported on the flanks by two divisions from the\n5th and 3rd corps. The order was duly carried out, and the Prussians\n(one battalion, two squadrons and a battery), seeing the overwhelming\nnumbers opposed to them, fell back fighting and vanished to the\nnorthward, having given a very excellent example of steadiness and\ndiscipline to their enemy.[1] The latter contented themselves by\noccupying Saarbruecken and its suburb St Johann, and here, as far as the\ntroops were concerned, the incident closed. Its effect, however, proved\nfar-reaching. The Prussian staff could not conceive that nothing lay\nbehind this display of five whole divisions, and immediately took steps\nto meet the expected danger. In their excitement, although they had\nannounced the beginning of the action to the king's headquarters at\nMainz, they forgot to notify the close and its results, so that Moltke\nwas not in possession of the facts till noon on the 3rd of August.\nMeanwhile, Steinmetz, left without instructions and fearing for the\nsafety of the II. army, the heads of whose columns were still in the\ndefiles of the Hardt, moved the I. army from the neighbourhood of Merzig\nobliquely to his left front, so as to strike the flank of the French\narmy if it continued its march towards Kaiserslautern, in which\ndirection it appeared to be heading.\n\n\n  Moltke, Prince Frederick Charles and Steinmetz.\n\nWhilst this order was in process of execution, Moltke, aware that the\nII. army was behind time in its march, issued instructions to Steinmetz\nfor the 4th of August which entailed a withdrawal to the rear, the idea\nbeing that both armies should, if the French advanced, fight a defensive\nbattle in a selected position farther back. Steinmetz obeyed, though\nbitterly resenting the idea of retreat. This movement, further, drew his\nleft across the roads reserved for the right column of the II. army, and\non receipt of a peremptory order from Prince Frederick Charles to\nevacuate the road, Steinmetz telegraphed for instructions direct to the\nking, over Moltke's head. In reply he received a telegram from Moltke,\nordering him to clear the road at once, and couched in terms which he\nconsidered as a severe reprimand. An explanatory letter, meant to soften\nthe rebuke, was delayed in transmission and did not reach him till too\nlate to modify the orders he had already issued. It must be remembered\nthat Steinmetz at the front was in a better position to judge the\napparent situation than was Moltke at Mainz, and that all through the\nday of the 5th of August he had received intelligence indicating a\nchange of attitude in the French army.\n\n\n  Battle of Spicheren.\n\nThe news of the German victory at Weissenburg on the 4th (see below) had\nin fact completely paralysed the French headquarters, and orders were\nissued by them during the course of the 5th to concentrate the whole\narmy of the Rhine on the selected position of Cadenbronn. As a\npreliminary, Frossard's corps withdrew from Saarbruecken and began to\nentrench a position on the Spicheren heights, 3000 yds. to the\nsouthward. Steinmetz, therefore, being quite unaware of the scheme for a\ngreat battle on the Saar about the 12th of August, felt that the\nsituation would best be met, and the letter of his instructions strictly\nobeyed, by moving his whole command forward to the line of the Saar, and\norders to this effect were issued on the evening of the 5th. In\npursuance of these orders, the advance guard of the 14th division\n(Lieutenant General von Kameke) reached Saarbruecken about 9 A.M. on the\n6th, where the Germans found to their amazement that the bridges were\nintact. To secure this advantage was the obvious duty of the commander\non the spot, and he at once ordered his troops to occupy a line of low\nheights beyond the town to serve as a bridge-head. As the leading troops\ndeployed on the heights Frossard's guns on the Spicheren Plateau opened\nfire, and the advanced guard battery replied. The sound of these guns\nunchained the whole fighting instinct carefully developed by a long\ncourse of Prussian manoeuvre training. Everywhere, generals and troops\nhurried towards the cannon thunder. Kameke, even more in the dark than\nSteinmetz as to Moltke's intentions and the strength of his adversaries,\nattacked at once, precisely as he would have done at manoeuvres, and in\nhalf an hour his men were committed beyond recall. As each fresh unit\nreached the field it was hurried into action where its services were\nmost needed, and each fresh general as he arrived took a new view of the\ncombat and issued new orders. On the other side, Frossard, knowing the\nstrength of his position, called on his neighbours for support, and\ndetermined to hold his ground. Victory seemed certain. There were\nsufficient troops within easy reach to have ensured a crushing numerical\nsuperiority. But the other generals had not been trained to mutual\nsupport, and thought only of their own immediate security, and their\nstaffs were too inexperienced to act upon even good intentions; and,\nfinding himself in the course of the afternoon left to his own devices,\nFrossard began gradually to withdraw, even before the pressure of the\n13th German division on his left flank (about 8 P.M.) compelled his\nretirement. When darkness ended the battle the Prussians were scarcely\naware of their victory. Steinmetz, who had reached the field about 6\nP.M., rode back to his headquarters without issuing any orders, while\nthe troops bivouacked where they stood, the units of three army corps\nbeing mixed up in almost inextricable confusion. But whereas out of\n42,900 Prussians with 120 guns, who in the morning lay within striking\ndistance of the enemy, no fewer than 27,000, with 78 guns were actually\nengaged; of the French, out of 64,000 with 210 guns only 24,000 with 90\nguns took part in the action.\n\n\n  Action of Weissenburg.\n\nMeanwhile on the German left wing the III. army had begun its advance.\nEarly on the 4th of August it crossed the frontier and fell upon a\nFrench detachment under Abel Douay, which had been placed near\nWeissenburg, partly to cover the Pigeonnier pass, but principally to\nconsume the supplies accumulated in the little dismantled fortress, as\nthese could not easily be moved. Against this force of under 4000 men of\nall arms, the Germans brought into action successively portions of three\ncorps, in all over 25,000 men with 90 guns. After six hours' fighting,\nin which the Germans lost some 1500 men, the gallant remnant of the\nFrench withdrew deliberately and in good order, notwithstanding the\ndeath of their leader at the critical moment. The Germans were so elated\nby their victory over the enemy, whose strength they naturally\noverestimated, that they forgot to send cavalry in pursuit, and thus\nentirely lost touch with the enemy.\n\nNext day the advance was resumed, the two Bavarian corps moving via\nMattstall through the foothills of the Vosges, the V. corps on their\nleft towards Preuschdorf, and the XI. farther to the left again, through\nthe wooded plain of the Rhine valley. The 4th cavalry division scouted\nin advance, and army headquarters moved to Sulz. About noon the advanced\npatrols discovered MacMahon's corps in position on the left bank of the\nSauer (see WOeRTH: _Battle of_). As his army was dispersed over a wide\narea, the crown prince determined to devote the 6th to concentrating the\ntroops, and, probably to avoid alarming the enemy, ordered the cavalry\nto stand fast.\n\nAt night the outposts of the I. Bavarians and V. corps on the Sauer saw\nthe fires of the French encampment and heard the noise of railway\ntraffic, and rightly conjectured the approach of reinforcements.\nMacMahon had in fact determined to stand in the very formidable position\nhe had selected, and he counted on receiving support both from the 7th\ncorps (two divisions of which were being railed up from Colmar) and from\nthe 5th corps, which lay around Bitche. It was also quite possible, and\nthe soundest strategy, to withdraw the bulk of the troops then facing\nthe German I. and II. armies to his support, and these would reach him\nby the 8th. He was therefore justified in accepting battle, though it\nwas to his interest to delay it as long as possible.\n\n\n  Battle of Woerth.\n\nAt dawn on the 6th of August the commander of the V. corps outposts\nnoticed certain movements in the French lines, and to clear up the\nsituation brought his guns into action. As at Spicheren, the sound of\nthe guns set the whole machinery of battle in motion. The French\nartillery immediately accepted the Prussian challenge. The I. Bavarians,\nhaving been ordered to be ready to move if they heard artillery fire,\nimmediately advanced against the French left, encountering presently\nsuch a stubborn resistance that parts of their line began to give way.\nThe Prussians of the V. corps felt that they could not abandon their\nallies, and von Kirchbach, calling on the XI. corps for support,\nattacked with the troops at hand. When the crown prince tried to break\noff the fight it was too late. Both sides were feeding troops into the\nfiring line, as and where they could lay hands on them. Up to 2 P.M. the\nFrench fairly held their own, but shortly afterwards their right yielded\nto the overwhelming pressure of the XI. corps, and by 3.30 it was in\nfull retreat. The centre held on for another hour, but in its turn was\ncompelled to yield, and by 4.30 all organized resistance was at an end.\nThe debris of the French army was hotly pursued by the German divisional\nsquadrons towards Reichshofen, where serious panic showed itself. When\nat this stage the supports sent by de Failly from Bitche came on the\nground they saw the hopelessness of intervention, and retired whence\nthey had come. Fortunately for the French, the German 4th cavalry\ndivision, on which the pursuit should have devolved, had been forgotten\nby the German staff, and did not reach the front before darkness fell.\nOut of a total of 82,000 within reach of the battlefield, the Germans\nsucceeded in bringing into action 77,500. The French, who might have had\n50,000 on the field, deployed only 37,000, and these suffered a\ncollective loss of no less than 20,100; some regiments losing up to 90%\nand still retaining some semblance of discipline and order.\n\nUnder cover of darkness the remnants of the French army escaped. When at\nlength the 4th cavalry division had succeeded in forcing a way through\nthe confusion of the battlefield, all touch with the enemy had been\nlost, and being without firearms the troopers were checked by the French\nstragglers in the woods and the villages, and thus failed to establish\nthe true line of retreat of the French. Ultimately the latter, having\ngained the railway near Luneville, disappeared from the German front\naltogether, and all trace of them was lost until they were discovered,\nabout the 26th of August, forming part of the army of Chalons, whither\nthey had been conveyed by rail via Paris. This is a remarkable example\nof the strategical value of railways to an army operating in its own\ncountry.\n\nIn the absence of all resistance, the III. army now proceeded to carry\nout the original programme of marches laid down in Moltke's memorandum\nof the 6th of May, and marching on a broad front through a fertile\ndistrict it reached the line of the Moselle in excellent order about the\n17th of August, where it halted to await the result of the great battle\nof Gravelotte-St Privat.\n\n\n  Movements on the Saar.\n\nWe return now to the I. army at Saarbruecken. Its position on the morning\nof the 7th of August gave cause for the gravest anxiety. At daylight a\ndense fog lay over the country, and through the mist sounds of heavy\nfiring came from the direction of Forbach, where French stragglers had\nrallied during the night. The confusion on the battlefield was\nappalling, and the troops in no condition to go forward. Except the 3rd,\n5th and 6th cavalry divisions no closed troops were within a day's\nmarch; hence Steinmetz decided to spend the day in reorganizing his\ninfantry, under cover of his available cavalry. But the German cavalry\nand staff were quite new to their task. The 6th cavalry division, which\nhad bivouacked on the battlefield, sent on only one brigade towards\nForbach, retaining the remainder in reserve. The 5th, thinking that the\n6th had already undertaken all that was necessary, withdrew behind the\nSaar, and the 3rd, also behind the Saar, reported that the country in\nits front was unsuited to cavalry movements, and only sent out a few\nofficers' patrols. These were well led, but were too few in number, and\ntheir reports were consequently unconvincing.\n\nIn the course of the day Steinmetz became very uneasy, and ultimately he\ndecided to concentrate his army by retiring the VII. and VIII. corps\nbehind the river on to the I. (which had arrived near Saarlouis), thus\nclearing the Saarbruecken-Metz road for the use of the II. army. But at\nthis moment Prince Frederick Charles suddenly modified his views. During\nthe 6th of August his scouts had reported considerable French forces\nnear Bitche (these were the 5th, de Failly's corps), and early in the\nmorning of the 7th he received a telegram from Moltke informing him\nthat MacMahon's beaten army was retreating on the same place (the troops\nobserved were in fact those which had marched to MacMahon's assistance).\nThe prince forthwith deflected the march of the Guards, IV. and X.\ncorps, towards Rohrbach, whilst the IX. and XII. closed up to supporting\ndistance behind them. Thus, as Steinmetz moved away to the west and\nnorth, Frederick Charles was diverging to the south and east, and a\ngreat gap was opening in the very centre of the German front. This was\nclosed only by the III. corps, still on the battle-field, and by\nportions of the X. near Saargemuend,[2] whilst within striking distance\nlay 130,000 French troops, prevented only by the incapacity of their\nchiefs from delivering a decisive counter-stroke.\n\nFortunately for the Prussians, Moltke at Mainz took a different view.\nReceiving absolutely no intelligence from the front during the 7th, he\ntelegraphed orders to the I. and II. armies (10.25 P.M.) to halt on the\n8th, and impressed on Steinmetz the necessity of employing his cavalry\nto clear up the situation. The I. army had already begun the marches\nordered by Steinmetz. It was now led back practically to its old\nbivouacs amongst the unburied dead. Prince Frederick Charles only\nconformed to Moltke's order with the III. and X. corps; the remainder\nexecuted their concentration towards the south and east.\n\nDuring the night of the 7th of August Moltke decided that the French\narmy must be in retreat towards the Moselle and forthwith busied himself\nwith the preparation of fresh tables of march for the two armies, his\nobject being to swing up the left wing to outflank the enemy from the\nsouth. This work, and the transfer of headquarters to Homburg, needed\ntime, hence no fresh orders were issued to either army, and neither\ncommander would incur the responsibility of moving without any. The I.\narmy therefore spent a fourth night in bivouac on the battlefield. But\nConstantin von Alvensleben, commanding the III. corps, a man of very\ndifferent stamp from his colleagues, hearing at first hand that the\nFrench had evacuated St Avold, set his corps in motion early in the\nmorning of the 10th August down the St Avold-Metz road, reached St Avold\nand obtained conclusive evidence that the French were retreating.\n\n\n  Advance to the Moselle.\n\nDuring the 9th the orders for the advance to the Moselle were issued.\nThese were based, not on an exact knowledge of where the French army\nactually stood, but on the opinion Moltke had formed as to where it\nought to have been on military grounds solely, overlooking the fact that\nthe French staff were not free to form military decisions but were\ncompelled to bow to political expediency.\n\nActually on the 7th of August the emperor had decided to attack the\nGermans on the 8th with the whole Rhine Army, but this decision was\nupset by alarmist reports from the beaten army of MacMahon. He then\ndecided to retreat to the Moselle, as Moltke had foreseen, and there to\ndraw to himself the remnants of MacMahon's army (now near Luneville). At\nthe same time he assigned the executive command over the whole Rhine\nArmy to Marshal Bazaine. This retreat was begun during the course of the\n8th and 9th of August; but on the night of the 9th urgent telegrams from\nParis induced the emperor to suspend the movement, and during the 10th\nthe whole army took up a strong position on the French Nied.\n\nMeanwhile the II. German army had received its orders to march in a line\nof army corps on a broad front in the general direction of\nPont-a-Mousson, well to the south of Metz. The I. army was to follow by\nshort marches in echelon on the right; only the III. corps was directed\non Falkenberg, a day's march farther towards Metz along the St\nAvold-Metz road. The movement was begun on the 10th, and towards evening\nthe French army was located on the right front of the III. corps. This\nentirely upset Moltke's hypothesis, and called for a complete\nmodification of his plans, as the III. corps alone could not be expected\nto resist the impact of Bazaine's five corps. The III. corps therefore\nreceived orders to stand fast for the moment, and the remainder of the\nII. army was instructed to wheel to the right and concentrate for a\ngreat battle to the east of Metz on the 16th or 17th.\n\nBefore, however, these orders had been received the sudden retreat of\nthe French completely changed the situation. The Germans therefore\ncontinued their movement towards the Moselle. On the 13th the French\ntook up a fresh position 5 m. to the east of Metz, where they were\nlocated by the cavalry and the advanced guards of the I. army.\n\n\n  Battle of Colombey-Borny.\n\nAgain Moltke ordered the I. army to observe and hold the enemy, whilst\nthe II. was to swing round to the north. The cavalry was to scout beyond\nthe Moselle and intercept all communication with the heart of France\n(see Metz). By this time the whole German army had imbibed the idea that\nthe French were in full retreat and endeavouring to evade a decisive\nstruggle. When therefore during the morning of the 14th their outposts\nobserved signs of retreat in the French position, their impatience could\nno longer be restrained; as at Woerth and Spicheren, an outpost commander\nbrought up his guns, and at the sound of their fire, every unit within\nreach spontaneously got under arms (battle of Colombey-Borny). In a\nshort time, with or without orders, the I., VII., VIII. and IX. corps\nwere in full march to the battle-field. But the French too turned back\nto fight, and an obstinate engagement ensued, at the close of which the\nGermans barely held the ground and the French withdrew under cover of\nthe Metz forts.\n\nStill, though the fighting had been indecisive, the conviction of\nvictory remained with the Germans, and the idea of a French retreat\nbecame an obsession. To this idea Moltke gave expression in his orders\nissued early on the 15th, in which he laid down that the \"fruits of the\nvictory\" of the previous evening could only be reaped by a vigorous\npursuit towards the passages of the Meuse, where it was hoped the French\nmight yet be overtaken. This order, however, did not allow for the\nhopeless inability of the French staff to regulate the movement of\ncongested masses of men, horses and vehicles, such as were now\naccumulated in the streets and environs of Metz. Whilst Bazaine had come\nto no definite decision whether to stand and fight or continue to\nretreat, and was merely drifting under the impressions of the moment,\nthe Prussian leaders, in particular Prince Frederick Charles, saw in\nimagination the French columns in rapid orderly movement towards the\nwest, and calculated that at best they could not be overtaken short of\nVerdun.\n\nIn this order of ideas the whole of the II. army, followed on its right\nrear by two-thirds of the I. army (the I. corps being detached to\nobserve the eastern side of the fortress), were pushed on towards the\nMoselle, the cavalry far in advance towards the Meuse, whilst only the\n5th cavalry division was ordered to scout towards the Metz-Verdun road,\nand even that was disseminated over far too wide an area.\n\nLater in the day (15th) Frederick Charles sent orders to the III. corps,\nwhich was on the right flank of his long line of columns and approaching\nthe Moselle at Corny and Noveant, to march via Gorze to Mars-la-Tour on\nthe Metz-Verdun road; to the X. corps, strung out along the road from\nThiaucourt to Pont-a-Mousson, to move to Jarny; and for the remainder to\npush on westward to seize the Meuse crossings. No definite information\nas to the French army reached him in time to modify these instructions.\n\nMeanwhile the 5th (Rheinbaben's) cavalry division, at about 3 P.M. in\nthe afternoon, had come into contact with the French cavalry in the\nvicinity of Mars-la-Tour, and gleaned intelligence enough to show that\nno French infantry had as yet reached Rezonville. The commander of the\nX. corps at Thiaucourt, informed of this, became anxious for the\nsecurity of his flank during the next day's march and decided to push\nout a strong flanking detachment under von Caprivi, to support von\nRheinbaben and maintain touch with the III. corps marching on his right\nrear.\n\n\n  Battle of Vionville-Mars-la-Tour.\n\nVon Alvensleben, to whom the 6th cavalry division had meanwhile been\nassigned, seems to have received no local intelligence whatsoever; and\nat daybreak on the 16th he began his march in two columns, the 6th\ndivision on Mars-la-Tour, the 5th towards the Rezonville-Vionville\nplateau. And shortly after 9.15 A.M. he suddenly discovered the truth.\nThe entire French army lay on his right flank, and his nearest supports\nwere almost a day's march distant. In this crisis he made up his mind at\nonce to attack with every available man, and to continue to attack, in\nthe conviction that his audacity would serve to conceal his weakness.\nAll day long, therefore, the Brandenburgers of the III. corps, supported\nultimately by the X. corps and part of the IX., attacked again and\nagain. The enemy was thrice their strength, but very differently led,\nand made no adequate use of his superiority (battle of Vionville-Mars-la\nTour).\n\n\n  The 17th of August.\n\nMeanwhile Prince Frederick Charles, at Pont-a-Mousson, was still\nconfident in the French retreat to the Meuse, and had even issued orders\nfor the 17th on that assumption. Firing had been heard since 9.15 A.M.,\nand about noon Alvensleben's first report had reached him, but it was\nnot till after 2 that he realized the situation. Then, mounting his\nhorse, he covered the 15 m. to Flavigny over crowded and difficult roads\nwithin the hour, and on his arrival abundantly atoned for his strategic\nerrors by his unconquerable determination and tactical skill. When\ndarkness put a stop to the fighting, he considered the position.\nCancelling all previous orders, he called all troops within reach to the\nbattle-field and resigned himself to wait for them. The situation was\nindeed critical. The whole French army of five corps, only half of which\nhad been engaged, lay in front of him. His own army lay scattered over\nan area of 30 m. by 20, and only some 20,000 fresh troops--of the IX.\ncorps--could reach the field during the forenoon of the 17th. He did not\nthen know that Moltke had already intervened and had ordered the VII.,\nVIII. and II. corps[3] to his assistance. Daylight revealed the extreme\nexhaustion of both men and horses. The men lay around in hopeless\nconfusion amongst the killed and wounded, each where sleep had overtaken\nhim, and thus the extent of the actual losses, heavy enough, could not\nbe estimated. Across the valley, bugle sounds revealed the French\nalready alert, and presently a long line of skirmishers approached the\nPrussian position. But they halted just beyond rifle range, and it was\nsoon evident that they were only intended to cover a further withdrawal.\nPresently came the welcome intelligence that the reinforcements were\nwell on their way.\n\nAbout noon the king and Moltke drove up to the ground, and there was an\nanimated discussion as to what the French would do next. Aware of their\nwithdrawal from his immediate front, Prince Frederick Charles reverted\nto his previous idea and insisted that they were in full retreat towards\nthe north, and that their entrenchments near Point du Jour and St Hubert\n(see map in article METZ) were at most a rearguard position. Moltke was\ninclined to the same view, but considered the alternative possibility of\na withdrawal towards Metz, and about 2 P.M. orders were issued to meet\nthese divergent opinions. The whole army was to be drawn up at 6 A.M. on\nthe 18th in an echelon facing north, so as to be ready for action in\neither direction. The king and Moltke then drove to Pont-a-Mousson, and\nthe troops bivouacked in a state of readiness. The rest of the 17th was\nspent in restoring order in the shattered III. and X. corps, and by\nnightfall both corps were reported fit for action. Strangely enough,\nthere were no organized cavalry reconnaissances, and no intelligence of\nimportance was collected during the night of the 17th-18th.\n\nEarly on the 18th the troops began to move into position in the\nfollowing order from left to right: XII. (Saxons), Guards, IX., VIII.\nand VII. The X. and III. were retained in reserve.\n\n\n  Battle of Gravelotte-Saint Privat.\n\nThe idea of the French retreat was still uppermost in the prince's mind,\nand the whole army therefore moved north. But between 10 and 11 A.M.\npart of the truth--viz. that the French had their backs to Metz and\nstood in battle order from St Hubert northwards--became evident, and\nthe II. army, pivoting on the I., wheeled to the right and moved\neastward. Suddenly the IX. corps fell right on the centre of the French\nline (Amanvillers), and a most desperate encounter began, superior\ncontrol, as before, ceasing after the guns had opened fire. Prince\nFrederick Charles, however, a little farther north, again asserted his\ntactical ability, and about 7 P.M. he brought into position no less than\nfive army corps for the final attack. The sudden collapse of French\nresistance, due to the frontal attack of the Guards (St Privat) and the\nturning movement of the Saxons (Roncourt), rendered the use of this mass\nunnecessary, but the resolution to use it was there. On the German right\n(I. army), about Gravelotte, all superior leading ceased quite early in\nthe afternoon, and at night the French still showed an unbroken front.\nUntil midnight, when the prince's victory was reported, the suspense at\nheadquarters was terrible. The I. army was exhausted, no steps had been\ntaken to ensure support from the III. army, and the IV. corps (II. army)\nlay inactive 30 m. away.\n\n\n  Bazaine in Metz.\n\nThis seems a fitting place to discuss the much-disputed point of\nBazaine's conduct in allowing himself to be driven back into Metz when\nfortune had thrown into his hands the great opportunity of the 16th and\n17th of August. He had been appointed to command on the 10th, but the\npresence of the emperor, who only left the front early on the 16th, and\ntheir dislike of Bazaine, exercised a disturbing influence on the\nheadquarters staff officers. During the retreat to Metz the marshal had\nsatisfied himself as to the inability of his corps commanders to handle\ntheir troops, and also as to the ill-will of the staff. In the\ncircumstances he felt that a battle in the open field could only end in\ndisaster; and, since it was proved that the Germans could outmarch him,\nhis army was sure to be overtaken and annihilated if he ventured beyond\nthe shelter of the fortress. But near Metz he could at least inflict\nvery severe punishment on his assailants, and in any case his presence\nin Metz would neutralize a far superior force of the enemy for weeks or\nmonths. What use the French government might choose to make of the\nbreathing space thus secured was their business, not his; and subsequent\nevents showed that, had they not forced MacMahon's hand, the existence\nof the latter's nucleus army of trained troops might have prevented the\ninvestment of Paris. Bazaine was condemned by court-martial after the\nwar, but if the case were reheard to-day it is certain that no charge of\ntreachery could be sustained.\n\nOn the German side the victory at St Privat was at once followed up by\nthe headquarters. Early on the 19th the investment of Bazaine's army in\nMetz was commenced. A new army, the Army of the Meuse (often called the\nIV.), was as soon as possible formed of all troops not required for the\nmaintenance of the investment, and marched off under the command of the\ncrown prince of Saxony to discover and destroy the remainder of the\nFrench field army, which at this moment was known to be at Chalons.\n\n\n  Campaign of Sedan.\n\nThe operations which led to the capture of MacMahon's army in Sedan call\nfor little explanation. Given seven corps, each capable of averaging 15\nm. a day for a week in succession, opposed to four corps only, shaken by\ndefeat and unable as a whole to cover more than 5 m. a day, the result\ncould hardly be doubtful. But Moltke's method of conducting operations\nleft his opponent many openings which could only be closed by excessive\ndemands on the marching power of the men. Trusting only to his cavalry\nscreen to secure information, he was always without any definite fixed\npoint about which to manoeuvre, for whilst the reports of the screen and\norders based thereon were being transmitted, the enemy was free to move,\nand generally their movements were dictated by political expediency, not\nby calculable military motives.\n\nThus whilst the German army, on a front of nearly 50 m., was marching\ndue west on Paris, MacMahon, under political pressure, was moving\nparallel to them, but on a northerly route, to attempt the relief of\nMetz.\n\nSo unexpected was this move and so uncertain the information which\ncalled attention to it, that Moltke did not venture to change at once\nthe direction of march of the whole army, but he directed the Army of\nthe Meuse northward on Damvillers and ordered Prince Frederick Charles\nto detach two corps from the forces investing Metz to reinforce it. For\nthe moment, therefore, MacMahon's move had succeeded, and the\nopportunity existed for Bazaine to break out. But at the critical moment\nthe hopeless want of real efficiency in MacMahon's army compelled the\nlatter so to delay his advance that it became evident to the Germans\nthat there was no longer any necessity for the III. army to maintain the\ndirection towards Paris, and that the probable point of contact between\nthe Meuse army and the French lay nearer to the right wing of the III.\narmy than to Prince Frederick Charles's investing force before Metz.\n\nThe detachment from the II. army was therefore countermanded, and the\nwhole III. army changed front to the north, while the Meuse army headed\nthe French off from the east. The latter came into contact with the head\nof the French columns, during the 29th, about Nouart, and on the 30th at\nBuzancy (battle of Beaumont); and the French, yielding to the force of\nnumbers combined with superior moral, were driven north-westward upon\nSedan (q.v.), right across the front of the III. army, which was now\nrapidly coming up from the south.\n\nDuring the 31st the retreat practically became a rout, and the morning\nof the 1st of September found the French crowded around the little\nfortress of Sedan, with only one line of retreat to the north-west still\nopen. By 11 A.M. the XI. corps (III. army) had already closed that line,\nand about noon the Saxons (Army of the Meuse) moving round between the\ntown and the Belgian frontier joined hands with the XI., and the circle\nof investment was complete. The battle of Sedan was closed about 4.15\nP.M. by the hoisting of the white flag. Terms were agreed upon during\nthe night, and the whole French army, with the emperor, passed into\ncaptivity.     (F. N. M.)\n\n\n  Later operations.\n\nThus in five weeks one of the French field armies was imprisoned in\nMetz, the other destroyed, and the Germans were free to march upon\nParis. This seemed easy. There could be no organized opposition to their\nprogress,[4] and Paris, if not so defenceless as in 1814, was more\npopulous. Starvation was the best method of attacking an overcrowded\nfortress, and the Parisians were not thought to be proof against the\ndeprivation of their accustomed luxuries. Even Moltke hoped that by the\nend of October he would be \"shooting hares at Creisau,\" and with this\nconfidence the German III. and IV. armies left the vicinity of Sedan on\nthe 4th of September. The march called for no more than good staff\narrangements, and the two armies arrived before Paris a fortnight later\nand gradually encircled the place--the III. army on the south, the IV.\non the north side--in the last days of September. Headquarters were\nestablished at Versailles. Meanwhile the Third Empire had fallen, giving\nplace on the 4th of September to a republican Government of National\nDefence, which made its appeal to, and evoked, the spirit of 1792.\nHenceforward the French nation, which had left the conduct of the war to\nthe regular army and had been little more than an excited spectator,\ntook the burden upon itself.\n\nThe regular army, indeed, still contained more than 500,000 men (chiefly\nrecruits and reservists), and 50,000 sailors, marines, douaniers, &c.,\nwere also available. But the Garde Mobile, framed by Marshal Niel in\n1868, doubled this figure, and the addition of the Garde Nationale,\ncalled into existence on the 15th of September, and including all\nable-bodied men of from 31 to 60 years of age, more than trebled it. The\nGerman staff had of course to reckon on the Garde Mobile, and did so\nbeforehand, but they wholly underestimated both its effective members\nand its willingness, while, possessing themselves a system in which all\nthe military elements of the German nation stood close behind the\ntroops of the active army, they ignored the potentialities of the Garde\nNationale.\n\nMeanwhile, both as a contrast to the events that centred on Paris and\nbecause in point of time they were decided for the most part in the\nweeks immediately following Sedan, we must briefly allude to the sieges\nconducted by the Germans--Paris (q.v.), Metz (q.v.) and Belfort (q.v.)\nexcepted. Old and ruined as many of them were, the French fortresses\npossessed considerable importance in the eyes of the Germans.\nStrassburg, in particular, the key of Alsace, the standing menace to\nSouth Germany and the most conspicuous of the spoils of Louis XIV.'s\n_Raubkriege_, was an obvious target. Operations were begun on the 9th of\nAugust, three days after Woerth, General v. Werder's corps (Baden troops\nand Prussian Landwehr) making the siege. The French commandant, General\nUhrich, surrendered after a stubborn resistance on the 28th of\nSeptember. Of the smaller fortresses many, being practically unarmed and\nwithout garrisons, capitulated at once. Toul, defended by Major Huck\nwith 2000 mobiles, resisted for forty days, and drew upon itself the\nefforts of 13,000 men and 100 guns. Verdun, commanded by General Guerin\nde Waldersbach, held out till after the fall of Metz. Some of the\nfortresses lying to the north of the Prussian line of advance on Paris,\ne.g. Mezieres, resisted up to January 1871, though of course this was\nvery largely due to the diminution of pressure caused by the appearance\nof new French field armies in October. On the 9th of September a strange\nincident took place at the surrender of Laon. A powder magazine was\nblown up by the soldiers in charge and 300 French and a few German\nsoldiers were killed by the explosion. But as the Germans advanced,\ntheir lines of communication were thoroughly organized, and the belt of\ncountry between Paris and the Prussian frontier subdued and garrisoned.\nMost of these fortresses were small town enceintes, dating from Vauban's\ntime, and open, under the new conditions of warfare, to concentric\nbombardment from positions formerly out of range, upon which the\nbesieger could place as many guns as he chose to employ. In addition\nthey were usually deficient in armament and stores and garrisoned by\nnewly-raised troops. Belfort, where the defenders strained every nerve\nto keep the besiegers out of bombarding range, and Paris formed the only\nexceptions to this general rule.\n\n\n  The \"Defense Nationale.\"\n\nThe policy of the new French government was defined by Jules Favre on\nthe 6th of September. \"It is for the king of Prussia, who has declared\nthat he is making war on the Empire and not on France, to stay his hand;\nwe shall not cede an inch of our territory or a stone of our\nfortresses.\" These proud words, so often ridiculed as empty bombast,\nwere the prelude of a national effort which re-established France in the\neyes of Europe as a great power, even though provinces and fortresses\nwere ceded in the peace that that effort proved unable to avert. They\nwere translated into action by Leon Gambetta, who escaped from Paris in\na balloon on the 7th of October, and established the headquarters of the\ndefence at Tours, where already the \"Delegation\" of the central\ngovernment--which had decided to remain in Paris--had concentrated the\nmachinery of government. Thenceforward Gambetta and his principal\nassistant de Freycinet directed the whole war in the open country,\nco-ordinating it, as best they could with the precarious means of\ncommunication at their disposal, with Trochu's military operations in\nand round the capital. His critics--Gambetta's personality was such as\nto ensure him numerous enemies among the higher civil and military\nofficials, over whom, in the interests of _La Patrie_, he rode\nrough-shod--have acknowledged the fact, which is patent enough in any\ncase, that nothing but Gambetta's driving energy enabled France in a few\nweeks to create and to equip twelve army corps, representing thirty-six\ndivisions (600,000 rifles and 1400 guns), after all her organized\nregular field troops had been destroyed or neutralized. But it is\nclaimed that by undue interference with the generals at the front, by\npresuming to dictate their plans of campaign, and by forcing them to act\nwhen the troops were unready, Gambetta and de Freycinet nullified the\nefforts of themselves and the rest of the nation and subjected France\nto a humiliating treaty of peace. We cannot here discuss the justice or\ninjustice of such a general condemnation, or even whether in individual\ninstances Gambetta trespassed too far into the special domain of the\nsoldier. But even the brief narrative given below must at least suggest\nto the reader the existence amongst the generals and higher officials of\na dead weight of passive resistance to the Delegation's orders, of\nunnecessary distrust of the qualities of the improvised troops, and\nabove all of the utter fear of responsibility that twenty years of\nliteral obedience had bred. The closest study of the war cannot lead to\nany other conclusion than this, that whether or not Gambetta as a\nstrategist took the right course in general or in particular cases, no\none else would have taken any course whatever.\n\nOn the approach of the enemy Paris hastened its preparations for defence\nto the utmost, while in the provinces, out of reach of the German\ncavalry, new army corps were rapidly organized out of the few\nconstituted regular units not involved in the previous catastrophes, the\ndepot troops and the mobile national guard. The first-fruits of these\nefforts were seen in Beauce, where early in October important masses of\nFrench troops prepared not only to bar the further progress of the\ninvader but actually to relieve Paris. The so-called \"fog of war\"--the\narmed inhabitants, francs-tireurs, sedentary national guard and\nvolunteers--prevented the German cavalry from venturing far out from the\ninfantry camps around Paris, and behind this screen the new 15th army\ncorps assembled on the Loire. But an untimely demonstration of force\nalarmed the Germans, all of whom, from Moltke downwards, had hitherto\ndisbelieved in the existence of the French new formations, and the still\nunready 15th corps found itself the target of an expedition of the I.\nBavarian corps, which drove the defenders out of Orleans after a sharp\nstruggle, while at the same time another expedition swept the western\npart of Beauce, sacked Chateaudun as a punishment for its brave defence,\nand returned via Chartres, which was occupied.\n\nAfter these events the French forces disappeared from German eyes for\nsome weeks. D'Aurelle de Paladines, the commander of the \"Army of the\nLoire\" (15th and 16th corps), improvised a camp of instruction at\nSalbris in Sologne, several marches out of reach, and subjected his raw\ntroops to a stern regime of drill and discipline. At the same time an\n\"Army of the West\" began to gather on the side of Le Mans. This army was\nalmost imaginary, yet rumours of its existence and numbers led the\nGerman commanders into the gravest errors, for they soon came to suspect\nthat the main army lay on that side and not on the Loire, and this\nmistaken impression governed the German dispositions up to the very eve\nof the decisive events around Orleans in December. Thus when at last\nD'Aurelle took the offensive from Tours (whither he had transported his\nforces, now 100,000 strong) against the position of the I. Bavarian\ncorps near Orleans, he found his task easy. The Bavarians, outnumbered\nand unsupported, were defeated with heavy losses in the battle of\nCoulmiers (November 9), and, had it not been for the inexperience, want\nof combination, and other technical weaknesses of the French, they would\nhave been annihilated. What the results of such a victory as Coulmiers\nmight have been, had it been won by a fully organized, smoothly working\narmy of the same strength, it is difficult to overestimate. As it was,\nthe retirement of the Bavarians rang the alarm bell all along the line\nof the German positions, and that was all.\n\nThen once again, instead of following up its success, the French army\ndisappeared from view. The victory had emboldened the \"fog of war\" to\nmake renewed efforts, and resistance to the pressure of the German\ncavalry grew day by day. The Bavarians were reinforced by two Prussian\ndivisions and by all available cavalry commands, and constituted as an\n\"army detachment\" under the grand-duke Friedrich Franz of\nMecklenburg-Schwerin to deal with the Army of the Loire, the strength of\nwhich was far from being accurately known. Meantime the capitulation of\nMetz on the 28th of October had set free the veterans of Prince\nFrederick Charles, the best troops in the German army, for field\noperations. The latter were at first misdirected to the upper Seine, and\nyet another opportunity arose for the French to raise the siege of\nParis. But D'Aurelle utilized the time he had gained in strengthening\nthe army and in imparting drill and discipline to the new units which\ngathered round the original nucleus of the 15th and 16th corps. All this\nwas, however, unknown and even unsuspected at the German headquarters,\nand the invaders, feeling the approaching crisis, became more than\nuneasy as to their prospects of maintaining the siege of Paris.\n\n\n  The Orleans campaign.\n\nAt this moment, in the middle of November, the general situation was as\nfollows: the German III. and Meuse armies, investing Paris, had had to\nthrow off important detachments to protect the enterprise, which they\nhad undertaken on the assumption that no further field armies of the\nenemy were to be encountered. The maintenance of their communications\nwith Germany, relatively unimportant when the struggle took place in the\ncircumstances of field warfare, had become supremely necessary, now that\nthe army had come to a standstill and undertaken a great siege, which\nrequired heavy guns and constant replenishment of ammunition and stores.\nThe rapidity of the German invasion had left no time for the proper\norganization and full garrisoning of these communications, which were\nnow threatened, not merely by the Army of the Loire, but by other forces\nassembling on the area protected by Langres and Belfort. The latter,\nunder General Cambriels, were held in check and no more by the Baden\ntroops and reserve units (XIV. German corps) under General Werder, and\neventually without arousing attention they were able to send 40,000 men\nto the Army of the Loire. This army, still around Orleans, thus came to\nnumber perhaps 150,000 men, and opposed to it, about the 14th of\nNovember, the Germans had only the Army Detachment of about 40,000, the\nII. army being still distant. It was under these conditions that the\nfamous Orleans campaign took place. After many vicissitudes of fortune,\nand with many misunderstandings between Prince Frederick Charles, Moltke\nand the grand-duke, the Germans were ultimately victorious, thanks\nprincipally to the brilliant fighting of the X. corps at\nBeaune-la-Rolande (28th of November), which was followed by the battle\nof Loigny-Poupry on the 2nd of December and the second capture of\nOrleans after heavy fighting on the 4th of December.\n\nThe result of the capture of Orleans was the severance of the two wings\nof the French army, henceforward commanded respectively by Chanzy and\nBourbaki. The latter fell back at once and hastily, though not closely\npursued, to Bourges. But Chanzy, opposing the Detachment between\nBeaugency and the Forest of Marchenoir, was of sterner metal, and in the\nfive days' general engagement around Beaugency (December 7-11) the\nGermans gained little or no real advantage. Indeed their solitary\nmaterial success, the capture of Beaugency, was due chiefly to the fact\nthat the French there were subjected to conflicting orders from the\nmilitary and the governmental authorities. Chanzy then abandoned little\nbut the field of battle, and on the grand-duke's representations Prince\nFrederick Charles, leaving a mere screen to impose upon Bourbaki (who\nallowed himself to be deceived and remained inactive), hurried thither\nwith the II. army. After that Chanzy was rapidly driven north-westward,\nthough always presenting a stubborn front. The Delegation left Tours and\nbetook itself to Bordeaux, whence it directed the government for the\nrest of the war. But all this continuous marching and fighting, and the\ngrowing severity of the weather, compelled Prince Frederick Charles to\ncall a halt for a few days. About the 19th of December, therefore, the\nGermans (II. army and Detachment) were closed up in the region of\nChartres, Orleans, Auxerre and Fontainebleau, Chanzy along the river\nSarthe about Le Mans and Bourbaki still passive towards Bourges.\n\nDuring this, as during other halts, the French government and its\ngenerals occupied themselves with fresh plans of campaign, the former\nwith an eager desire for results, the latter (Chanzy excepted) with many\nmisgivings. Ultimately, and fatally, it was decided that Bourbaki, whom\nnothing could move towards Orleans, should depart for the south-east,\nwith a view to relieving Belfort and striking perpendicularly against\nthe long line of the Germans' communications. This movement, bold to the\npoint of extreme rashness judged by any theoretical rules of strategy,\nseems to have been suggested by de Freycinet. As the execution of it\nfell actually into incapable hands, it is difficult to judge what would\nhave been the result had a Chanzy or a Faidherbe been in command of the\nFrench. At any rate it was vicious in so far as immediate advantages\nwere sacrificed to hopes of ultimate success which Gambetta and de\nFreycinet did wrong to base on Bourbaki's powers of generalship. Late in\nDecember, for good or evil, Bourbaki marched off into Franche-Comte and\nceased to be a factor in the Loire campaign. A mere calculation of time\nand space sufficed to show the German headquarters that the moment had\narrived to demolish the stubborn Chanzy.\n\n\n  Le Mans.\n\nPrince Frederick Charles resumed the interrupted offensive, pushing\nwestward with four corps and four cavalry divisions which converged on\nLe Mans. There on the 10th, 11th and 12th of January 1871 a stubbornly\ncontested battle ended with the retreat of the French, who owed their\ndefeat solely to the misbehaviour of the Breton mobiles. These, after\ndeserting their post on the battlefield at a mere threat of the enemy's\ninfantry, fled in disorder and infected with their terrors the men in\nthe reserve camps of instruction, which broke up in turn. But Chanzy,\nresolute as ever, drew off his field army intact towards Laval, where a\nfreshly raised corps joined him. The prince's army was far too exhausted\nto deliver another effective blow, and the main body of it gradually\ndrew back into better quarters, while the grand duke departed for the\nnorth to aid in opposing Faidherbe. Some idea of the strain to which the\ninvaders had been subjected may be gathered from the fact that army\ncorps, originally 30,000 strong, were in some cases reduced to 10,000\nand even fewer bayonets. And at this moment Bourbaki was at the head of\n120,000 men! Indeed, so threatening seemed the situation on the Loire,\nthough the French south of that river between Gien and Blois were mere\nisolated brigades, that the prince hurried back from Le Mans to Orleans\nto take personal command. A fresh French corps, bearing the number 25,\nand being the twenty-first actually raised during the war, appeared in\nthe field towards Blois. Chanzy was again at the head of 156,000 men. He\nwas about to take the offensive against the 40,000 Germans left near Le\nMans when to his bitter disappointment he received the news of the\narmistice. \"We have still France,\" he had said to his staff, undeterred\nby the news of the capitulation of Paris, but now he had to submit, for\neven if his improvised army was still cheerful, there were many\nsignificant tokens that the people at large had sunk into apathy and\nhoped to avoid worse terms of peace by discontinuing the contest at\nonce.\n\nSo ended the critical period of the \"Defense nationale.\" It may be taken\nto have lasted from the day of Coulmiers to the last day of Le Mans, and\nits central point was the battle of Beaune-la-Rolande. Its\ncharacteristics were, on the German side, inadequacy of the system of\nstrategy practised, which became palpable as soon as the organs of\nreconnaissance met with serious resistance, misjudgment of and indeed\ncontempt for the fighting powers of \"new formations,\" and the rise of a\nspirit of ferocity in the man in the ranks, born of his resentment at\nthe continuance of the war and the ceaseless sniping of the\nfranc-tireur's rifle and the peasant's shot-gun. On the French side the\ncontinual efforts of the statesmen to stimulate the generals to decisive\nefforts, coupled with actual suggestions as to the plans of the campaign\nto be followed (in default, be it said, of the generals themselves\nproducing such plans), and the professional soldiers' distrust of\nhalf-trained troops, acted and reacted upon one another in such a way as\nto neutralize the powerful, if disconnected and erratic, forces that the\nwar and the Republic had unchained. As for the soldiers themselves,\ntheir most conspicuous qualities were their uncomplaining endurance of\nfatigues and wet bivouacs, and in action their capacity for a single\ngreat effort and no more. But they were unreliable in the hands of the\nveteran regular general, because they were heterogeneous in recruiting,\nand unequal in experience and military qualities, and the French staff\nin those days was wholly incapable of moving masses of troops with the\nrapidity demanded by the enemy's methods of war, so that on the whole it\nis difficult to know whether to wonder more at their missing success or\nat their so nearly achieving it.\n\nThe decision, as we have said, was fought out on the Loire and the\nSarthe. Nevertheless the glorious story of the \"Defense nationale\"\nincludes two other important campaigns--that of Faidherbe in the north\nand that of Bourbaki in the east.\n\n\n  Faidherbe's campaign.\n\nIn the north the organization of the new formations was begun by Dr\nTestelin and General Farre. Bourbaki held the command for a short time\nin November before proceeding to Tours, but the active command in field\noperations came into the hands of Faidherbe, a general whose natural\npowers, so far from being cramped by years of peace routine and court\nrepression, had been developed by a career of pioneer warfare and\ncolonial administration. General Farre was his capable chief of staff.\nTroops were raised from fugitives from Metz and Sedan, as well as from\ndepot troops and the Garde Mobile, and several minor successes were won\nby the national troops in the Seine valley, for here, as on the side of\nthe Loire, mere detachments of the investing army round Paris were\nalmost powerless. But the capitulation of Metz came too soon for the\nfull development of these sources of military strength, and the German\nI. army under Manteuffel, released from duty at Metz, marched\nnorth-eastward, capturing the minor fortresses on its way. Before\nFaidherbe assumed command, Farre had fought several severe actions near\nAmiens, but, greatly outnumbered, had been defeated and forced to retire\nbehind the Somme. Another French general, Briand, had also engaged the\nenemy without success near Rouen. Faidherbe assumed the command on the\n3rd of December, and promptly moved forward. A general engagement on the\nlittle river Hallue (December 23), east-north-east of Amiens, was fought\nwith no decisive results, but Faidherbe, feeling that his troops were\nonly capable of winning victories in the first rush, drew them off on\nthe 24th. His next effort, at Bapaume (January 2-3, 1871), was more\nsuccessful, but its effects were counterbalanced by the surrender of the\nfortress of Peronne (January 9) and the consequent establishment of the\nGermans on the line of the Somme. Meanwhile the Rouen troops had been\ncontained by a strong German detachment, and there was no further chance\nof succouring Paris from the north. But Faidherbe, like Chanzy, was far\nfrom despair, and in spite of the deficiencies of his troops in\nequipment (50,000 pairs of shoes, supplied by English contractors,\nproved to have paper soles), he risked a third great battle at St\nQuentin (January 19). This time he was severely defeated, though his\nloss in killed and wounded was about equal to that of the Germans, who\nwere commanded by Goeben. Still the attempt of the Germans to surround\nhim failed and he drew off his forces with his artillery and trains\nunharmed. The Germans, who had been greatly impressed by the solidity of\nhis army, did not pursue him far, and Faidherbe was preparing for a\nfresh effort when he received orders to suspend hostilities.\n\nThe last episode is Bourbaki's campaign in the east, with its mournful\nclose at Pontarlier. Before the crisis of the last week of November, the\nFrench forces under General Cremer, Cambriels' successor, had been so\nfar successful in minor enterprises that, as mentioned above, the right\nwing of the Loire army, severed from the left by the battle of Orleans\nand subsequently held inactive at Bourges and Nevers, was ordered to\nFranche Comte to take the offensive against the XIV. corps and other\nGerman troops there, to relieve Belfort and to strike a blow across the\ninvaders' line of communications. But there were many delays in\nexecution. The staff work, which was at no time satisfactory in the\nFrench armies of 1870, was complicated by the snow, the bad state of the\nroads, and the mountainous nature of the country, and Bourbaki, a brave\ngeneral of division in action, but irresolute and pretentious as a\ncommander in chief, was not the man to cope with the situation. Only the\nfurious courage and patient endurance of hardships of the rank and file,\nand the good qualities of some of the generals, such as Clinchant,\nCremer and Billot, and junior staff officers such as Major Brugere\n(afterwards generalissimo of the French army), secured what success was\nattained.\n\n\n  The campaign in the East.\n\nWerder, the German commander, warned of the imposing concentration of\nthe French, evacuated Dijon and Dole just in time to avoid the blow and\nrapidly drew together his forces behind the Ognon above Vesoul. A\nfurious attack on one of his divisions at Villersexel (January 9) cost\nhim 2000 prisoners as well as his killed and wounded, and Bourbaki,\nheading for Belfort, was actually nearer to the fortress than the\nGermans. But at the crisis more time was wasted, Werder (who had almost\nlost hope of maintaining himself and had received both encouragement and\nstringent instructions to do so) slipped in front of the French, and\ntook up a long weak line of defence on the river Lisaine, almost within\ncannon shot of Belfort. The cumbrous French army moved up and attacked\nhim there with 150,000 against 60,000 (January 15-17, 1871). It was at\nlast repulsed, thanks chiefly to Bourbaki's inability to handle his\nforces, and, to the bitter disappointment of officers and men alike, he\nordered a retreat, leaving Belfort to its fate.\n\nEre this, so urgent was the necessity of assisting Werder, Manteuffel\nhad been placed at the head of a new Army of the South. Bringing two\ncorps from the I. army opposing Faidherbe and calling up a third from\nthe armies around Paris, and a fourth from the II. army, Manteuffel\nhurried southward by Langres to the Saone. Then, hearing of Werder's\nvictory on the Lisaine, he deflected the march so as to cut off\nBourbaki's retreat, drawing off the left flank guard of the latter\n(commanded with much _eclat_ and little real effect by Garibaldi) by a\nsharp feint attack on Dijon. The pressure of Werder in front and\nManteuffel in flank gradually forced the now thoroughly disheartened\nFrench forces towards the Swiss frontier, and Bourbaki, realizing at\nonce the ruin of his army and his own incapacity to re-establish its\nefficiency, shot himself, though not fatally, on the 26th of January.\nClinchant, his successor, acted promptly enough to remove the immediate\ndanger, but on the 29th he was informed of the armistice without at the\nsame time being told that Belfort and the eastern theatre of war had\nbeen on Jules Favre's demand expressly excepted from its operation.[5]\nThus the French, the leaders distracted by doubts and the worn-out\nsoldiers fully aware that the war was practically over, stood still,\nwhile Manteuffel completed his preparations for hemming them in. On the\n1st of February General Clinchant led his troops into Switzerland, where\nthey were disarmed, interned and well cared for by the authorities of\nthe neutral state. The rearguard fought a last action with the advancing\nGermans before passing the frontier. On the 16th, by order of the French\ngovernment, Belfort capitulated, but it was not until the 11th of March\nthat the Germans took possession of Bitche, the little fortress on the\nVosges, where in the early days of the war de Failly had illustrated so\nsignally the want of concerted action and the neglect of opportunities\nwhich had throughout proved the bane of the French armies.\n\nThe losses of the Germans during the whole war were 28,000 dead and\n101,000 wounded and disabled, those of the French, 156,000 dead (17,000\nof whom died, of sickness and wounds, as prisoners in German hands) and\n143,000 wounded and disabled. 720,000 men surrendered to the Germans or\nto the authorities of neutral states, and at the close of the war there\nwere still 250,000 troops on foot, with further resources not\nimmediately available to the number of 280,000 more. In this connexion,\nand as evidence of the respective numerical yields of the German system\nworking normally and of the French improvised for the emergency, we\nquote from Berndt (_Zahl im Kriege_) the following comparative\nfigures:--\n\n  End of July          French 250,000, Germans 384,000 under arms.\n  Middle of November      \"   600,000     \"    425,000      \"\n  After the surrender\n    of Paris and the\n    disarmament of\n    Bourbaki's army       \"   534,000     \"    835,000      \"\n\nThe date of the armistice was the 28th of January, and that of the\nratification of the treaty of Frankfurt the 23rd of May 1871.\n\n  BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The literature of the war is ever increasing in volume,\n  and the following list only includes a very short selection made\n  amongst the most important works.\n\n  _General._--German official history, _Der deutsch-franzoesische Krieg_\n  (Berlin, 1872-1881; English and French translations); monographs of\n  the German general staff (_Kriegsgesch. Einzelschriften_); Moltke,\n  _Gesch. des deutsch-franzoes. Krieges_ (Berlin, 1891; English\n  translation) and _Gesammelte Schriften des G. F. M. Grafen v. Moltke_\n  (Berlin, 1900-   ); French official history, _La Guerre de 1870-1871_\n  (Paris, 1902-   ) (the fullest and most accurate account); P.\n  Lehautcourt (General Palat), _Hist. de la guerre de 1870-1871_ (Paris,\n  1901-1907); v. Verdy du Vernois, _Studien ueber den Krieg ... auf\n  Grundlage_ 1870-1871 (Berlin, 1892-1896); G. Cardinal von Widdern,\n  _Kritische Tage 1870-1871_ (French translation, _Journees critiques_).\n  Events preceding the war are dealt with in v. Bernhardi, _Zwischen\n  zwei Kriegen_; Baron Stoffel, _Rapports militaires_ 1866-1870 (Paris,\n  1871; English translation); G. Lehmann, _Die Mobilmachung_ 1870-1871\n  (Berlin, 1905).\n\n  For the war in Lorraine: Prince Kraft of Hohenlohe-Ingelfingen,\n  _Briefe ueber Strategie_ (English translation, _Letters on Strategy_);\n  F. Foch, _Conduite de la guerre_, pt. ii.; H. Bonnal, _Manoeuvre de\n  Saint Privat_ (Paris, 1904-1906); Maistre, _Spicheren_ (Paris, 1908);\n  v. Schell, _Die Operationen der I. Armee unter Gen. von Steinmetz_\n  (Berlin, 1872; English translation); F. Hoenig, _Taktik der Zukunft_\n  (English translation), and _24 Stunden Moltke'schen Strategie_\n  (Berlin, 1892; English and French translations).\n\n  For the war in Alsace and Champagne: H. Kunz, _Schlacht von Woerth_\n  (Berlin, 1891), and later works by the same author; H. Bonnal,\n  _Froeschweiler_ (Paris, 1899); Hahnke, _Die Operationen des III. Armee\n  bis Sedan_ (Berlin, 1873; French translation).\n\n  For the war in the Provinces: v. der Goltz, _Leon Gambetta und seine\n  Armeen_ (Berlin, 1877); _Die Operationen der II. Armee an die Loire_\n  (Berlin, 1875); _Die sieben Tage von Le Mans_ (Berlin, 1873); Kunz,\n  _Die Zusammensetzung der franzoes. Provinzialheeren_; de Freycinet, _La\n  Guerre en province_ (Paris, 1871); L. A. Hale, _The People's War_\n  (London, 1904); Hoenig, _Volkskrieg an die Loire_ (Berlin, 1892);\n  Blume, _Operationen v. Sedan bis zum Ende d. Kriegs_ (Berlin, 1872;\n  English translation); v. Schell, _Die Operationen der I. Armee unter\n  Gen. v. Goeben_ (Berlin, 1873; English translation); Count\n  Wartensleben, _Feldzug der Nordarmee unter Gen. v. Manteuffel_\n  (Berlin, 1872), _Operationen der Sudarmee_ (Berlin, 1872; English\n  translation); Faidherbe, _Campagne de l'armee du nord_ (Paris, 1872).\n\n  For the sieges: Frobenius, _Kriegsgesch. Beispiele d. Festungskriegs\n  aus d. deutsch.-franz. Kg._ (Berlin, 1899-1900); Goetze, _Taetigkeit\n  der deutschen Ingenieuren_ (Berlin, 1871; English translation).\n\n  The most useful bibliography is that of General Palat (\"P.\n  Lehautcourt\").     (C. F. A.)\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n  [1] This was the celebrated \"bapteme de feu\" of the prince imperial.\n\n  [2] The II. corps had not yet arrived from Germany.\n\n  [3] Of the I. army the I. corps was retained on the east side of\n    Metz. The II. corps belonged to the II. army, but had not yet reached\n    the front.\n\n  [4] The 13th corps (Vinoy), which had followed MacMahon's army at\n    some distance, was not involved in the catastrophe of Sedan, and by\n    good luck as well as good management evaded the German pursuit and\n    returned safely to Paris.\n\n  [5] Jules Favre, it appears, neglected to inform Gambetta of the\n    exception.\n\n\n\n\nFRANCOIS DE NEUFCHATEAU, NICOLAS LOUIS, COUNT (1750-1828), French\nstatesman and poet, was born at Saffais near Rozieres in Lorraine on the\n17th of April 1750, the son of a school-teacher. He studied at the\nJesuit college of Neufchateau in the Vosges, and at the age of fourteen\npublished a volume of poetry which obtained the approbation of Rousseau\nand of Voltaire. Neufchateau conferred on him its name, and he was\nelected member of some of the principal academies of France. In 1783 he\nwas named _procureur-general_ to the council of Santo Domingo. He had\npreviously been engaged on a translation of Ariosto, which he finished\nbefore his return to France five years afterwards, but it perished\nduring the shipwreck which occurred during his voyage home. After the\nRevolution he was elected deputy _suppleant_ to the National Assembly,\nwas charged with the organization of the Department of the Vosges, and\nwas elected later to the Legislative Assembly, of which he first became\nsecretary and then president. In 1793 he was imprisoned on account of\nthe political sentiments, in reality very innocent, of his drama _Pamela\nou la vertu recompensee_ (Theatre de la Nation, 1st August 1793), but\nwas set free a few days afterwards at the revolution of the 9th\nThermidor. In 1797 he became minister of the interior, in which office\nhe distinguished himself by the thoroughness of his administration in\nall departments. It is to him that France owes its system of inland\nnavigation. He inaugurated the museum of the Louvre, and was one of the\npromoters of the first universal exhibition of industrial products. From\n1804 to 1806 he was president of the Senate, and in that capacity the\nduty devolved upon him of soliciting Napoleon to assume the title of\nemperor. In 1808 he received the dignity of count. Retiring from public\nlife in 1814, he occupied himself chiefly in the study of agriculture,\nuntil his death on the 10th of January 1828.\n\nFrancois de Neufchateau had very multifarious accomplishments, and\ninterested himself in a great variety of subjects, but his fame rests\nchiefly on what he did as a statesman for the encouragement and\ndevelopment of the industries of France. His maturer poetical\nproductions did not fulfil the promise of those of his early years, for\nthough some of his verses have a superficial elegance, his poetry\ngenerally lacks force and originality. He had considerable\nqualifications as a grammarian and critic, as is witnessed by his\neditions of the _Provinciales_ and _Pensees_ of Pascal (Paris, 1822 and\n1826) and _Gil Blas_ (Paris, 1820). His principal poetical works are\n_Poesies diverses_ (1765); _Ode sur les parlements_ (1771); _Nouveaux\nContes moraux_ (1781); _Les Vosges_ (1796); _Fables et contes_ (1814);\nand _Les Tropes, ou les figures de mots_ (1817). He was also the author\nof a large number of works on agriculture.\n\n  See _Recueil des lettres, circulaires, discours et autres actes\n  publics emanes du Cte. Francois pendant ses deux exercices du\n  ministere de l'interieur_ (Paris, An. vii.-viii., 2 vols.); _Notice\n  biographique sur M. le comte Francois de Neufchateau_ (1828), by A. F.\n  de Sillery; H. Bonnelier, _Memoires sur Francois de Neufchateau_\n  (Paris, 1829); J. Lamoureux, _Notice historique et litteraire sur la\n  vie et les ecrits de Francois de Neufchateau_ (Paris, 1843); E.\n  Meaume, _Etude historique et biographique sur les Lorrains\n  revolutionnaires: Palissot, Gregoire, Francois de Neufchateau_ (Nancy,\n  1882); Ch. Simian, _Francois de Neufchateau et les expositions_\n  (Paris, 1889).\n\n\n\n\nFRANCONIA (Ger. _Franken_), the name of one of the stem-duchies of\nmedieval Germany. It stretched along the valley of the Main from the\nRhine to Bohemia, and was bounded on the north by Saxony and Thuringia,\nand on the south by Swabia and Bavaria. It also included a district\naround Mainz, Spires and Worms, on the left bank of the Rhine. The word\n_Franconia_, first used in a Latin charter of 1053, was applied like the\nwords _France_, _Francia_ and _Franken_, to a portion of the land\noccupied by the Franks.\n\nAbout the close of the 5th century this territory was conquered by\nClovis, king of the Salian Franks, was afterwards incorporated with the\nkingdom of Austrasia, and at a later period came under the rule of\nCharlemagne. After the treaty of Verdun in 843 it became the centre of\nthe East Frankish or German kingdom, and in theory remained so for a\nlong period, and was for a time the most important of the duchies which\narose on the ruins of the Carolingian empire. The land was divided into\ncounties, or _gauen_, which were ruled by counts, prominent among whom\nwere members of the families of Conradine and Babenberg, by whose feuds\nit was frequently devastated. Conrad, a member of the former family, who\ntook the title of \"duke in Franconia\" about the year 900, was chosen\nGerman king in 911 as the representative of the foremost of the German\nraces. Conrad handed over the chief authority in Franconia to his\nbrother Eberhard, who remained on good terms with Conrad's successor\nHenry I. the Fowler, but rose against the succeeding king, Otto the\nGreat, and was killed in battle in 939, when his territories were\ndivided. The influence of Franconia began to decline under the kings of\nthe Saxon house. It lacked political unity, had no opportunities for\nextension, and soon became divided into Rhenish Franconia (_Francia\nrhenensis_, Ger. _Rheinfranken_) and Eastern Franconia (_Francia\norientalis_, Ger. _Ostfranken_). The most influential family in Rhenish\nFranconia was that of the Salians, the head of which early in the 10th\ncentury was Conrad the Red, duke of Lorraine, and son-in-law of Otto the\nGreat. This Conrad, his son Otto and his grandson Conrad are sometimes\ncalled dukes of Franconia, and in 1024 his great-grandson Conrad, also\nduke of Franconia, was elected German king as Conrad II. and founded the\nline of Franconian or Salian emperors. Rhenish Franconia gradually\nbecame a land of free towns and lesser nobles, and under the earlier\nFranconian emperors sections passed to the count palatine of the Rhine,\nthe archbishop of Mainz, the bishops of Worms and Spires and other\nclerical and lay nobles; and the name Franconia, or _Francia orientalis_\nas it was then called, was confined to the eastern portion of the duchy.\nClerical authority was becoming predominant in this region. A series of\ncharters dating from 822 to 1025 had granted considerable powers to the\nbishops of Wuerzburg, who, by the time of the emperor Henry II.,\npossessed judicial authority over the whole of eastern Franconia. The\nduchy was nominally retained by the emperors in their own hands until\n1115, when the emperor Henry V., wishing to curb the episcopal influence\nin this neighbourhood, appointed his nephew Conrad of Hohenstaufen as\nduke of Franconia. Conrad's son Frederick took the title of duke of\nRothenburg instead of duke of Franconia, but in 1196, on the death of\nConrad of Hohenstaufen, son of the emperor Frederick I., the title fell\ninto disuse. Meanwhile the bishop of Wuerzburg had regained his former\npower in the duchy, and this was confirmed in 1168 by the emperor\nFrederick I.\n\nThe title remained in abeyance until the early years of the 15th\ncentury, when it was assumed by John II., bishop of Wuerzburg, and\nretained by his successors until the bishopric was secularized in 1802.\nThe greater part of the lands were united with Bavaria, and the name\nFranconia again fell into abeyance. It was revived in 1837, when Louis\nI., king of Bavaria, gave to three northern portions of his kingdom the\nnames of Upper, Middle and Lower Franconia. In 1633 Bernhard, duke of\nSaxe-Weimar, hoping to create a principality for himself out of the\necclesiastical lands, had taken the title of duke of Franconia, but his\nhopes were destroyed by his defeat at Noerdlingen in 1634. When Germany\nwas divided into circles by the emperor Maximilian I. in 1500, the name\nFranconia was given to that circle which included the eastern part of\nthe old duchy. The lands formerly comprised in the duchy of Franconia\nare now divided between the kingdoms of Bavaria and Wuerttemberg, the\ngrand-duchies of Baden and Hesse, and the Prussian province of\nHesse-Nassau.\n\n  See J. G. ab Eckhart, _Commentarii de rebus Franciae orientalis et\n  episcopatus Wirceburgensis_ (Wuerzburg, 1729); F. Stein, _Geschichte\n  Frankens_ (Schweinfurt, 1885-1886); T. Henner, _Die herzogliche Gewalt\n  der Bischoefe von Wuerzburg_ (Wuerzburg, 1874).\n\n\n\n\nFRANCS-ARCHERS. The institution of the _francs-archers_ was the first\nattempt at the formation of regular infantry in France. They were\ncreated by the ordinance of Montils-les-Tours on the 28th of August\n1448, which prescribed that in each parish an archer should be chosen\nfrom among the most apt in the use of arms; this archer to be exempt\nfrom the _taille_ and certain obligations, to practise shooting with the\nbow on Sundays and feast-days, and to hold himself ready to march fully\nequipped at the first signal. Under Charles VII. the _francs-archers_\ndistinguished themselves in numerous battles with the English, and\nassisted the king to drive them from France. During the succeeding\nreigns the institution languished, and finally disappeared in the middle\nof the 16th century. The _francs-archers_ were also called\n_francs-taupins_.\n\n  See Daniel, _Histoire de la milice francaise_ (1721); and E. Boutaric,\n  _Institutions militaires de la France avant les armees permanentes_\n  (1863).\n\n\n\n\nFRANCS-TIREURS (\"Free-Shooters\"), irregular troops, almost exclusively\ninfantry, employed by the French in the war of 1870-1871. They were\noriginally rifle clubs or unofficial military societies formed in the\neast of France at the time of the Luxemburg crisis of 1867. The members\nwere chiefly concerned with the practice of rifle-shooting, and were\nexpected in war to act as light troops. As under the then system of\nconscription the greater part of the nation's military energy was\nallowed to run to waste, the francs-tireurs were not only popular, but\nefficient workers in their sphere of action. As they wore no uniforms,\nwere armed with the best existing rifles and elected their own officers,\nthe government made repeated attempts to bring the societies, which were\nat once a valuable asset to the armed strength of France and a possible\nmenace to internal order, under military discipline. This was\nstrenuously resisted by the societies, to their sorrow as it turned out,\nfor the Germans treated captured francs-tireurs as irresponsible\nnon-combatants found with arms in their hands and usually exacted the\ndeath penalty. In July 1870, at the outbreak of the war, the societies\nwere brought under the control of the minister of war and organized for\nfield service, but it was not until the 4th of November--by which time\nthe _levee en masse_ was in force--that they were placed under the\norders of the generals in the field. After that they were sometimes\norganized in large bodies and incorporated in the mass of the armies,\nbut more usually they continued to work in small bands, blowing up\nculverts on the invaders' lines of communication, cutting off small\nreconnoitring parties, surprising small posts, &c. It is now\nacknowledged, even by the Germans, that though the francs-tireurs did\nrelatively little active mischief, they paralysed large detachments of\nthe enemy, contested every step of his advance (as in the Loire\ncampaign), and prevented him from gaining information, and that their\nsoldierly qualities improved with experience. Their most celebrated\nfeats were the blowing up of the Moselle railway bridge at Fontenoy on\nthe 22nd of January 1871 (see _Les Chasseurs des Vosges_ by\nLieut.-Colonel St Etienne, Toul, 1906), and the heroic defence of\nChateaudun by Lipowski's Paris corps and the francs-tireurs of Cannes\nand Nantes (October 18, 1870). It cannot be denied that the original\nmembers of the rifle clubs were joined by many bad characters, but the\npatriotism of the majority was unquestionable, for little mercy was\nshown by the Germans to those francs-tireurs who fell into their hands.\nThe severity of the German reprisals is itself the best testimony to the\nfear and anxiety inspired by the presence of active bands of\nfrancs-tireurs on the flanks and in rear of the invaders.\n\n\n\n\nFRANEKER, a town in the province of Friesland, Holland, 5 m. E. of\nHarlingen on the railway and canal to Leeuwarden. Pop. (1900) 7187. It\nwas at one time a favourite residence of the Frisian nobility, many of\nwhom had their castles here, and it possessed a celebrated university,\nfounded by the Frisian estates in 1585. This was suppressed by Napoleon\nI. in 1811, and the endowments were diverted four years later to the\nsupport of an athenaeum, and afterwards of a gymnasium, with which a\nphysiological cabinet and a botanical garden are connected. Franeker\nalso possesses a town hall (1591), which contains a _planetarium_, made\nby one Eise Eisinga in 1774-1881. The fine observatory was founded about\n1780. The church of St Martin (1420) contains several fine tombs of the\n15th-17th centuries. The industries of the town include silk-weaving,\nwoollen-spinning, shipbuilding and pottery-making. It is also a\nconsiderable market for agricultural produce.\n\n\n\n\nFRANK, JAKOB (1726-1791), a Jewish theologian, who founded in Poland, in\nthe middle of the 18th century, a sect which emanated from Judaism but\nended by merging with Christianity. The sect was the outcome of the\nMessianic mysticism of Sabbetai Zebi. It was an antinomian movement in\nwhich the authority of the Jewish law was held to be superseded by\npersonal freedom. The Jewish authorities, alarmed at the moral laxity\nwhich resulted from the emotional rites of the Frankists, did their\nutmost to suppress the sect. But the latter, posing as an anti-Talmudic\nprotest in behalf of a spiritual religion, won a certain amount of\npublic sympathy. There was, however, no deep sincerity in the tenets of\nthe Frankists, for though in 1759 they were baptized _en masse_, amid\nmuch pomp, the Church soon became convinced that Frank was not a genuine\nconvert. He was imprisoned on a charge of heresy, but on his release in\n1763 the empress Maria Theresa patronized him, regarding him as a\npropagandist of Christianity among the Jews. He thenceforth lived in\nstate as baron of Offenbach, and on his death (1791) his daughter Eva\nsucceeded him as head of the sect. The Frankists gradually merged in the\ngeneral Christian body, the movement leaving no permanent trace in the\nsynagogue.     (I. A.)\n\n\n\n\nFRANK-ALMOIGN (_libera eleemosyna_, free alms), in the English law of\nreal property, a species of spiritual tenure, whereby a religious\ncorporation, aggregate or sole, holds lands of the donor to them and\ntheir successors for ever. It was a tenure dating from Saxon times, held\nnot on the ordinary feudal conditions, but discharged of all services\nexcept the _trinoda necessitas_. But \"they which hold in frank-almoign\nare bound of right before God to make orisons, prayers, masses and other\ndivine services for the souls of their grantor or feoffor, and for the\nsouls of their heirs which are dead, and for the prosperity and good\nlife and good health of their heirs which are alive. And therefore they\nshall do no fealty to their lord, because that this divine service is\nbetter for them before God than any doing of fealty\" (Litt. s. 135). It\nwas the tenure by which the greater number of the monasteries and\nreligious houses held their lands; it was expressly exempted from the\nstatute 12 Car. II. c. 24 (1660), by which the other ancient tenures\nwere abolished, and it is the tenure by which the parochial clergy and\nmany ecclesiastical and eleemosynary foundations hold their lands at the\npresent day. As a form of donation, however, it came to an end by the\npassing of the statute _Quia Emptores_, for by that statute no new\ntenure of frank-almoign could be created, except by the crown.\n\n  See Pollock and Maitland, _History of English Law_, where the history\n  of frank-almoign is given at length.\n\n\n\n\nFRANKEL, ZECHARIAS (1801-1875), Jewish theologian, one of the founders\nof the Breslau school of \"historical Judaism.\" This school attempts to\nharmonize critical treatment of the documents of religion with fidelity\nto traditional beliefs and observances. For a time at least, the\ncompromise succeeded in staying the disintegrating effects of the\nliberal movement in Judaism. Frankel was the author of several valuable\nworks, among them _Septuagint Studies_, an _Introduction to the Mishnah_\n(1859), and a similar work on the Palestinian Talmud (1870). He also\nedited the _Monatsschrift_, devoted to Jewish learning on modern lines.\nBut his chief claim to fame rests on his headship of the Breslau\nSeminary. This was founded in 1854 for the training of rabbis who should\ncombine their rabbinic studies with secular courses at the university.\nThe whole character of the rabbinate has been modified under the\ninfluence of this, the first seminary of the kind. (I. A.)\n\n\n\n\nFRANKENBERG, a manufacturing town of Germany, in the kingdom of Saxony,\non the Zschopau, 7 m. N.E. of Chemnitz, on the railway\nNiederwiesa-Rosswein. Pop. (1905) 13,303. The principal buildings are\nthe large Evangelical parish church, restored in 1874-1875, and the\ntown-hall. Its industries include I extensive woollen, cotton and silk\nweaving, dyeing, the manufacture of brushes, furniture and cigars,\niron-founding and machine building. It is well provided with schools,\nincluding one of weaving.\n\n\n\n\nFRANKENHAUSEN, a town of Germany, in the principality of\nSchwarzburg-Rudolstadt, on an artificial arm of the Wipper, a tributary\nof the Saale, 36 m. N.N.E. of Gotha. Pop. (1905) 6534. It consists of an\nold and a new town, the latter mostly rebuilt since a destructive fire\nin 1833, and has an old chateau of the princes of Schwarzburg, three\nProtestant churches, a seminary for teachers, a hospital and a modern\ntown-hall. Its industries include the manufacture of sugar, cigars and\nbuttons, and there are brine springs, with baths, in the vicinity. At\nFrankenhausen a battle was fought on the 15th of May 1525, in which the\ninsurgent peasants under Thomas Muenzer were defeated by the allied\nprinces of Saxony and Hesse.\n\n\n\n\nFRANKENSTEIN, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Silesia, on\nthe Pausebach, 35 m. S. by W. of Breslau. Pop. (1905) 7890. It is still\nsurrounded by its medieval walls, has two Evangelical and three Roman\nCatholic churches, among the latter the parish church with a curious\noverhanging tower, and a monastery. The industries include the\nmanufacture of artificial manures, bricks, beer and straw hats. There\nare also mills for grinding the magnesite found in the neighbourhood.\n\n\n\n\nFRANKENTHAL, a town of Germany, in the Bavarian Palatinate, on the\nIsenach, connected with the Rhine by a canal 3 m. in length, 6 m. N.W.\nfrom Mannheim, and on the railways Neunkirchen-Worms and\nFrankenthal-Grosskarlbach. Pop. (1905) 18,191. It has two Evangelical\nand a Roman Catholic church, a fine medieval town-hall, two interesting\nold gates, remains of its former environing walls, several public\nmonuments, including one to the veterans of the Napoleonic wars, and a\nmuseum. Its industries include the manufacture of machinery, casks,\ncorks, soap, dolls and furniture, iron-founding and bell-founding--the\nfamous \"Kaiserglocke\" of the Cologne cathedral was cast here.\nFrankenthal was formerly famous for its porcelain factory, established\nhere in 1755 by Paul Anton Hannong of Strassburg, who sold it in 1762 to\nthe elector palatine Charles Theodore. Its fame is mainly due to the\nmodellers Konrad Link (1732-1802) and Johann Peter Melchior (d. 1796)\n(who worked at Frankenthal between 1779 and 1793). The best products of\nthis factory are figures and groups representing contemporary life, or\nallegorical subjects in the rococo taste of the period, and they are\nsurpassed only by those of the more famous factory at Meissen. In 1795\nthe factory was sold to Peter von Reccum, who removed it to Gruenstadt.\n\nFrankenthal (Franconodal) is mentioned as a village in the 8th century.\nA house of Augustinian canons established here in 1119 by Erkenbert,\nchamberlain of Worms, was suppressed in 1562 by the elector palatine\nFrederick III., who gave its possessions to Protestant refugees from the\nNetherlands. In 1577 this colony received town rights from the elector\nJohn Casimir, whose successor fortified the place. From 1623 until 1652,\nsave for two years, it was occupied by the Spaniards, and in 1688-1689\nit was stormed and burned by the French, the fortifications being razed.\nIn 1697 it was reconstituted as a town, and under the elector Charles\nTheodore it became the capital of the Palatinate. From 1798 to 1814 it\nwas incorporated in the French department of Mont Tonnerre.\n\n  See Wille, _Stadt u. Festung Frankenthal waehrend des dreissigjaehrigen\n  Krieges_ (Heidelberg, 1877); Hildenbrand, Gesch. _der Stadt\n  Frankenthal_ (1893). For the porcelain see Heuser, _Frankenthaler\n  Gruppen und Figuren_ (Spires, 1899).\n\n\n\n\nFRANKENWALD, a mountainous district of Germany, forming the geological\nconnexion between the Fichtelgebirge and the Thuringian Forest. It is a\nbroad well-wooded plateau, running for about 30 m. in a north-westerly\ndirection, descending gently on the north and eastern sides towards the\nSaale, but more precipitously to the Bavarian plain in the west, and\nattaining its highest elevation in the Kieferle near Steinheid (2900\nft.). Along the centre lies the watershed between the basins of the Main\nand the Saale, belonging to the systems of the Rhine and Elbe\nrespectively. The principal tributaries of the Main from the Frankenwald\nare the Rodach and Hasslach, and of the Saale, the Selbitz.\n\n  See H. Schmid, _Fuehrer durch den Frankenwald_ (Bamberg, 1894); Meyer,\n  _Thueringen und der Frankenwald_ (15th ed., Leipzig, 1900), and Guembel,\n  _Geognostische Beschreibung des Fichtelgebirges mit dem Frankenwald_\n  (Gotha, 1879).\n\n\n\n\nFRANKFORT, a city and the county-seat of Clinton county, Indiana,\nU.S.A., 40 m. N.W. of Indianapolis. Pop. (1890) 5919; (1900) 7100 (144\nforeign-born); (1910) 8634. Frankfort is served by the Chicago,\nIndianapolis & Louisville, the Lake Erie & Western, the Vandalia, and\nthe Toledo, St Louis & Western railways, and by the Indianapolis &\nNorth-Western Traction Interurban railway (electric). The city is a\ndivision point on the Toledo, St Louis & Western railway, which has\nlarge shops here. Frankfort is a trade centre for an agricultural and\nlumbering region; among its manufactures are handles, agricultural\nimplements and foundry products. The first settlement in the\nneighbourhood was made in 1826; in 1830 the town was founded, and in\n1875 it was chartered as a city. The city limits were considerably\nextended immediately after 1900.\n\n\n\n\nFRANKFORT, the capital city of Kentucky, U.S.A., and the county-seat of\nFranklin county, on the Kentucky river, about 55 m. E. of Louisville.\nPop. (1890) 7892; (1900) 9487, of whom 3316 were negroes; (1910 census)\n10,465. The city is served by the Chesapeake & Ohio, the Louisville &\nNashville, and the Frankfort & Cincinnati railways, by the Central\nKentucky Traction Co. (electric), and by steamboat lines to Cincinnati,\nLouisville and other river ports. It is built among picturesque hills on\nboth sides of the river, and is in the midst of the famous Kentucky\n\"blue grass region\" and of a rich lumber-producing region. The most\nprominent building is the Capitol, about 400 ft. long and 185 ft. wide,\nbuilt of granite and white limestone in the Italian Renaissance style,\nwith 70 large Ionic columns, and a dome 205 ft. above the terrace line,\nsupported by 24 other columns. The Capitol was built in 1905-1907 at a\ncost of more than $2,000,000; in it are housed the state library and the\nlibrary of the Kentucky State Historical Society. At Frankfort, also,\nare the state arsenal, the state penitentiary and the state home for\nfeeble-minded children, and just outside the city limits is the state\ncoloured normal school. The old capitol (first occupied in 1829) is\nstill standing. In Franklin cemetery rest the remains of Daniel Boone\nand of Theodore O'Hara (1820-1867), a lawyer, soldier, journalist and\npoet, who served in the U.S. army in 1846-1848 during the Mexican War,\ntook part in filibustering expeditions to Cuba, served in the\nConfederate army, and is best known as the author of \"The Bivouac of the\nDead,\" a poem written for the burial in Frankfort of some soldiers who\nhad lost their lives at Buena Vista. Here also are the graves of Richard\nM. Johnson, vice-president of the United States in 1837-1841, and the\nsculptor Joel T. Hart (1810-1877). The city has a considerable trade\nwith the surrounding country, in which large quantities of tobacco and\nhemp are produced; its manufactures include lumber, brooms, chairs,\nshoes, hemp twine, canned vegetables and glass bottles. The total value\nof the city's factory product in 1905 was $1,747,338, being 31.6% more\nthan in 1900. Frankfort (said to have been named after Stephen Frank,\none of an early pioneer party ambushed here by Indians) was founded in\n1786 by General James Wilkinson, then deeply interested in trade with\nthe Spanish at New Orleans, and in the midst of his Spanish intrigues.\nIn 1792 the city was made the capital of the state. In 1862, during the\nfamous campaign in Kentucky of General Braxton Bragg (Confederate) and\nGeneral D. C. Buell (Federal), Frankfort was occupied for a short time\nby Bragg, who, just before being forced out by Buell, took part in the\ninauguration of Richard J. Hawes, chosen governor by the Confederates of\nthe state. Hawes, however, never discharged the duties of his office.\nDuring the bitter contest for the governorship in 1900 between William\nGoebel (Democrat) and William S. Taylor (Republican), each of whom\nclaimed the election, Goebel was assassinated at Frankfort. (See also\nKENTUCKY.) Frankfort received a city charter in 1839.\n\n\n\n\nFRANKFORT-ON-MAIN (Ger. _Frankfurt am Main_), a city of Germany, in the\nPrussian province of Hesse-Nassau, principally on the right bank of the\nMain, 24 m. above its confluence with the Rhine at Mainz, and 16 m. N.\nfrom Darmstadt. Always a place of great trading importance, long the\nplace of election for the German kings, and until 1866, together with\nHamburg, Bremen and Luebeck, one of the four free cities of Germany, it\nstill retains its position as one of the leading commercial centres of\nthe German empire. Its situation in the broad and fertile valley of the\nMain, the northern horizon formed by the soft outlines of the Taunus\nrange, is one of great natural beauty, the surrounding country being\nrichly clad with orchard and forest.\n\nFrankfort is one of the most interesting, as it is also one of the\nwealthiest, of German cities. Apart from its commercial importance, its\nposition, close to the fashionable watering-places of Homburg, Nauheim\nand Wiesbaden, has rendered it \"cosmopolitan\" in the best sense of the\nterm. The various stages in the development of the city are clearly\nindicated in its general plan and the surviving names of many of its\nstreets. The line of the original 12th century walls and moat is marked\nby the streets of which the names end in _-graben_, from the\nHirschgraben on the W. to the Wollgraben on the E. The space enclosed by\nthese and by the river on the S. is known as the \"old town\"\n(_Altstadt_). The so-called \"new town\" (_Neustadt_), added in 1333,\nextends to the _Anlagen_, the beautiful gardens and promenades laid out\n(1806-1812) on the site of the 17th century fortifications, of which\nthey faithfully preserve the general ground plan. Of the medieval\nfortifications the picturesque Eschenheimer Tor, a round tower 155 ft.\nhigh, dating from 1400 to 1428, the Rententurm (1456) on the Main and\nthe Kuhhirtenturm (_c._ 1490) in Sachsenhausen, are the sole remains.\nSince the demolition of the fortifications the city has greatly\nexpanded. Sachsenhausen on the south bank of the river, formerly the\nseat of a commandery of the Teutonic Order (by treaty with Austria in\n1842 all property and rights of the order in Frankfort territory were\nsold to the city, except the church and house), is now a quarter of the\ncity. In other directions also the expansion has been rapid; the village\nof Bornheim was incorporated in Frankfort in 1877, the former Hessian\ntown of Bockenheim in 1895, and the suburbs of Niederrad, Oberrad and\nSeckbach in 1900.\n\nThe main development of the city has been to the north of the river,\nwhich is crossed by numerous bridges and flanked by fine quays and\npromenades. The Altstadt, though several broad streets have been opened\nthrough it, still preserves many of its narrow alleys and other medieval\nfeatures. The Judengasse (Ghetto), down to 1806 the sole Jews' quarter,\nhas been pulled down, with the exception of the ancestral house of the\nRothschild family--No. 148--which has been restored and retains its\nancient facade. As the Altstadt is mainly occupied by artisans and petty\ntradesmen, so the Neustadt is the principal business quarter of the\ncity, containing the chief public buildings and the principal hotels.\nThe main arteries of the city are the Zeil, a broad street running from\nthe Friedberger Anlage to the Rossmarkt and thence continued, by the\nKaiserstrasse, through the fine new quarter built after 1872, to the\nmagnificent principal railway station; and the Steinweg and\nGoethestrasse, which lead by the Bockenheimer Tor to the Bockenheimer\nLandstrasse, a broad boulevard intersecting the fashionable residential\nsuburb to the N.W.\n\n_Churches._--The principal ecclesiastical building in Frankfort is the\ncathedral (Dom). Built of red sandstone, with a massive tower\nterminating in a richly ornamented cupola and 300 ft. in height, it is\nthe most conspicuous object in the city. This building, in which the\nRoman emperors were formerly elected and, since 1562, crowned, was\nfounded in 852 by King Louis the German, and was later known as the\nSalvator Kirche. After its reconstruction (1235-1239), it was dedicated\nto St Bartholomew. From this period date the nave and the side aisles;\nthe choir was completed in 1315-1338 and the long transepts in\n1346-1354. The cloisters were rebuilt in 1348-1447, and the electoral\nchapel, on the south of the choir, was completed in 1355. The tower was\nbegun in 1415, but remained unfinished. On the 15th of August 1867 the\ntower and roof were destroyed by fire and considerable damage was done\nto the rest of the edifice. The restoration was immediately taken in\nhand, and the whole work was finished in 1881, including the completion\nof the tower, according to the plans of the 15th century architect, Hans\nvon Ingelheim. In the interior is the tomb of the German king Guenther of\nSchwarzburg, who died in Frankfort in 1349, and that of Rudolph, the\nlast knight of Sachsenhausen, who died in 1371. Among the other Roman\nCatholic churches are the Leonhardskirche, the Liebfrauenkirche (church\nof Our Lady) and the Deutschordenskirche (14th century) in\nSachsenhausen. The Leonhardskirche (restored in 1882) was begun in 1219,\nit is said on the site of the palace of Charlemagne. It was originally a\nthree-aisled basilica, but is now a five-aisled _Hallenkirche_; the\nchoir was added in 1314. It has two Romanesque towers. The\nLiebfrauenkirche is first mentioned in 1314 as a collegiate church; the\nnave was consecrated in 1340. The choir was added in 1506-1509 and the\nwhole church thoroughly restored in the second half of the 18th century,\nwhen the tower was built (1770). Of the Protestant churches the oldest\nis the Nikolaikirche, which dates from the 13th century; the fine\ncast-iron spire erected in 1843 had to be taken down in 1901. The\nPaulskirche, the principal Evangelical (Lutheran) church, built between\n1786 and 1833, is a red sandstone edifice of no architectural\npretensions, but interesting as the seat of the national parliament of\n1848-1849. The Katharinenkirche, built 1678-1681 on the site of an older\nbuilding, is famous in Frankfort history as the place where the first\nProtestant sermon was preached in 1522. Among the more noteworthy of the\nnewer Protestant churches are the Peterskirche (1892-1895) in the North\nGerman Renaissance style, with a tower 256 ft. high, standing north from\nthe Zeil, the Christuskirche (1883) and the Lutherkirche (1889-1893). An\nEnglish church, in Early English Gothic style, situated adjacent to the\nBockenheimer Landstrasse, was completed and consecrated in 1906.\n\nOf the five synagogues, the chief (or Hauptsynagoge), lying in the\nBoernestrasse, is an attractive building of red sandstone in the\nMoorish-Byzantine style.\n\n_Public Buildings._--Of the secular buildings in Frankfort, the Roemer,\nfor almost five hundred years the Rathaus (town hall) of the city, is of\nprime historical interest. It lies on the Roemerberg, a square flanked by\ncurious medieval houses. It is first mentioned in 1322, was bought with\nthe adjacent hostelry in 1405 by the city and rearranged as a town hall,\nand has since, from time to time, been enlarged by the purchase of\nadjoining patrician houses, forming a complex of buildings of various\nstyles and dates surmounted by a clock tower. The facade was rebuilt\n(1896-1898) in late Gothic style. It was here, in the Wahlzimmer (or\nelection-chamber) that the electors or their plenipotentiaries chose the\nGerman kings, and here in the Kaisersaal (emperors' hall) that the\ncoronation festival was held, at which the new king or emperor dined\nwith the electors after having shown himself from the balcony to the\npeople. The Kaisersaal retained its antique appearance until 1843, when,\nas also again in 1904, it was restored and redecorated; it is now\nfurnished with a series of modern paintings representing the German\nkings and Roman emperors from Charlemagne to Francis II., in all\nfifty-two, and a statue of the first German emperor, William I. New\nmunicipal buildings adjoining the \"Roemer\" on the north side were erected\nin 1900-1903 in German Renaissance style, with a handsome tower 220 ft.\nhigh; beneath it is a public wine-cellar, and on the first storey a\ngrand municipal hall. The palace of the princes of Thurn and Taxis in\nthe Eschenheimer Gasse was built (1732-1741) from the designs of Robert\nde Cotte, chief architect to Louis XIV. of France. From 1806 to 1810 it\nwas the residence of Karl von Dalberg, prince-primate of the\nConfederation of the Rhine, with whose dominions Frankfort had been\nincorporated by Napoleon. From 1816 to 1866 it was the seat of the\nGerman federal diet. It is now annexed to the principal post office\n(built 1892-1894), which lies close to it on the Zeil. The Saalhof,\nbuilt on the site of the palace erected by Louis the Pious in 822,\noverlooking the Main, has a chapel of the 12th century, the substructure\ndating from Carolingian times. This is the oldest building in Frankfort.\nThe facade of the Saalhof in the Saalgasse dates from 1604, the southern\nwing with the two gables from 1715 to 1717. Of numerous other medieval\nbuildings may be mentioned the Leinwandhaus (linendrapers' hall), a 15th\ncentury building reconstructed in 1892 as a municipal museum. In the\nGrosser Hirschgraben is the Goethehaus, a 16th century building which\ncame into the possession of the Goethe family in 1733. Here Goethe lived\nfrom his birth in 1749 until 1775. In 1863 the house was acquired by the\n_Freies deutsche Hochstift_ and was opened to the public. It has been\nrestored, from Goethe's account of it in _Dichtung und Wahrheit_, as\nnearly as possible to its condition in the poet's day, and is now\nconnected with a Goethemuseum (1897), with archives and a library of\n25,000 volumes representative of the Goethe period of German literature.\n\n_Literary and Scientific Institutions._--Few cities of the same size as\nFrankfort are so richly endowed with literary, scientific and artistic\ninstitutions, or possess so many handsome buildings appropriated to\ntheir service. The opera-house, erected near the Bockenheimer Tor in\n1873-1880, is a magnificent edifice in the style of the Italian\nRenaissance and ranks among the finest theatres in Europe. There are\nalso a theatre (_Schauspielhaus_) in modern Renaissance style\n(1899-1902), devoted especially to drama, a splendid concert hall\n(_Saalbau_), opened in 1861, and numerous minor places of theatrical\nentertainment. The public picture gallery in the Saalhof possesses works\nby Hans Holbein, Gruenewald, Van Dyck, Teniers, Van der Neer, Hans von\nKulmbach, Lucas Cranach and other masters. The Staedel Art Institute\n(Staedel'sches Kunstinstitut) in Sachsenhausen, founded by the banker J.\nF. Staedel in 1816, contains a picture gallery and a cabinet of\nengravings extremely rich in works of German art. The municipal library,\nwith 300,000 volumes, boasts among its rarer treasures a Gutenberg\nBible printed at Mainz between 1450 and 1455, another on parchment dated\n1462, the _Institutiones Justiniani_ (Mainz, 1468), the _Theuerdank_,\nwith woodcuts by Hans Schaeufelein, and numerous valuable autographs. It\nalso contains a fine collection of coins. The Bethmann Museum owes its\ncelebrity principally to Dannecker's \"Ariadne,\" but it also possesses\nthe original plaster model of Thorwaldsen's \"Entrance of Alexander the\nGreat into Babylon.\" There may also be mentioned the Industrial Art\nExhibition of the Polytechnic Association and two conservatories of\nmusic. Among the scientific institutions the first place belongs to the\n_Senckenberg'sches naturhistorische Museum_, containing valuable\ncollections of birds and shells. Next must be mentioned the Kunstgewerbe\n(museum of arts and crafts) and the Musical Museum, with valuable MSS.\nand portraits. Besides the municipal library (_Stadtbibliothek_)\nmentioned above there are three others of importance, the Rothschild,\nthe Senckenberg and the Jewish library (with a well-appointed\nreading-room). There are numerous high-grade schools, musical and other\nlearned societies and excellent hospitals. The last include the large\nmunicipal infirmary and the Senckenberg'sches Stift, a hospital and\nalmshouses founded by a doctor, Johann C. Senckenberg (d. 1772). The\nRoyal Institute for experimental therapeutics (_Koenigl. Institut fuer\nexperimentelle Therapie_), moved to Frankfort in 1899, attracts numerous\nforeign students, and is especially concerned with the study of\nbacteriology and serums.\n\n_Bridges._--Seven bridges (of which two are railway) cross the Main. The\nmost interesting of these is the Alte Mainbruecke, a red sandstone\nstructure of fourteen arches, 815 ft. long, dating from the 14th\ncentury. On it are a mill, a statue of Charlemagne and an iron crucifix\nsurmounted by a gilded cock. The latter commemorates, according to\ntradition, the fowl which was the first living being to cross the bridge\nand thus fell a prey to the devil, who in hope of a nobler victim had\nsold his assistance to the architect. Antiquaries, however, assert that\nit probably marks the spot where criminals were in olden times flung\ninto the river. Other bridges are the Obermainbruecke of five iron\narches, opened in 1878; an iron foot (suspension) bridge, the\nUntermainbruecke; the Wilhelmsbruecke, a fine structure, which from 1849\nto 1890 served as a railway bridge and was then opened as a road bridge;\nand two new iron bridges at Gutleuthof and Niederrad (below the city),\nwhich carry the railway traffic from the south to the north bank of the\nMain, where all lines converge in a central station of the Prussian\nstate railways. This station, which was built in 1883-1888 and has\nreplaced the three stations belonging to private companies, which\nformerly stood in juxtaposition on the Anlagen (or promenades) near the\nMainzer Tor, lies some half-mile to the west. The intervening ground\nupon which the railway lines and buildings stood was sold for building\nsites, the sum obtained being more than sufficient to cover the cost of\nthe majestic central terminus (the third largest in the world), which,\nin addition to spacious and handsome halls for passenger accommodation,\nhas three glass-covered spans of 180 ft. width each. Yet the exigencies\nof traffic demand further extensions, and another large station was in\n1909 in process of construction at the east end of the city, devised to\nreceive the local traffic of lines running eastward, while a through\nstation for the north to south traffic was projected on a site farther\nwest of the central terminus.\n\nFrankfort lies at the junction of lines of railway connecting it\ndirectly with all the important cities of south and central Germany.\nHere cross and unite the lines from Berlin to Basel, from Cologne to\nWuerzburg and Vienna, from Hamburg and Cassel, and from Dresden and\nLeipzig to France and Switzerland. The river Main has been dredged so as\nto afford heavy barge traffic with the towns of the upper Main and with\nthe Rhine, and cargo boats load and unload alongside its busy quays. A\nwell-devised system of electric tramways provides for local\ncommunication within the city and with the outlying suburbs.\n\n_Trade, Commerce and Industries._--Frankfort has always been more of a\ncommercial than an industrial town, and though of late years it has\nsomewhat lost its pre-eminent position as a banking centre it has\ncounterbalanced the loss in increased industrial development. The\nsuburbs of Sachsenhausen and Bockenheim have particularly developed\nconsiderable industrial activity, especially in publishing and printing,\nbrewing and the manufacture of quinine. Other sources of employment are\nthe cutting of hair for making hats, the production of fancy goods,\ntype, machinery, soap and perfumery, ready-made clothing, chemicals,\nelectro-technical apparatus, jewelry and metal wares. Market gardening\nis extensively carried on in the neighbourhood and cider largely\nmanufactured. There are two great fairs held in the town,--the\nOstermesse, or spring fair, and the Herbstmesse, or autumn fair. The\nformer, which was the original nucleus of all the commercial prosperity\nof the city, begins on the second Wednesday before Easter; and the\nlatter on the second Wednesday before the 8th of September. They last\nthree weeks, and the last day save one, called the _Nickelchestag_, is\ndistinguished by the influx of people from the neighbouring country. The\ntrade in leather is of great and growing importance. A horse fair has\nbeen held twice a year since 1862 under the patronage of the\nagricultural society; and the wool market was reinstituted in 1872 by\nthe German Trade Society (Deutscher Handelsverein). Frankfort has long\nbeen famous as one of the principal banking centres of Europe, and is\nnow only second to Berlin, in this respect, among German cities, and it\nis remarkable for the large business that is done in government stock.\nIn the 17th century the town was the seat of a great book-trade; but it\nhas long been distanced in this department by Leipzig. The _Frankfurter\nJournal_ was founded in 1615, the _Postzeitung_ in 1616, the _Neue\nFrankfurter Zeitung_ in 1859, and the _Frankfurter Presse_ in 1866.\n\nOf memorial monuments the largest and most elaborate in Frankfort is\nthat erected in 1858 in honour of the early German printers. It was\nmodelled by Ed. von der Launitz and executed by Herr von Kreis. The\nstatues of Gutenberg, Fust and Schoeffer form a group on the top; an\nornamented frieze presents medallions of a number of famous printers;\nbelow these are figures representing the towns of Mainz, Strassburg,\nVenice and Frankfort; and on the corners of the pedestal are allegorical\nstatues of theology, poetry, science and industry. The statue of Goethe\n(1844) in the Goetheplatz is by Ludwig von Schwanthaler. The Schiller\nstatue, erected in 1863, is the work of a Frankfort artist, Johann\nDielmann. A monument in the Bockenheim Anlage, dated 1837, preserves the\nmemory of Guiollett, the burgomaster, to whom the town is mainly\nindebted for the beautiful promenades which occupy the site of the old\nfortifications; and similar monuments have been reared to Senckenberg\n(1863), Schopenhauer, Klemens Brentano the poet and Samuel Thomas\nSoemmerring (1755-1830), the anatomist and inventor of an electric\ntelegraph. In the Opernplatz is an equestrian statue of the emperor\nWilhelm I. by Buscher.\n\n_Cemeteries._--The new cemetery (opened in 1828) contains the graves of\nArthur Schopenhauer and Feuerbach, of Passavant the biographer of\nRaphael, Ballenberger the artist, Hessemer the architect, Soemmerring,\nand Johann Friedrich Boehmer the historian. The Bethmann vault attracts\nattention by three bas-reliefs from the chisel of Thorwaldsen; and the\nReichenbach mausoleum is a vast pile designed by Hessemer at the command\nof William II. of Hesse, and adorned with sculptures by Zwerger and von\nder Lausitz. In the Jewish section, which is walled off from the rest of\nthe burying-ground, the most remarkable tombs are those of the\nRothschild family.\n\n_Parks._--In addition to the park in the south-western district,\nFrankfort possesses two delightful pleasure grounds, which attract large\nnumbers of visitors, the Palmengarten in the west and the zoological\ngarden in the east of the city. The former is remarkable for the\ncollection of palms purchased in 1868 from the deposed duke Adolph of\nNassau.\n\n_Government._--The present municipal constitution of the city dates from\n1867 and presents some points of difference from the ordinary Prussian\nsystem. Bismarck was desirous of giving the city, in view of its former\nfreedom, a more liberal constitution than is usual in ordinary cases.\nFormerly fifty-four representatives were elected, but provision was made\n(in the constitution) for increasing the number, and they at present\nnumber sixty-four, elected for six years. Every two years a third of the\nnumber retire, but they are eligible for re-election. These sixty-four\nrepresentatives elect twenty town-councillors, ten of whom receive a\nsalary and ten do not. The chief burgomaster (Oberbuergermeister) is\nnominated by the emperor for twelve years, and the second burgomaster\nmust receive the emperor's approval.\n\nSince 1885 the city has been supplied with water of excellent quality\nfrom the Stadtwald, Goldstein and Hinkelstein, and the favourable\nsanitary condition of the town is seen in the low death rate.\n\n_Population._--The population of Frankfort has steadily increased since\nthe beginning of the 19th century; it amounted in 1817 to 41,458; (1840)\n55,269; (1864) 77,372; (1871) 59,265; (1875) 103,136; (1890) 179,985;\nand (1905), including the incorporated suburban districts, 334,951, of\nwhom 175,909 were Protestants, 88,457 Roman Catholics and 21,974 Jews.\n\n_History._--Excavations around the cathedral have incontestably proved\nthat Frankfort-on-Main (_Trajectum ad Moenum_) was a settlement in Roman\ntimes and was probably founded in the 1st century of the Christian era.\nIt may thus be accounted one of the earliest German--the so-called\n\"Roman\"--towns. Numerous places in the valley of the Main are mentioned\nin chronicles anterior to the time that Frankfort is first noticed.\nDisregarding popular tradition, which connects the origin of the town\nwith a legend that Charlemagne, when retreating before the Saxons, was\nsafely conducted across the river by a doe, it may be asserted that the\nfirst genuine historical notice of the town occurs in 793, when Einhard,\nCharlemagne's biographer, tells us that he spent the winter in the villa\nFrankonovurd. Next year there is mention more than once of a royal\npalace here, and the early importance of the place is indicated by the\nfact that in this year it was chosen as the seat of the ecclesiastical\ncouncil by which image-worship was condemned. The name Frankfort is also\nfound in several official documents of Charlemagne's reign; and from the\nnotices that occur in the early chronicles and charters it would appear\nthat the place was the most populous at least of the numerous villages\nof the Main district. During the Carolingian period it was the seat of\nno fewer than 16 imperial councils or colloquies. The town was probably\nat first built on an island in the river. It was originally governed by\nthe royal officer or _actor dominicus_, and down even to the close of\nthe Empire it remained a purely imperial or royal town. It gradually\nacquired various privileges, and by the close of the 14th century the\nonly mark of dependence was the payment of a yearly tax. Louis the Pious\ndwelt more frequently at Frankfort than his father Charlemagne had done,\nand about 823 he built himself a new palace, the basis of the later\nSaalhof. In 822 and 823 two great diets were held in the palace, and at\nthe former there were present deputies from the eastern Slavs, the Avars\nand the Normans. The place continued to be a favourite residence with\nLouis the German, who died there in 876, and was the capital of the East\nFrankish kingdom. By the rest of the Carolingian kings it was less\nfrequently visited, and this neglect was naturally greater during the\nperiod of the Saxon and Salic emperors from 919 to 1137. Diets, however,\nwere held in the town in 951, 1015, 1069 and 1109, and councils in 1000\nand 1006. From a privilege of Henry IV., in 1074, granting the city of\nWorms freedom from tax in their trade with several royal cities, it\nappears that Frankfort was even then a place of some commercial\nimportance.\n\nUnder the Hohenstaufens many brilliant diets were held within its walls.\nThat of 1147 saw, also, the first election of a German king at\nFrankfort, in the person of Henry, son of Conrad III. But as the father\noutlived the son, it was Frederick I., Barbarossa, who was actually the\nfirst reigning king to be elected here (in 1152). With the beginning of\nthe 13th century the municipal constitution appears to have taken\ndefinite shape. The chief official was the royal bailiff\n(_Schultheiss_), who is first mentioned in 1193, and whose powers were\nsubsequently enlarged by the abolition, in 1219, of the office of the\nroyal _Vogt_ or _advocatus_. About this time a body of _Schoeffen_\n(_scabini_, jurats), fourteen in number, was formed to assist in the\ncontrol of municipal affairs, and with their appointment the first step\nwas taken towards civic representative government. Soon, however, the\nactivity of the _Schoeffen_ became specifically confined to the\ndetermination of legal disputes, and in their place a new body\n(_Collegium_) of counsellors--_Ratmannen_--also fourteen in number, was\nappointed for the general administration of local matters. In 1311, the\ntwo burgomasters, now chiefs of the municipality, take the place of the\nroyal _Schultheiss_. In the 13th century, the Frankfort Fair, which is\nfirst mentioned in 1150, and the origin of which must have been long\nanterior to that date, is referred to as being largely frequented. No\nfewer than 10 new churches were erected in the years from 1220 to 1270.\nIt was about the same period, probably in 1240, that the Jews first\nsettled in the town. In the contest which Louis the Bavarian maintained\nwith the papacy Frankfort sided with the emperor, and it was\nconsequently placed under an interdict for 20 years from 1329 to 1349.\nOn Louis' death it refused to accept the papal conditions of pardon, and\nonly yielded to Charles IV., the papal nominee, when Guenther of\nSchwarzburg thought it more prudent to abdicate in his favour. Charles\ngranted the city a full amnesty, and confirmed its liberties and\nprivileges.\n\nBy the famous Golden Bull of 1356 Frankfort was declared the seat of the\nimperial elections, and it still preserves an official contemporaneous\ncopy of the original document as the most precious of the eight imperial\nbulls in its possession. From the date of the bull to the close of the\nEmpire Frankfort retained the position of \"Wahlstadt,\" and only five of\nthe two-and-twenty monarchs who ruled during that period were elected\nelsewhere. In 1388-1389 Frankfort assisted the South German towns in\ntheir wars with the princes and nobles (the Staedtekrieg), and in a\nconsequent battle with the troops of the Palatinate, the town banner was\nlost and carried to Kronberg, where it was long preserved as a trophy.\nOn peace being concluded in 1391, the town had to pay 12,562 florins,\nand this brought it into great financial difficulties. In the course of\nthe next 50 years debt was contracted to the amount of 126,772 florins.\nThe diet at Worms in 1495 chose Frankfort as the seat of the newly\ninstituted imperial chamber, or \"_Reichskammergericht_,\" and it was not\ntill 1527 that the chamber was removed to Spires. At the Reformation\nFrankfort heartily joined the Protestant party, and in consequence it\nwas hardly treated both by the emperor Charles V. and by the archbishop\nof Mainz. It refused to subscribe the Augsburg Recess, but at the same\ntime it was not till 1536 that it was persuaded to join the League of\nSchmalkalden. On the failure of this confederation it opened its gates\nto the imperial general Bueren on the 29th of December 1546, although he\nhad passed by the city, which he considered too strong for the forces\nunder his command. The emperor was merciful enough to leave it in\npossession of its privileges, but he inflicted a fine of 80,000 gold\ngulden, and until October 1547 the citizens had to endure the presence\nof from 8000 to 10,000 soldiers. This resulted in a pestilence which not\nonly lessened the population, but threatened to give the death-blow to\nthe great annual fairs; and at the close of the war it was found that it\nhad cost the city no less than 228,931 gulden. In 1552 Frankfort was\ninvested for three weeks by Maurice of Saxony, who was still in arms\nagainst the emperor Charles V., but it continued to hold out till peace\nwas concluded between the principal combatants. Between 1612 and 1616\noccurred the great Fettmilch insurrection, perhaps the most remarkable\nepisode in the internal history of Frankfort. The magistracy had been\nacquiring more and more the character of an oligarchy; all power was\npractically in the hands of a few closely-related families; and the\ngravest peculation and malversation took place without hindrance. The\nordinary citizens were roused to assert their rights, and they found a\nleader in Vincenz Fettmilch, who carried the contest to dangerous\nexcesses, but lacked ability to bring it to a successful issue. An\nimperial commission was ultimately appointed, and the three principal\nculprits and several of their associates were executed in 1616. It was\nnot till 1801 that the last mouldering head of the Fettmilch company\ndropped unnoticed from the Rententurm, the old tower near the bridge. In\nthe words of Dr Kriegk, _Geschichte von Frankfurt_, (1871), the\ninsurrection completely destroyed the political power of the gilds, gave\nnew strength to the supremacy of the patriciate, and brought no further\nadvantage to the rest of the citizens than a few improvements in the\norganization and administration of the magistracy. The Jews, who had\nbeen attacked by the popular party, were solemnly reinstated by imperial\ncommand in all their previous privileges, and received full compensation\nfor their losses.\n\nDuring the Thirty Years' War Frankfort did not escape. In 1631 Gustavus\nAdolphus garrisoned it with 600 men, who remained in possession till\nthey were expelled four years later by the imperial general Lamboy. In\n1792 the citizens had to pay 2,000,000 gulden to the French general\nCustine; and in 1796 Kleber exacted 8,000,000 francs. The independence\nof Frankfort was brought to an end in 1806, on the formation of the\nConfederation of the Rhine; and in 1810 it was made the capital of the\ngrand-duchy of Frankfort, which had an area of 3215 sq. m. with 302,100\ninhabitants, and was divided into the four districts of Frankfort,\nAschaffenburg, Fulda and Hanau. On the reconstitution of Germany in 1815\nit again became a free city, and in the following year it was declared\nthe seat of the German Confederation. In April 1833 occurred what is\nknown as the Frankfort Insurrection (Frankfurter Attentat), in which a\nnumber of insurgents led by Georg Bunsen attempted to break up the diet.\nThe city joined the German Zollverein in 1836. During the revolutionary\nperiod of 1848 the people of Frankfort, where the united German\nparliament held its sessions, took a chief part in political movements,\nand the streets of the town were more than once the scene of conflict.\nIn the war of 1866 they were on the Austrian side. On the 16th of July\nthe Prussian troops, under General Vogel von Falkenstein, entered the\ntown, and on the 18th of October it was formally incorporated with the\nPrussian state. A fine of 6,000,000 florins was exacted. In 1871 the\ntreaty which concluded the Franco-German War was signed in the Swan\nHotel by Prince Bismarck and Jules Favre, and it is consequently known\nas the peace of Frankfort.\n\n  AUTHORITIES.--F. Rittweger, _Frankfurt im Jahre 1848_ (1898); R. Jung,\n  _Das historische Archiv der Stadt Frankfurt_ (1897); A. Horne,\n  _Geschichte von Frankfurt_ (4th ed., 1903); H. Grotefend, _Quellen zur\n  Frankfuerter Geschichte_ (Frankfort, 1884-1888); J. C. von Fichard,\n  _Die Entstehung der Reichsstadt Frankfurt_ (Frankfort, 1819); G. L.\n  Kriegk, _Geschichte von Frankfurt_ (Frankfort, 1871); J. F. Boehmer,\n  _Urkundenbuch der Reichsstadt Frankfurt_ (new ed., 1901); B. Weber,\n  _Zur Reformationsgeschichte der freien Reichsstadt Frankfurt_ (1895);\n  O. Speyer, _Die Frankfurter Revolution 1612-1616_ (1883); and L.\n  Woerl, _Guide to Frankfort_ (Leipzig, 1898).\n\n\n\n\nFRANKFORT-ON-ODER, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of\nBrandenburg, 50 m. S.E. from Berlin on the main line of railway to\nBreslau and at the junction of lines to Cuestrin, Posen and Grossenhain.\nPop. (1905) 64,943. The town proper lies on the left bank of the river\nOder and is connected by a stone bridge (replacing the old historical\nwooden structure) 900 ft. long, with the suburb of Damm. The town is\nagreeably situated and has broad and handsome streets, among them the\n\"Linden,\" a spacious avenue. Above, on the western side, and partly\nlying on the site of the old ramparts, is the residential quarter,\nconsisting mainly of villas and commanding a fine prospect of the Oder\nvalley. Between this suburb and the town lies the park, in which is a\nmonument to the poet Ewald Christian von Kleist, who died here of wounds\nreceived in the battle of Kunersdorf. Among the more important public\nbuildings must be noticed the Evangelical Marienkirche (Oberkirche), a\nhandsome brick edifice of the 13th century with five aisles, the Roman\nCatholic church, the Rathhaus dating from 1607, and bearing on its\nsouthern gable the device of a member of the Hanseatic League, the\ngovernment offices and the theatre. The university of Frankfort, founded\nin 1506 by Joachim I., elector of Brandenburg, was removed to Breslau in\n1811, and the academical buildings are now occupied by a school. To\ncompensate it for the loss of its university, Frankfort-on-Oder was long\nthe seat of the court of appeal for the province, but of this it was\ndeprived in 1879. There are several handsome public monuments, notably\nthat to Duke Leopold of Brunswick, who was drowned in the Oder while\nattempting to save life, on the 27th of April 1785. The town has a large\ngarrison, consisting of nearly all arms. Its industries are\nconsiderable, including the manufacture of machinery, metal ware,\nchemicals, paper, leather and sugar. Situated on the high road from\nBerlin to Silesia, and having an extensive system of water communication\nby means of the Oder and its canals to the Vistula and the Elbe, and\nbeing an important railway centre, it has a lively export trade, which\nis further fostered by its three annual fairs, held respectively at\n_Reminiscere_ (the second Sunday in Lent), St Margaret's day and at\nMartinmas. In the neighbourhood are extensive coal fields.\n\nFrankfort-on-the-Oder owes its origin and name to a settlement of\nFranconian merchants here, in the 13th century, on land conquered by the\nmargrave of Brandenburg from the Wends. In 1253 it was raised to the\nrank of a town by the margrave John I. and borrowed from Berlin the\nMagdeburg civic constitution. In 1379 it received from King Sigismund,\nthen margrave of Brandenburg, the right to free navigation of the Oder;\nand from 1368 to about 1450 it belonged to the Hanseatic League. The\nuniversity, which is referred to above, was opened by the elector\nJoachim I. in 1506, was removed in 1516 to Kottbus and restored again to\nFrankfort in 1539, at which date the Reformation was introduced. It was\ndispersed during the Thirty Years' War and again restored by the Great\nElector, but finally transferred to Breslau in 1811.\n\nFrankfort has suffered much from the vicissitudes of war. In the 15th\ncentury it successfully withstood sieges by the Hussites (1429 and\n1432), by the Poles (1450) and by the duke of Sagan (1477). In the\nThirty Years' War it was successively taken by Gustavus Adolphus (1631),\nby Wallenstein (1633), by the elector of Brandenburg (1634), and again\nby the Swedes, who held it from 1640 to 1644. During the Seven Years'\nWar it was taken by the Russians (1759). In 1812 it was occupied by the\nFrench, who remained till March 1813, when the Russians marched in.\n\n  See K. R. Hausen, _Geschichte der Universitaet und Stadt Frankfurt_\n  (1806), and Bieder und Gurnik, _Bilder aus der Geschichte der Stadt\n  Frankfurt-an-der-Oder_ (1898).\n\n\n\n\nFRANKINCENSE,[1] or OLIBANUM[2] (Gr. [Greek: libanotos], later [Greek:\nthyos]; Lat., _tus_ or _thus_; Heb., _lebonah_;[3] Ar., _luban_;[4]\nTurk., _ghyunluk_; Hind., _ganda-birosa_[5]), a gum-resin obtained from\ncertain species of trees of the genus _Boswellia_, and natural order\n_Burseraceae_. The members of the genus are possessed of the following\ncharacters:--Bark often papyraceous; leaves deciduous, compound,\nalternate and imparipinnate, with leaflets serrate or entire; flowers in\nracemes or panicles, white, green, yellowish or pink, having a small\npersistent, 5-dentate calyx, 5 petals, 10 stamens, a sessile 3 to\n5-chambered ovary, a long style, and a 3-lobed stigma; fruit trigonal or\npentagonal; and seed compressed. Sir George Birdwood (_Trans. Lin. Soc._\nxxvii., 1871) distinguishes five species of _Boswellia_: (A) _B.\nthurifera_, Colebr. (_B. glabra_ and _B. serrata_, Roxb.), indigenous to\nthe mountainous tracts of central India and the Coromandel coast, and\n_B. papyrifera_ (_Ploesslea floribunda_, Endl.) of Abyssinia, which,\nthough both thuriferous, are not known to yield any of the olibanum of\ncommerce; and (B) _B. Frereana_ (see ELEMI, vol. x. p. 259), _B.\nBhua-Dajiana_, and _B. Carterii_, the \"Yegaar,\" \"Mohr Add,\" and \"Mohr\nMadow\" of the Somali country, in East Africa, the last species including\na variety, the \"Maghrayt d'Sheehaz\" of Hadramaut, Arabia, all of which\nare sources of true frankincense or olibanum. The trees on the Somali\ncoast are described by Captain G. B. Kempthorne as growing, without\nsoil, out of polished marble rocks, to which they are attached by a\nthick oval mass of substance resembling a mixture of lime and mortar:\nthe purer the marble the finer appears to be the growth of the tree. The\nyoung trees, he states, furnish the most valuable gum, the older\nyielding merely a clear glutinous fluid resembling copal varnish.[6] To\nobtain the frankincense a deep incision is made in the trunk of the\ntree, and below it a narrow strip of bark 5 in. in length is peeled off.\nWhen the milk-like juice (\"spuma pinguis,\" Pliny) which exudes has\nhardened by exposure to the atmosphere, the incision is deepened. In\nabout three months the resin has attained the required degree of\nconsistency. The season for gathering lasts from May until the first\nrains in September. The large clear globules are scraped off into\nbaskets, and the inferior quality that has run down the tree is\ncollected separately. The coast of south Arabia is yearly visited by\nparties of Somalis, who pay the Arabs for the privilege of collecting\nfrankincense.[7] In the interior of the country about the plain of\nDhofar,[8] during the south-west monsoon, frankincense and other gums\nare gathered by the Beni Gurrah Bedouins, and might be obtained by them\nin much larger quantities; their lawlessness, however, and the lack of a\nsafe place of exchange or sale are obstacles to the development of\ntrade. (See C. Y. Ward, _The Gulf of Aden Pilot_, p. 117, 1863.) Much as\nformerly in the region of Sakhalites in Arabia (the tract between Ras\nMakalla and Ras Agab),[9] described by Arrian, so now on the sea-coast\nof the Somali country, the frankincense when collected is stored in\nheaps at various stations. Thence, packed in sheep- and goat-skins, in\nquantities of 20 to 40 lb., it is carried on camels to Berbera, for\nshipment either to Aden, Makalla and other Arabian ports, or directly to\nBombay.[10] At Bombay, like gum-acacia, it is assorted, and is then\npacked for re-exportation to Europe, China and elsewhere.[11] Arrian\nrelates that it was an import of Barbarike on the Sinthus (Indus). The\nidea held by several writers, including Niebuhr, that frankincense was a\nproduct of India, would seem to have originated in a confusion of that\ndrug with benzoin and other odoriferous substances, and also in the sale\nof imported frankincense with the native products of India. The gum\nresin of _Boswellia thurifera_ was described by Colebrooke (in _Asiatick\nResearches_, ix. 381), and after him by Dr J. Fleming (Ib. xi. 158), as\ntrue frankincense, or olibanum; from this, however, it differs in its\nsoftness, and tendency to melt into a mass[12] (Birdwood, _loc. cit._,\np. 146). It is sold in the village bazaars of Khandeish in India under\nthe name of _Dup-Salai_, i.e. incense of the \"Salai tree\"; and according\nto Mr F. Porter Smith, M.B. (_Contrib. towards the Mat. Med. and Nat.\nHist, of China_, p. 162, Shanghai, 1871), is used as incense in China.\nThe last authority also mentions olibanum as a reputed natural product\nof China. Bernhard von Breydenbach,[13] Ausonius, Florus and others,\narguing, it would seem, from its Hebrew and Greek names, concluded that\nolibanum came from Mount Lebanon; and Chardin (_Voyage en Perse_, &c.,\n1711) makes the statement that the frankincense tree grows in the\nmountains of Persia, particularly Caramania.\n\nFrankincense, or olibanum, occurs in commerce in semi-opaque, round,\novate or oblong tears or irregular lumps, which are covered externally\nwith a white dust, the result of their friction against one another. It\nhas an amorphous internal structure, a dull fracture; is of a yellow to\nyellowish-brown hue, the purer varieties being almost colourless, or\npossessing a greenish tinge, and has a somewhat bitter aromatic taste,\nand a balsamic odour, which is developed by heating. Immersed in alcohol\nit becomes opaque, and with water it yields an emulsion. It contains\nabout 72% of resin soluble in alcohol (Kurbatow); a large proportion of\ngum soluble in water, and apparently identical with gum arabic; and a\nsmall quantity of a colourless inflammable essential oil, one of the\nconstituents of which is the body oliben, C10H16. Frankincense burns\nwith a bright white flame, leaving an ash consisting mainly of calcium\ncarbonate, the remainder being calcium phosphate, and the sulphate,\nchloride and carbonate of potassium (Braconnot).[14] Good frankincense,\nPliny tells us, is recognized by its whiteness, size, brittleness and\nready inflammability. That which occurs in globular drops is, he says,\ntermed \"male frankincense\"; the most esteemed, he further remarks, is in\nbreast-shaped drops, formed each by the union of two tears.[15] The best\nfrankincense, as we learn from Arrian,[16] was formerly exported from\nthe neighbourhood of Cape Elephant in Africa (the modern Ras Fiel); and\nA. von Kremer, in his description of the commerce of the Red Sea\n(_Aegypten_, &c., p. 185, ii. Theil, Leipzig, 1863), observes that the\nAfrican frankincense, called by the Arabs \"asli,\" is of twice the value\nof the Arabian \"luban.\" Captain S. B. Miles (_loc. cit._, p. 64) states\nthat the best kind of frankincense, known to the Somali as \"bedwi\" or\n\"sheheri,\" comes from the trees \"Mohr Add\" and \"Mohr Madow\" (_vide\nsupra_), and from a taller species of _Boswellia_, the \"Boido,\" and is\nsent to Bombay for exportation to Europe; and that an inferior \"mayeti,\"\nthe produce of the \"Yegaar,\" is exported chiefly to Jeddah and Yemen\nports.[17] The latter may possibly be what Niebuhr alludes to as \"Indian\nfrankincense.\"[18] Garcias da Horta, in asserting the Arabian origin of\nthe drug, remarks that the term \"Indian\" is often applied by the Arabs\nto a dark-coloured variety.[19]\n\nAccording to Pliny (_Nat. Hist._ xiv. 1; cf. Ovid, _Fasti_ i. 337 sq.),\nfrankincense was not sacrificially employed in Trojan times. It was used\nby the ancient Egyptians in their religious rites, but, as Herodotus\ntells us (ii. 86), not in embalming. It constituted a fourth part of the\nJewish incense of the sanctuary (Ex. xxx. 34), and is frequently\nmentioned in the Pentateuch. With other spices it was stored in a great\nchamber of the house of God at Jerusalem (1 Chron. ix. 29, Neh. xiii.\n5-9). On the sacrificial use and import of frankincense and similar\nsubstances see INCENSE.\n\nIn the Red Sea regions frankincense is valued not only for its sweet\nodour when burnt, but as a masticatory; and blazing lumps of it are not\ninfrequently used for illumination instead of oil lamps. Its fumes are\nan excellent insectifuge. As a medicine it was in former times in high\nrepute. Pliny (_Nat. Hist._ xxv. 82) mentions it as an antidote to\nhemlock. Avicenna (ed. Plempii, lib. ii. p. 161, Lovanii, 1658, fol.)\nrecommends it for tumours, ulcers of the head and ears, affections of\nthe breast, vomiting, dysentery and fevers. In the East frankincense has\nbeen found efficacious as an external application in carbuncles, blind\nboils and gangrenous sores, and as an internal agent is given in\ngonorrhoea. In China it was an old internal remedy for leprosy and\nstruma, and is accredited with stimulant, tonic, sedative, astringent\nand vulnerary properties. It is not used in modern medicine, being\ndestitute of any special virtues. (See Waring, _Pharm. of India_, p.\n443, &c.; and F. Porter Smith, _op. cit._, p. 162.)\n\nCommon frankincense or thus, _Abietis resina_, is the term applied to a\nresin which exudes from fissures in the bark of the Norway spruce fir,\n_Abies excelsa_, D.C.; when melted in hot water and strained it\nconstitutes \"Burgundy pitch,\" _Pix abietina_. The concreted turpentine\nobtained in the United States by making incisions in the trunk of a\nspecies of pine, _Pinus australis_, is also so designated. It is\ncommercially known as \"scrape,\" and is similar to the French \"galipot\"\nor \"barras.\" Common frankincense is an ingredient in some ointments and\nplasters, and on account of its pleasant odour when burned has been used\nin incense as a substitute for olibanum. (See Flueckiger and Hanbury,\n_Pharmacographia_.) The \"black frankincense oil\" of the Turks is stated\nby Hanbury (_Science Papers_, p. 142, 1876) to be liquid storax.\n     (F. H. B.)\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n  [1] Stephen Skinner, M.D. (Etymologicon linguae Anglicanae, Lond.,\n    1671), gives the derivation: \"Frankincense, Thus, q.d. Incensum (i.e.\n    Thus Libere) seu Liberaliter, ut in sacris officiis par est,\n    adolendum.\"\n\n  [2] \"Sic _olibanum_ dixere pro thure ex Graeco [Greek: o libanos]\"\n    (Salmasius, C. S. _Plinianae exercitationes_, t. ii. p. 926, b. F.,\n    Traj. ad Rhen., 1689 fol.). So also Fuchs (Op. didact. pars. ii. p.\n    42, 1604 fol.), \"Officinis non sine risu eruditorum, Graeco articulo\n    adjecto, _Olibanus_ vocatur.\" The term _olibano_ was used in\n    ecclesiastical Latin as early as the pontificate of Benedict IX., in\n    the 11th century. (See Ferd. Ughellus, _Italia sacra_, tom. i. 108,\n    D., Ven., 1717 fol.)\n\n  [3] So designated from its whiteness (J. G. Stuckius, _Sacror. et\n    sacrific. gent. descrip._, p. 79, Lugd. Bat., 1695, fol.; Kitto,\n    _Cycl. Bibl. Lit._ ii. p. 806, 1870); cf. _Laben_, the Somali name\n    for cream (R. F. Burton, _First Footsteps in E. Africa_, p. 178,\n    1856).\n\n  [4] Written _Louan_ by Garcias da Horta (_Aromat. et simpl.\n    medicament. hist., C. Clusii Atrebatis Exoticorum lib. sept._, p.\n    157, 1605, fol.), and stated to have been derived by the Arabs from\n    the Greek name, the term less commonly used by them being _Conder_:\n    cf. Sanskrit _Kunda_. According to Colebrooke (in _Asiatick Res._ ix.\n    p. 379, 1807), the Hindu writers on Materia Medica use for the resin\n    of _Boswellia thurifera_ the designation _Cunduru_.\n\n  [5] A term applied also to the resinous exudation of _Pinus\n    longifolia_ (see Dr E. J. Waring, _Pharmacopoeia of India_, p. 52,\n    Lond., 1868).\n\n  [6] See \"Appendix,\" vol. i. p. 419 of Sir W. C. Harris's _Highland of\n    Aethiopia_ (2nd ed., Lond., 1844); and _Trans. Bombay Geog. Soc._\n    xiii. (1857), p. 136.\n\n  [7] Cruttenden, _Trans. Bombay Geog. Soc._ vii. (1846), p. 121; S. B.\n    Miles, J. Geog. Soc. (1872).\n\n  [8] Or Dhafar. The incense of \"Dofar\" is alluded to by Camoens, _Os\n    Lusiadas_, x. 201.\n\n  [9] H. J. Carter, \"Comparative Geog. of the South-East Coast of\n    Arabia,\" in _J. Bombay Branch of R. Asiatic Soc._ iii. (Jan. 1851),\n    p. 296; and Mueller, _Geog. Graeci Minores_, i. p. 278 (Paris, 1855).\n\n  [10] J. Vaughan, _Pharm. Journ._ xii. (1853) pp. 227-229; and Ward,\n    _op. cit._ p. 97.\n\n  [11] Pereira, _Elem. of Mat. Med._ ii. pt. 2, p. 380 (4th ed., 1847).\n\n  [12] \"_Boswellia thurifera_,\" ... says Waring (_Pharm. of India_, p.\n    52), \"has been thought to yield East Indian olibanum, but there is no\n    reliable evidence of its so doing.\"\n\n  [13] \"Libanus igitur est mons redolentie & summe aromaticitatis. nam\n    ibi herbe odorifere crescunt. ibi etiam arbores thurifere coalescunt\n    quarum gummi electum olibanum a medicis nuncupatur.\"--_Perigrinatio_,\n    p. 53 (1502, fol.).\n\n  [14] See, on the chemistry of frankincense, Braconnot, _Ann. de\n    chimie_, lxviii. (1808) pp. 60-69; Johnston, _Phil. Trans_. (1839),\n    pp. 301-305; J. Stenhouse, _Ann. der Chem. und Pharm_. xxxv. (1840)\n    p. 306; and A. Kurbatow, _Zeitsch. fuer Chem_. (1871), p. 201.\n\n  [15] \"Praecipua autem gratia est mammoso, cum haerente lacryma priore\n    consecuta alia miscuit se\" (_Nat. Hist._ xii. 32). One of the Chinese\n    names for frankincense, _Ju-hiang_, \"milk-perfume,\" is explained by\n    the _Pen Ts'au_ (xxxiv. 45), a Chinese work, as being derived from\n    the nipple-like form of its drops. (See E. Bretschneider, _On the\n    Knowledge possessed by the Ancient Chinese of the Arabs_, &c., p. 19,\n    Lond., 1871.)\n\n  [16] _The Voyage of Nearchus, loc. cit._\n\n  [17] Vaughan (_Pharm. Journ._ xii. 1853) speaks of the Arabian Luban,\n    commonly called _Morbat_ or _Shaharree Luban_, as realizing higher\n    prices in the market than any of the qualities exported from Africa.\n    The incense of \"Esher,\" i.e. Shihr or Shehr, is mentioned by Marco\n    Polo, as also by Barbosa. (See Yule, _op. cit._ ii. p. 377.) J.\n    Raymond Wellsted (_Travels to the City of the Caliphs_, p. 173,\n    Lond., 1840) distinguishes two kinds of frankincense--\"_Meaty_,\"\n    selling at $4 per cwt., and an inferior article fetching 20% less.\n\n  [18] \"Es scheint, dass selber die Araber ihr eignes Raeuchwerk nicht\n    hoch schaetzen; denn die Vornehmen in Jemen brauchen gemeiniglich\n    indianisches Raeuchwerk, ja eine grosse Menge Mastix von der Insel\n    Scio\" (_Beschreibung von Arabien_, p. 143, Kopenh., 1772).\n\n  [19] \"De Arabibus minus mirum, qui nigricantem colorem, quo Thus\n    Indicum praeditum esse vult Dioscorides [lib. i. c. 70], Indum\n    plerumque vocent, ut ex Myrobalano nigro quem Indum appellant, patet\"\n    (_op. sup. cit._ p. 157).\n\n\n\n\nFRANKING, a term used for the right of sending letters or postal\npackages free (Fr. _franc_) of charge. The privilege was claimed by the\nHouse of Commons in 1660 in \"a Bill for erecting and establishing a Post\nOffice,\" their demand being that all letters addressed to or sent by\nmembers during the session should be carried free. The clause embodying\nthis claim was struck out by the Lords, but with the proviso in the Act\nas passed for the free carriage of all letters to and from the king and\nthe great officers of state, and also the single inland letters of the\nmembers of that present parliament during that session only. It seems,\nhowever, that the practice was tolerated until 1764, when by an act\ndealing with postage it was legalized, every peer and each member of the\nHouse of Commons being allowed to send free ten letters a day, not\nexceeding an ounce in weight, to any part of the United Kingdom, and to\nreceive fifteen. The act did not restrict the privilege to letters\neither actually written by or to the member, and thus the right was very\neasily abused, members sending and receiving letters for friends, all\nthat was necessary being the signature of the peer or M.P. in the corner\nof the envelope. Wholesale franking grew usual, and M.P.'s supplied\ntheir friends with envelopes already signed to be used at any time. In\n1837 the scandal had become so great that stricter regulations came into\nforce. The franker had to write the full address, to which he had to add\nhis name, the post-town and the day of the month; the letter had to be\nposted on the day written or the following day at the latest, and in a\npost-town not more than 20 m. from the place where the peer or M.P. was\nthen living. On the 10th of January 1840 parliamentary franking was\nabolished on the introduction of the uniform penny rate.\n\nIn the United States the franking privilege was first granted in January\n1776 to the soldiers engaged in the American War of Independence. The\nright was gradually extended till it included nearly all officials and\nmembers of the public service. By special acts the privilege was\nbestowed on presidents and their widows. By an act of the 3rd of March\n1845, franking was limited to the president, vice-president, members and\ndelegates in Congress and postmasters, other officers being required to\nkeep quarterly accounts of postage and pay it from their contingent\nfunds. In 1851 free exchange of newspapers was re-established. By an act\nof the 3rd of March 1863 the privilege was granted the president and his\nprivate secretary, the vice-president, chiefs of executive departments,\nsuch heads of bureaus and chief clerks as might be designated by the\npostmaster-general for official letters only; senators and\nrepresentatives in Congress for all correspondence, senders of petitions\nto either branch of the legislature, and to publishers of newspapers for\ntheir exchanges. There was a limit as to weight. Members of Congress\ncould also frank, in matters concerning the federal department of\nagriculture, \"seeds, roots and cuttings,\" the weight to be fixed by the\npostmaster-general. This act remained in force till the 31st of January\n1873, when franking was abolished. Since 1875, by sundry acts, franking\nfor official correspondence, government publications, seeds, &c., has\nbeen allowed to congressmen, ex-congressmen (for 9 months after the\nclose of their term), congressmen-elect and other government officials.\nBy special acts of 1881, 1886, 1902, 1909, respectively, the franking\nprivilege was granted to the widows of Presidents Garfield, Grant,\nMcKinley and Cleveland.\n\n\n\n\nFRANKL, LUDWIG AUGUST (1810-1894), Austrian poet. He took part in the\nrevolution of 1848, and his poems on liberty had considerable vogue. His\nlyrics are among his best work. He was secretary of the Jewish community\nin Vienna, and did a lasting service to education by his visit to the\nOrient in 1856. He founded the first modern Jewish school (the Von\nLaemmel Schule) in Jerusalem. His brilliant volumes _Nach Jerusalem_\ndescribing his eastern tour have been translated into English, as is the\ncase with many of his poems. His collected poems appeared in three\nvolumes in 1880.     (I. A.)\n\n\n\n\nFRANKLAND, SIR EDWARD (1825-1899), English chemist, was born at\nChurchtown, near Lancaster, on the 18th of January 1825. After attending\nthe grammar school at Lancaster he spent six years as an apprentice to a\ndruggist in that town. In 1845 he went to London and entered Lyon\nPlayfair's laboratory, subsequently working under R. W. Bunsen at\nMarburg. In 1847 he was appointed science-master at Queenwood school,\nHampshire, where he first met J. Tyndall, and in 1851 first professor of\nchemistry at Owens College, Manchester. Returning to London six years\nlater he became lecturer in chemistry at St Bartholomew's hospital, and\nin 1863 professor of chemistry at the Royal Institution. From an early\nage he engaged in original research with great success.\n\nAnalytical problems, such as the isolation of certain organic radicals,\nattracted his attention to begin with, but he soon turned to synthetical\nstudies, and he was only about twenty-five years of age when an\ninvestigation, doubtless suggested by the work of his master, Bunsen, on\ncacodyl, yielded the interesting discovery of the organo-metallic\ncompounds. The theoretical deductions which he drew from the\nconsideration of these bodies were even more interesting and important\nthan the bodies themselves. Perceiving a molecular isonomy between them\nand the inorganic compounds of the metals from which they may be formed,\nhe saw their true molecular type in the oxygen, sulphur or chlorine\ncompounds of those metals, from which he held them to be derived by the\nsubstitution of an organic group for the oxygen, sulphur, &c. In this\nway they enabled him to overthrow the theory of conjugate compounds, and\nthey further led him in 1852 to publish the conception that the atoms of\neach elementary substance have a definite saturation capacity, so that\nthey can only combine with a certain limited number of the atoms of\nother elements. The theory of valency thus founded has dominated the\nsubsequent development of chemical doctrine, and forms the groundwork\nupon which the fabric of modern structural chemistry reposes.\n\nIn applied chemistry Frankland's great work was in connexion with\nwater-supply. Appointed a member of the second royal commission on the\npollution of rivers in 1868, he was provided by the government with a\ncompletely-equipped laboratory, in which, for a period of six years, he\ncarried on the inquiries necessary for the purposes of that body, and\nwas thus the means of bringing to light an enormous amount of valuable\ninformation respecting the contamination of rivers by sewage,\ntrade-refuse, &c., and the purification of water for domestic use. In\n1865, when he succeeded A. W. von Hofmann at the School of Mines, he\nundertook the duty of making monthly reports to the registrar-general on\nthe character of the water supplied to London, and these he continued\ndown to the end of his life. At one time he was an unsparing critic of\nits quality, but in later years he became strongly convinced of its\ngeneral excellence and wholesomeness. His analyses were both chemical\nand bacteriological, and his dissatisfaction with the processes in vogue\nfor the former at the time of his appointment caused him to spend two\nyears in devising new and more accurate methods. In 1859 he passed a\nnight on the very top of Mont Blanc in company with John Tyndall. One of\nthe purposes of the expedition was to discover whether the rate of\ncombustion of a candle varies with the density of the atmosphere in\nwhich it is burnt, a question which was answered in the negative. Other\nobservations made by Frankland at the time formed the starting-point of\na series of experiments which yielded far-reaching results. He noticed\nthat at the summit the candle gave a very poor light, and was thereby\nled to investigate the effect produced on luminous flames by varying the\npressure of the atmosphere in which they are burning. He found that\npressure increases luminosity, so that hydrogen, for example, the flame\nof which in normal circumstances gives no light, burns with a luminous\nflame under a pressure of ten or twenty atmospheres, and the inference\nhe drew was that the presence of solid particles is not the only factor\nthat determines the light-giving power of a flame. Further, he showed\nthat the spectrum of a dense ignited gas resembles that of an\nincandescent liquid or solid, and he traced a gradual change in the\nspectrum of an incandescent gas under increasing pressure, the sharp\nlines observable when it is extremely attenuated broadening out to\nnebulous bands as the pressure rises, till they merge in the continuous\nspectrum as the gas approaches a density comparable with that of the\nliquid state. An application of these results to solar physics in\nconjunction with Sir Norman Lockyer led to the view that at least the\nexternal layers of the sun cannot consist of matter in the liquid or\nsolid forms, but must be composed of gases or vapours. Frankland and\nLockyer were also the discoverers of helium. In 1868 they noticed in the\nsolar spectrum a bright yellow line which did not correspond to any\nsubstance then known, and which they therefore attributed to the then\nhypothetical element, helium.\n\nSir Edward Frankland, who was made a K.C.B. in 1897, died on the 9th of\nAugust 1899 while on a holiday at Golaa, Gudbrandsdalen, Norway.\n\n  A memorial lecture delivered by Professor H. E. Armstrong before the\n  London Chemical Society on the 31st of October 1901 contained many\n  personal details of Frankland's life, together with a full discussion\n  of his scientific work; and a volume of _Autobiographical Sketches_\n  was printed for private circulation in 1902. His original papers, down\n  to 1877, were collected and published in that year as _Experimental\n  Researches in Pure, Applied and Physical Chemistry_.\n\n\n\n\nFRANKLIN, BENJAMIN (1706-1790), American diplomat, statesman and\nscientist, was born on the 17th of January 1706 in a house in Milk\nStreet, opposite the Old South church, Boston, Massachusetts. He was the\ntenth son of Josiah Franklin, and the eighth child and youngest son of\nten children borne by Abiah Folger, his father's second wife. The elder\nFranklin was born at Ecton in Northamptonshire, England, where the\nstrongly Protestant Franklin family may be traced back for nearly four\ncenturies. He had married young and had migrated from Banbury to Boston,\nMassachusetts, in 1685. Benjamin could not remember when he did not know\nhow to read, and when eight years old he was sent to the Boston grammar\nschool, being destined by his father for the church as a tithe of his\nsons. He spent a year there and a year in a school for writing and\narithmetic, and then at the age of ten he was taken from school to\nassist his father in the business of a tallow-chandler and soapboiler.\nIn his thirteenth year he was apprenticed to his half-brother James, who\nwas establishing himself in the printing business, and who in 1721\nstarted the _New England Courant_, one of the earliest newspapers in\nAmerica.\n\nBenjamin's tastes had at first been for the sea rather than the pulpit;\nnow they inclined rather to intellectual than to other pleasures. At an\nearly age he had made himself familiar with _The Pilgrim's Progress_,\nwith Locke, _On the Human Understanding_, and with a volume of _The\nSpectator_. Thanks to his father's excellent advice, he gave up writing\ndoggerel verse (much of which had been printed by his brother and sold\non the streets) and turned to prose composition. His success in\nreproducing articles he had read in _The Spectator_ led him to write an\narticle for his brother's paper, which he slipped under the door of the\nprinting shop with no name attached, and which was printed and attracted\nsome attention. After repeated successes of the same sort Benjamin threw\noff his disguise and contributed regularly to the _Courant_. When, after\nvarious journalistic indiscretions, James Franklin in 1722 was forbidden\nto publish the _Courant_, it appeared with Benjamin's name as that of\nthe publisher and was received with much favour, chiefly because of the\ncleverness of his articles signed \"Dr Janus,\" which, like those\npreviously signed \"Mistress Silence Dogood,\" gave promise of \"Poor\nRichard.\" But Benjamin's management of the paper, and particularly his\nfree-thinking, displeased the authorities; the relations of the two\nbrothers gradually grew unfriendly, possibly, as Benjamin thought,\nbecause of his brother's jealousy of his superior ability; and Benjamin\ndetermined to quit his brother's employ and to leave New England. He\nmade his way first to New York City, and then (October 1723) to\nPhiladelphia, where he got employment with a printer named Samuel\nKeimer.[1]\n\nA rapid composer and a workman full of resource, Franklin was soon\nrecognized as the master spirit of the shop. Sir William Keith\n(1680-1749), governor of the province, urged him to start in business\nfor himself, and when Franklin had unsuccessfully appealed to his father\nfor the means to do so, Keith promised to furnish him with what he\nneeded for the equipment of a new printing office and sent him to\nEngland to buy the materials. Keith had repeatedly promised to send a\nletter of credit by the ship on which Franklin sailed, but when the\nChannel was reached and the ship's mails were examined no such letter\nwas found. Franklin reached London in December 1724, and found\nemployment first at Palmer's, a famous printing house in Bartholomew\nClose, and afterwards at Watts's Printing House. At Palmer's he had set\nup a second edition of Wollaston's _Religion of Nature Delineated_. To\nrefute this book and to prove that there could be no such thing as\nreligion, he wrote and printed a small pamphlet, _A Dissertation on\nLiberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain_, which brought him some\ncurious acquaintances, and of which he soon became thoroughly ashamed.\nAfter a year and a half in London, Franklin was persuaded by a friend\nnamed Denham, a Quaker merchant, to return with him to America and\nengage in mercantile business; he accordingly gave up printing, but a\nfew days before sailing he received a tempting offer to remain and give\nlessons in swimming--his feats as a swimmer having given him\nconsiderable reputation--and he says that he might have consented \"had\nthe overtures been sooner made.\" He reached Philadelphia in October\n1726, but a few months later Denham died, and Franklin was induced by\nlarge wages to return to his old employer Keimer; with Keimer he\nquarrelled repeatedly, thinking himself ill used and kept only to train\napprentices until they could in some degree take his place. In 1728\nFranklin and Hugh Meredith, a fellow-worker at Keimer's, set up in\nbusiness for themselves; the capital being furnished by Meredith's\nfather. In 1730 the partnership was dissolved, and Franklin, through the\nfinancial assistance of two friends, secured the sole management of the\nprinting house. In September 1729 he bought at a merely nominal price\n_The Pennsylvania Gazette_, a weekly newspaper which Keimer had started\nnine months before to defeat a similar project of Franklin's, and which\nFranklin conducted until 1765. Franklin's superior management of the\npaper, his new type, \"some spirited remarks\" on the controversy between\nthe Massachusetts assembly and Governor Burnet, brought his paper into\nimmediate notice, and his success both as a printer and as a journalist\nwas assured and complete. In 1731 he established in Philadelphia one of\nthe earliest circulating libraries in America (often said to have been\nthe earliest), and in 1732 he published the first of his Almanacks,\nunder the pseudonym of Richard Saunders. These \"Poor Richard's\nAlmanacks\" were issued for the next twenty-five years with remarkable\nsuccess, the annual sale averaging 10,000 copies, and far exceeding the\nsale of any other publication in the colonies.\n\nBeginning in 1733 Franklin taught himself enough French, Italian,\nSpanish and Latin to read these languages with some ease. In 1736 he was\nchosen clerk of the General Assembly, and served in this capacity until\n1751. In 1737 he had been appointed postmaster at Philadelphia, and\nabout the same time he organized the first police force and fire company\nin the colonies; in 1749, after he had written _Proposals Relating to\nthe Education of Youth in Pensilvania_, he and twenty-three other\ncitizens of Philadelphia formed themselves into an association for the\npurpose of establishing an academy, which was opened in 1751, was\nchartered in 1753, and eventually became the University of Pennsylvania;\nin 1727 he organized a debating club, the \"Junto,\" in Philadelphia, and\nlater he was one of the founders of the American Philosophical Society\n(1743; incorporated 1780); he took the lead in the organization of a\nmilitia force, and in the paving of the city streets, improved the\nmethod of street lighting, and assisted in the founding of a city\nhospital (1751); in brief, he gave the impulse to nearly every measure\nor project for the welfare and prosperity of Philadelphia undertaken in\nhis day. In 1751 he became a member of the General Assembly of\nPennsylvania, in which he served for thirteen years. In 1753 he and\nWilliam Hunter were put in charge of the post service of the colonies,\nwhich he brought in the next ten years to a high state of efficiency and\nmade a financial success; this position he held until 1774. He visited\nnearly every post office in the colonies and increased the mail service\nbetween New York and Philadelphia from once to three times a week in\nsummer, and from twice a month to once a week in winter. When war with\nFrance appeared imminent in 1754, Franklin was sent to the Albany\nConvention, where he submitted his plan for colonial union (see ALBANY,\nN.Y.). When the home government sent over General Edward Braddock[2]\nwith two regiments of British troops, Franklin undertook to secure the\nrequisite number of horses and waggons for the march against Ft.\nDuquesne, and became personally responsible for payment to the\nPennsylvanians who furnished them. Notwithstanding the alarm occasioned\nby Braddock's defeat, the old quarrel between the proprietors of\nPennsylvania and the assembly prevented any adequate preparations for\ndefence; \"with incredible meanness\" the proprietors had instructed their\ngovernors to approve no act for levying the necessary taxes, unless the\nvast estates of the proprietors were by the same act exempted. So great\nwas the confidence in Franklin in this emergency that early in 1756 the\ngovernor of Pennsylvania placed him in charge of the north-western\nfrontier of the province, with power to raise troops, issue commissions\nand erect blockhouses; and Franklin remained in the wilderness for over\na month, superintending the building of forts and watching the Indians.\nIn February 1757 the assembly, \"finding the proprietary obstinately\npersisted in manacling their deputies with instructions inconsistent not\nonly with the privileges of the people, but with the service of the\ncrown, resolv'd to petition the king against them,\" and appointed\nFranklin as their agent to present the petition. He arrived in London on\nthe 27th of July 1757, and shortly afterwards, when, at a conference\nwith Earl Granville, president of the council, the latter declared that\n\"the King is the legislator of the colonies,\" Franklin in reply declared\nthat the laws of the colonies were to be made by their assemblies, to be\npassed upon by the king, and when once approved were no longer subject\nto repeal or amendment by the crown. As the assemblies, said he, could\nnot make permanent laws without the king's consent, \"neither could he\nmake a law for them without theirs.\" This opposition of views distinctly\nraised the issue between the home government and the colonies. As to the\nproprietors Franklin succeeded in 1760 in securing an understanding that\nthe assembly should pass an act exempting from taxation the _unsurveyed_\nwaste lands of the Penn estate, the surveyed waste lands being assessed\nat the usual rate for other property of that description. Thus the\nproprietors finally acknowledged the right of the assembly to tax their\nestates.\n\nThe success of Franklin's first foreign mission was, therefore,\nsubstantial and satisfactory. During this sojourn of five years in\nEngland he had made many valuable friends outside of court and political\ncircles, among whom Hume, Robertson and Adam Smith were conspicuous. In\n1759, for his literary and more particularly his scientific attainments,\nhe received the freedom of the city of Edinburgh and the degree of\ndoctor of laws from the university of St Andrews. He had been made a\nMaster of Arts at Harvard and at Yale in 1753, and at the college of\nWilliam and Mary in 1756; and in 1762 he received the degree of D.C.L.\nat Oxford. While in England he had made active use of his remarkable\ntalent for pamphleteering. In the clamour for peace following the death\nof George II. (25th of October 1760), he was for a vigorous prosecution\nof the war with France; he had written what purported to be a chapter\nfrom an old book written by a Spanish Jesuit, _On the Meanes of\nDisposing the Enemie to Peace_, which had a great effect; and in the\nspring of 1760 there had been published a more elaborate paper written\nby Franklin with the assistance of Richard Jackson, agent of\nMassachusetts and Connecticut in London, entitled _The Interest of Great\nBritain Considered with Regard to Her Colonies, and the Acquisitions of\nCanada and Guadeloupe_ (1760). This pamphlet answered the argument that\nit would be unsafe to keep Canada because of the added strength that\nwould thus be given to any possible movement for independence in the\nEnglish colonies, by urging that so long as Canada remained French there\ncould be no safety for the English colonies in North America, nor any\npermanent peace in Europe. Tradition reports that this pamphlet had\nconsiderable weight in determining the ministry to retain Canada.\n\nFranklin sailed again for America in August 1762, hoping to be able to\nsettle down in quiet and devote the remainder of his life to experiments\nin physics. This quiet was interrupted, however, by the \"Paxton\nMassacre\" (Dec. 14, 1763)--the slaughter of a score of Indians\n(children, women and old men) at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, by some young\nrowdies from the town of Paxton, who then marched upon Philadelphia to\nkill a few Christian Indians there. Franklin, appealed to by the\ngovernor, raised a troop sufficient to frighten away the \"Paxton boys,\"\nand for the moment there seemed a possibility of an understanding\nbetween Franklin and the proprietors. But the question of taxing the\nestates of the proprietors came up in a new form, and a petition from\nthe assembly was drawn by Franklin, requesting the king \"to resume the\ngovernment\" of Pennsylvania. In the autumn election of 1764 the\ninfluence of the proprietors was exerted against Franklin, and by an\nadverse majority of 25 votes in 4000 he failed to be re-elected to the\nassembly. The new assembly sent Franklin again to England as its special\nagent to take charge of another petition for a change of government,\nwhich, however, came to nothing. Matters of much greater consequence\nsoon demanded Franklin's attention.\n\nEarly in 1764 Lord Grenville had informed the London agents of the\nAmerican colonies that he proposed to lay a portion of the burden left\nby the war with France upon the shoulders of the colonists by means of a\nstamp duty, unless some other tax equally productive and less\ninconvenient were proposed. The natural objection of the colonies, as\nvoiced, for example, by the assembly of Pennsylvania, was that it was a\ncruel thing to tax colonies already taxed beyond their strength, and\nsurrounded by enemies and exposed to constant expenditures for defence,\nand that it was an indignity that they should be taxed by a parliament\nin which they were not represented; at the same time the Pennsylvania\nassembly recognized it as \"their duty to grant aid to the crown,\naccording to their abilities, whenever required of them in the usual\nmanner.\" To prevent the introduction of the Stamp Act, which he\ncharacterized as \"the mother of mischief,\" Franklin used every effort,\nbut the bill was easily passed, and it was thought that the colonists\nwould soon be reconciled to it. Because he, too, thought so, and because\nhe recommended John Hughes, a merchant of Philadelphia, for the office\nof distributor of stamps, Franklin himself was denounced--he was even\naccused of having planned the Stamp Act--and his family in Philadelphia\nwas in danger of being mobbed. Of Franklin's examination, in February\n1766, by the House in Committee of the Whole, as to the effects of the\nStamp Act, Burke said that the scene reminded him of a master examined\nby a parcel of schoolboys, and George Whitefield said: \"Dr Franklin has\ngained immortal honour by his behaviour at the bar of the House. His\nanswer was always found equal to the questioner. He stood unappalled,\ngave pleasure to his friends and did honour to his country.\"[3] Franklin\ncompared the position of the colonies to that of Scotland in the days\nbefore the union, and in the same year (1766) audaciously urged a\nsimilar union with the colonies before it was too late. The knowledge of\ncolonial affairs gained from Franklin's testimony, probably more than\nall other causes combined, determined the immediate repeal of the Stamp\nAct. For Franklin this was a great triumph, and the news of it filled\nthe colonists with delight and restored him to their confidence and\naffection. Another bill (the Declaratory Act), however, was almost\nimmediately passed by the king's party, asserting absolute supremacy of\nparliament over the colonies, and in the succeeding parliament, by the\nTownshend Acts of 1767, duties were imposed on paper, paints and glass\nimported by the colonists; a tax was imposed on tea also. The imposition\nof these taxes was bitterly resented in the colonies, where it quickly\ncrystallized public opinion round the principle of \"No taxation without\nrepresentation.\" In spite of the opposition in the colonies to the\nDeclaratory Act, the Townshend Acts and the tea tax, Franklin continued\nto assure the British ministry and the British public of the loyalty of\nthe colonists. He tried to find some middle ground of reconciliation,\nand kept up his quiet work of informing England as to the opinions and\nconditions of the colonies, and of moderating the attitude of the\ncolonies toward the home government; so that, as he said, he was accused\nin America of being too much an Englishman, and in England of being too\nmuch an American. He was agent now, not only of Pennsylvania, but also\nof New Jersey, of Georgia and of Massachusetts. Hillsborough, who became\nsecretary of state for the colonies in 1768, refused to recognize\nFranklin as agent of Massachusetts, because the governor of\nMassachusetts had not approved the appointment, which was by resolution\nof the assembly. Franklin contended that the governor, as a mere agent\nof the king, could have nothing to do with the assembly's appointment of\nits agent to the king; that \"the King, and not the King, Lords, and\nCommons collectively, is their sovereign; and that the King, with\n_their_ respective Parliaments, is their only legislator.\" Franklin's\ninfluence helped to oust Hillsborough, and Dartmouth, whose name\nFranklin suggested, was made secretary In 1772 and promptly recognized\nFranklin as the agent of Massachusetts.\n\nIn 1773 there appeared in the _Public Advertiser_ one of Franklin's\ncleverest hoaxes, \"An Edict of the King of Prussia,\" proclaiming that\nthe island of Britain was a colony of Prussia, having been settled by\nAngles and Saxons, having been protected by Prussia, having been\ndefended by Prussia against France in the war just past, and never\nhaving been definitely freed from Prussia's rule; and that, therefore,\nGreat Britain should now submit to certain taxes laid by Prussia--the\ntaxes being identical with those laid upon the American colonies by\nGreat Britain. In the same year occurred the famous episode of the\nHutchinson Letters. These were written by Thomas Hutchinson, Governor of\nMassachusetts, Andrew Oliver (1706-1774), his lieutenant-governor, and\nothers to William Whately, a member of Parliament, and private secretary\nto George Grenville, suggesting an increase of the power of the governor\nat the expense of the assembly, \"an abridgement of what are called\nEnglish liberties,\" and other measures more extreme than those\nundertaken by the government. The correspondence was shown to Franklin\nby a mysterious \"member of parliament\" to back up the contention that\nthe quartering of troops in Boston was suggested, not by the British\nministry, but by Americans and Bostonians. Upon his promise not to\npublish the letters Franklin received permission to send them to\nMassachusetts, where they were much passed about and were printed, and\nthey were soon republished in English newspapers. The Massachusetts\nassembly on receiving the letters resolved to petition the crown for the\nremoval of both Hutchinson and Oliver. The petition was refused and was\ncondemned as scandalous, and Franklin, who took upon himself the\nresponsibility for the publication of the letters, in the hearing before\nthe privy council at the Cockpit on the 29th of January 1774 was\ninsulted and was called a thief by Alexander Wedderburn (the\nsolicitor-general, who appeared for Hutchinson and Oliver), and was\nremoved from his position as head of the post office in the American\ncolonies.\n\nSatisfied that his usefulness in England was at an end, Franklin\nentrusted his agencies to the care of Arthur Lee, and on the 21st of\nMarch 1775 again set sail for Philadelphia. During the last years of his\nstay in England there had been repeated attempts to win him (probably\nwith an under-secretaryship) to the British service, and in these same\nyears he had done a great work for the colonies by gaining friends for\nthem among the opposition, and by impressing France with his ability and\nthe excellence of his case. Upon reaching America, he heard of the\nfighting at Lexington and Concord, and with the news of an actual\noutbreak of hostilities his feeling toward England seems to have changed\ncompletely. He was no longer a peacemaker, but an ardent war-maker. On\nthe 6th of May, the day after his arrival in Philadelphia, he was\nelected by the assembly of Pennsylvania a delegate to the Continental\nCongress in Philadelphia. In October he was elected a member of the\nPennsylvania assembly, but, as members of this body were still required\nto take an oath of allegiance to the crown, he refused to serve. In the\nCongress he served on as many as ten committees, and upon the\norganization of a continental postal system, he was made\npostmaster-general, a position he held for one year, when (in 1776) he\nwas succeeded by his son-in-law, Richard Bache, who had been his deputy.\nWith Benjamin Harrison, John Dickinson, Thomas Johnson and John Jay he\nwas appointed in November 1775 to a committee to carry on a secret\ncorrespondence with the friends of America \"in Great Britain, Ireland\nand other parts of the world.\" He planned an appeal to the king of\nFrance for aid, and wrote the instructions of Silas Deane who was to\nconvey it. In April 1776 he went to Montreal with Charles Carroll,\nSamuel Chase and John Carroll, as a member of the commission which\nconferred with General Arnold, and attempted without success to gain the\nco-operation of Canada. Immediately after his return from Montreal he\nwas a member of the committee of five appointed to draw up the\nDeclaration of Independence, but he took no actual part himself in\ndrafting that instrument, aside from suggesting the change or insertion\nof a few words in Jefferson's draft. From July 16 to September 28 he\nacted as president of the Constitutional Convention of Pennsylvania.\n\nWith John Adams and Edward Rutledge he was selected by Congress to\ndiscuss with Admiral Howe (September 1776, at Staten Island) the terms\nof peace proposed by Howe, who had arrived in New York harbour in July\n1776, and who had been an intimate friend of Franklin; but the\ndiscussion was fruitless, as the American commissioners refused to treat\n\"_back_ of this step of independency.\" On the 26th of September in the\nsame year Franklin was chosen as commissioner to France to join Arthur\nLee, who was in London, and Silas Deane, who had arrived in France in\nJune 1776. He collected all the money he could command, between L3000\nand L4000, lent it to Congress before he set sail, and arrived at Paris\non the 22nd of December. He found quarters at Passy,[4] then a suburb of\nParis, in a house belonging to Le Ray de Chaumont, an active friend of\nthe American cause, who had influential relations with the court, and\nthrough whom he was enabled to be in the fullest communication with the\nFrench government without compromising it in the eyes of Great Britain.\n\nAt the time of Franklin's arrival in Paris he was already one of the\nmost talked about men in the world. He was a member of every important\nlearned society in Europe; he was a member, and one of the managers, of\nthe Royal Society, and was one of eight foreign members of the Royal\nAcademy of Sciences in Paris. Three editions of his scientific works had\nalready appeared in Paris, and a new edition had recently appeared in\nLondon. To all these advantages he added a political purpose--the\ndismemberment of the British empire--which was entirely congenial to\nevery citizen of France. \"Franklin's reputation,\" wrote John Adams with\ncharacteristic extravagance, \"was more universal than that of Leibnitz\nor Newton, Frederick or Voltaire; and his character more esteemed and\nbeloved than all of them.... If a collection could be made of all the\ngazettes of Europe, for the latter half of the 18th century, a greater\nnumber of panegyrical paragraphs upon _le grand Franklin_ would appear,\nit is believed, than upon any other man that ever lived.\" \"Franklin's\nappearance in the French salons, even before he began to negotiate,\"\nsays Friedrich Christoph Schlosser, \"was an event of great importance to\nthe whole of Europe.... His dress, the simplicity of his external\nappearance, the friendly meekness of the old man, and the apparent\nhumility of the Quaker, procured for Freedom a mass of votaries among\nthe court circles who used to be alarmed at its coarseness and\nunsophisticated truths. Such was the number of portraits,[5] busts and\nmedallions of him in circulation before he left Paris that he would have\nbeen recognized from them by any adult citizen in any part of the\ncivilized world.\"\n\nFranklin's position in France was a difficult one from the start,\nbecause of the delicacy of the task of getting French aid at a time when\nFrance was unready openly to take sides against Great Britain. But on\nthe 6th of February 1778, after the news of the defeat and surrender of\nBurgoyne had reached Europe, a treaty of alliance and a treaty of amity\nand commerce between France and the United States were signed at Paris\nby Franklin, Deane and Lee. On the 28th of October this commission was\ndischarged and Franklin was appointed sole plenipotentiary to the French\ncourt. Lee, from the beginning of the mission to Paris, seems to have\nbeen possessed of a mania of jealousy toward Franklin, or of\nmisunderstanding of his acts, and he tried to undermine his influence\nwith the Continental Congress. John Adams, when he succeeded Deane\n(recalled from Paris through Lee's machinations) joined in the chorus of\nfault-finding against Franklin, dilated upon his social habits, his\npersonal slothfulness and his complete lack of business-like system; but\nAdams soon came to see that, although careless of details, Franklin was\ndoing what no other man could have done, and he ceased his harsher\ncriticism. Even greater than his diplomatic difficulties were Franklin's\nfinancial straits. Drafts were being drawn on him by all the American\nagents in Europe, and by the Continental Congress at home. Acting as\nAmerican naval agent for the many successful privateers who harried the\nEnglish Channel, and for whom he skilfully got every bit of assistance\npossible, open and covert, from the French government, he was\ncontinually called upon for funds in these ventures. Of the vessels to\nbe sent to Paris with American cargoes which were to be sold for the\nliquidation of French loans to the colonies made through Beaumarchais,\nfew arrived; those that did come did not cover Beaumarchais's advances,\nand hardly a vessel came from America without word of fresh drafts on\nFranklin. After bold and repeated overtures for an exchange of\nprisoners--an important matter, both because the American frigates had\nno place in which to stow away their prisoners, and because of the\nmaltreatment of American captives in such prisons as Dartmoor--exchanges\nbegan at the end of March 1779, although there were annoying delays, and\nimmediately after November 1781 there was a long break in the agreement;\nand the Americans discharged from English prisons were constantly in\nneed of money. Franklin, besides, was constantly called upon to meet the\nindebtedness of Lee and of Ralph Izard (1742-1804), and of John Jay, who\nin Madrid was being drawn on by the American Congress. In spite of the\npoor condition in Europe of the credit of the struggling colonies, and\nof the fact that France was almost bankrupt (and in the later years was\nat war), and although Necker strenuously resisted the making of any\nloans to the colonies, France, largely because of Franklin's appeals,\nexpended, by loan or gift to the colonies, or in sustenance of the\nFrench arms in America, a sum estimated at $60,000,000.\n\nIn 1781 Franklin, with John Adams, John Jay, Jefferson, who remained in\nAmerica, and Henry Laurens, then a prisoner in England, was appointed on\na commission to make peace with Great Britain. In the spring of 1782\nFranklin had been informally negotiating with Shelburne, secretary of\nstate for the home department, through the medium of Richard Oswald, a\nScotch merchant, and had suggested that England should cede Canada to\nthe United States in return for the recognition of loyalist claims by\nthe states. When the formal negotiations began Franklin held closely to\nthe instructions of Congress to its commissioners, that they should\nmaintain confidential relations with the French ministers and that they\nwere \"to undertake nothing in the negotiations for peace or truce\nwithout their knowledge and concurrence,\" and were ultimately to be\ngoverned by \"their advice and opinion.\" Jay and Adams disagreed with him\non this point, believing that France intended to curtail the territorial\naspirations of the Americans for her own benefit and for that of her\nally, Spain. At last, after the British government had authorized its\nagents to treat with the commissioners as representatives of an\nindependent power, thus recognizing American independence before the\ntreaty was made, Franklin acquiesced in the policy of Jay. The\npreliminary treaty was signed by the commissioners on the 30th of\nNovember 1782, the final treaty on the 3rd of September 1783. Franklin\nhad repeatedly petitioned Congress for his recall, but his letters were\nunanswered or his appeals refused until the 7th of March 1785, when\nCongress resolved that he be allowed to return to America; on the 10th\nof March Thomas Jefferson, who had joined him in August of the year\nbefore, was appointed to his place. Jefferson, when asked if he replaced\nFranklin, replied, \"No one can replace him, sir; I am only his\nsuccessor.\" Before Franklin left Paris on the 12th of July 1785 he had\nmade commercial treaties with Sweden (1783) and Prussia (1785; signed\nafter Franklin's departure by Jefferson and John Adams). Franklin\narrived in Philadelphia on the 13th of September, disembarking at the\nsame wharf as when he had first entered the city. He was immediately\nelected a member of the municipal council of Philadelphia, becoming its\nchairman; and was chosen president of the Supreme Executive Council (the\nchief executive officer) of Pennsylvania, and was re-elected in 1786 and\n1787, serving from October 1785 to October 1788. In May 1787 he was\nelected a delegate to the Convention which drew up the Federal\nConstitution, this body thus having a member upon whom all could agree\nas chairman, should Washington be absent. He opposed over-centralization\nof government and favoured the Connecticut Compromise, and after the\nwork of the Convention was done used his influence to secure the\nadoption of the Constitution.[6] As president of the Pennsylvania\nSociety for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, Franklin signed a\npetition to Congress (12th February 1790) for immediate abolition of\nslavery, and six weeks later in his most brilliant manner parodied the\nattack on the petition made by James Jackson (1757-1806) of Georgia,\ntaking off Jackson's quotations of Scripture with pretended texts from\nthe Koran cited by a member of the Divan of Algiers in opposition to a\npetition asking for the prohibition of holding Christians in slavery.\nThese were his last public acts. His last days were marked by a fine\nserenity and calm; he died in his own house in Philadelphia on the 17th\nof April 1790, the immediate cause being an abscess in the lungs. He was\nburied with his wife in the graveyard (Fifth and Arch Streets) of Christ\nChurch, Philadelphia.\n\nPhysically Franklin was large, about 5 ft. 10 in. tall, with a\nwell-rounded, powerful figure; he inherited an excellent constitution\nfrom his parents--\"I never knew,\" says he, \"either my father or mother\nto have any sickness but that of which they dy'd, he at 89, and she at\n85 years of age\"--but injured it somewhat by excesses; in early life he\nhad severe attacks of pleurisy, from one of which, in 1727, it was not\nexpected that he would recover, and in his later years he was the victim\nof stone and gout. When he was sixteen he became a vegetarian for a\ntime, rather to save money for books than for any other reason, and he\nalways preached moderation in eating, though he was less consistent in\nhis practice in this particular than as regards moderate drinking. He\nwas always enthusiastically fond of swimming, and was a great believer\nin fresh air, taking a cold air bath regularly in the morning, when he\nsat naked in his bedroom beguiling himself with a book or with writing\nfor a half-hour or more. He insisted that fresh, cold air was not the\ncause of colds, and preached zealously the \"gospel of ventilation.\" He\nwas a charming talker, with a gay humour and a quiet sarcasm and a\ntelling use of anecdote for argument. Henri Martin, the French\nhistorian, speaks of him as \"of a mind altogether French in its grace\nand elasticity.\" In 1730 he married Deborah Read, in whose father's\nhouse he had lived when he had first come to Philadelphia, to whom he\nhad been engaged before his first departure from Philadelphia for\nLondon, and who in his absence had married a ne'er-do-well, one Rogers,\nwho had deserted her. The marriage to Franklin is presumed to have been\na common law marriage, for there was no proof that Miss Read's former\nhusband was dead, nor that, as was suspected, a former wife, alive when\nRogers married Miss Read, was still alive, and that therefore his\nmarriage to Deborah was void. His \"Debby,\" or his \"dear child,\" as\nFranklin usually addressed her in his letters, received into the family,\nsoon after her marriage, Franklin's illegitimate son, William Franklin\n(1729-1813),[7] with whom she afterwards quarrelled, and whose mother,\ntradition says, was Barbara, a servant in the Franklin household.\nAnother illegitimate child became the wife of John Foxcroft of\nPhiladelphia. Deborah, who was \"as much dispos'd to industry and\nfrugality as\" her husband, was illiterate and shared none of her\nhusband's tastes for literature and science; her dread of an ocean\nvoyage kept her in Philadelphia during Franklin's missions to England,\nand she died in 1774, while Franklin was in London. She bore him two\nchildren, one a son, Francis Folger, \"whom I have seldom since seen\nequal'd in everything, and whom to this day [thirty-six years after the\nchild's death] I cannot think of without a sigh,\" who died (1736) when\nfour years old of small-pox, not having been inoculated; the other was\nSarah (1744-1808), who married Richard Bache (1737-1811), Franklin's\nsuccessor in 1776-1782 as postmaster-general. Franklin's gallant\nrelations with women after his wife's death were probably innocent\nenough. Best known of his French _amies_ were Mme Helvetius, widow of\nthe philosopher, and the young Mme Brillon, who corrected her \"Papa's\"\nFrench and tried to bring him safely into the Roman Catholic Church.\nWith him in France were his grandsons, William Temple Franklin, William\nFranklin's natural son, who acted as private secretary to his\ngrandfather, and Benjamin Franklin Bache (1769-1798), Sarah's son, whom\nhe sent to Geneva to be educated, for whom he later asked public office\nof Washington, and who became editor of the _Aurora_, one of the leading\njournals in the Republican attacks on Washington.\n\nFranklin early rebelled against New England Puritanism and spent his\nSundays in reading and in study instead of attending church. His\nfree-thinking ran its extreme course at the time of his publication in\nLondon of _A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain_\n(1725), which he recognized as one of the great _errata_ of his life. He\nlater called himself a deist, or theist, not discriminating between the\nterms. To his favourite sister he wrote: \"There are some things in your\nNew England doctrine and worship which I do not agree with; but I do not\ntherefore condemn them, or desire to shake your belief or practice of\nthem.\" Such was his general attitude. He did not believe in the divinity\nof Christ, but thought \"his system of morals and his religion, as he\nleft them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is like to see.\" His\nintense practical-mindedness drew him away from religion, but drove him\nto a morality of his own (the \"art of virtue,\" he called it), based on\nthirteen virtues each accompanied by a short precept; the virtues were\nTemperance, Silence, Order, Resolution, Frugality, Industry, Sincerity,\nJustice, Moderation, Cleanliness, Tranquility, Chastity and Humility,\nthe precept accompanying the last-named virtue being \"Imitate Jesus and\nSocrates.\" He made a business-like little notebook, ruled off spaces for\nthe thirteen virtues and the seven days of the week, \"determined to give\na week's strict attention to each of the virtues successively ...\n[going] thro' a course compleate in thirteen weeks and four courses in a\nyear,\" marking for each day a record of his adherence to each of the\nprecepts. \"And conceiving God to be the fountain of wisdom,\" he \"thought\nit right and necessary to solicit His assistance for obtaining it,\" and\ndrew up the following prayer for daily use: \"O powerful Goodness!\nbountiful Father! merciful Guide! Increase in me that wisdom which\ndiscovers my truest interest. Strengthen my resolution to perform what\nthat wisdom dictates. Accept my kind offices to Thy other children, as\nthe only return in my power for Thy continual favours to me.\" He was by\nno means prone to overmuch introspection, his great interest in the\nconduct of others being shown in the wise maxims of Poor Richard, which\nwere possibly too utilitarian but were wonderfully successful in\ninstructing American morals. His _Art of Virtue_ on which he worked for\nyears was never completed or published in any form.\n\n\"Benjamin Franklin, Printer,\" was Franklin's own favourite description\nof himself. He was an excellent compositor and pressman; his\nworkmanship, clear impressions, black ink and comparative freedom from\nerrata did much to get him the public printing in Pennsylvania and New\nJersey, and the printing of the paper money[8] and other public matters\nin Delaware. The first book with his imprint is _The Psalms of David\nImitated in the Language of the New Testament and apply'd to the\nChristian State and Worship. By I. Watts ..., Philadelphia: Printed by\nB. F. and H. M. for Thomas Godfrey, and Sold at his Shop, 1729._ The\nfirst novel printed in America was Franklin's reprint in 1744 of\n_Pamela_; and the first American translation from the classics which was\nprinted in America was a version by James Logan (1674-1751) of Cato's\n_Moral Distichs_ (1735). In 1744 he published another translation of\nLogan's, Cicero _On Old Age_, which Franklin thought typographically the\nfinest book he had ever printed. In 1733 he had established a press in\nCharleston, South Carolina, and soon after did the same in Lancaster,\nPa., in New Haven, Conn., in New York, in Antigua, in Kingston, Jamaica,\nand in other places. Personally he had little connexion with the\nPhiladelphia printing office after 1748, when David Hall became his\npartner and took charge of it. But in 1753 he was eagerly engaged in\nhaving several of his improvements incorporated in a new press, and more\nthan twenty years after was actively interested in John Walter's scheme\nof \"logography.\" In France he had a private press in his house in Passy,\non which he printed \"bagatelles.\" Franklin's work as a publisher is for\nthe most part closely connected with his work in issuing the _Gazette_\nand _Poor Richard's Almanack_ (a summary of the proverbs from which\nappeared in the number for 1758, and has often been reprinted--under\nsuch titles as _Father Abraham's Speech_, and _The Way to Wealth_).[9]\n\nOf much of Franklin's work as an author something has already been said.\nJudged as literature, the first place belongs to his _Autobiography_,\nwhich unquestionably ranks among the few great autobiographies ever\nwritten. His style in its simplicity, facility and clearness owed\nsomething to De Foe, something to Cotton Mather, something to Plutarch,\nmore to Bunyan and to his early attempts to reproduce the manner of the\nthird volume of the _Spectator_; and not the least to his own careful\nstudy of word usage. From Xenophon's _Memorabilia_ he learned when a boy\nthe Socratic method of argument. Swift he resembled in the occasional\nbroadness of his humour, in his brilliantly successful use of sarcasm\nand irony,[10] and in his mastery of the hoax. Balzac said of him that\nhe \"invented the lightning-rod, the hoax ('le canard') and the\nrepublic.\" Among his more famous hoaxes were the \"Edict of the King of\nPrussia\" (1773), already described; the fictitious supplement to the\nBoston _Chronicle_, printed on his private press at Passy in 1782, and\ncontaining a letter with an invoice of eight packs of 954 cured, dried,\nhooped and painted scalps of rebels, men, women and children, taken by\nIndians in the British employ; and another fictitious _Letter from the\nCount de Schaumberg to the Baron Hohendorf commanding the Hessian Troops\nin America_ (1777)--the count's only anxiety is that not enough men will\nbe killed to bring him in moneys he needs, and he urges his officer in\ncommand in America \"to prolong the war ... for I have made arrangements\nfor a grand Italian opera, and I do not wish to be obliged to give it\nup.\"[11]\n\nClosely related to Franklin's political pamphlets are his writings on\neconomics, which, though undertaken with a political or practical\npurpose and not in a purely scientific spirit, rank him as the first\nAmerican economist. He wrote in 1729 _A Modest Enquiry into the Nature\nand Necessity of a Paper Currency_, which argued that a plentiful\ncurrency will make rates of interest low and will promote immigration\nand home manufactures, and which did much to secure the further issue of\npaper money in Pennsylvania. After the British Act of 1750 forbidding\nthe erection or the operating of iron or steel mills in the colonies,\nFranklin wrote _Observations concerning the Increase of Mankind and the\nPeopling of Countries_ (1751); its thesis was that manufactures come to\nbe common only with a high degree of social development and with great\ndensity of population, and that Great Britain need not, therefore, fear\nthe industrial competition of the colonies, but it is better known for\nthe estimate (adopted by Adam Smith) that the population of the colonies\nwould double every quarter-century; and for the likeness to\nMalthus's[12] \"preventive check\" of its statement: \"The greater the\ncommon fashionable expense of any rank of people the more cautious they\nare of marriage.\" His _Positions to be examined concerning National\nWealth_ (1769) shows that he was greatly influenced by the French\nphysiocrats after his visit to France in 1767. His _Wail of a Protected\nManufacturer_ voices a protest against protection as raising the cost of\nliving; and he held that free trade was based on a natural right. He\nknew Kames, Hume and Adam Smith, and corresponded with Mirabeau, \"the\nfriend of Man.\" Some of the more important of his economic theses, as\nsummarized by W. A. Wetzel, are: that money as coin may have more than\nits bullion value; that natural interest is determined by the rent of\nland valued at the sum of money loaned--an anticipation of Turgot; that\nhigh wages are not inconsistent with a large foreign trade; that the\nvalue of an article is determined by the amount of labour necessary to\nproduce the food consumed in making the article; that manufactures are\nadvantageous but agriculture only is truly productive; and that when\npracticable (as he did not think it practicable at the end of the War of\nIndependence) state revenue should be raised by direct tax.\n\nFranklin as a scientist[13] and as an inventor has been decried by\nexperts as an amateur and a dabbler; but it should be remembered that it\nwas always his hope to retire from public life and devote himself to\nscience. In the American Philosophical Society (founded 1743) scientific\nsubjects were much discussed. Franklin wrote a paper on the causes of\nearthquakes for his _Gazette_ of the 15th of December 1737; and he\neagerly collected material to uphold his theory that waterspouts and\nwhirlwinds resulted from the same causes. In 1743, from the circumstance\nthat an eclipse not visible in Philadelphia because of a storm had been\nobserved in Boston, where the storm although north-easterly did not\noccur until an hour after the eclipse, he surmised that storms move\n_against_ the wind along the Atlantic coast. In the year before (1742)\nhe had planned the \"Pennsylvania fire-place,\" better known as the\n\"Franklin stove,\" which saved fuel, heated all the room, and had the\nsame principle as the hot-air furnace; the stove was never patented by\nFranklin, but was described in his pamphlet dated 1744. He was much\nengaged at the same time in remedying smoking chimneys, and as late as\n1785 wrote to Jan Ingenhousz, physician to the emperor of Austria, on\nchimneys and draughts; smoking street lamps he remedied by a simple\ncontrivance. The study of electricity he took up in 1746 when he first\nsaw a Leyden jar, in the manipulation of which he became expert and\nwhich he improved by the use of granulated lead in the place of water\nfor the interior armatures; he recognized that condensation is due to\nthe dielectric and not to the metal coatings. A note in his diary, dated\nthe 7th of November 1749, shows that he had then conjectured that\nthunder and lightning were electrical manifestations; in the same year\nhe planned the lightning-rod (long known as \"Franklin's rod\"), which he\ndescribed and recommended to the public in 1753, when the Copley medal\nof the Royal Society was awarded him for his discoveries. The famous\nexperiment with the kite, proving lightning an electrical phenomenon,\nwas performed by Franklin in June 1752. He overthrew entirely the\n\"friction\" theory of electricity and conceived the idea of plus and\nminus charges (1753); he thought the sea the source of electricity. On\nlight Franklin wrote to David Rittenhouse in June 1784; the sum of his\nown conjectures was that the corpuscular theory of Newton was wrong, and\nthat light was due to the vibration of an elastic aether. He studied\nwith some care the temperature of the Gulf Stream. In navigation he\nsuggested many new contrivances, such as water-tight compartments,\nfloating anchors to lay a ship to in a storm, and dishes that would not\nupset during a gale; and beginning in 1757 made repeated experiments\nwith oil on stormy waters. As a mathematician he devised various\nelaborate magic squares and novel magic circles, of which he speaks\napologetically, because they are of no practical use. Always much\ninterested in agriculture, he made an especial effort (like Robert R.\nLivingston) to promote the use of plaster of Paris as a fertiliser. He\ntook a prominent part in aeronautic experiments during his stay in\nFrance. He made an excellent clock, which because of a slight\nimprovement introduced by James Ferguson in 1757 was long known as\nFerguson's clock. In medicine Franklin was considered important enough\nto be elected to the Royal Medical Society of Paris in 1777, and an\nhonorary member of the Medical Society of London in 1787. In 1784 he was\non the committee which investigated Mesmer, and the report is a document\nof lasting scientific value. Franklin's advocacy of vegetarianism, of\nsparing and simple diet, and of temperance in the use of liquors, and of\nproper ventilation has already been referred to. His most direct\ncontribution to medicine was the invention for his own use of bifocal\neyeglasses.\n\nA summary of so versatile a genius is impossible. His services to\nAmerica in England and France rank him as one of the heroes of the\nAmerican War of Independence and as the greatest of American diplomats.\nAlmost the only American scientist of his day, he displayed remarkably\ndeep as well as remarkably varied abilities in science and deserved the\nhonours enthusiastically given him by the _savants_ of Europe.\n\n  BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Franklin's works were not collected in his own\n  lifetime, and he made no effort to publish his writings. _Experiments\n  and Observations on Electricity_ (London, 1769) was translated into\n  French by Barbeu Dubourg (Paris, 1773); Vaughan attempted a more\n  complete edition, _Political, Miscellaneous and Philosophical Pieces_\n  (London, 1779); an edition in three volumes appeared after Franklin's\n  death (London, 1806); what seemed the authentic _Works_, as it was\n  under the care of Temple Franklin, was published at London (6 vols.,\n  1817-1819; 3 vols., 1818) and with some additional matter at\n  Philadelphia (6 vols., 1818). Sparks's edition (10 vols., Boston,\n  1836-1842; revised, Philadelphia, 1858) also contained fresh matter;\n  and there are further additions in the edition of John Bigelow\n  (Philadelphia, 1887-1888; 5th ed., 1905) and in that by Albert Henry\n  Smyth (10 vols., New York, 1905-1907). There are important\n  Frankliniana, about 13,000 papers, in the possession of the American\n  Philosophical Society, to which they were conveyed by the son of\n  Temple Franklin's executor, George Fox. Other papers which had been\n  left to Fox lay for years in barrels in a stable garret; they were\n  finally cleared out, their owner, Mary Fox, intending to send them to\n  a paper mill. One barrel went to the mill. The others, it was found,\n  contained papers belonging to Franklin, and this important collection\n  was bought and presented to the university of Pennsylvania. The\n  valuable Frankliniana collected by Henry Stevens were purchased by\n  Congress in 1885. These MS. collections were first carefully gone over\n  for the edition of the _Works_ by A. H. Smyth. Franklin's\n  _Autobiography_ was begun in 1771 as a private chronicle for his son,\n  Governor William Franklin; the papers, bringing the story of his\n  father's life down to 1730, were lost by the governor during the War\n  of Independence, and in 1783 came into the possession of Abel James,\n  who restored them to Franklin and urged him to complete the sketch. He\n  wrote a little in 1784, more in 1788, when he furnished a copy to his\n  friend le Veillard, and a little more in 1790. The original manuscript\n  was long in the possession of Temple Franklin, who spent years\n  rearranging the matter in it and making over into politer English his\n  grandfather's plain-spokenness. So long was the publication delayed\n  that it was generally believed that Temple Franklin had sold all the\n  papers to the British government; a French version, _Memoires de la\n  vie privee_ (Paris, 1791), was retranslated into English twice in 1793\n  (London), and from one of these versions (by Robinson) still another\n  French version was made (Paris, 1798). Temple Franklin, deciding to\n  print, got from le Veillard the copy sent to him in 1788 (sending in\n  return the original with autograph alterations and the final\n  addition), and from the copy published (London, 1817) an edition\n  supposed to be authentic and complete. The complete autograph of the\n  biography, acquired by John Bigelow in 1867 from its French owners,\n  upon collation with Temple Franklin's edition showed that the latter\n  contained 1200 emasculations and that it omitted entirely what had\n  been written in 1790. Bigelow published the complete _Autobiography_\n  with additions from Franklin's correspondence and other writings in\n  1868; a second edition (3 vols., Philadelphia, 1888) was published\n  under the title, _The Life of Benjamin Franklin, Written by Himself_.\n\n  In addition to the _Autobiography_ see James Parton, _Life and Times\n  of Benjamin Franklin_ (2 vols., New York, 1864); John T. Morse, Jr.,\n  _Benjamin Franklin_ (Boston, 1889, in the American Statesmen series);\n  J. B. McMaster, _Benjamin Franklin as a Man of Letters_ (Boston, 1887,\n  in American Men of Letters series); Paul L. Ford, _The Many-Sided\n  Franklin_ (New York, 1899) and _Franklin Bibliography_ (Brooklyn,\n  1889); E. E. Hale and E. E. Hale, Jr., _Franklin in France_ (2 vols.,\n  Boston, 1888); J. H. A. Doniol, _Histoire de la participation de la\n  France a l'etablissement des Etats-Unis d'Amerique_ (Paris, 6 vols.,\n  1886-1900); S. G. Fisher, _The True Benjamin Franklin_ (Philadelphia,\n  1899); E. Robins, _Benjamin Franklin_ (New York, 1898, in the American\n  Men of Energy series); W. A. Wetzel, \"Benjamin Franklin as an\n  Economist,\" No. 9, in series 13 of _Johns Hopkins Studies in\n  Historical and Political Science_; and the prefaces and biographical\n  matter in A. H. Smyth's edition of the _Works_ (New York, 10 vols.,\n  1905-1907).     (R. We.)\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n  [1] Keimer and his sister had come the year before from London, where\n    he had learned his trade; both were ardent members of the fanatic\n    band of \"French prophets.\" He proposed founding a new sect with the\n    help of Franklin, who after leaving his shop ridiculed him for his\n    long square beard and for keeping the seventh day. Keimer settled in\n    the Barbadoes about 1730; and in 1731 began to publish at Bridgetown\n    the semi-weekly _Barbadoes Gazette_. Selections from it called\n    _Caribbeana_ (1741) and _A Brand Plucked from the Burning,\n    Exemplified in the Unparalleled Case of Samuel Keimer_ (1718) are\n    from his pen. He died about 1738.\n\n  [2] The meeting between Franklin, the type of the shrewd, cool\n    provincial, and Braddock, a blustering, blundering, drinking British\n    soldier, is dramatically portrayed by Thackeray in the 9th chapter of\n    _The Virginians_.\n\n  [3] Many questions (about 20 of the first 25) were put by his friends\n    to draw out what he wished to be known.\n\n  [4] The house is familiar from the drawing of it by Victor Hugo.\n\n  [5] Many of these portraits bore inscriptions, the most famous of\n    which was Turgot's line, \"Eripuit fulmen coelo sceptrumque tyrannis.\"\n\n  [6] Notably in a pamphlet comparing the Jews and the\n    Anti-Federalists.\n\n  [7] William Franklin served on the Canadian frontier with\n    Pennsylvania troops, becoming captain in 1750; was in the post-office\n    in 1754-1756; went to England with his father in 1758; was admitted\n    to legal practice in 1758; in 1763, recommended by Lord Fairfax,\n    became governor of New Jersey; he left the Whig for the Tory party;\n    and in the War of Independence was a faithful loyalist, much to the\n    pain and regret of his father, who, however, was reconciled to him in\n    part in 1784. He was held as a prisoner from 1776 until exchanged in\n    1778; and lived four years in New York, and during the remainder of\n    his life in England with an annual pension of L800 from the crown.\n\n  [8] For the prevention of counterfeiting continental paper money\n    Franklin long afterwards suggested the use on the different\n    denominations of different leaves, having noted the infinite variety\n    of leaf venation.\n\n  [9] \"Seventy-five editions of it have been printed in English,\n    fifty-six in French, eleven in German and nine in Italian. It has\n    been translated into Spanish, Danish, Swedish, Welsh, Polish, Gaelic,\n    Russian, Bohemian, Dutch, Catalan, Chinese, modern Greek and phonetic\n    writing. It has been printed at least four hundred times, and is\n    to-day as popular as ever.\"--P. L. Ford, in _The Many-Sided Franklin_\n    (1899).\n\n  [10] Both Swift and Franklin made sport of the typical astrologer\n    almanack-maker.\n\n  [11] Another hoax was Franklin's parable against religious\n    persecution thrown into Scriptural form and quoted by him as the\n    fifty-first chapter of Genesis. In a paper on a \"Proposed New Version\n    of the Bible\" he paraphrased a few verses of the first chapter of\n    Job, making them a satiric attack on royal government; but the\n    version may well rank with these hoaxes, and even modern writers have\n    been taken in by it, regarding it as a serious proposal for a\n    \"modernized\" version and decrying it as poor taste. Matthew Arnold,\n    for example, declared this an instance in which Franklin was lacking\n    in his \"imperturbable common sense\"; and J. B. McMaster, though\n    devoting several pages to its discussion, very ingenuously declares\n    it \"beneath criticism.\"\n\n  [12] Malthus quoted Franklin in his first edition, but it was not\n    until the second that he introduced the theory of the \"preventive\n    check.\" Franklin noted the phenomenon with disapproval in his\n    advocacy of increased population; Malthus with approval in his search\n    for means to decrease population.\n\n  [13] The title of philosopher as used in Franklin's lifetime referred\n    neither in England nor in France to him as author of moral maxims,\n    but to him as a scientist--a \"natural philosopher.\"\n\n\n\n\nFRANKLIN, SIR JOHN (1786-1847), English rear-admiral and explorer, was\nborn at Spilsby, Lincolnshire, on the 16th of April 1786. His family was\ndescended from a line of free-holders or \"franklins\" from whom some\ncenturies earlier they had derived their surname; but the small family\nestate was sold by his father, who went into business. John, who was the\nfifth and youngest son and ninth child, was destined for the church. At\nthe age of ten he was sent to school at St Ives, and soon afterwards was\ntransferred to Louth grammar school, which he attended for two years.\nAbout this time his imagination was deeply impressed by a holiday walk\nof 12 m. which he made with a companion to look at the sea, and he\ndetermined to be a sailor. In the hope of dispelling this fancy his\nfather sent him on a trial voyage to Lisbon in a merchantman; but it\nbeing found on his return that his wishes were unchanged he was entered\nas a midshipman on board the \"Polyphemus,\" and shortly afterwards took\npart in her in the hard-fought battle of Copenhagen (2nd of April 1801).\nTwo months later he joined the \"Investigator,\" a discovery-ship\ncommanded by his cousin Captain Matthew Flinders, and under the training\nof that able scientific officer was employed in the exploration and\nmapping of the coasts of Australia, where he acquired a correctness of\nastronomical observation and a skill in surveying which proved of\neminent utility in his future career. He was on board the \"Porpoise\"\nwhen that ship and the \"Cato\" were wrecked (18th of August 1803) on a\ncoral reef off the coast of Australia, and after this misfortune\nproceeded to China. Thence he obtained a passage to England in the \"Earl\nCamden,\" East Indiaman, commanded by Captain (afterwards Sir) Nathaniel\nDance, and performed the duty of signal midshipman in the famous action\nof the 15th of February 1804 when Captain Dance repulsed a strong French\nsquadron led by the redoubtable Admiral Linois. On reaching England he\njoined the \"Bellerophon,\" 74, and was in charge of the signals on board\nthat ship during the battle of Trafalgar. Two years later he joined the\n\"Bedford,\" attaining the rank of lieutenant the year after, and served\nin her on the Brazil station (whither the \"Bedford\" went as part of the\nconvoy which escorted the royal family of Portugal to Rio de Janeiro in\n1808), in the blockade of Flushing, and finally in the disastrous\nexpedition against New Orleans (1814), in which campaign he displayed\nsuch zeal and intelligence as to merit special mention in despatches.\n\nOn peace being established, Franklin turned his attention once more to\nthe scientific branch of his profession, and sedulously extended his\nknowledge of surveying. In 1818 the discovery of a North-West Passage to\nthe Pacific became again, after a long interval, an object of national\ninterest, and Lieutenant Franklin was given the command of the \"Trent\"\nin the Arctic expedition, under the orders of Captain Buchan in the\n\"Dorothea\". During a heavy storm the \"Dorothea\" was so much damaged by\nthe pack-ice that her reaching England became doubtful, and, much to the\nchagrin of young Franklin, the \"Trent\" was compelled to convoy her home\ninstead of being allowed to prosecute the voyage alone. This voyage,\nhowever, had brought Franklin into personal intercourse with the leading\nscientific men of London, and they were not slow in ascertaining his\npeculiar fitness for the command of such an enterprise. To calmness in\ndanger, promptness and fertility of resource, and excellent seamanship,\nhe added an ardent desire to promote science for its own sake, together\nwith a love of truth that led him to do full justice to the merits of\nhis subordinate officers, without wishing to claim their discoveries as\na captain's right. Furthermore, he possessed a cheerful buoyancy of\nmind, sustained by deep religious principle, which was not depressed in\nthe most gloomy times. It was therefore with full confidence in his\nability and exertions that, in 1819, he was placed in command of an\nexpedition appointed to proceed overland from the Hudson Bay to the\nshores of the Arctic Sea, and to determine the trendings of that coast\neastward of the Coppermine river. At this period the northern coast of\nthe American continent was known at two isolated points only,--this, the\nmouth of the Coppermine river (which, as Franklin discovered, was\nerroneously placed four degrees of latitude too much to the north), and\nthe mouth of the Mackenzie far to the west of it. Lieutenant Franklin\nand his party, consisting of Dr Richardson, Midshipmen George Back and\nRichard Hood, and a few ordinary boatmen, arrived at the depot of the\nHudson's Bay Company at the end of August 1819, and making an autumnal\njourney of 700 m. spent the first winter on the Saskatchewan. Owing to\nthe supplies which had been promised by the North-West and Hudson's Bay\nCompanies not being forthcoming the following year, it was not until the\nsummer of 1821 that the Coppermine was ascended to its mouth, and a\nconsiderable extent of sea-coast to the eastward surveyed. The return\njourney led over the region known as the Barren Ground, and was marked\nby the most terrible sufferings and privations and the tragic death of\nLieutenant Hood. The survivors of the expedition reached York Factory in\nthe month of June 1822, having accomplished altogether 5550 m. of\ntravel. While engaged on this service Franklin was promoted to the rank\nof commander (1st of January 1821), and upon his return to England at\nthe end of 1822 he obtained the post rank of captain and was elected a\nfellow of the Royal Society. The narrative of this expedition was\npublished in the following year and became at once a classic of travel,\nand soon after he married Eleanor, the youngest daughter of William\nPorden, an eminent architect.\n\nEarly in 1825 he was entrusted with the command of a second overland\nexpedition, and upon the earnest entreaty of his dying wife, who\nencouraged him to place his duty to his country before his love for her,\nhe set sail without waiting to witness her end. Accompanied as before by\nDr (afterwards Sir) John Richardson and Lieutenant (afterwards Sir)\nGeorge Back, he descended the Mackenzie river in the season of 1826 and\ntraced the North American coast as far as 149 deg. 37' W. long., whilst\nRichardson at the head of a separate party connected the mouths of the\nCoppermine and Mackenzie rivers. Thus between the years 1819 and 1827 he\nhad added 1200 m. of coast-line to the American continent, or one-third\nof the whole distance from the Atlantic to the Pacific. These exertions\nwere fully appreciated at home and abroad. He was knighted in 1829,\nreceived the honorary degree of D.C.L. from the university of Oxford,\nwas awarded the gold medal of the Geographical Society of Paris, and was\nelected corresponding member of the Paris Academy of Sciences. The\nresults of these expeditions are described by Franklin and Dr Richardson\nin two magnificent works published in 1824-1829. In 1828 he married his\nsecond wife, Jane, second daughter of John Griffin. His next official\nemployment was on the Mediterranean station, in command of the\n\"Rainbow,\" and his ship soon became proverbial in the squadron for the\nhappiness and comfort of her officers and crew. As an acknowledgment of\nthe essential service which he rendered off Patras in the Greek War of\nIndependence, he received the cross of the Redeemer of Greece from King\nOtto, and after his return to England he was created knight commander of\nthe Guelphic order of Hanover.\n\nIn 1836 he accepted the lieutenant-governorship of Van Diemen's Land (now\nTasmania), and held that post till the end of 1843. His government was\nmarked by several events of much interest, one of his most popular\nmeasures being the opening of the doors of the legislative council to the\npublic. He also founded a college, endowing it largely from his private\nfunds, and in 1838 established a scientific society at Hobart Town (now\ncalled the Royal Society of Tasmania), the meetings of which were held in\nGovernment House and its papers printed at his expense. In his time also\nthe colony of Victoria was founded by settlers from Tasmania; and towards\nits close, transportation to New South Wales having been abolished, the\nconvicts from every part of the British empire were sent to Tasmania. On\nan increase of the lieutenant-governor's salary being voted by the\ncolonial legislature, Sir John declined to derive any advantage from it\npersonally, while he secured the augmentation to his successors. He\nwelcomed eagerly the various expeditions for exploration and surveying\nwhich visited Hobart Town, conspicuous among these, and of especial\ninterest to himself, being the French and English Antarctic expeditions\nof Dumont d'Urville and Sir James C. Ross--the latter commanding the\n\"Erebus\" and \"Terror,\" with which Franklin's own name was afterwards to\nbe so pathetically connected. A magnetic observatory fixed at Hobart\nTown, as a dependency of the central establishment under Colonel Sabine,\nwas also an object of deep interest up to the moment of his leaving the\ncolony. That his unflinching efforts for the social and political\nadvancement of the colony were appreciated was abundantly proved by the\naffection and respect shown him by every section of the community on his\ndeparture; and several years afterwards the colonists showed their\nremembrance of his virtues and services by sending Lady Franklin a\nsubscription of L1700 in aid of her efforts for the search and relief of\nher husband, and later still by a unanimous vote of the legislature for\nthe erection of a statue in honour of him at Hobart Town.\n\nSir John found on reaching England that there was about to be a renewal\nof polar research, and that the confidence of the admiralty in him was\nundiminished, as was shown by his being offered the command of an\nexpedition for the discovery of a North-West Passage to the Pacific.\nThis offer he accepted. The prestige of Arctic service and of his former\nexperiences attracted a crowd of volunteers of all classes, from whom\nwere selected a body of officers conspicuous for talent and energy.\nCaptain Crozier, who was second in command, had been three voyages with\nSir Edward Parry, and had commanded the \"Terror\" in Ross's Antarctic\nexpedition. Captain Fitzjames, who was commander on board the \"Erebus,\"\nhad been five times gazetted for brilliant conduct in the operations of\nthe first China war, and in a letter which he wrote from Greenland has\nbequeathed some good-natured but masterly sketches of his brother\nofficers and messmates on this expedition. Thus supported, with crews\ncarefully chosen (some of whom had been engaged in the whaling service),\nvictualled for three years, and furnished with every appliance then\nknown, Franklin's expedition, consisting of the \"Erebus\" and \"Terror\"\n(129 officers and men), with a transport ship to convey additional\nstores as far as Disco in Greenland, sailed from Greenhithe on the 19th\nof May 1845. The letters which Franklin despatched from Greenland were\ncouched in language of cheerful anticipation of success, while those\nreceived from his officers expressed their glowing hope, their\nadmiration of the seamanlike qualities of their commander, and the\nhappiness they had in serving under him. The ships were last seen by a\nwhaler near the entrance of Lancaster Sound, on the 26th of July, and\nthe deep gloom which settled down upon their subsequent movements was\nnot finally raised till fourteen years later.\n\nFranklin's instructions were framed in conjunction with Sir John Barrow\nand upon his own suggestions. The experience of Parry had established\nthe navigability of Lancaster Sound (leading westwards out of Baffin\nBay), whilst Franklin's own surveys had long before satisfied him that a\nnavigable passage existed along the north coast of America from the Fish\nriver to Bering Strait. He was therefore directed to push through\nLancaster Sound and its continuation, Barrow Strait, without loss of\ntime, until he reached the portion of land on which Cape Walker is\nsituated, or about long. 98 deg. W., and from that point to pursue a course\nsouthward towards the American coast. An explicit prohibition was given\nagainst a westerly course beyond the longitude of 98 deg. W., but he was\nallowed the single alternative of previously examining Wellington\nChannel (which leads out of Barrow Strait) for a northward route, if the\nnavigation here were open.\n\nIn 1847, though there was no real public anxiety as to the fate of the\nexpedition, preparations began to be made for the possible necessity of\nsending relief. As time passed, however, and no tidings reached England,\nthe search began in earnest, and from 1848 onwards expedition after\nexpedition was despatched in quest of the missing explorers. The work of\nthese expeditions forms a story of achievement which has no parallel in\nmaritime annals, and resulted in the discovery and exploration of\nthousands of miles of new land within the grim Arctic regions, the\ndevelopment of the system of sledge travelling, and the discovery of a\nsecond North-West Passage in 1850 (see Polar Regions). Here it is only\nnecessary to mention the results so far as the search for Franklin was\nconcerned. In this great national undertaking Lady Franklin's exertions\nwere unwearied, and she exhausted her private funds in sending out\nauxiliary vessels to quarters not comprised in the public search, and by\nher pathetic appeals roused the sympathy of the whole civilized world.\n\nThe first traces of the missing ships, consisting of a few scattered\narticles, besides three graves, were discovered at Franklin's winter\nquarters (1845-1846) on Beechey Island, by Captain (afterwards Sir)\nErasmus Ommanney of the \"Assistance,\" in August 1851, and were brought\nhome by the \"Prince Albert,\" which had been fitted out by Lady Franklin.\nNo further tidings were obtained until the spring of 1854, when Dr John\nRae, then conducting a sledging expedition of the Hudson's Bay Company\nfrom Repulse Bay, was told by the Eskimo that (as was inferred) in 1850\nwhite men, to the number of about forty, had been seen dragging a boat\nsouthward along the west shore of King William's Island, and that later\nin the same season the bodies of the whole party were found by the\nnatives at a point a short distance to the north-west of Back's Great\nFish river, where they had perished from the united effects of cold and\nfamine. The latter statement was afterwards disproved by the discovery\nof skeletons upon the presumed line of route; but indisputable proof was\ngiven that the Eskimo had communicated with members of the missing\nexpedition, by the various articles obtained from them and brought home\nby Dr Rae. In consequence of the information obtained by Dr Rae, a party\nin canoes, under Messrs Anderson and Stewart, was sent by government\ndown the Great Fish river in 1855, and succeeded in obtaining from the\nEskimo at the mouth of the river a considerable number of articles which\nhad evidently belonged to the Franklin expedition; while others were\npicked up on Montreal Island a day's march to the northward. It was\nclear, therefore, that a party from the \"Erebus\" and \"Terror\" had\nendeavoured to reach the settlements of the Hudson's Bay Company by the\nFish river route, and that in making a southerly course it had been\narrested within the channel into which the Great Fish river empties\nitself. The admiralty now decided to take no further steps to determine\nthe exact fate of the expedition, and granted to Dr Rae the reward of\nL10,000 which had been offered in 1849 to whosoever should first succeed\nin obtaining authentic news of the missing men. It was therefore\nreserved for the latest effort of Lady Franklin to develop, not only the\nfate of her husband's expedition but also the steps of its progress up\nto the very verge of success, mingled indeed with almost unprecedented\ndisaster. With all her available means, and aided, as she had been\nbefore, by the subscriptions of sympathizing friends, she purchased and\nfitted out the little yacht \"Fox,\" which sailed from Aberdeen in July\n1857. The command was accepted by Captain (afterwards Sir) Leopold\nM'Clintock, whose high reputation had been won in three of the\ngovernment expeditions sent out in search of Franklin. Having been\ncompelled to pass the first winter in Baffin Bay, it was not till the\nautumn of 1858 that the \"Fox\" passed down Prince Regent's Inlet, and put\ninto winter quarters at Port Kennedy at the eastern end of Bellot\nStrait, between North Somerset and Boothia Felix. In the spring of 1859\nthree sledging parties went out, Captain (afterwards Sir) Allen Young to\nexamine Prince of Wales Island, Lieutenant (afterwards Captain) Hobson\nthe north and west coasts of King William's Island, and M'Clintock the\neast and south coasts of the latter, the west coast of Boothia, and the\nregion about the mouth of Great Fish river. This splendid and exhaustive\nsearch added 800 m. of new coast-line to the knowledge of the Arctic\nregions, and brought to light the course and fate of the expedition.\nFrom the Eskimo in Boothia many relics were obtained, and reports as to\nthe fate of the ships and men; and on the west and south coast of King\nWilliam's Island were discovered skeletons and remains of articles that\ntold a terrible tale of disaster. Above all, in a cairn at Point Victory\na precious record was discovered by Lieutenant Hobson that briefly told\nthe history of the expedition up to April 25, 1848, three years after it\nset out full of hope. In 1845-1846 the \"Erebus\" and \"Terror\" wintered at\nBeechey Island on the S.W. coast of North Devon, in lat. 74 deg. 43' 28\"\nN., long. 91 deg. 39' 15\" W., after having ascended Wellington Channel to\nlat. 77 deg. and returned by the west side of Cornwallis Island. This\nstatement was signed by Graham Gore, lieutenant, and Charles F. des\nVoeux, mate, and bore date May 28, 1847. These two officers and six men,\nit was further told, left the ships on May 24, 1847 (no doubt for an\nexploring journey), at which time all was well.\n\nSuch an amount of successful work has seldom been accomplished by an\nArctic expedition within any one season. The alternative course\npermitted Franklin by his instructions had been attempted but not\npursued, and in the autumn of 1846 he had followed that route which was\nspecially commended to him. But after successfully navigating Peel and\nFranklin Straits on his way southward, his progress had been suddenly\nand finally arrested by the obstruction of heavy (\"palaeocrystic\") ice,\nwhich presses down from the north-west through M'Clintock Channel (not\nthen known to exist) upon King William's Island. It must be remembered\nthat in the chart which Franklin carried King William's Island was laid\ndown as a part of the mainland of Boothia, and he therefore could pursue\nhis way _only_ down its western coast. Upon the margin of the printed\nadmiralty form on which this brief record was written was an addendum\ndated the 25th of April 1848, which extinguished all further hopes of a\nsuccessful termination of this grand enterprise. The facts are best\nconveyed in the terse and expressive words in which they were written,\nand are therefore given _verbatim_: \"April 25th, 1848. H.M. Ships\n'Terror' and 'Erebus' were deserted on 22nd April, five leagues N.N.W.\nof this, having been beset since 12th September 1846. The officers and\ncrews, consisting of 105 souls under the command of Captain F. R. M.\nCrozier, landed in lat. 69 deg. 37' 42\" N., long. 98 deg. 41' W. This paper was\nfound by Lieut. Irving ... where it had been deposited by the late\nCommander Gore in June 1847. Sir John Franklin died on the 11th June\n1847; and the total loss by deaths in the expedition has been to this\ndate 9 officers and 15 men.\" The handwriting is that of Captain\nFitzjames, to whose signature is appended that of Captain Crozier, who\nalso adds the words of chief importance, namely, that they would \"start\non to-morrow 26th April 1848 for Back's Fish river.\" A briefer record\nhas never been told of so tragic a story.\n\nAll the party had without doubt been greatly reduced through want of\nsufficient food, and the injurious effects of three winters in these\nregions. They had attempted to drag with them two boats, besides heavily\nladen sledges, and doubtless had soon been compelled to abandon much of\ntheir burden, and leave one boat on the shore of King William's Island,\nwhere it was found by M'Clintock, near the middle of the west coast,\ncontaining two skeletons. The route adopted was the shortest possible,\nbut their strength and supplies had failed, and at that season of the\nyear the snow-covered land afforded no subsistence. An old Eskimo woman\nstated that these heroic men \"fell down and died as they walked,\" and,\nas Sir John Richardson has well said, they \"forged the last link of the\nNorth-West Passage with their lives.\" From all that can be gathered, one\nof the ships must have been crushed in the ice and sunk in deep water,\nand the other, stranded on the shore of King William's Island, lay there\nfor years, forming a mine of wealth for the neighbouring Eskimo.\n\nThis is all we know of the fate of Franklin and his brave men. His\nmemory is cherished as one of the most conspicuous of the naval heroes\nof Britain, and as one of the most successful and daring of her\nexplorers. He is certainly entitled to the honour of being the first\ndiscoverer of the North-West Passage; the point reached by the ships\nhaving brought him to within a few miles of the known waters of America,\nand on the monument erected to him by his country, in Waterloo Place,\nLondon, this honour is justly awarded to him and his companions,--a fact\nwhich was also affirmed by the president of the Royal Geographical\nSociety, when presenting their gold medal to Lady Franklin in 1860. On\nthe 26th of October 1852 Franklin had been promoted to the rank of\nrear-admiral. He left an only daughter by his first marriage. Lady\nFranklin died in 1875 at the age of eighty-three, and a fortnight after\nher death a fine monument was unveiled in Westminster Abbey,\ncommemorating the heroic deeds and fate of Sir John Franklin, and the\ninseparable connexion of Lady Franklin's name with the fame of her\nhusband. Most of the relics brought home by M'Clintock were presented by\nLady Franklin to the United Service Museum, while those given by Dr Rae\nto the admiralty are deposited in Greenwich hospital. In 1864-1869 the\nAmerican explorer Captain Hall made two journeys in endeavouring to\ntrace the remnant of Franklin's party, bringing back a number of\nadditional relics and some information confirmatory of that given by\nM'Clintock, and in 1878 Lieutenant F. Schwatka of the United States army\nand a companion made a final land search, but although accomplishing a\nremarkable record of travel discovered nothing which threw any fresh\nlight on the history of the expedition.\n\n  See H. D. Traill, _Life of Sir John Franklin_ (1896).\n\n\n\n\nFRANKLIN, WILLIAM BUEL (1823-1903), Federal general in the American\nCivil War, was born at York, Pennsylvania, on the 27th of February 1823.\nHe graduated at West Point, at the head of his class, in 1843, was\ncommissioned in the Engineer Corps, U.S.A., and served with distinction\nin the Mexican War, receiving the brevet of first lieutenant for his\ngood conduct at Buena Vista, in which action he was on the staff of\nGeneral Taylor. After the war he was engaged in miscellaneous\nengineering work, becoming a first lieutenant in 1853 and a captain in\n1857. Soon after the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861 he was made\ncolonel of a regular infantry regiment, and a few days later\nbrigadier-general of volunteers. He led a brigade in the first battle of\nBull Run, and on the organization by McClellan of the Army of the\nPotomac he received a divisional command. He commanded first a division\nand then the VI. Corps in the operations before Richmond in 1862,\nearning the brevet of brigadier-general in the U.S. Army; was promoted\nmajor-general, U.S.V., in July 1862; commanded the VI. corps at South\nMountain and Antietam; and at Fredericksburg commanded the \"Left Grand\nDivision\" of two corps (I. and VI.). His part in the last battle led to\ncharges of disobedience and negligence being preferred against him by\nthe commanding general, General A. E. Burnside, on which the\ncongressional committee on the conduct of the war reported unfavourably\nto Franklin, largely, it seems, because Burnside's orders to Franklin\nwere not put in evidence. Burnside had issued on the 23rd of January\n1863 an order relieving Franklin from duty, and Franklin's only other\nservice in the war was as commander of the XIX. corps in the abortive\nRed River Expedition of 1864. In this expedition he received a severe\nwound at the action of Sabine Cross Roads (April 8, 1864), in\nconsequence of which he took no further active part in the war. He\nserved for a time on the retiring board, and was captured by the\nConfederates on the 11th of July 1864, but escaped the same night. In\n1865 he was brevetted major-general in the regular army, and in 1866 he\nwas retired. After the war General Franklin was vice-president of the\nColt's Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company, was president of the\ncommission to lay out Long Island City, N.Y. (1871-1872), of the\ncommission on the building of the Connecticut state house (1872-1873),\nand, from 1880 to 1899, of the board of managers of the national home\nfor disabled volunteer soldiers; as a commissioner of the United States\nto the Paris Exposition of 1889 he was made a grand officer of the\nLegion of Honour; and he was for a time a director of the Panama\nrailway. He died at Hartford, Connecticut, on the 8th of March 1903. He\nwrote a pamphlet, _The Gatling Gun for Service Ashore and Afloat_\n(1874).\n\n  See _A Reply of Major-General William B. Franklin to the Report of the\n  Joint Committee of Congress on the Conduct of the War_ (New York,\n  1863; 2nd ed., 1867), and Jacob L. Greene, _Gen. W. B. Franklin and\n  the Operations of the Left Wing at the Battle of Fredericksburg_\n  (Hartford, 1900).\n\n\n\n\nFRANKLIN, an organized district of Canada, extending from the Arctic\nCircle to the North Pole. It was formed by order-in-council on the 2nd\nof October 1895, and includes numerous islands and peninsulas, such as\nBanks, Prince Albert, Victoria, Wollaston, King Edward and Baffin Land,\nMelville, Bathurst, Prince of Wales and Cockburn Islands. Of these,\nBaffin Land alone extends south of the Arctic Circle. The area is\nestimated at 500,000 sq. m., but the inhabitants consist of a few\nIndians, Eskimo and fur-traders. Musk-oxen, polar bears, foxes and other\nvaluable fur-bearing animals are found in large numbers. The district is\nnamed after Sir John Franklin.\n\n\n\n\nFRANKLIN, a township of Norfolk county, Massachusetts, U.S.A., with an\narea of 29 sq. m. of rolling surface. Pop. (1900) 5017, of whom 1250\nwere foreign-born; (1905, state census) 5244; (1910 census) 5641. The\nprincipal village, also named Franklin, is about 27 m. S.W. of Boston,\nand is served by the New York, New Haven & Hartford railway. Franklin\nhas a public library (housed in the Ray memorial building and containing\n7700 volumes in 1910) and is the seat of Dean Academy (Universalist;\nfounded in 1865), a secondary school for boys and girls. Straw goods,\nfelt, cotton and woollen goods, pianos and printing presses are\nmanufactured here. The township was incorporated in 1778, previous to\nwhich it was a part of Wrentham (1673). It was the first of the many\nplaces in the United States named in honour of Benjamin Franklin (who\nlater contributed books for the public library). Horace Mann was born\nhere.\n\n\n\n\nFRANKLIN, a city of Merrimack county, New Hampshire, U.S.A., at the\nconfluence of the Pemigewasset and Winnepesaukee rivers to form the\nMerrimac; about 95 m. N.N.W. of Boston. Pop. (1890) 4085; (1900) 5846\n(1323 foreign-born); (1910) 6132; area, about 14.4 sq. m. Franklin is\nserved by the Concord Division of the Boston & Maine railway, with a\nbranch to Bristol (13 m. N.W.) and another connecting at Tilton (about 5\nm. E.) with the White Mountains Division. It contains the villages of\nFranklin, Franklin Falls, Webster Place and Lake City, the last a summer\nresort. The rivers furnish good water power, which is used in the\nmanufacture of a variety of commodities, including foundry products,\npaper and pulp, woollen goods, hosiery, saws, needles and knitting\nmachines. The water-works are owned and operated by the municipality.\nHere, in what was then a part of the town of Salisbury, Daniel Webster\nwas born, and on the Webster farm is the New Hampshire orphans' home,\nestablished in 1871. The town of Franklin was formed in 1828 by the\nunion of portions of Salisbury, Sanbornton, Andover and Northfield. The\nearliest settlement within its limits was made in 1748 in the portion\ntaken from Salisbury. Franklin was incorporated as a city in 1895.\n\n\n\n\nFRANKLIN, a city and the county-seat of Venango county, Pennsylvania,\nU.S.A., at the confluence of French Creek and Allegheny river, about 55\nm. S. by E. of Erie, in the N.W. part of the state. Pop. (1890) 6221;\n(1900) 7317 (489 being foreign-born); (1910) 9767. Franklin is served by\nthe Erie, the Pennsylvania, the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern, and the\nFranklin & Clearfield railways. Its streets are broad and well paved and\nshaded, and there are two public parks, a public library and many\nhandsome residences. Franklin is the centre of the chief oil region of\nthe state, and from it great quantities of refined oil are shipped.\nNatural gas also abounds. The city's manufacture include oil-well\nsupplies, boilers, engines, steel castings, iron goods, lumber, bricks,\nasbestos goods, manifolding paper and flour. On the site of the present\ncity the French built in 1754 a fortification, Fort Machault, which\nafter the capture of Fort Duquesne by the English was a rallying place\nfor Indians allied with the French. In 1759 the French abandoned and\ncompletely destroyed the fort; and in the following year the English\nbuilt in the vicinity Fort Venango, which was captured by the Indians in\n1763 during the Conspiracy of Pontiac, the whole garrison being\nmassacred. In 1787 the United States built Fort Franklin (about 1 m.\nabove the mouth of French Creek) as a protection against the Indians; in\n1796 the troops were removed to a strongly built and well-fortified\nwooden building, known as \"Old Garrison,\" at the mouth of French Creek,\nand in 1803 they were permanently withdrawn from the neighbourhood.\nFranklin was laid out as a town in 1795, was incorporated as a borough\nin 1828, and was chartered as a city in 1868. Most of its growth dates\nfrom the discovery of oil in 1860.\n\n\n\n\nFRANKLIN, a town and the county-seat of Williamson county, Tennessee,\nU.S.A., in the central part of the state, on the Harpeth river, and\nabout 20 m. S.W. of Nashville. Pop. (1900) 2180; (1910) 2924. Franklin\nis served by the Louisville & Nashville railway. It is the seat of the\nTennessee Female College and the Battle Ground Academy, and its chief\nobjects of interest are the battle-ground, the Confederate cemetery and\nthe Confederate monument. During the Civil War Franklin was the scene of\na minor engagement on the 10th of April 1863, and of a battle,\ncelebrated as one of the most desperately fought of the war, which took\nplace on the 30th of November 1864. The Union general Schofield, who was\nslowly withdrawing to Nashville before the advance of General J. B.\nHood's army, which he was ordered to hold in check in order to give\nThomas time to prepare for battle (see AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, Sec. 32), was\nunable immediately to cross the Harpeth river and was compelled to\nentrench his forces south of the town until his wagon trains and\nartillery could be sent over the stream by means of two small bridges.\nIn the afternoon Schofield's outposts and advanced lines were attacked\nby the Confederates in full strength, and instead of withdrawing as\nordered they made a determined stand. Thus the assailants, carrying the\nadvanced works by storm, rushed upon the main defences on the heels of\nthe broken advanced guard, and a general engagement was brought on which\nlasted from 3.30 until nine o'clock in the evening. Against, it is said,\nthirteen separate assaults, all delivered with exceptional fury,\nSchofield managed to hold his position, and shortly before midnight he\nwithdrew across the river in good order. The engagement was indecisive\nin its results, but the Union commander's purpose, to hold Hood\nmomentarily in check, was gained, and Hood's effort to crush Schofield\nwas unavailing. The losses were very heavy; Hood's effective forces in\nthe engagement numbered about 27,000, Schofield's about 28,000; the\nConfederate losses (excluding cavalry) were about 6500, excluding the\nslightly wounded; six general officers were killed (including\nMajor-General P. R. Cleburne, a brave Irishman who had been a corporal\nin the British army), six wounded, and one captured; the Union losses\n(excluding cavalry) were 2326. In two of the Confederate brigades all\nthe general and field officers were killed or wounded.\n\n  See J. D. Cox, _The Battle of Franklin_ (New York, 1897).\n\n\n\n\nFRANKLIN, a word derived from the Late Lat. _francus_, free, and meaning\nprimarily a freeman. Subsequently it was used in England to denote a\nland-holder who was of free but not of noble birth. Some of the older\nEnglish writers occasionally use it to mean a liberal host. The Latin\nform of the word is _franchilanus_.\n\n\n\n\nFRANKLINITE, a member of the spinel group of minerals, consisting of\noxides of iron, manganese and zinc in varying proportions, (Fe, Zn,\nMn)\"(Fe, Mn)2\"'O4. It occurs as large octahedral crystals often with\nrounded edges, and as granular masses. The colour is iron-black and the\nlustre metallic; hardness 6, specific gravity 5.2. It thus resembles\nmagnetite in external characters, but is readily distinguished from this\nby the fact that it is only slightly magnetic. It is found in\nconsiderable amount, associated with zinc minerals (zincite and\nwillemite) in crystalline limestone, at Franklin Furnace, New Jersey,\nwhere it is mined as an ore of zinc (containing 5 to 20% of the metal);\nafter the extraction of the zinc, the residue is used in the manufacture\nof spiegeleisen (the mineral containing 15 to 20% of manganese oxides).\nAssociated with franklinite at Franklin Furnace, and found also at some\nother localities, is another member of the spinel group, namely, gahnite\nor zinc-spinel, which is a zinc aluminate, ZnAl2O4, with a little of the\nzinc replaced by iron and manganese.\n\n\n\n\nFRANK-MARRIAGE (_liberum maritagium_), in real property law, a species\nof estate tail, now obsolete. When a man was seized of land in fee\nsimple, and gave it to a daughter on marriage, the daughter and her\nhusband were termed the donees in frank-marriage, because they held the\nland granted to them and the heirs of their two bodies free from all\nmanner of service, except fealty, to the donor or his heirs until the\nfourth degree of consanguinity from the donor was passed. This right of\na freeholder so to give away his land at will was first recognized in\nthe reign of Henry II., and became up to the reign of Elizabeth the most\nusual kind of settlement.\n\n\n\n\nFRANKPLEDGE (Lat. _francum plegium_), an early English institution,\nconsisting (as defined by Stubbs) of an association for mutual security\nwhose members, according to Hallam, \"were perpetual bail for each\nother.\" The custom whereby the Inhabitants of a district were\nresponsible for any crime or injury committed by one of their number is\nold and widespread; it prevailed in England before the Norman Conquest,\nand is an outcome of the earlier principle whereby this responsibility\nrested on kinship. Thus a law of Edgar (d. 975) says \"and let every man\nso order that he have a _borh_ (or surety), and let the borh then bring\nand hold him to every justice; and if any one then do wrong and run\naway, let the borh bear that which he ought to bear\"; and a law of\nCanute about 1030 says \"and that every one be brought into a hundred and\nin borh, and let the borh hold and lead him to every plea.\" About this\ntime these societies, each having its headman, were called _frithborhs_,\nor peace-borhs, and the Normans translated the Anglo-Saxon word by\nfrankpledge. But the history of the frankpledge proper begins not\nearlier than the time of the Norman Conquest. The laws, which although\ncalled the laws of Edward the Confessor were not drawn up until about\n1130, contain a clause about frithborhs which decrees that in every\nplace societies of ten men shall be formed for mutual security and\nreparation. And before this date William the Conqueror had ordered that\n\"every one who wishes to be regarded as free must be in a pledge, and\nthat the pledge must hold and bring him to justice if he commits any\noffence\"; and the laws of Henry I. ordered every person of substance\nover twelve years of age to be enrolled in a frankpledge. This\nassociation of ten, or as it often was at a later date of twelve men,\nwas also called a _tithing_, or _decima_, and in the north of England\nwas known as _tenmanne_ tale.\n\nThe view of frankpledge (_visus franciplegii_), or the duty of\nascertaining that the law with regard to frankpledges was complied with,\nwas in the hands of the sheriffs, who held an itinerant court called the\n\"sheriff's tourn\" for this and other purposes. This court was held twice\na year, but in 1217 it was ordered that the view of frankpledge should\nonly be taken once--at Michaelmas. Introduced at or before the time of\nHenry I., the view was regulated by the Assize of Clarendon of 1166 and\nby Magna Carta as reissued in 1217. Although the former of these lays\nstress upon the fact that the sheriff's supervisory powers are universal\nmany men did not attend his tourn. Some lords of manors and of hundreds\nheld a court of their own for view of frankpledge, and in the 13th\ncentury it may be fairly said \"of all the franchises, the royal rights\nin private hands, view of frankpledge is perhaps the commonest.\" At the\nend of the same century the court for the view of frankpledge was\ngenerally known as the court leet, and was usually a manorial court in\nprivate hands. However, the principle of the frankpledge was still\nenforced. Thus Bracton says \"every male of the age of twelve years, be\nhe free be he serf, ought to be in frankpledge,\" but he allows for\ncertain exceptions.\n\nAs the word frankpledge denotes, these societies were originally\nconcerned only with freemen; but the unfree were afterwards admitted,\nand during the 13th century the frankpledges were composed chiefly of\nvillains. From petitions presented to parliament in 1376 it seems that\nthe view of frankpledge was in active operation at this time, but it\nsoon began to fall into disuse, and its complete decay coincides with\nthe new ideas of government introduced by the Tudors. In a formal\nfashion courts leet for the view of frankpledge were held in the time of\nthe jurist Selden, and a few of these have survived until the present\nday. Sir F. Palgrave has asserted that the view of frankpledge was\nunknown in that part of the country which had been included in the\nkingdom of Northumbria. This statement is open to question, but it is\nhighly probable that the system was not so deeply rooted in this part of\nEngland as elsewhere. The machinery of the frankpledge was probably used\nby Henry II. when he introduced the jury of presentment; and commenting\non this connexion F. W. Maitland says \"the duty of producing one's\nneighbour to answer accusations (the duty of the frankpledges) could\nwell be converted into the duty of telling tales against him.\" The\nsystem of frankpledge prevailed in some English boroughs. Sometimes a\ncourt for view of frankpledge, called in some places a _mickleton_,\nwhereat the mayor or the bailiffs presided, was held for the whole\nborough; in other cases the borough was divided into wards, or into\n_leets_, each of which had its separate court.\n\n  See Pollock and Maitland, _History of English Law_ (1895); G. Waitz,\n  _Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte_, Band i. (1880); and W. Stubbs,\n  _Constitutional History_, vol. i. (1897).\n\n\n\n\nFRANKS, SIR AUGUSTUS WOLLASTON (1826-1897), English antiquary, was born\non the 20th of March 1826, and was educated at Eton and at Trinity\nCollege, Cambridge. He early showed inclination for antiquarian\npursuits, and in 1851 was appointed assistant in the Antiquities\nDepartment of the British Museum. Here, and as director of the Society\nof Antiquaries, an appointment he received in 1858, he made himself the\nfirst authority in England upon medieval antiquities of all\ndescriptions, upon porcelain, glass, the manufactures of savage nations,\nand in general upon all Oriental curiosities and works of art later than\nthe Classical period. In 1866 the British and medieval antiquities, with\nthe ethnographical collections, were formed into a distinct department\nunder his superintendence; and the Christy collection of ethnography in\nVictoria Street, London, prior to its amalgamation with the British\nMuseum collections, was also under his care. He became vice-president\nand ultimately president of the Society of Antiquaries, and in 1878\ndeclined the principal librarianship of the museum. He retired on his\nseventieth birthday, 1896, and died on the 21st of May 1897. His ample\nfortune was largely devoted to the collection of ceramics and precious\nobjects of medieval art, most of which became the property of the\nnation, either by donation in his lifetime or by bequest at his death.\nAlthough chiefly a medieval antiquary, Franks was also an authority on\nclassical art, especially Roman remains in Britain: he was also greatly\ninterested in book-marks and playing-cards, of both of which he formed\nimportant collections. He edited Kemble's _Horae Ferales_, and wrote\nnumerous memoirs on archaeological subjects. Perhaps his most important\nwork of this class is the catalogue of his own collection of porcelain.\n\n\n\n\n\nFRANKS. The name Franks seems to have been given in the 4th century to a\ngroup of Germanic peoples dwelling north of the Main and reaching as far\nas the shores of the North Sea; south of the Main was the home of the\nAlamanni. The names of some of these tribes have come down to us. On the\n_Tabula Peutingeriana_ appear the \"Chamavi qui et _Pranci_,\" which\nshould doubtless read \"qui et _Franci_\"; these Chamavi apparently dwelt\nbetween the Yssel and the Ems. Later, we find them a little farther\nsouth, on the banks of the Rhine, in the district called Hamalant, and\nit is their customs which were brought together in the 9th century in\nthe document known as the _Lex Francorum Chamavorum_. After the Chamavi\nwe may mention the Attuarii or Chattuarii, who are referred to by\nAmmianus Marcellinus (xx. 10, 2): \"Rheno exinde transmisso, regionem\npervasit (Julianus) Francorum quos Atthuarios vocant.\" Later, the _pagus\nAttuariorum_ corresponds to the district of Emmerich and Xanten. It\nshould be noted that this name occurs again in the middle ages in\nBurgundy, not far from Dijon; in all probability a detachment of this\npeople had settled in that spot in the 5th or 6th century. The Bructeri,\nAmpsivarii and Chatti may also be classed among the Frankish tribes.\nThey are mentioned in a celebrated passage of Sulpicius Alexander, which\nis cited by Gregory of Tours (_Historia Francorum_, ii. 9). Sulpicius\nshows the general Arbogast, a barbarian in the service of Rome, seeking\nto take vengeance on the Franks (392): \"Collecto exercitu, transgressus\nRhenum, Bricteros ripae proximos, pagum etiam quem Chamavi incolunt\ndepopulatus est, nullo unquam occursante, nisi quod pauci ex Ampsivariis\net Catthis Marcomere duce in ulterioribus collium jugis apparuere.\" It\nis evidently this Marcomeres, the chief of these tribes, who is regarded\nby later historians as the father of the legendary Faramund (Pharamund)\nalthough in fact Marcomeres has nothing to do with the Salian Franks.\n\nThe earliest mention in history of the name Franks is the entry on the\n_Tabula Peutingeriana_, at least if we assume that the term \"et Franci\"\nis not a later emendation. The earliest occurrence of the name in any\nauthor is in the _Vita Aureliani_ of Vopiscus (ch. vii.). When, in 241,\nAurelian, who was then only a tribune, had just defeated some Franks in\nthe neighbourhood of Mainz and was marching against the Persians, his\ntroops sang the following refrain:\n\n  Mille Sarmatas, mille _Francos_, semel et semel occidimus;\n  Mille Persas, quaerimus.\n\nAll these Germanic tribes, which were known from the 3rd century onwards\nby the generic name of Franks, doubtless spoke a similar dialect and\nwere governed by customs which must scarcely have differed from one\nanother; but this was all they had in common. Each tribe was politically\nindependent; they formed no confederations. Sometimes two or three\ntribes joined forces to wage a war; but, the struggle over, the bond was\nbroken, and each tribe resumed its isolated life. Waitz holds with some\nshow of probability that the Franks represent the ancient Istaevones of\nTacitus, the Alamanni and the Saxons representing the Herminones and the\nIngaevones.\n\nOf all these Frankish tribes one especially was to become prominent, the\ntribe of the Salians. They are mentioned for the first time in 358, by\nAmmianus Marcellinus (xvii. 8, 3), who says that the Caesar Julian\n\"petit primos omnium Francos, videlicet eos quos consuetudo Salios\nappellavit.\" As to the origin of the name, it was long held to be\nderived from the river Yssel or Saal. It is more probable, however, that\nit arose from the fact that the Salians for a long period occupied the\nshores of the salt sea.[1] The Salians inhabited the sea-coast, whereas\nthe Ripuarians dwelt on the banks of the river Rhine.\n\nThe Salians, at the time when they are mentioned by Ammianus, occupied\nToxandria, i.e. the region south of the Meuse, between that river and\nthe Scheldt. Julian defeated them completely, but allowed them to remain\nin Toxandria, not, as of old, as conquerors, but as _foederati_ of the\nRomans. They perhaps paid tribute, and they certainly furnished Rome\nwith soldiers; _Salii seniores_ and _Salii juniores_ are mentioned in\nthe _Notitia dignitatum_, and Salii appear among the _auxilia palatina_.\n\nAt the end of the 4th century and at the beginning of the 5th, when the\nRoman legions withdrew from the banks of the Rhine, the Salians\ninstalled themselves in the district as an independent people. The\nplace-names became entirely Germanic; the Latin language disappeared;\nand the Christian religion suffered a check, for the Franks were to a\nman pagans. The Salians were subdivided into a certain number of tribes,\neach tribe placing at its head a king, distinguished by his long hair\nand chosen from the most noble family (_Historia Francorum_, ii. 9).\n\nThe most ancient of these kings, reigning over the principal tribe, who\nis known to us is Chlodio.[2] According to Gregory of Tours Chlodio\ndwelt at a place called Dispargum, which it is impossible to identify.\nTowards 431 he crossed the great Roman road from Bavay to Cologne, which\nwas protected by numerous forts and had long arrested the invasions of\nthe barbarians. He then invaded the territory of Arras, but was severely\ndefeated at Hesdin-le-Vieux by Aetius, the commander of the Roman army\nin Gaul. Chlodio, however, soon took his revenge. He explored the region\nof Cambrai, seized that town, and occupied all the country as far as the\nSomme. At this time Tournai became the capital of the Salian Franks.\n\nAfter Chlodio a certain Meroveus (Merowech) was king of the Salian\nFranks. We do not know if he was the son of Chlodio; Gregory of Tours\nsimply says that he belonged to Chlodio's stock--\"de hujus stirpe quidam\nMerovechum regem fuisse adserunt,\"--and then only gives the fact at\nsecond hand. Perhaps the remarks of the Byzantine historian Priscus may\nrefer to Meroveus. A king of the Franks having died, his two sons\ndisputed the power. The elder journeyed into Pannonia to obtain support\nfrom Attila; the younger betook himself to the imperial court at Rome.\n\"I have seen him,\" writes Priscus; \"he was still very young, and we all\nremarked his fair hair which fell upon his shoulders.\" Aetius welcomed\nhim warmly and sent him back a friend and _foederatus_. In any case,\neventually, Franks fought (451) in the Roman ranks at the great battle\nof Mauriac (the Catalaunian Fields), which arrested the progress of\nAttila into Gaul; and in the _Vita Lupi_, which, though undoubtedly of\nlater date, is a recension of an earlier document, the name of Meroveus\nappears among the combatants. Towards 457 Meroveus was succeeded by his\nson Childeric. At first Childeric was a faithful _foederatus_ of the\nRomans, fighting for them against the Visigoths and the Saxons south of\nthe Loire; but he soon sought to make himself independent and to extend\nhis conquests. He died in 481 and was succeeded by his son Clovis, who\nconquered the whole of Gaul with the exception of the kingdom of\nBurgundy and Provence. Clovis made his authority recognized over the\nother Salian tribes (whose kings dwelt at Cambrai and other cities), and\nput an end to the domination of the Ripuarian Franks.\n\nThese Ripuarians must have comprised a certain number of Frankish\ntribes, such as the Ampsivarii and the Bructeri. They settled in the 5th\ncentury in compact masses on the left bank of the Rhine, but their\nprogress was slow. It was not until the Christian writer Salvian (who\nwas born about 400) had already reached a fairly advanced age that they\nwere able to seize Cologne. The town, however, was recaptured and was\nnot definitely in their possession until 463. The Ripuarians\nsubsequently occupied all the country from Cologne to Trier.\nAix-la-Chapelle, Bonn and Zuelpich were their principal centres, and they\neven advanced southward as far as Metz, which appears to have resisted\ntheir attacks. The Roman civilization and the Latin language disappeared\nfrom the countries which they occupied; indeed it seems that the actual\nboundaries of the German and French languages nearly coincide with those\nof their dominion. In their southward progress the Ripuarians\nencountered the Alamanni, who, already masters of Alsace, were\nendeavouring to extend their conquests in all directions. There were\nnumerous battles between the Ripuarians and the Alamanni; and the memory\nof one fought at Zuelpich has come down to us. In this battle Sigebert,\nthe king of the Ripuarians, was wounded in the knee and limped during\nthe remainder of his life--hence his surname Claudus (the Lame). The\nRipuarians long remained allies of Clovis, Sigebert's son Chloderic\nfighting under the king of the Salian Franks at Vouille in 507. Clovis,\nhowever, persuaded Chloderic to assassinate his father, and then posed\nas Sigebert's avenger, with the result that Chloderic was himself\nassassinated and the Ripuarians raised Clovis on the shield and chose\nhim as king. Thus the Salian Franks united under their rule all the\nFranks on the left bank of the Rhine. During the reigns of Clovis's sons\nthey again turned their eyes on Germany, and imposed their suzerainty\nupon the Franks on the right bank. This country, north of the Main and\nthe first residence of the Franks, then received the name of _Francia\nOrientalis_, and became the origin of one of the duchies into which\nGermany was divided in the 10th century--the duchy of Franconia\n(Franken).\n\nThe Franks were redoubtable warriors, and were generally of great\nstature. Their fair or red hair was brought forward from the crown of\nthe head towards the forehead, leaving the nape of the neck uncovered;\nthey shaved the face except the upper lip. They wore fairly close\nbreeches reaching to the knee and a tunic fastened by brooches. Round\nthe waist over the tunic was worn a leathern girdle having a broad iron\nbuckle damascened with silver. From the girdle hung the single-edged\nmissile axe or _francisca_, the _scramasax_ or short knife, a poniard\nand such articles of toilet as scissors, a comb (of wood or bone), &c.\nThe Franks also used a weapon called the _framea_ (an iron lance set\nfirmly in a wooden shaft), and bows and arrows. They protected\nthemselves in battle with a large wooden or wicker shield, the centre of\nwhich was ornamented with an iron boss (_umbo_). Frankish arms and\narmour have been found in the cemeteries which abound throughout\nnorthern France, the warriors being buried fully armed.\n\n  See J. Grimm, _Deutsche Rechtsalterthuemer_ (Goettingen, 1828); K.\n  Muellenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_ (Berlin, 1883-1900); E. von\n  Wietersheim, _Geschichte der Voelkerwanderung_, 2nd ed., ed. by F. Dahn\n  (Leipzig, 1880-1881); G. Waitz, _Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte_, vol.\n  i. (4th ed. revised by Zeumer); R. Schroeder, \"Die Ausbreitung der\n  salischen Franken,\" in _Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte_, vol.\n  xix.; K. Lamprecht, _Fraenkische Wanderungen und Ansiedelungen_\n  (Aix-la-Chapelle, 1882); W. Schultz, _Deutsche Geschichte von der\n  Urzeit bis zu den Karolingern_, vol. ii. (Stuttgart, 1896); Fustel de\n  Coulanges, _Histoire des institutions politiques de l'ancienne\n  France--l'invasion germanique_ (Paris, 1891). Also the articles SALIC\n  LAW and GERMANIC LAWS, EARLY.     (C. Pf.)\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n  [1] Their legends are connected with the sea, the name Meroveus\n    signifying \"sea-born.\"\n\n  [2] The chronicler Fredegarius and the author of the _Liber historiae\n    Francorum_ make Sunno and Marcomeres his predecessors, but in reality\n    they were chiefs of other Frankish tribes. The author of the _Liber_\n    also claims that Chlodio was the son of Pharamund, but this personage\n    is quite legendary. In the _Chronicon_ of Fredegarius it is already\n    affirmed that the Franks are descended from the Trojans.\n\n\n\n\nFRANZ, ROBERT (1815-1892), German composer, was born at Halle on the\n28th of June 1815. One of the most gifted of German song writers, he\nsuffered in early life, as many musicians have suffered, from the\nhostility of his parents to a musical career. He was twenty years old\nwhen, his father's animosity conquered, he was allowed to live in Dessau\nto study organ-playing under Schneider. The two years of dry study under\nthat famous teacher were advantageous chiefly in making him uncommonly\nintimate with the works of Bach and Handel, his knowledge of which he\nshowed in his editions of the _Matthaeus Passion_, _Magnificat_, ten\ncantatas, and of the _Messiah_ and _L'Allegro_, though some of these\neditions have long been a subject of controversy among musicians. In\n1843 he published his first book of songs, which ultimately was followed\nby some fifty more books, containing in all about 250 songs. At Halle,\nFranz filled various public offices, including those of organist to the\ncity, conductor of the Sing-akademie and of the Symphony concerts, and\nhe was also a royal music-director and master of the music at the\nuniversity. The first book of songs was warmly praised by Schumann and\nLiszt, the latter of whom wrote a lengthy review of it in Schumann's\npaper, _Die neue Zeitschrift_, which later was published separately.\nDeafness had begun to make itself apparent as early as 1841, and Franz\nsuffered also from a nervous disorder, which in 1868 compelled him to\nresign his offices. His future was then provided for by Liszt, Dr\nJoachim, Frau Magnus and others, who gave him the receipts of a concert\ntour, amounting to some 100,000 marks. Franz died on the 24th of October\n1892. On his seventieth birthday he published his first and only\npianoforte piece. It is easy to find here and there among his songs gems\nthat are hardly less brilliant than the best of Schumann's. Certainly no\nmusician was ever more thoughtful and more painstaking. In addition to\nsongs he wrote a setting for double choir of the 117th Psalm, and a\nfour-part Kyrie; he also edited Astorga's _Stabat Mater_ and Durante's\n_Magnificat_.\n\n\n\n\nFRANZEN, FRANS MIKAEL (1772-1847), Swedish poet, was born at Uleaborg in\nFinland on the 9th of February 1772. At thirteen he entered the\nuniversity of Abo, where he attended the lectures of H. G. Porthan\n(1739-1804), a pioneer in the study of Finnish history and legend. He\ngraduated in 1789, and became \"_eloquentiae docens_\" in 1792. Three\nyears later he started on a tour through Denmark, Germany, France and\nEngland, returning in 1796 to accept the office of university librarian\nat Abo. In 1801 he became professor of history and ethics, and in 1808\nwas elected a member of the Swedish Academy. On the cession of Finland\nto Russia, Franzen removed to Sweden, where he was successively\nappointed parish priest of Kumla in the diocese of Strengnaes (1810),\nminister of the Clara Church in Stockholm (1824) and bishop of Hernoesand\n(1831). He died at Saebra parsonage on the 14th of August 1847. From the\nautumn of 1793, when his _Till en ung Flicka_ and _Menniskans anlete_\nwere inserted by Kellgren in the _Stockholmspost_, Franzen grew in\npopular favour by means of many minor poems of singular simplicity and\ntruth, as _Till Selma_, _Den gamle knekten_, _Riddar St Goeran_, _De Sma\nblommorna_, _Modren vid vaggan_, _Nyarsmorgonen_ and _Stjernhimmelen_.\nHis songs _Goda gosse glaset toem_, _Soerj ej den gryende dagen foerut_,\n_Champagnevinet_ and _Bevaeringssang_ were widely sung, and in 1797 he\nwon the prize of the Swedish Academy by his _Sang oefver grefve Filip\nCreutz_. Henceforth his muse, touched with the academic spirit, grew\nmore reflective and didactic. His longer works, as _Emili eller en afton\ni Lappland_, and the epics _Svante Sture eller moetet vid Alvastra_,\n_Kolumbus eller Amerikas upptaeckt_ and _Gustaf Adolf i Tyskland_ (the\nlast two incomplete), though rich in beauties of detail, are far\ninferior to his shorter pieces.\n\n  The poetical works of Franzen are collected under the title\n  _Skaldestycken_ (7 vols., 1824-1861); new ed., _Samlade dikter_, with\n  a biography by A. A. Grafstroem (1867-1869); also a selection (_Valda\n  dikter_) in 2 vols. (1871). His prose writings, _Om svenska\n  drottningar_ (Abo, 1798; Oerebro, 1823), _Skrifter i obunden stil_,\n  vol. i. (1835), _Predikningar_ (5 vols., 1841-1845) and\n  _Minnesteckningar_, prepared for the Academy (3 vols., 1848-1860), are\n  marked by faithful portraiture and purity of style. See B. E.\n  Malmstroem, in the _Handlingar_ of the Swedish Academy (1852, new\n  series 1887), vol. ii.; S. A. Hollander, _Minne af F. M. Franzen_\n  (Oerebro, 1868); F. Cygnaeus, _Teckningar ur F. M. Franzens lefnad_\n  (Helsingfors, 1872); and Gustaf Ljunggren, _Svenska vitterhetens\n  haefder efter Gustaf III.'s doed_, vol. ii. (1876).\n\n\n\n\nFRANZENSBAD, or KAISER-FRANZENSBAD, a town and watering-place of\nBohemia, Austria, 152 m. W.N.W. of Prague by rail. Pop. (1900) 2330. It\nis situated at an altitude of about 1500 ft. between the spurs of the\nFichtelgebirge, the Boehmerwald and the Erzgebirge, and lies 4 m. N.W. of\nEger. It possesses a large kursaal, several bathing establishments, a\nhospital for poor patients and several parks. There are altogether 12\nmineral springs with saline, alkaline and ferruginous waters, of which\nthe oldest and most important is the Franzensquelle. One of the springs\ngives off carbonic acid gas and another contains a considerable\nproportion of lithia salts. The waters, which have an average\ntemperature between 50.2 deg. F. and 54.5 deg. F., are used both internally and\nexternally, and are efficacious in cases of anaemia, nervous disorders,\nsexual diseases, specially for women, and heart diseases. Franzensbad is\nfrequently resorted to as an after-cure by patients from Carlsbad and\nMarienbad. Another important part of the cure is the so-called _moor_ or\nmud-baths, prepared from the peat of the Franzensbad marsh, which is\nvery rich in mineral substances, like sulphates of iron, of soda and of\npotash, organic acids, salt, &c.\n\nThe first information about the springs dates from the 16th century, and\nan analysis of the waters was made in 1565. They were first used for\nbathing purposes in 1707. But the foundation of Franzensbad as a\nwatering-place really dates from 1793, when Dr Adler built here the\nfirst _Kurhaus_, and the place received its name after the emperor\nFrancis I.\n\n  See Dr Loimann, _Franzensbad_ (3rd ed., Vienna, 1900).\n\n\n\n\nFRANZ JOSEF LAND, an arctic archipelago lying E. of Spitsbergen and N.\nof Novaya Zemlya, extending northward from about 80 deg. to 82 deg. N., and\nbetween 42 deg. and 64 deg. E. It is described as a lofty glacier-covered land,\nreaching an extreme elevation of about 2400 ft. The glaciers front, with\na perpendicular ice-wall, a shore of debris on which a few low plants\nare found to grow--poppies, mosses and the like. The islands are\nvolcanic, the main geological formation being Tertiary or Jurassic\nbasalt, which occasionally protrudes through the ice-cap in high\nisolated blocks near the shore. A connecting island-chain between Franz\nJosef Land and Spitzbergen is probable. The bear and fox are the only\nland mammals; insects are rare; but the avifauna is of interest, and the\nJackson expedition distinguished several new species.\n\nAugust Petermann expressed the opinion that Baffin may have sighted the\nwest of Franz Josef Land in 1614, but the first actual discovery is due\nto Julius Payer, a lieutenant in the Austrian army, who was associated\nwith Weyprecht in the second polar expedition fitted out by Count\nWilczek on the ship \"Tegetthof\" in 1872. On the 13th of August 1873, the\n\"Tegetthof\" being then beset, high land was seen to the north-west.\nLater in the season Payer led expeditions to Hochstetter and Wilczek\nislands, and after a second winter in the ice-bound ship, a difficult\njourney was made northward through Austria Sound, which was reported to\nseparate two large masses of land, Wilczek Land on the east from Zichy\nLand on the west, to Cape Fligely, in 82 deg. 5' N., where Rawlinson Sound\nbranched away to the north-east. Cape Fligely was the highest latitude\nattained by Payer, and remained the highest attained in the Old World\ntill 1895. Payer reported that from Cape Fligely land (Rudolf Land)\nstretched north-east to a cape (Cape Sherard Osborn), and mountain\nranges were visible to the north, indicating lands beyond the 83rd\nparallel, to which the names King Oscar Land and Petermann Land were\ngiven. In 1879 De Bruyne sighted high land in the Franz Josef Land\nregion, but otherwise it remained untouched until Leigh Smith, in the\nyacht \"Eira,\" explored the whole southern coast from 42 deg. to 54 deg. E. in\n1881 and 1882, discovering many islands and sounds, and ascertaining\nthat the coast of Alexandra Land, in the extreme west, trended to\nnorth-west and north.\n\nAfter Leigh Smith came another pause, and no further mention is made of\nFranz Josef Land till 1894. In that year Mr Alfred Harmsworth\n(afterwards Lord Northcliffe) fitted out an expedition in the ship\n\"Windward\" under the leadership of Mr F. G. Jackson, with the object of\nestablishing a permanent base from which systematic exploration should\nbe carried on for successive years and, if practicable, a journey should\nbe made to the Pole. Mr Jackson and his party landed at \"Elmwood\" (which\nwas named from Lord Northcliffe's seat in the Isle of Thanet), near Cape\nFlora, at the western extremity of Northbrook Island, on the 7th of\nSeptember. After a preliminary reconnaissance to the north, which\nafterwards turned out to be vitally important, the summer of 1895 was\nspent in exploring the coast to the north-west by a boating expedition.\nThis expedition visited many of the points seen by Leigh Smith, and\ndiscovered land, which it has been suggested may be the Gillies Land\nreported by the Dutch captain Gillies in 1707. In 1896 the\nJackson-Harmsworth expedition worked northwards through an archipelago\nfor about 70 m. and reached Cape Richthofen, a promontory 700 ft. high,\nwhence an expanse of open water was seen to the northward, which\nreceived the name of Queen Victoria Sea. To the west, on the opposite\nside of a wide opening which was called the British Channel, appeared\nglacier-covered land, and an island lay to the northward. The island was\nprobably the King Oscar Land of Payer. To north and north-east was the\nland which had been visited in the reconnaissance of the previous year,\nbut beyond it a water-sky appeared in the supposed position of\nPetermann Land. Thus Zichy Land itself was resolved into a group of\nislands, and the outlying land sighted by Payer was found to be islands\nalso. Meanwhile Nansen, on his southward journey, had approached Franz\nJosef Land from the north-east, finding only sea at the north end of\nWilczek Land, and seeing nothing of Payer's Rawlinson Sound, or of the\nnorth end of Austria Sound. Nansen wintered near Cape Norway, only a few\nmiles from the spot reached by Jackson in 1895. He had finally proved\nthat a deep oceanic basin lies to the north. On the 17th of June 1896\nthe dramatic meeting of Jackson and Nansen took place, and in the same\nyear the \"Windward\" revisited \"Elmwood\" and brought Nansen home, the\nwork of the Jackson-Harmsworth expedition being continued for another\nyear. As the non-existence of land to the north had been proved, the\nattempt to penetrate northwards was abandoned, and the last season was\ndevoted to a survey and scientific examination of the archipelago,\nespecially to the west; this was carried out by Messrs Jackson,\nArmitage, R. Koettlitz, H. Fisher and W. S. Bruce.\n\nFurther light was thrown on the relations of Franz Josef Land and\nSpitsbergen during 1897 by the discoveries of Captain Robertson of\nDundee, and Wyche's Land was circumnavigated by Mr Arnold Pike and Sir\nSavile Crossley. The latter voyage was repeated in the following year by\na German expedition under Dr Th. Lerner and Captain Ruediger. In August\n1898 an expedition under Mr Walter Wellman, an American, landed at Cape\nTegetthof. Beginning a northward journey with sledges at the end of the\nwinter, Wellman met with an accident which compelled him to return, but\nnot before some exploration had been accomplished, and the eastern\nextension of the archipelago fairly well defined. In June 1899 H.R.H.\nthe duke of Abruzzi started from Christiania in his yacht, the \"Stella\nPolare,\" to make the first attempt to force a ship into the newly\ndiscovered ocean north of Franz Josef Land. The \"Stella Polare\"\nsucceeded in making her way through the British Channel to Crown Prince\nRudolf Land, and wintered in Teplitz Bay, in 81 deg. 33' N. lat. The ship\nwas nearly wrecked in the autumn, and the party had to spend most of the\nwinter on shore, the duke of Abruzzi suffering severely from frost-bite.\nIn March 1900 a sledge party of thirteen, under Captain Cagni, started\nnorthwards. They found no trace of Petermann Land, but with great\ndifficulty crossed the ice to 86 deg. 33' N. lat., 20 m. beyond Nansen's\nfarthest, and 240 m. from the Pole. The party, with the exception of\nthree, returned to the ship after an absence of 104 days, and the\n\"Stella Polare\" returned to Tromsoe in September 1900. In 1901-1902 the\nBaldwin-Ziegler expedition also attempted a northward journey from Franz\nJosef Land.\n\n  See _Geographical Journal_, vol. xi., February 1898; F. G. Jackson, _A\n  Thousand Days in the Arctic_ (1899).\n\n\n\n\nFRANZOS, KARL EMIL (1848-1904), German novelist, was born of Jewish\nparentage on the 25th of October 1848 in Russian Podolia, and spent his\nearly years at Czortkow in Galicia. His father, a district physician,\ndied early, and the boy, after attending the gymnasium of Czernowitz,\nwas obliged to teach in order to support himself and prepare for\nacademic study. He studied law at the universities of Vienna and Graz,\nbut after passing the examination for employment in the state judicial\nservice abandoned this career and, becoming a journalist, travelled\nextensively in south-east Europe, and visited Asia Minor and Egypt. In\n1877 he returned to Vienna, where from 1884 to 1886 he edited the _Neue\nillustrierte Zeitung_. In 1887 he removed to Berlin and founded the\nfortnightly review _Deutsche Dichtung_. Franzos died on the 28th of\nJanuary 1904. His earliest collections of stories and sketches, _Aus\nHalb-Asien_, _Land und Leute des oestlichen Europas_ (1876) and _Die\nJuden von Barnow_ (1877) depict graphically the life and manners of the\nraces of south-eastern Europe. Among other of his works may be mentioned\nthe short stories, _Junge Liebe_ (1878), _Stille Geschichten_ (1880),\nand the novels _Moschko von Parma_ (1880), _Ein Kampf ums Recht_ (1882),\n_Der Praesident_ (1884), _Judith Trachtenberg_ (1890), _Der\nWahrheitsucher_ (1894).\n\n\n\n\nFRASCATI, a town and episcopal see of Italy, in the province of Rome, 15\nm. S.E. of Rome by rail, and also reached by electric tramway via\nGrottaferrata. Pop. (1901) 8453. The town is situated 1056 ft. above the\nsea-level, on the N. slopes of the outer crater ring of the Alban Hills,\nand commands a very fine view of the Campagna of Rome. The cathedral\ncontains a memorial tablet to Charles Edward, the Young Pretender, whose\nbody for some while rested here; his brother, Henry, Cardinal York,\nowned a villa at Frascati. The villas of the Roman nobility, with their\nbeautiful gardens and fountains, are the chief attraction of Frascati.\nThe earliest in date is the Villa Falconieri, planned by Cardinal\nRuffini before 1550; the most important of the rest are the Villa\nTorlonia (formerly Conti), Lancelotti (formerly Piccolomini), Ruffinella\n(now belonging to Prince Lancellotti), Aldobrandini, Borghese and\nMondragone (now a Jesuit school). The surrounding country, covered with\nremains of ancient villas, is fertile and noted for its wine. Frascati\nseems to have arisen on the site of a very large ancient villa, which,\nunder Domitian at any rate, belonged to the imperial house about the 9th\ncentury in which period we find in the _Liber Pontificalis_ the names of\nfour churches _in Frascata_. The medieval stronghold of the counts of\nTusculum (q.v.), which occupied the site of the ancient city, was\ndismantled by the Romans in 1191, and the inhabitants put to the sword\nor mutilated. Many of the fugitives naturally took refuge in Frascati.\nThe see of Tusculum had, however, always had its cathedral church in\nFrascati. For the greater part of the middle ages Frascati belonged to\nthe papacy.\n\n  See G. Tomassetti, _La Via Latina nel medio evo_ (Rome, 1886), 170\n  seq.; T. Ashby in _Papers of the British School at Rome_, iv. (London,\n  1907).     (T. As.)\n\n\n\n\nFRASER, ALEXANDER CAMPBELL (1819-   ), Scottish philosopher, was born at\nArdchattan, Argyllshire, on the 3rd of September 1819. He was educated\nat Glasgow and Edinburgh, where, from 1846 to 1856, he was professor of\nLogic at New College. He edited the _North British Review_ from 1850 to\n1857, and in 1856, having previously been a Free Church minister, he\nsucceeded Sir William Hamilton as professor of Logic and Metaphysics at\nEdinburgh University. In 1859 he became dean of the faculty of arts. He\ndevoted himself to the study of English philosophers, especially\nBerkeley, and published a _Collected Edition of the Works of Bishop\nBerkeley with Annotations, &c._ (1871; enlarged 1901), a _Biography of\nBerkeley_ (1881), an _Annotated Edition of Locke's Essay_ (1894), the\n_Philosophy of Theism_ (1896) and the _Biography of Thomas Reid_ (1898).\nHe contributed the article on John Locke to the _Encyclopaedia\nBritannica_. In 1904 he published an autobiography entitled _Biographia\nphilosophica_, in which he sketched the progress of his intellectual\ndevelopment. From this work and from his Gifford lectures we learn\nobjectively what had previously been inferred from his critical works.\nAfter a childhood spent in an austerity which stigmatized as unholy even\nthe novels of Sir Walter Scott, he began his college career at the age\nof fourteen at a time when Christopher North and Dr Ritchie were\nlecturing on Moral Philosophy and Logic. His first philosophical advance\nwas stimulated by Thomas Brown's _Cause and Effect_, which introduced\nhim to the problems which were to occupy his thought. From this point he\nfell into the scepticism of Hume. In 1836 Sir William Hamilton was\nappointed to the chair of Logic and Metaphysics, and Fraser became his\npupil. He himself says, \"I owe more to Hamilton than to any other\ninfluence.\" It was about this time also that he began his study of\nBerkeley and Coleridge, and deserted his early phenomenalism for the\nconception of a spiritual will as the universal cause. In the\n_Biographia_ this \"Theistic faith\" appears in its full development (see\nthe concluding chapter), and is especially important as perhaps the\nnearest approach to Kantian ethics made by original English philosophy.\nApart from the philosophical interest of the Biographia, the work\ncontains valuable pictures of the Land of Lorne and Argyllshire society\nin the early 19th century, of university life in Glasgow and Edinburgh,\nand a history of the _North British Review_.\n\n\n\n\nFRASER, JAMES (1818-1885), English bishop, was born at Prestbury, in\nGloucestershire, on the 18th of August 1818, and was educated at\nBridgnorth, Shrewsbury, and Lincoln College, Oxford. In 1839 he was\nIreland scholar, and took a first class. In 1840 he gained an Oriel\nfellowship, and was for some time tutor of the college, but did not take\norders until 1846. He was successively vicar of Cholderton, in\nWiltshire, and rector of Ufton Nervet, in Berkshire; but his subsequent\nimportance was largely due to W. K. Hamilton, bishop of Salisbury, who\nrecommended him as an assistant commissioner of education. His report on\nthe educational condition of thirteen poor-law unions, made in May 1859,\nwas described by Thomas Hughes as \"a superb, almost a unique piece of\nwork.\" In 1865 he was commissioned to report on the state of education\nin the United States and Canada, and his able performance of this task\nbrought him an offer of the bishopric of Calcutta, which he declined,\nbut in January 1870 he accepted the see of Manchester. The task before\nhim was an arduous one, for although his predecessor, James Prince Lee,\nhad consecrated no fewer than 130 churches, the enormous population was\nstill greatly in advance of the ecclesiastical machinery. Fraser worked\nwith the utmost energy, and did even more for the church by the\nliberality and geniality which earned him the title of \"the bishop of\nall denominations.\" He was prominent in secular as well as religious\nworks, interesting himself in every movement that promoted health,\nmorality, or education; and especially serviceable as the friendly,\nunofficious counsellor of all classes. His theology was that of a\nliberal high-churchman, and his sympathies were broad. In convocation he\nseconded a motion for the disuse of the Athanasian Creed, and in the\nHouse of Lords he voted for the abolition of university tests. He died\nsuddenly on the 22nd of October 1885.\n\n  A biography by Thomas Hughes was published in 1887, and an account of\n  his Lancashire life by J. W. Diggle (1889), who also edited 2 vols. of\n  _University and Parochial Sermons_ (1887).\n\n\n\n\nFRASER, JAMES BAILLIE (1783-1856), Scottish traveller and author, was\nborn at Reelick in the county of Inverness on the 11th of June 1783. He\nwas the eldest of the four sons of Edward Satchell Fraser of Reelick,\nall of whom found their way to the East, and gave proof of their\nability. In early life he went to the West Indies and thence to India.\nIn 1815 he made a tour of exploration in the Himalayas, accompanied by\nhis brother William (d. 1835). When Reza Kuli Mirza and Nejeff Kuli\nMirza, the exiled Persian princes, visited England, he was appointed to\nlook after them during their stay, and on their return he accompanied\nthem as far as Constantinople. He was afterwards sent to Persia on a\ndiplomatic mission by Lord Glenelg, and effected a most remarkable\njourney on horseback through Asia Minor to Teheran. His health, however,\nwas impaired by the exposure. In 1823 he married a daughter of Alexander\nFraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee, a sister of the historian Patrick\nFraser Tytler. He died at Reelick in January 1856. Fraser is said to\nhave displayed great skill in water-colours, and several of his drawings\nhave been engraved; and the astronomical observations which he took\nduring some of his journeys did considerable service to the cartography\nof Asia. The works by which he attained his literary reputation were\naccounts of his travels and fictitious tales illustrative of Eastern\nlife. In both he employed a vigorous and impassioned style, which was on\nthe whole wonderfully effective in spite of minor faults in taste and\nflaws in structure.\n\n  Fraser's earliest writings are: _Journal of a Tour through Part of the\n  Himala Mountains and to the Sources of the Jumna and the Ganges_\n  (1820); _A Narrative of a Journey into Khorasan in the Years 1821 and\n  1822, including some Account of the Countries to the North-East of\n  Persia_ (1825); and _Travels and Adventures in the Persian Provinces\n  on the Southern Banks of the Caspian Sea_ (1826). His romances include\n  _The Kuzzilbash, a Tale of Khorasan_ (1828), and its sequel, _The\n  Persian Adventurer_ (1830); _Allee Neemroo_ (1842); and _The Dark\n  Falcon_ (1844). He also wrote _An Historical and Descriptive Account\n  of Persia_ (1834); _A Winter's Journey (Tatar) from Constantinople to\n  Teheran_ (1838); _Travels in Koordistan, Mesopotamia, &c._ (1840);\n  _Mesopotamia and Assyria_ (1842); and _Military Memoirs of Col. James\n  Skinner_ (1851).\n\n\n\n\nFRASER, SIR WILLIAM AUGUSTUS, Bart. (1826-1898), English politician,\nauthor and collector, was born on the 10th of February 1826, the son of\nSir James John Fraser, 3rd baronet, a colonel of the 7th Hussars, who\nhad served on Wellington's staff at Waterloo. He was educated at Eton\nand at Christ Church, Oxford, entered the 1st Life Guards in 1847, but\nretired with a captain's rank in 1852. He then set about entering\nparliament, and the ups and downs of his political career were rather\nremarkable. He was returned for Barnstaple in 1852, but the election was\ndeclared void on account of bribery, and the constituency was\ndisfranchised for two years. At the election of 1857 Sir William, who\nhad meantime been defeated at Harwich, was again returned at Barnstaple.\nHe was, however, defeated in 1859, but was elected in 1863 at Ludlow.\nThis seat he held for only two years, when he was again defeated and did\nnot re-enter parliament until 1874, when be was returned for\nKidderminster, a constituency he represented for six years, when he\nretired. He was a familiar figure at the Carlton Club, always ready with\na copious collection of anecdotes of Wellington, Disraeli and Napoleon\nIII. He died on the 17th of August 1898. He was an assiduous collector\nof relics; and his library was sold for some L20,000. His own books\ncomprise _Words on Wellington_ (1889), _Disraeli and his Day_ (1891),\n_Hic et Ubique_ (1893), _Napoleon III._ (1896) and the _Waterloo Ball_\n(1897).\n\n\n\n\nFRASER, the chief river of British Columbia, Canada, rising in two\nbranches among the Rocky Mountains near 52 deg. 45' N., 118 deg. 30' W. Length\n740 m. It first flows N.W. for about 160 m., then rounds the head of the\nCariboo Mountains, and flows directly S. for over 400 m. to Hope, where\nit again turns abruptly and flows W. for 80 m., falling into the Gulf of\nGeorgia at New Westminster. After the junction of the two forks near its\nnorthern extremity, the first important tributary on its southern course\nis the Stuart, draining Lakes Stuart, Fraser and Francois. One hundred\nmiles lower down the Quesnel, draining a large lake of the same name,\nflows in from the east at a town also so named. Farther on the Fraser\nreceives from the west the Chilcotin, and at Lytton, about 180 m. from\nthe sea, the Thompson, its largest tributary, flows in from the east,\ndraining a series of mountain lakes, and receiving at Kamloops the North\nThompson, which flows through deep and impassable canyons. Below Hope\nthe Lillooet flows in from the north. The Fraser is a typical mountain\nstream, rapid and impetuous through all its length, and like most of its\ntributaries is in many parts not navigable even by canoes. On its\nsouthern course between Lytton and Yale, while bursting its way through\nthe Coast Range, it flows through majestic canyons, which, like those of\nthe Thompson, were the scene of many tragedies during the days of the\ngold-rush to the Cariboo district. At Yale, about 80 m. from its mouth,\nit becomes navigable, though its course is still very rapid. In the\nCariboo district, comprised within the great bend of the river, near\nTete Jaune Cache, are many valuable gold deposits. With its tributaries\nthe Fraser drains the whole province from 54 deg. to 49 deg. N., except the\nextreme south-eastern corner, which is within the basin of the Columbia\nand its tributary the Kootenay.\n\n\n\n\nFRASERBURGH, a police burgh and seaport, on the N. coast of\nAberdeenshire, Scotland. Pop. (1891), 7466; (1901), 9105. It is situated\n471/4 m. by rail N. of Aberdeen, from which there is a branch line, of\nwhich it is the terminus, of the Great North of Scotland railway. It\ntakes its name from Sir Alexander Fraser, the ancestor of Lord Saltoun,\nwhose seat, Philorth House, lies 2 m. to the south. Sir Alexander\nobtained for it in 1613 a charter as a burgh of royalty, and also in\n1592 a charter for the founding of a university. This latter project,\nhowever, was not carried out, and all that remains of the building\nintended for the college is a three-storeyed tower. The old castle of\nthe Frasers on Kinnaird Head now contains a lighthouse, and close by is\nthe Wine Tower, with a cave below. The town cross is a fine structure\nstanding upon a huge hexagon, surmounted by a stone pillar 12 ft. high,\nornamented by the royal and Fraser arms. The port is one of the leading\nstations of the herring fishery in the north of Scotland and the head\nof a fishery district. During the herring season (June to September)\nthe population is increased by upwards of 10,000 persons. The fleet\nnumbers more than 700 boats, and the annual value of the catch exceeds\nL200,000. The harbour, originally constructed as a refuge for British\nships of war, is one of the best on the east coast, and has been\nimproved by the widening of the piers and the extension of the\nbreakwaters. It has an area of upwards of eight acres, is easy of\naccess, and affords anchorage for vessels of every size.\n\n\n\n\nFRASERVILLE (formerly Riviere du Loup en Bas), a town and watering-place\nin Temiscouata county, Quebec, Canada, 107 m. (by water) north-east of\nQuebec, on the south shore of the St Lawrence river, and at the mouth of\nthe Riviere du Loup, at the junction of the Intercolonial and\nTemiscouata railways. It contains a convent, boys' college, hospital,\nseveral mills, and is a favourite summer resort on account of the\nangling and shooting, and the magnificent scenery. Pop. (1901) 4569.\n\n\n\n\nFRATER, FRATER HOUSE or FRATERY, a term in architecture for the hall\nwhere the members of a monastery or friary met for meals or refreshment.\nThe word is by origin the same as \"refectory.\" The older forms, such as\n_freitur_, _fraytor_ and the like, show the word to be an adaptation of\nthe O. Fr. _fraitour_, a shortened form of _refraitour_, from the Med.\nLat. _rejectorium_. The word has been confused with _frater_, a brother\nor friar, and hence sometimes confined in meaning to the dining-hall of\na friary, while \"refectory\" is used of a monastery.\n\n\n\n\nFRATERNITIES, COLLEGE, a class of student societies peculiar to the\ncolleges and universities of the United States and Canada, with certain\ncommon characteristics, and mostly named from two or three letters of\nthe Greek alphabet; hence they are frequently called \"Greek Letter\nSocieties.\" They are organized on the lodge system, and each fraternity\ncomprises a number of affiliated lodges of which only one of any one\nfraternity is connected with the same institution. The lodges, called\n\"chapters,\" in memory of the convocations of monks of medieval times,\nare usually designated by Greek letters also. They are nominally secret,\nwith one exception (_Delta Upsilon_). Each chapter admits members from\nthe lowest or freshman class, and of course loses its members as the\nstudents depart from college, consequently each chapter has in it at the\nsame time members of all the four college classes and frequently those\npursuing postgraduate studies. Where the attendance at a college is\nlarge the material from which fraternity members may be drawn is\ncorrespondingly abundant, and in some of the large colleges (e.g. at\nCornell University and the University of Michigan) there are chapters of\nover twenty fraternities. All the fraternities aim to be select and to\npick their members from the mass of incoming students. Where, however,\nthe material to select from is not abundant and the rival fraternities\nare numerous, care in selection is impossible, and the chapters at any\none college are apt to secure much the same general type of men. Many of\nthe fraternities have, however, on account of a persistent selection of\nmen of about the same tastes at different colleges, acquired a distinct\ncharacter and individuality; for instance, _Alpha Delta Phi_ is\nliterary.\n\nThe first of these fraternities was the _Phi Beta Kappa_, founded at the\nCollege of William and Mary at Williamsburg, Virginia, in 1776. It was a\nlittle social club of five students: John Heath, Richard Booker, Thomas\nSmith, Armistead Smith and John Jones. Its badge was a square silver\nmedal displaying the Greek letters of its name and a few symbols. In\n1779 it authorized Elisha Parmelee, one of its members, to establish\n\"meetings\" or chapters at Yale and Harvard, these chapters being\nauthorized to establish subordinate branches in their respective states.\nIn 1781 the College of William and Mary was closed, its buildings being\noccupied in turn by the British, French and American troops, and the\nsociety ceased to exist. The two branches, however, were\nestablished--that at Yale in 1780 and that at Harvard in 1781. Chapters\nwere established at Dartmouth in 1787, at Union in 1817, at Bowdoin in\n1824 and at Brown in 1830. This society changed its character in 1826\nand became non-secret and purely honorary in character, admitting to\nmembership a certain proportion of the scholars of highest standing in\neach class (only in classical courses, usually and with few exceptions\nonly in graduating classes). More recent honorary societies of similar\ncharacter among schools of science and engineering are _Sigma Xi_ and\n_Tau Beta Pi_.\n\nIn 1825, at Union College, _Kappa Alpha_ was organized, copying in style\nof badge, membership restrictions and the like, its predecessor. In 1827\ntwo other similar societies, _Sigma Phi_ and _Delta Phi_, were founded\nat the same place. In 1831 _Sigma Phi_ placed a branch at Hamilton\nCollege and in 1832 _Alpha Delta Phi_ originated there. In 1833 _Psi\nUpsilon_, a fourth society, was organized at Union. In 1835 _Alpha Delta\nPhi_ placed a chapter at Miami University, and in 1839 _Beta Theta Pi_\noriginated there, and so the system spread. These fraternities, it will\nbe observed, were all undergraduate societies among the male students.\nIn 1910 the total number of men's general fraternities was 32, with 1068\nliving chapters, and owning property worth many millions of dollars. In\n1864 _Theta Xi_, the first professional fraternity restricting its\nmembership to students intending to engage in the same profession, was\norganized. There were in 1910 about 50 of these organizations with some\n400 chapters. In addition there are about 100 local societies or\nchapters acting as independent units. Some of the older of these, such\nas _Kappa Kappa Kappa_ at Dartmouth, _IKA_ at Trinity, _Phi Nu Theta_ at\nWesleyan and _Delta Psi_ at Vermont, are permanent in character, but the\nmajority of them are purely temporary, designed to maintain an\norganization until the society becomes a chapter of one of the general\nfraternities. In 1870 the first women's society or \"sorority,\" the\n_Kappa Alpha Theta_, was organized at De Pauw University. There were in\n1910, 17 general sororities with some 300 active chapters.\n\nIt is no exaggeration to say that these apparently insignificant\norganizations of irresponsible students have modified the college life\nof America and have had a wide influence. Members join in the\nimpressionable years of their youth; they retain for their organizations\na peculiar loyalty and affection, and freely contribute with money and\ninfluence to their advancement.\n\nAlmost universally the members of any particular chapter (or part of\nthem) live together in a lodge or chapter house. The men's fraternities\nown hundreds of houses and rent as many more. The fraternities form a\nlittle aristocracy within the college community. Sometimes the line of\nseparation is invisible, sometimes sharply marked. Sometimes this\ncondition militates against the college discipline and sometimes it\nassists it. Conflicts not infrequently occur between the fraternity and\nnon-fraternity element in a college.\n\nIt can readily be understood how young men living together in the\nintimate relationship of daily contact in the same house, having much\nthe same tastes, culture and aspirations would form among themselves\nenduring friendships. In addition each fraternity has a reputation to\nmaintain, and this engenders an esprit du corps which at times places\nloyalty to fraternity interests above loyalty to college interest or the\nreal advantage of the individual. At commencements and upon other\noccasions the former members of the chapters return to their chapter\nhouses and help to foster the pride and loyalty of the undergraduates.\nThe chapter houses are commonly owned by corporations made up of the\nalumni. This brings the undergraduates into contact with men of mature\nage and often of national fame, who treat their membership as a serious\nprivilege.\n\nThe development of this collegiate aristocracy has led to jealousy and\nbitter animosity among those not selected for membership. Some of the\nstates, notably South Carolina and Arkansas, have by legislation, either\nabolished the fraternities at state-controlled institutions or seriously\nlimited the privileges of their members. The constitutionality of such\nlegislation has never been tested. Litigation has occasionally arisen\nout of attempts on the part of college authorities to prohibit the\nfraternities at their several institutions. This, it has been held, may\nlawfully be done at a college maintained by private endowment but not at\nan institution supported by public funds. In the latter case all\nclasses of the public are equally entitled to the same educational\nprivileges and members of the fraternities may not be discriminated\nagainst.\n\nThe fraternities are admirably organized. The usual system comprises a\nlegislative body made up of delegates from the different chapters and an\nexecutive or administrative body elected by the delegates. Few of the\nfraternities have any judiciary. None is needed. The financial systems\nare sound, and the conventions of delegates meet in various parts of the\nUnited States, several hundred in number, spend thousands of dollars in\ntravel and entertainment, and attract much public attention. Most of the\nfraternities have an inspection system by which chapters are\nperiodically visited and kept up to a certain level of excellence.\n\nThe leading fraternities publish journals usually from four to eight\ntimes during the college year. The earliest of these was the _Beta Theta\nPi_, first issued in 1872. All publish catalogues of their members and\nthe most prosperous have issued histories. They also publish song books,\nmusic and many ephemeral and local publications.\n\nThe alumni of the fraternities are organized into clubs or associations\nhaving headquarters at centres of population. These organizations are\nsomewhat loose, but nevertheless are capable of much exertion and\ninfluence should occasion arise.\n\nThe college fraternity system has no parallel among the students of\ncolleges outside of America. One of the curious things about it,\nhowever, is that while it is practically uniform throughout the United\nStates, at the three prominent universities of Harvard, Yale and\nPrinceton it differs in many respects from its character elsewhere. At\nHarvard, although there are chapters of a few of the fraternities, their\ninfluence is insignificant, their place being taken by a group of local\nsocieties, some of them class organizations. At Yale, the regular system\nof fraternities obtains in the engineering or technical department (the\nSheffield Scientific School), but in the classical department the\nfraternity chapters are called \"junior\" societies, because they limit\ntheir membership to the three upper classes and allow the juniors each\nyear practically to control the chapter affairs. Certain senior\nsocieties, of which the oldest is the Skull and Bones, which are\ninter-fraternity societies admitting freely members of the fraternities,\nare more prominent at Yale than the fraternities themselves. Princeton\nhas two (secret) literary and fraternal societies, the American Whig and\nthe Cliosophic, and various local social clubs, with no relationship to\norganizations in other colleges and not having Greek letter names.\n\nAt a few universities (for instance, Michigan, Cornell and Virginia),\nsenior societies or other inter-fraternity societies exert great\ninfluence and have modified the strength of the fraternity system.\n\nOf late years, numerous societies bearing Greek names and imitating the\nexternals of the college fraternities have sprung up in the high schools\nand academies of the country, but have excited the earnest and\napparently united opposition of the authorities of such schools.\n\n  See William Raimond Baird, _American College Fraternities_ (6th ed.,\n  New York, 1905); Albert C. Stevens, _Cyclopedia of Fraternities_\n  (Paterson, N. J., 1899); Henry D. Sheldon, _Student Life and Customs_\n  (New York, 1901); Homer L. Patterson, _Patterson's College and School\n  Directory_ (Chicago, 1904); H. K. Kellogg, _College Secret Societies_\n  (Chicago, 1874); Albert P. Jacobs, _Greek Letter Societies_ (Detroit,\n  1879).     (W. R. B.*)\n\n\n\n\nFRATICELLI (plural diminutive of Ital. _frate_, brother), the name given\nduring the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries to a number of religious groups\nin Italy, differing widely from each other, but all derived more or less\ndirectly from the Franciscan movement. Fra Salimbene says in his\n_Chronicle_ (Parma ed., p. 108): \"All who wished to found a new rule\nborrowed something from the Franciscan order, the sandals or the habit.\"\nAs early as 1238 Gregory IX., in his bull _Quoniam abundavit iniquitas_,\ncondemned and denounced as forgers (_tanquam falsarios_) all who begged\nor preached in a habit resembling that of the mendicant orders, and this\ncondemnation was repeated by him or his successors. The term Fraticelli\nwas used contemptuously to denote, not any particular sect, but the\nmembers of orders formed on the fringe of the church. Thus Giovanni\nVillani, speaking of the heretic Dolcino, says in his _Chronicle_ (bk.\nviii. ch. 84): \"He is not a brother of an ordered rule, but a\n_fraticello_ without an order.\" Similarly, John XXII., in his bull\n_Sancta Romana et Universalis Ecclesia_ (28th of December 1317),\ncondemns vaguely those \"_profanae multitudinis viri_ commonly called\nFraticelli, or Brethren of the Poor Life, or Bizocchi, or Beguines, or\nby all manner of other names.\"\n\nSome historians, in their zeal for rigid classification, have regarded\nthe Fraticelli as a distinct sect, and have attempted to discover its\ndogmas and its founder. Some of the contemporaries of these religious\ngroups fell into the same error, and in this way the vague term\nFraticelli has sometimes been applied to the disciples of Armanno\nPongilupo of Ferrara (d. 1269), who was undoubtedly a Cathar, and to the\nfollowers of Gerard Segarelli and Dolcino, who were always known among\nthemselves as Apostolic Brethren (Apostolici). Furthermore, it seems\nabsurd to classify both the Dolcinists and the Spiritual Franciscans as\nFraticelli, since, as has been pointed out by Ehrle (_Arch. f. Lit. u.\nKirchengesch. des Mittelalters_, ii. 107, &c.), Angelo of Clarino, in\nhis _De septem tribulationibus_, written to the glory of the Spirituals,\ndoes not scruple to stigmatize the Dolcinists as \"disciples of the\ndevil.\" It is equally absurd to include in the same category the\nignorant Bizocchi and Segarellists and such learned disciples of Michael\nof Cesena and Louis of Bavaria as William of Occam and Bonagratia of\nBergamo, who have often been placed under this comprehensive rubric.\n\nThe name Fraticelli may more justly be applied to the most exalted\nfraction of Franciscanism. In 1322 some prisoners declared to the\ninquisitor Bernard Gui at Toulouse that the Franciscan order was divided\ninto three sections--the Conventuals, who were allowed to retain their\nreal and personal property; the Spirituals or Beguines, who were at that\ntime the objects of persecution; and the Fraticelli of Sicily, whose\nleader was Henry of Ceva (see Gui's _Practica Inquisitionis_, v.). It is\nthis fraction of the order which John XXII. condemned in his bull\n_Gloriosam Ecclesiam_ (23rd of January 1318), but without calling them\nFraticelli. Henry of Ceva had taken refuge in Sicily at the time of Pope\nBoniface VIII.'s persecution of the Spirituals, and thanks to the good\noffices of Frederick of Sicily, a little colony of Franciscans who\nrejected all property had soon established itself in the island. Under\nPope Clement V., and more especially under Pope John XXII., fresh\nSpirituals joined them; and this group of exalted and isolated ascetics\nsoon began to regard itself as the sole legitimate order of the\nMinorites and then as the sole Catholic Church. After being\nexcommunicated as \"schismatics and rebels, founders of a superstitious\nsect, and propagators of false and pestiferous doctrines,\" they\nproceeded to elect a general (for Michael of Cesena had disavowed them)\nand then a pope called Celestine (L. Wadding, _Annales_, at date 1313).\nThe rebels continued to carry on an active propaganda. In Tuscany\nparticularly the Inquisition made persistent efforts to suppress them;\nFlorence afflicted them with severe laws, but failed to rouse the\npopulace against them. The papacy dreaded their social even more than\ntheir dogmatic influence. At first in Sicily and afterwards throughout\nItaly the Ghibellines gave them a warm welcome; the rigorists and the\nmalcontents who had either left the church or were on the point of\nleaving it, were attracted by these communities of needy rebels; and the\ntribune Rienzi was at one time disposed to join them. To overcome these\nascetics it was necessary to have recourse to other ascetics, and from\nthe outset the reformed Franciscans, or Franciscans of the Strict\nObservance, under the direction of their first leaders, Paoluccio da\nTrinci (d. 1390), Giovanni Stronconi (d. 1405), and St Bernardine of\nSiena, had been at great pains to restore the Fraticelli to orthodoxy.\nThese early efforts, however, had little success. Alarmed by the number\nof the sectaries and the extent of their influence, Pope Martin V., who\nhad encouraged the Observants, and particularly Bernardine of Siena,\nfulminated two bulls (1418 and 1421) against the heretics, and entrusted\ndifferent legates with the task of hunting them down. These measures\nfailing, he decided, in 1426, to appoint two Observants as inquisitors\nwithout territorial limitation to make a special crusade against the\nheresy of the Fraticelli. These two inquisitors, who pursued their\nduties under three popes (Martin V., Eugenius IV. and Nicholas V.) were\nGiovanni da Capistrano and Giacomo della Marca. The latter's valuable\n_Dialogus contra Fraticellos_ (Baluze and Mansi, _Miscellanea_, iv.\n595-610) gives an account of the doctrines of these heretics and of the\nactivity of the two inquisitors, and shows that the Fraticelli not only\nconstituted a distinct church but a distinct society. They had a pope\ncalled Rinaldo, who was elected in 1429 and was succeeded by a brother\nnamed Gabriel. This supreme head of their church they styled \"bishop of\nPhiladelphia,\" Philadelphia being the mystic name of their community;\nunder him were bishops, e.g. the bishops of Florence, Venice, &c.; and,\nfurthermore, a member of the community named Guglielmo Majoretto bore\nthe title of \"Emperor of the Christians.\" This organization, at least in\nso far as concerns the heretical church, had already been observed among\nthe Fraticelli in Sicily, and in 1423 the general council of Siena\naffirmed with horror that at Peniscola there was an heretical pope\nsurrounded with a college of cardinals who made no attempt at\nconcealment. From 1426 to 1449 the Fraticelli were unremittingly\npursued, imprisoned and burned. The sect gradually died out after losing\nthe protection of the common people, whose sympathy was now transferred\nto the austere Observants and their miracle-worker Capistrano. From 1466\nto 1471 there were sporadic burnings of Fraticelli, and in 1471 Tommaso\ndi Scarlino was sent to Piombino and the littoral of Tuscany to track\nout some Fraticelli who had been discovered in those parts. After that\ndate the name disappears from history.\n\n  See F. Ehrle, \"Die Spiritualen, ihr Verhaeltnis zum Franziskanerorden\n  und zu den Fraticellen\" and \"Zur Vorgeschichte des Concils von\n  Vienne,\" in _Archiv fuer Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des\n  Mittelalters_, vols. i., ii., iii.; Wetzer and Welte,\n  _Kirchenlexikon_, s.v. \"Fraticellen\"; H. C. Lea, _History of the\n  Inquisition of the Middle Ages_, iii. 129-180 (London, 1888).\n       (P. A.)\n\n\n\n\nFRAUD (Lat. _fraus_, deceit), in its widest sense, a term which has\nnever been exhaustively defined by an English court of law, and for\nlegal purposes probably cannot usefully be defined. But as denoting a\ncause of action for which damages can be recovered in civil proceedings\nit now has a clear and settled meaning. In actions in which damages are\nclaimed for fraud, the difficulties and obscurities which commonly arise\nare due rather to the complexity of modern commerce and the ingenuity of\nmodern swindlers than to any uncertainty or technicality in the modern\nlaw. To succeed in such an action, the person aggrieved must first prove\na representation of fact, made either by words, by writing or by\nconduct, which is in fact untrue. Mere concealment is not actionable\nunless it amounts not only to _suppressio veri_, but to _suggestio\nfalsi_. An expression of opinion or of intention is not enough, unless\nit can be shown that the opinion was not really held, or that the\nintention was not really entertained, in which case it must be borne in\nmind, to use the phrase of Lord Bowen, that the state of a man's mind is\nas much a matter of fact as the state of his digestion. Next, it must be\nproved that the representation was made without any honest belief in its\ntruth, that is, either with actual knowledge of its falsity or with a\nreckless disregard whether it is true or false. It was finally\nestablished, after much controversy, in the case of _Derry_ v. _Peek_ in\n1889, that a merely negligent misstatement is not actionable. Further,\nthe person aggrieved must prove that the offender made the\nrepresentation with the intention that he should act on it, though not\nnecessarily directly to him, and that he did in fact act in reliance on\nit. Lastly, the complainant must prove that, as the direct consequence,\nhe has suffered actual damage capable of pecuniary measurement.\n\nAs soon as the case of _Derry_ v. _Peek_ had established, as the general\nrule of law, that a merely negligent misstatement is not actionable, a\nstatutory exception was made to the rule in the case of directors and\npromoters of companies who publish prospectuses and similar documents.\nBy the Directors' Liability Act 1890, such persons are liable for damage\ncaused by untrue statements in such documents, unless they can prove\nthat they had reasonable grounds for believing the statements to be\ntrue. It is also to be observed that, though damages cannot be recovered\nin an action for a misrepresentation made with an honest belief in its\ntruth, still any person induced to enter into a contract by a\nmisrepresentation, whether fraudulent or innocent, is entitled to avoid\nthe contract and to obtain a declaration that it is not binding upon\nhim. This is in accordance with the rule of equity, which since the\nJudicature Act prevails in all the courts. Whether the representation is\nfraudulent or innocent, the contract is not void, but voidable. The\nparty misled must exercise his option to avoid the contract without\ndelay, and before it has become impossible to restore the other party to\nthe position in which he stood before the contract was made. If he is\ntoo late, he can only rely on his claim for damages, and in order to\nassert this claim it is necessary to prove that the misrepresentation\nwas fraudulent. Fraud, in its wider sense of dishonest dealing, though\nnot a distinct cause of action, is often material as preventing the\nacquisition of a right, for which good faith is a necessary condition.\nAlso a combination or conspiracy by two or more persons to defraud gives\nrise to liabilities not very clearly or completely defined.\n\n\n\n\nFRAUENBURG, a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Prussia, on the Frische\nHaff, at the mouth of the Bande, 41 m. S.W. from Koenigsberg on the\nrailway to Elbing. Pop. 2500. The cathedral (founded 1329), with six\ntowers, stands on a commanding eminence adjoining the town and\nsurrounded by castellated walls and bastions. This is known as\nDom-Frauenburg, and is the seat of the Roman Catholic bishop of\nErmeland. Within the cathedral is a monument to the astronomer\nCopernicus bearing the inscription _Astronomo celeberrimo, cujus nomen\net gloria utrumque implevit orbem_. There is a small port with\ninconsiderable trade. Frauenburg was founded in 1287 and received the\nrights of a town in 1310.\n\n\n\n\nFRAUENFELD, the capital of the Swiss canton of Thurgau, 27 m. by rail\nN.E. of Zuerich or 141/2 m. W. of Romanshorn. It is built on the Murg\nstream a little above its junction with the Thur. It is a prosperous\ncommercial town, being situated at the meeting point of several routes,\nwhile it possesses several industrial establishments, chiefly concerned\nwith different branches of the iron trade. In 1900 its population\n(including the neighbouring villages) was 7761, mainly German-speaking,\nwhile there were 5563 Protestants to 2188 Romanists. Frauenfeld is the\nartillery depot for North-East Switzerland. The upper town is the older\npart, and centres round the castle, of which the tower dates from the\n10th century, though the rest is of a later period. Both stood on land\nbelonging to the abbot of Reichenau, who, with the count of Kyburg,\nfounded the town, which is first mentioned in 1255. The abbot retained\nall manorial rights till 1803, while the political powers of the\nKyburgers (who were the \"protectors\" of Reichenau) passed to the\nHabsburgs in 1273, and were seized by the Swiss in 1460 with the rest of\nthe Thurgau. In 1712 the town succeeded Baden in Aargau as the\nmeeting-place of the Federal Diet, and continued to be the capital of\nthe Confederation till its transformation in 1798. In 1799 it was\nsuccessively occupied by the Austrians and the French. The old Capuchin\nconvent (1591-1848) is now occupied as a vicarage by the Romanist\npriest.     (W. A. B. C.)\n\n\n\n\nFRAUENLOB, the name by which HEINRICH VON MEISSEN, a German poet of the\n13th century, is generally known. He seems to have acquired the\nsobriquet because in a famous _Liederstreit_ with his rival Regenbogen\nhe defended the use of the word _Frau_ (i.e. _frouwe_, = lady) instead\nof _Weib_ (_wip_ = woman). Frauenlob was born about 1250 of a humble\nburgher family. His youth was spent in straitened circumstances, but he\ngradually acquired a reputation as a singer at the various courts of the\nGerman princes. In 1278 we find him with Rudolph I. in the Marchfeld, in\n1286 he was at Prague at the knighting of Wenceslaus (Wenzel) II., and\nin 1311 he was present at a knightly festival celebrated by Waldemar of\nBrandenburg before Rostock. After this he settled in Mainz, and there\naccording to the popular account, founded the first school of\nMeistersingers (q.v.). He died in 1318, and was buried in the cloisters\nof the cathedral at Mainz. His grave is still marked by a copy made in\n1783 of the original tombstone of 1318; and in 1842 a monument by\nSchwanthaler was erected in the cloisters. Frauenlob's poems make a\ngreat display of learning; he delights in far-fetched metaphors, and his\nversification abounds in tricks of form and rhyme.\n\n  Frauenlob's poetry was edited by L. Ettmueller in 1843; a selection\n  will be found in K. Bartsch, _Deutsche Liederdichter des 12. bis 14.\n  Jahrhunderts_ (3rd ed., 1893). An English translation of Frauenlob's\n  _Cantica canticorum_, by A. E. Kroeger, with notes, appeared in 1877\n  at St Louis, U.S.A. See A. Boerkel, _Frauenlob_ (2nd ed., 1881).\n\n\n\n\nFRAUNCE, ABRAHAM (c. 1558-1633), English poet, a native of Shropshire,\nwas born between 1558 and 1560. His name was registered as a pupil of\nShrewsbury School in January 1571/2, and he joined St John's College,\nCambridge, in 1576, becoming a fellow in 1580/81. His Latin comedy of\n_Victoria_, dedicated to Sidney, was probably written at Cambridge,\nwhere he remained until he had taken his M.A. degree in 1583. He was\ncalled to the bar at Gray's Inn in 1588, and then apparently practised\nas a barrister in the court of the Welsh marches. After the death of his\npatron Sir Philip Sidney, Fraunce was protected by Sidney's sister Mary,\ncountess of Pembroke. His last work was published in 1592, and we have\nno further knowledge of him until 1633, when he is said to have written\nan _Epithalamium_ in honour of the marriage of Lady Magdalen Egerton,\n7th daughter of the earl of Bridgwater, whose service he may possibly\nhave entered.\n\nHis works are: _The Lamentations of Amintas for the death of Phyllis_\n(1587), a version in English hexameters of his friend's, Thomas\nWatson's, Latin _Amyntas; The Lawiers Logike, exemplifying the praecepts\nof Logike by the practise of the common Lawe_ (1588); _Arcadian\nRhetorike_ (1588); _Abrahami Fransi Insignium, Armorum ... explicatio_\n(1588); _The Countess of Pembroke's Yvychurch_ (1591/2), containing a\ntranslation of Tasso's _Aminta_, a reprint of his earlier version of\nWatson, \"The Lamentation of Corydon for the love of Alexis\" (Virgil,\neclogue ii.), a short translation from Heliodorus, and, in the third\npart (1592) \"Aminta's Dale,\" a collection of \"conceited\" tales supposed\nto be related by the nymphs of Ivychurch; _The Countess of Pembroke's\nEmanuell_ (1591); _The Third Part of the Countess of Pembroke's\nIvychurch, entituled Aminta's Dale_ (1592). His _Arcadian Rhetorike_\nowes much to earlier critical treatises, but has a special interest from\nits references to Spenser, and Fraunce quotes from the _Faerie Queene_ a\nyear before the publication of the first books. In \"Colin Clout's come\nhome again,\" Spenser speaks of Fraunce as Corydon, on account of his\ntranslations of Virgil's second eclogue. His poems are written in\nclassical metres, and he was regarded by his contemporaries as the best\nexponent of Gabriel Harvey's theory. Even Thomas Nashe had a good word\nfor \"sweete Master France.\"\n\n  _The Countess of Pembroke's Emanuell_, hexameters on the nativity and\n  passion of Christ, with versions of some psalms, were reprinted by Dr\n  A. B. Grosart in the third volume of his _Miscellanies of the Fuller\n  Worthies Library_ (1872). Joseph Hunter in his _Chorus Vatum_ stated\n  that five of Fraunce's songs were included in Sidney's _Astrophel and\n  Stella_, but it is probable that these should be attributed not to\n  Fraunce, but to Thomas Campion. See a life prefixed to the\n  transcription of a MS. Latin comedy by Fraunce, _Victoria_, by\n  Professor G. C. Moore Smith, published in Bang's _Materialien zur\n  Kunde des alteren englischen Dramas_, vol. xiv., 1906.\n\n\n\n\nFRAUNHOFER, JOSEPH VON (1787-1826), German optician and physicist, was\nborn at Straubing in Bavaria on the 6th of March 1787, the son of a\nglazier who died in 1798. He was apprenticed in 1799 to Weichselberger,\na glass-polisher and looking-glass maker. On the 21st of July 1801 he\nnearly lost his life by the fall of the house in which he lodged, and\nthe elector of Bavaria, Maximilian Joseph, who was present at his\nextrication from the ruins, gave him 18 ducats. With a portion of this\nsum he obtained release from the last six months of his apprenticeship,\nand with the rest he purchased a glass-polishing machine. He now\nemployed himself in making optical glasses, and in engraving on metal,\ndevoting his spare time to the perusal of works on mathematics and\noptics. In 1806 he obtained the place of optician in the mathematical\ninstitute which in 1804 had been founded at Munich by Joseph von\nUtzschneider, G. Reichenbach and J. Liebherr; and in 1807 arrangements\nwere made by Utzschneider for his instruction by Pierre Louis Guinand,\na skilled optician, in the fabrication of flint and crown glass, in\nwhich he soon became an adept (see R. Wolf, _Gesch. der Wissensch. in\nDeutschl._ bd. xvi. p. 586). With Reichenbach and Utzschneider,\nFraunhofer established in 1809 an optical institute at Benedictbeuern,\nnear Munich, of which he in 1818 became sole manager. The institute was\nin 1819 removed to Munich, and on Fraunhofer's death came under the\ndirection of G. Merz.\n\nAmongst the earliest mechanical contrivances of Fraunhofer was a machine\nfor polishing mathematically uniform spherical surfaces. He was the\ninventor of the stage-micrometer, and of a form of heliometer; and in\n1816 he succeeded in constructing for the microscope achromatic glasses\nof long focus, consisting of a single lens, the constituent glasses of\nwhich were in juxtaposition, but not cemented together. The great\nreflecting telescope at Dorpat was manufactured by him, and so great was\nthe skill he attained in the making of lenses for achromatic telescopes\nthat, in a letter to Sir David Brewster, he expressed his willingness to\nfurnish an achromatic glass of 18 in. diameter. Fraunhofer is especially\nknown for the researches, published in the _Denkschriften der Muenchener\nAkademie_ for 1814-1815, by which he laid the foundation of solar and\nstellar chemistry. The dark lines of the spectrum of sunlight, earliest\nnoted by Dr W. H. Wollaston (_Phil. Trans._, 1802, p. 378), were\nindependently discovered, and, by means of the telescope of a\ntheodolite, between which and a distant slit admitting the light a prism\nwas interposed, were for the first time carefully observed by\nFraunhofer, and have on that account been designated \"Fraunhofer's\nlines.\" He constructed a map of as many as 576 of these lines, the\nprincipal of which he denoted by the letters of the alphabet from A to\nG; and by ascertaining their refractive indices he determined that their\nrelative positions are constant, whether in spectra produced by the\ndirect rays of the sun, or by the reflected light of the moon and\nplanets. The spectra of the stars he obtained by using, outside the\nobject-glass of his telescope, a large prism, through which the light\npassed to be brought to a focus in front of the eye-piece. He showed\nthat in the spectra of the fixed stars many of the dark lines were\ndifferent from those of the solar spectrum, whilst other well-known\nsolar lines were wanting; and he concluded that it was not by any action\nof the terrestrial atmosphere upon the light passing through it that the\nlines were produced. He further expressed the belief that the dark lines\nD of the solar spectrum coincide with the bright lines of the sodium\nflame. He was also the inventor of the diffraction grating.\n\nIn 1823 he was appointed conservator of the physical cabinet at Munich,\nand in the following year he received from the king of Bavaria the civil\norder of merit. He died at Munich on the 7th of June 1826, and was\nburied near Reichenbach, whose decease had taken place eight years\npreviously. On his tomb is the inscription \"Approximavit sidera.\"\n\n  See J. von Utzschneider, _Kurzer Umriss der Lebensgeschichte des Herrn\n  Dr J. von Fraunhofer_ (Munich, 1826); and G. Merz, _Das Leben und\n  Wirken Fraunhofers_ (Landshut, 1865).\n\n\n\n\nFRAUSTADT (Polish, _Wszowa_), a town of Germany, in the Prussian\nprovince of Posen, in a flat sandy country dotted with windmills, 50 m.\nS.S.W. of Posen, on the railway Lissa-Sagan. Pop. (including a garrison)\n7500. It has three Evangelical and two Roman Catholic churches, a\nclassical school and a teachers' seminary; the manufactures include\nwoollen and cotton goods, hats, morocco leather and gloves, and there is\na considerable trade in corn, cattle and wool. Fraustadt was founded by\nSilesians in 1348, and afterwards belonged to the principality of\nGlogau. Near the town the Swedes under Charles XII. defeated the Saxons\non the 13th of February 1706.\n\n\n\n\nFRAYSSINOUS, DENIS ANTOINE LUC, COMTE DE (1765-1841), French prelate and\nstatesman, distinguished as an orator and as a controversial writer, was\nborn of humble parentage at Curieres, in the department of Aveyron, on\nthe 9th of May 1765. He owes his reputation mainly to the lectures on\ndogmatic theology, known as the \"conferences\" of Saint Sulpice,\ndelivered in the church of Saint Sulpice, Paris, from 1803 to 1809, to\nwhich admiring crowds were attracted by his lucid exposition and by his\ngraceful oratory. The freedom of his language in 1809, when Napoleon had\narrested the pope and declared the annexation of Rome to France, led to\na prohibition of his lectures; and the dispersion of the congregation of\nSaint Sulpice in 1811 was followed by his temporary retirement from the\ncapital. He returned with the Bourbons, and resumed his lectures in\n1814; but the events of the Hundred Days again compelled him to withdraw\ninto private life, from which he did not emerge until February 1816. As\ncourt preacher and almoner to Louis XVIII., he now entered upon the\nperiod of his greatest public activity and influence. In connexion with\nthe controversy raised by the signing of the reactionary concordat of\n1817, he published in 1818 a treatise entitled _Vrais Principes de\nl'eglise Gallicane sur la puissance ecclesiastique_, which though\nunfavourably criticized by Lamennais, was received with favour by the\ncivil and ecclesiastical authorities. The consecration of Frayssinous as\nbishop of Hermopolis \"in partibus,\" his election to the French Academy,\nand his appointment to the grand-mastership of the university, followed\nin rapid succession. In 1824, on the accession of Charles X., he became\nminister of public instruction and of ecclesiastical affairs under the\nadministration of Villele; and about the same time he was created a peer\nof France with the title of count. His term of office was chiefly marked\nby the recall of the Jesuits. In 1825 he published his lectures under\nthe title _Defense du christianisme_. The work passed through 15\neditions within 18 years, and was translated into several European\nlanguages. In 1828 he, along with his colleagues in the Villele\nministry, was compelled to resign office, and the subsequent revolution\nof July 1830 led to his retirement to Rome. Shortly afterwards he became\ntutor to the duke of Bordeaux (Comte de Chambord) at Prague, where he\ncontinued to live until 1838. He died at St Geniez on the 12th of\nDecember 1841.\n\n  See Bertrand, _Bibl. Sulpicienne_ (t. ii. 135 sq.; iii. 253) for\n  bibliography, and G. A. Henrion (Paris, 2 vols., 1844) for biography.\n\n\n\n\nFRECHETTE, LOUIS HONORE (1839-1908), French-Canadian poet, was born at\nLevis, Quebec, on the 16th of November 1839, the son of a contractor. He\nwas educated in his native province, and called to the Canadian bar in\n1864. He started the _Journal de Levis_, and his revolutionary doctrines\ncompelled him to leave Canada for the United States. After some years\nspent in journalism at Chicago, he was in 1874 elected as the Liberal\ncandidate to represent Levis in the Canadian parliament. At the\nelections of 1878 and 1882 he was defeated, and thereafter confined\nhimself to literature. He edited _La Patrie_ and other French papers in\nthe Dominion; and in 1889 was appointed clerk of the Quebec legislative\ncouncil. He was long a warm advocate of the political union of Canada\nand the United States, but in later life became less ardent, and in 1897\naccepted the honour of C.M.G. from Queen Victoria. He was president of\nthe Royal Society of Canada, and of the Canadian Society of Arts, and\nreceived numerous honorary degrees. His works include: _Mes Loisirs_\n(1863); _La Voix d'un exile_ (1867), a satire against the Canadian\ngovernment; _Pele-mele_ (1877); _Les Fleurs boreales_, and _Les Oiseaux\nde neige_ (1880), crowned by the French academy; _La Legende d'un\npeuple_ (1887); two historical dramas, _Papineau_ (1880) and _Felix\nPoutre_ (1880); _La Noel au Canada_ (1900), and several prose works and\ntranslations. An exponent of local French sentiment, he won the title of\nthe \"Canadian Laureate.\" He died on the 1st of June 1908.\n\n\n\n\nFREDEGOND (_Fredigundis_) (d. 597), Frankish queen. Originally a\nserving-woman, she inspired the Frankish king, Chilperic I., with a\nviolent passion. At her instigation he repudiated his first wife\nAudovera, and strangled his second, Galswintha, Queen Brunhilda's\nsister. A few days after this murder Chilperic married Fredegond (567).\nThis woman exercised a most pernicious influence over him. She forced\nhim into war against Austrasia, in the course of which she procured the\nassassination of the victorious king Sigebert (575); she carried on a\nmalignant struggle against Chilperic's sons by his first wife,\nTheodebert, Merwich and Clovis, who all died tragic deaths; and she\npersistently endeavoured to secure the throne for her own children. Her\nfirst son Thierry, however, to whom Bishop Ragnemod of Paris stood\ngodfather, died soon after birth, and Fredegond tortured a number of\nwomen whom she accused of having bewitched the child. Her second son\nalso died in infancy. Finally, she gave birth to a child who afterwards\nbecame king as Clotaire II. Shortly after the birth of this third son,\nChilperic himself perished in mysterious circumstances (584). Fredegond\nhas been accused of complicity in his murder, but with little show of\nprobability, since in her husband she lost her principal supporter.\n\nHenceforth Fredegond did all in her power to gain the kingdom for her\nchild. Taking refuge at the church of Notre Dame at Paris, she appealed\nto King Guntram of Burgundy, who took Clotaire under his protection and\ndefended him against his other nephew, Childebert II., king of\nAustrasia. From that time until her death Fredegond governed the western\nkingdom. She endeavoured to prevent the alliance between King Guntram\nand Childebert, which was cemented by the pact of Andelot; and made\nseveral attempts to assassinate Childebert by sending against him hired\nbravoes armed with poisoned _scramasaxes_ (heavy single-edged knives).\nAfter the death of Childebert in 595 she resolved to augment the kingdom\nof Neustria at the expense of Austrasia, and to this end seized some\ncities near Paris and defeated Theudebert at the battle of Laffaux, near\nSoissons. Her triumph, however, was short-lived, as she died quietly in\nher bed in 597 soon after her victory.\n\n  See V. N. Augustin Thierry, _Recits des temps merovingiens_ (Brussels,\n  1840); Ulysse Chevalier, _Bio-bibliographie_ (2nd ed.), s.v.\n  \"Fredegonde.\"     (C. Pf.)\n\n\n\n\nFREDERIC, HAROLD (1856-1898), Anglo-American novelist, was born on the\n19th of August 1856 at Utica, N.Y., was educated there, and took to\njournalism. He went to live in England as London correspondent of the\n_New York Times_ in 1884, and was soon recognized for his ability both\nas a writer and as a talker. He wrote several clever early stories, but\nit was not till he published _Illumination_ (1896), followed by _Gloria\nMundi_ (1898), that his remarkable gifts as a novelist were fully\nrealized. He died in England on the 19th of October 1898.\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICIA (FRIEDERICIA), a seaport of Denmark, near the S.E. corner of\nJutland, on the west shore of the Little Belt opposite the island of\nFuenen. Pop. (1901) 12,714. It has railway communication with both south\nand north, and a steam ferry connects with Middelfart, a seaside resort\nand railway station on Fuenen. There is a considerable shipping trade,\nand the industries comprise the manufacture of tobacco, salt and\nchicory, and of cotton goods and hats. A small fort was erected on the\nsite of Fredericia by Christian IV. of Denmark, and his successor,\nFrederick III., determined about 1650 to make it a powerful fortress.\nFree exercise of religion was offered to all who should settle in the\nnew town, which at first bore the name of Frederiksodde, and only\nreceived its present designation in 1664. In 1657 it was taken by storm\nby the Swedish general Wrangel, and in 1659, after the fortress had been\ndismantled, it was occupied by Frederick William of Brandenburg. It was\nnot till 1709-1710 that the works were again put in a state of defence.\nIn 1848 no attempt was made by the Danes to oppose the Prussians, who\nentered on the 2nd of May, and maintained their position against the\nDanish gunboats. During the armistice of 1848-1849 the fortress was\nstrengthened, and soon afterwards it stood a siege of two months, which\nwas brought to a glorious close by a successful sortie on the 6th of\nJuly 1849. In memory of the victory several monuments have been erected\nin the town and its vicinity, of which the most noticeable are the\nbronze statue of the Danish Land Soldier by Bissen (one of Thorvaldsen's\npupils), and the great barrow over 500 Danes in the cemetery of the Holy\nTrinity Church, with a bas-relief by the same sculptor. On the outbreak\nof the war of 1864, the fortress was again strengthened by new works and\nan entrenched camp; but the Danes suddenly evacuated it on the 28th of\nApril after a siege of six weeks. The Austro-Prussian army partly\ndestroyed the fortifications, and kept possession of the town till the\nconclusion of peace.\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK (Mod. Ger. _Friedrich_; Ital. _Federigo_; Fr. _Frederic_ and\n_Federic_; M.H.G. _Friderich_; O.H.G. _Fridurih_, \"king or lord of\npeace,\" from O.H.G. _fridu_, A.S. _frith_, \"peace,\" and _rih_ \"rich,\" \"a\nruler,\" for derivation of which see HENRY), a Christian name borne by\nmany European sovereigns and princes, the more important of whom are\ngiven below in the following order:--(1) Roman emperors and German\nkings; (2) other kings in the alphabetical order of their states; (3)\nother reigning princes in the same order.\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK I. (c. 1123-1190), Roman emperor, surnamed \"Barbarossa\" by the\nItalians, was the son of Frederick II. of Hohenstaufen, duke of Swabia,\nand Judith, daughter of Henry IX. the Black, duke of Bavaria. The\nprecise date and place of his birth, together with details of his early\nlife, are wanting; but in 1143 he assisted his maternal uncle, Count\nWelf VI., in his attempts to conquer Bavaria, and by his conduct in\nseveral local feuds earned the reputation of a brave and skilful\nwarrior. When his father died in 1147 Frederick became duke of Swabia,\nand immediately afterwards accompanied his uncle, the German king Conrad\nIII., on his disastrous crusade, during which he greatly distinguished\nhimself and won the complete confidence of the king. Abandoning the\ncause of the Welfs, he fought for Conrad against them, and in 1152 the\ndying king advised the princes to choose Frederick as his successor to\nthe exclusion of his own young son. Energetically pressing his\ncandidature, he was chosen German king at Frankfort on the 4th or 5th of\nMarch 1152, and crowned at Aix-la-Chapelle on the 9th of the same month,\nowing his election partly to his personal qualities, and partly to the\nfact that he united in himself the blood of the rival families of Welf\nand Waiblingen.\n\nThe new king was anxious to restore the Empire to the position it had\noccupied under Charlemagne and Otto the Great, and saw clearly that the\nrestoration of order in Germany was a necessary preliminary to the\nenforcement of the imperial rights in Italy. Issuing a general order for\npeace, he was prodigal in his concessions to the nobles. Count Welf was\nmade duke of Spoleto and margrave of Tuscany; Berthold VI., duke of\nZaehringen, was entrusted with extensive rights in Burgundy; and the\nking's nephew, Frederick, received the duchy of Swabia. Abroad Frederick\ndecided a quarrel for the Danish throne in favour of Svend, or Peter as\nhe is sometimes called, who did homage for his kingdom, and negotiations\nwere begun with the East Roman emperor, Manuel Comnenus. It was probably\nabout this time that the king obtained a divorce from his wife Adela,\ndaughter of Dietpold, margrave of Vohburg and Cham, on the ground of\nconsanguinity, and made a vain effort to obtain a bride from the court\nof Constantinople. On his accession Frederick had communicated the news\nof his election to Pope Eugenius III., but neglected to ask for the\npapal confirmation. In spite of this omission, however, and of some\ntrouble arising from a double election to the archbishopric of\nMagdeburg, a treaty was concluded between king and pope at Constance in\nMarch 1153, by which Frederick promised in return for his coronation to\nmake no peace with Roger I. king of Sicily, or with the rebellious\nRomans, without the consent of Eugenius, and generally to help and\ndefend the papacy.\n\nThe journey to Italy made by the king in 1154 was the precursor of five\nother expeditions which engaged his main energies for thirty years,\nduring which the subjugation of the peninsula was the central and\nabiding aim of his policy. Meeting the new pope, Adrian IV., near Nepi,\nFrederick at first refused to hold his stirrup; but after some\nnegotiations he consented and received the kiss of peace, which was\nfollowed by his coronation as emperor at Rome on the 18th of June 1155.\nAs his slender forces were inadequate to encounter the fierce hostility\nwhich he aroused, he left Italy in the autumn of 1155 to prepare for a\nnew and more formidable campaign. Disorder was again rampant in Germany,\nespecially in Bavaria, but general peace was restored by Frederick's\nvigorous measures. Bavaria was transferred from Henry II. Jasomirgott,\nmargrave of Austria, to Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony; and the former\nwas pacified by the erection of his margraviate into a duchy, while\nFrederick's step-brother Conrad was invested with the Palatinate of the\nRhine. On the 9th of June 1156 the king was married at Wuerzburg to\nBeatrix, daughter and heiress of the dead count of Upper Burgundy,\nRenaud III., when Upper Burgundy or Franche Comte, as it is sometimes\ncalled, was added to his possessions. An expedition into Poland reduced\nDuke Boleslaus IV. to an abject submission, after which Frederick\nreceived the homage of the Burgundian nobles at a diet held at Besancon\nin October 1157, which was marked by a quarrel between pope and emperor.\nA Swedish archbishop, returning from Rome, had been seized by robbers,\nand as Frederick had not punished the offenders Adrian sent two legates\nto remonstrate. The papal letter when translated referred to the\nimperial crown as a benefice conferred by the pope, and its reading\naroused great indignation. The emperor had to protect the legates from\nthe fury of the nobles; and afterwards issued a manifesto to his\nsubjects declaring that he held the Empire from God alone, to which\nAdrian replied that he had used the ambiguous word _beneficia_ as\nmeaning benefits, and not in its feudal sense.\n\nIn June 1158 Frederick set out upon his second Italian expedition, which\nwas signalized by the establishment of imperial officers called\n_podestas_ in the cities of northern Italy, the revolt and capture of\nMilan, and the beginning of the long struggle with pope Alexander III.,\nwho excommunicated the emperor on the 2nd of March 1160. During this\nvisit Frederick summoned the doctors of Bologna to the diet held near\nRoncaglia in November 1158, and as a result of their inquiries into the\nrights belonging to the kingdom of Italy he obtained a large amount of\nwealth. Returning to Germany towards the close of 1162, Frederick\nprevented a conflict between Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony, and a\nnumber of neighbouring princes, and severely punished the citizens of\nMainz for their rebellion against Archbishop Arnold. A further visit to\nItaly in 1163 saw his plans for the conquest of Sicily checked by the\nformation of a powerful league against him, brought together mainly by\nthe exactions of the _podestas_ and the enforcement of the rights\ndeclared by the doctors of Bologna. Frederick had supported an anti-pope\nVictor IV. against Alexander, and on Victor's death in 1163 a new\nanti-pope called Paschal III. was chosen to succeed him. Having tried in\nvain to secure the general recognition of Victor and Paschal in Europe,\nthe emperor held a diet at Wuerzburg in May 1165; and by taking an oath,\nfollowed by many of the clergy and nobles, to remain true to Paschal and\nhis successors, brought about a schism in the German church. A temporary\nalliance with Henry II., king of England, the magnificent celebration of\nthe canonization of Charlemagne at Aix-la-Chapelle, and the restoration\nof peace in the Rhineland, occupied Frederick's attention until October\n1166, when he made his fourth journey to Italy. Having captured Ancona,\nhe marched to Rome, stormed the Leonine city, and procured the\nenthronement of Paschal, and the coronation of his wife Beatrix; but his\nvictorious career was stopped by the sudden outbreak of a pestilence\nwhich destroyed the German army and drove the emperor as a fugitive to\nGermany, where he remained for the ensuing six years. Henry the Lion was\nagain saved from a threatening combination; conflicting claims to\nvarious bishoprics were decided; and the imperial authority was asserted\nover Bohemia, Poland and Hungary. Friendly relations were entered into\nwith the emperor Manuel, and attempts made to come to a better\nunderstanding with Henry II., king of England, and Louis VII., king of\nFrance.\n\nIn 1174, when Frederick made his fifth expedition to Italy, the Lombard\nleague had been formed, and the fortress of Alessandria raised to check\nhis progress. The campaign was a complete failure. The refusal of Henry\nthe Lion to bring help into Italy was followed by the defeat of the\nemperor at Legnano on the 29th of May 1176, when he was wounded and\nbelieved to be dead. Reaching Pavia, he began negotiations for peace\nwith Alexander, which ripened into the treaty of Venice in August 1177,\nand at the same time a truce with the Lombard league was arranged for\nsix years. Frederick, loosed from the papal ban, recognized Alexander as\nthe rightful pope, and in July 1177 knelt before him and kissed his\nfeet. The possession of the vast estates left by Matilda, marchioness\nof Tuscany, and claimed by both pope and emperor, was to be decided by\narbitration, and in October 1178 the emperor was again in Germany.\nVarious small feuds were suppressed; Henry the Lion was deprived of his\nduchy, which was dismembered, and sent into exile; a treaty was made\nwith the Lombard league at Constance in June 1183; and most important of\nall, Frederick's son Henry was betrothed in 1184 to Constance, daughter\nof Roger I., king of Sicily, and aunt and heiress of the reigning king,\nWilliam II. This betrothal, which threatened to unite Sicily with the\nEmpire, made it difficult for Frederick, when during his last Italian\nexpedition in 1184 he met Pope Lucius III. at Verona, to establish\nfriendly relations with the papacy. Further causes of trouble arose,\nmoreover, and when the potentates separated the question of Matilda's\nestates was undecided; and Lucius had refused to crown Henry or to\nrecognize the German clergy who had been ordained during the schism.\nFrederick then formed an alliance with Milan, where the citizens\nwitnessed a great festival on the 27th of January 1186. The emperor, who\nhad been crowned king of Burgundy, or Arles, at Arles on the 30th of\nJuly 1178, had this ceremony repeated; while his son Henry was crowned\nking of Italy and married to Constance, who was crowned queen of\nGermany.\n\nThe quarrel with the papacy was continued with the new pope Urban III.,\nand open warfare was begun. But Frederick was soon recalled to Germany\nby the news of a revolt raised by Philip of Heinsberg, archbishop of\nCologne, in alliance with the pope. The German clergy remained loyal to\nthe emperor, and hostilities were checked by the death of Urban and the\nelection of a new pope as Gregory VIII., who adopted a more friendly\npolicy towards the emperor. In 1188 Philip submitted, and immediately\nafterwards Frederick took the cross in order to stop the victorious\ncareer of Saladin, who had just taken Jerusalem. After extensive\npreparations he left Regensburg in May 1189 at the head of a splendid\narmy, and having overcome the hostility of the East Roman emperor Isaac\nAngelus, marched into Asia Minor. On the 10th of June 1190 Frederick was\neither bathing or crossing the river Calycadnus (Geuksu), near Seleucia\n(Selefke) in Cilicia, when he was carried away by the stream and\ndrowned. The place of his burial is unknown, and the legend which says\nhe still sits in a cavern in the Kyffhaeuser mountain in Thuringia\nwaiting until the need of his country shall call him, is now thought to\nrefer, at least in its earlier form, to his grandson, the emperor\nFrederick II. He left by his wife, Beatrix, five sons, of whom the\neldest afterwards became emperor as Henry VI.\n\nFrederick's reign, on the whole, was a happy and prosperous time for\nGermany. He encouraged the growth of towns, easily suppressed the few\nrisings against his authority, and took strong and successful measures\nto establish order. Even after the severe reverses which he experienced\nin Italy, his position in Germany was never seriously weakened; and in\n1181, when, almost without striking a blow, he deprived Henry the Lion\nof his duchy, he seemed stronger than ever. This power rested upon his\nearnest and commanding personality, and also upon the support which he\nreceived from the German church, the possession of a valuable private\ndomain, and the care with which he exacted feudal dues from his\ndependents.\n\nFrederick I. is said to have taken Charlemagne as his model; but the\ncontest in which he engaged was entirely different both in character and\nresults from that in which his great predecessor achieved such a\nwonderful temporary success. Though Frederick failed to subdue the\nrepublics, the failure can scarcely be said to reflect either on his\nprudence as a statesman or his skill as a general, for his ascendancy\nwas finally overthrown rather by the ravages of pestilence than by the\nmight of human arms. In Germany his resolute will and sagacious\nadministration subdued or disarmed all discontent, and he not only\nsucceeded in welding the various rival interests into a unity of\ndevotion to himself against which papal intrigues were comparatively\npowerless, but won for the empire a prestige such as it had not\npossessed since the time of Otto the Great. The wide contrast between\nhis German and Italian rule is strikingly exemplified in the fact that,\nwhile he endeavoured to overthrow the republics in Italy, he held in\ncheck the power of the nobles in Germany, by conferring municipal\nfranchises and independent rights on the principal cities. Even in\nItaly, though his general course of action was warped by wrong\nprepossessions, he in many instances manifested exceptional practical\nsagacity in dealing with immediate difficulties and emergencies.\nPossessing frank and open manners, untiring and unresting energy, and a\nprowess which found its native element in difficulty and danger, he\nseemed the embodiment of the chivalrous and warlike spirit of his age,\nand was the model of all the qualities which then won highest\nadmiration. Stern and ambitious he certainly was, but his aims can\nscarcely be said to have exceeded his prerogatives as emperor; and\nthough he had sometimes recourse when in straits to expedients almost\ndiabolically ingenious in their cruelty, yet his general conduct was\nmarked by a clemency which in that age was exceptional. His quarrel with\nthe papacy was an inherited conflict, not reflecting at all on his\nreligious faith, but the inevitable consequence of inconsistent theories\nof government, which had been created and could be dissipated only by a\nlong series of events. His interference in the quarrels of the republics\nwas not only quite justifiable from the relation in which he stood to\nthem, but seemed absolutely necessary. From the beginning, however, he\ntreated the Italians, as indeed was only natural, less as rebellious\nsubjects than as conquered aliens; and it must be admitted that in\nregard to them the only effective portion of his procedure was, not his\nenergetic measures of repression nor his brilliant victories, but, after\nthe battle of Legnano, his quiet and cheerful acceptance of the\ninevitable, and the consequent complete change in his policy, by which\nif he did not obtain the great object of his ambition, he at least did\nmuch to render innoxious for the Empire his previous mistakes.\n\nIn appearance Frederick was a man of well-proportioned, medium stature,\nwith flowing yellow hair and a reddish beard. He delighted in hunting\nand the reading of history, was zealous in his attention to public\nbusiness, and his private life was unimpeachable. Carlyle's tribute to\nhim is interesting: \"No king so furnished out with apparatus and arena,\nwith personal faculty to rule and scene to do it in, has appeared\nelsewhere. A magnificent, magnanimous man; holding the reins of the\nworld, not quite in the imaginary sense; scourging anarchy down, and\nurging noble effort up, really on a grand scale. A terror to evil-doers\nand a praise to well-doers in this world, probably beyond what was ever\nseen since.\"\n\n  The principal contemporary authority for the earlier part of the reign\n  of Frederick is the _Gesta Friderici imperatoris_, mainly the work of\n  Otto, bishop of Freising. This is continued from 1156 to 1160 by\n  Rahewin, a canon of Freising, and from 1160 to 1170 by an anonymous\n  author. The various annals and chronicles of the period, among which\n  may be mentioned the _Chronica regia Coloniensis_ and the _Annales\n  Magdeburgenses_, are also important. Other authorities for the\n  different periods in Frederick's reign are Tageno of Passau,\n  _Descriptio expeditionis asiaticae Friderici I._; Burchard, _Historia\n  Friderici imperatoris magni_; Godfrey of Viterbo, _Carmen de gestis\n  Friderici I._, which are all found in the _Monumenta Germaniae\n  historica. Scriptores_ (Hanover and Berlin, 1826-1892); Otto Morena of\n  Lodi, _Historia rerum Laudensium_, continued by his son, Acerbus, also\n  in the _Monumenta_; Ansbert, _Historia de expeditione Friderici,\n  1187-1196_, published in the _Fontes rerum Austriacarum. Scriptores_\n  (Vienna, 1855 fol.). Many valuable documents are found in the\n  _Monumenta Germaniae selecta_, Band iv., edited by M. Doeberl (Munich,\n  1889-1890).\n\n  The best modern authorities are J. Jastrow, _Deutsche Geschichte im\n  Zeitalter der Hohenstaufen_ (Berlin, 1893); W. von Giesebrecht,\n  _Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit_, Band iv. (Brunswick, 1877); H.\n  von Buenau, _Leben und Thaten Friedrichs I._ (Leipzig, 1872); H. Prutz,\n  _Kaiser Friedrich I._ (Dantzig, 1871-1874); C. Peters, _Die Wahl\n  Kaiser Friedrichs I._ in the _Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte_,\n  Band xx. (Goettingen, 1862-1886); W. Gundlach, _Barbarossalieder_\n  (Innsbruck, 1899). For a complete bibliography see Dahlmann-Waitz,\n  _Quellenkunde der deutschen Geschichte_ (Goettingen, 1894), and U.\n  Chevalier, _Repertoire des sources historiques du moyen age_, tome\n  iii. (Paris, 1904).\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK II. (1194-1250), Roman emperor, king of Sicily and Jerusalem,\nwas the son of the emperor Henry VI. and Constance, daughter of Roger\nI., king of Sicily, and therefore grandson of the emperor Frederick I.\nand a member of the Hohenstaufen family. Born at Jesi near Ancona on\nthe 26th of December 1194, he was baptized by the name of Frederick\nRoger, chosen German king at Frankfort in 1196, and after his father's\ndeath crowned king of Sicily at Palermo on the 17th of May 1198. His\nmother, who assumed the government, died in November 1198, leaving Pope\nInnocent III. as regent of Sicily and guardian of her son. The young\nking passed his early years amid the terrible anarchy in his island\nkingdom, which Innocent was powerless to check; but his education was\nnot neglected, and his character and habits were formed by contact with\nmen of varied nationalities and interests, while the darker traits of\nhis nature were developed in the atmosphere of lawlessness in which he\nlived. In 1208 he was declared of age, and soon afterwards Innocent\narranged a marriage, which was celebrated the following year, between\nhim and Constance, daughter of Alphonso II. king of Aragon, and widow of\nEmerich or Imre, king of Hungary.\n\nThe dissatisfaction felt in Germany with the emperor Otto IV. came to a\nclimax in September 1211, when a number of influential princes met at\nNuremberg, declared Otto deposed, and invited Frederick to come and\noccupy the vacant throne. In spite of the reluctance of his wife, and\nthe opposition of the Sicilian nobles, he accepted the invitation; and\nhaving recognized the papal supremacy over Sicily, and procured the\ncoronation of his son Henry as its king, reached Germany after an\nadventurous journey in the autumn of 1212. This step was taken with the\napproval of the pope, who was anxious to strike a blow at Otto IV.\n\nFrederick was welcomed in Swabia, and the renown of the Hohenstaufen\nname and a liberal distribution of promises made his progress easy.\nHaving arranged a treaty against Otto with Louis, son of Philip\nAugustus, king of France, whom he met at Vaucouleurs, he was chosen\nGerman king a second time at Frankfort on the 5th of December 1212, and\ncrowned four days later at Mainz. Anxious to retain the support of the\npope, Frederick promulgated a bull at Eger on the 12th of July 1213, by\nwhich he renounced all lands claimed by the pope since the death of the\nemperor Henry VI. in 1197, gave up the right of spoils and all\ninterference in episcopal elections, and acknowledged the right of\nappeal to Rome. He again affirmed the papal supremacy over Sicily, and\npromised to root out heresy in Germany. The victory of his French allies\nat Bouvines on the 27th of July 1214 greatly strengthened his position,\nand a large part of the Rhineland having fallen into his power, he was\ncrowned German king at Aix-la-Chapelle on the 25th of July 1215. His\ncause continued to prosper, fresh supporters gathered round his\nstandard, and in May 1218 the death of Otto freed him from his rival and\nleft him undisputed ruler of Germany. A further attempt to allay the\npope's apprehension lest Sicily should be united with the Empire had\nbeen made early in 1216, when Frederick, in a letter to Innocent,\npromised after his own coronation as emperor to recognize his son Henry\nas king of Sicily, and to place him under the suzerainty of Rome. Henry\nnevertheless was brought to Germany and chosen German king at Frankfort\nin April 1220, though Frederick assured the new pope, Honorius III.,\nthat this step had been taken without his consent. The truth, however,\nseems to be that he had taken great trouble to secure this election, and\nfor the purpose had won the support of the spiritual princes by\nextensive concessions. In August 1220 Frederick set out for Italy, and\nwas crowned emperor at Rome on the 22nd of November 1220; after which he\nrepeated the undertaking he had entered into at Aix-la-Chapelle in 1215\nto go on crusade, and made lavish promises to the Church. The clergy\nwere freed from taxation and from lay jurisdiction, the ban of the\nEmpire was to follow the ban of the Church, and heretics were to be\nseverely punished.\n\nNeglecting his promise to lead a crusade, Frederick was occupied until\n1225 in restoring order in Sicily. The island was seething with\ndisorder, but by stern and sometimes cruel measures the emperor\nsuppressed the anarchy of the barons, curbed the power of the cities,\nand subdued the rebellious Saracens, many of whom, transferred to the\nmainland and settled at Nocera, afterwards rendered him valuable\nmilitary service. Meanwhile the crusade was postponed again and again;\nuntil under a threat of excommunication, after the fall of Damietta in\n1221, Frederick definitely undertook by a treaty made at San Germano in\n1225 to set out in August 1227 or to submit to this penalty. His own\ninterests turned more strongly to the East, when on the 9th of November\n1225, after having been a widower since 1222, he married Iolande\n(Yolande or Isabella), daughter of John, count of Brienne, titular king\nof Jerusalem. John appears to have expected that this alliance would\nrestore him to his kingdom, but his hopes were dashed to the ground when\nFrederick himself assumed the title of king of Jerusalem. The emperor's\nnext step was an attempt to restore the imperial authority in northern\nItaly, and for the purpose a diet was called at Cremona. But the cities,\nwatchful and suspicious, renewed the Lombard league and took up a\nhostile attitude. Frederick's reply was to annul the treaty of Constance\nand place the cities under the imperial ban; but he was forced by lack\nof military strength to accept the mediation of Pope Honorius and the\nmaintenance of the _status quo_.\n\nAfter these events, which occurred early in 1227, preparations for the\ncrusade were pressed on, and the emperor sailed from Brindisi on the 8th\nof September. A pestilence, however, which attacked his forces compelled\nhim to land in Italy three days later, and on the 29th of the same month\nhe was excommunicated by the new pope, Gregory IX. The greater part of\nthe succeeding year was spent by pope and emperor in a violent quarrel.\nAlarmed at the increase in his opponent's power, Gregory denounced him\nin a public letter, to which Frederick replied in a clever document\naddressed to the princes of Europe. The reading of this manifesto,\ndrawing attention to the absolute power claimed by the popes, was\nreceived in Rome with such evidences of approval that Gregory was\ncompelled to fly to Viterbo. Having lost his wife Isabella on the 8th of\nMay 1228, Frederick again set sail for Palestine, where he met with\nconsiderable success, the result of diplomatic rather than of military\nskill. By a treaty made in February 1229 he secured possession of\nJerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth and the surrounding neighbourhood.\nEntering Jerusalem, he crowned himself king of that city on the 18th of\nMarch 1229. These successes had been won in spite of the hostility of\nGregory, which deprived Frederick of the assistance of many members of\nthe military orders and of the clergy of Palestine. But although the\nemperor's possessions on the Italian mainland had been attacked in his\nabsence by the papal troops and their allies, Gregory's efforts had\nfailed to arouse serious opposition in Germany and Sicily; so that when\nFrederick returned unexpectedly to Italy in June 1229 he had no\ndifficulty in driving back his enemies, and compelling the pope to sue\nfor peace. The result was the treaty of San Germano, arranged in July\n1230, by which the emperor, loosed from the ban, promised to respect the\npapal territory, and to allow freedom of election and other privileges\nto the Sicilian clergy. Frederick was next engaged in completing the\npacification of Sicily. In 1231 a series of laws were published at Melfi\nwhich destroyed the ascendancy of the feudal nobles. Royal officials\nwere appointed for administrative purposes, large estates were recovered\nfor the crown, and fortresses were destroyed, while the church was\nplaced under the royal jurisdiction and all gifts to it were prohibited.\nAt the same time certain privileges of self-government were granted to\nthe towns, representatives from which were summoned to sit in the diet.\nIn short, by means of a centralized system of government, the king\nestablished an almost absolute monarchical power.\n\nIn Germany, on the other hand, an entirely different policy was pursued.\nThe concessions granted by Frederick in 1220, together with the\nPrivilege of Worms, dated the 1st of May 1231, made the German princes\nvirtually independent. All jurisdiction over their lands was vested in\nthem, no new mints or toll-centres were to be erected on their domains,\nand the imperial authority was restricted to a small and dwindling area.\nA fierce attack was also made on the rights of the cities. Compelled to\nrestore all their lands, their jurisdiction was bounded by their\ncity-walls; they were forbidden to receive the dependents of the\nprinces; all trade gilds were declared abolished; and all official\nappointments made without the consent of the archbishop or bishop were\nannulled. A further attack on the Lombard cities at the diet of Ravenna\nin 1231 was answered by a renewal of their league, and was soon\nconnected with unrest in Germany. About 1231 a breach took place between\nFrederick and his elder son Henry, who appears to have opposed the\nPrivilege of Worms and to have favoured the towns against the princes.\nAfter refusing to travel to Italy, Henry changed his mind and submitted\nto his father at Aquileia in 1232; and a temporary peace was made with\nthe Lombard cities in June 1233. But on his return to Germany Henry\nagain raised the standard of revolt, and made a league with the Lombards\nin December 1234. Frederick, meanwhile, having helped Pope Gregory\nagainst the rebellious Romans and having secured the friendship of\nFrance and England, appeared in Germany early in 1235 and put down this\nrising without difficulty. Henry was imprisoned, but his associates were\ntreated leniently. In August 1235 a splendid diet was held at Mainz,\nduring which the marriage of the emperor with Isabella (1214-1241),\ndaughter of John, king of England, was celebrated. A general peace\n(_Landfrieden_), which became the basis of all such peaces in the\nfuture, was sworn to; a new office, that of imperial justiciar, was\ncreated, and a permanent judicial record was first instituted. Otto of\nBrunswick, grandson of Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony, was made duke of\nBrunswick-Lueneburg; and war was declared against the Lombards.\n\nFrederick was now at the height of his power. His second son, Conrad,\nwas invested with the duchy of Swabia, and the claim of Wenceslaus, king\nof Bohemia, to some lands which had belonged to the German king Philip\nwas bought off. The attitude of Frederick II. (the Quarrelsome), duke of\nAustria, had been considered by the emperor so suspicious that during a\nvisit paid by Frederick to Italy a war against him was begun. Compelled\nto return by the ill-fortune which attended this campaign, the emperor\ntook command of his troops, seized Austria, Styria and Carinthia, and\ndeclared these territories to be immediately dependent on the Empire. In\nJanuary 1237 he secured the election of his son Conrad as German king at\nVienna; and in September went to Italy to prosecute the war which had\nbroken out with the Lombards in the preceding year. Pope Gregory\nattempted to mediate, but the cities refused to accept the insulting\nterms offered by Frederick. The emperor gained a great victory over\ntheir forces at Cortenuova in November 1237; but though he met with some\nfurther successes, his failure to take Brescia in October 1238, together\nwith the changed attitude of Gregory, turned the fortune of war. The\npope had become alarmed when the emperor brought about a marriage\nbetween the heiress of Sardinia, Adelasia, and his natural son Enzio,\nwho afterwards assumed the title of king of Sardinia. But as his\nwarnings had been disregarded, he issued a document after the emperor's\nretreat from Brescia, teeming with complaints against Frederick, and\nfollowed it up by an open alliance with the Lombards, and by the\nexcommunication of the emperor on the 20th of March 1239. A violent war\nof words ensued. Frederick, accused of heresy, blasphemy and other\ncrimes, called upon all kings and princes to unite against the pope, who\non his side made vigorous efforts to arouse opposition in Germany, where\nhis emissaries, a crowd of wandering friars, were actively preaching\nrebellion. It was, however, impossible to find an anti-king. In Italy,\nSpoleto and Ancona were declared part of the imperial dominions, and\nRome itself, faithful on this occasion to the pope, was threatened. A\nnumber of ecclesiastics proceeding to a council called by Gregory were\ncaptured by Enzio at the sea-fight of Meloria, and the emperor was about\nto undertake the siege of Rome, when the pope died (August 1241).\nGermany was at this time menaced by the Mongols; but Frederick contented\nhimself with issuing directions for a campaign against them, until in\n1242 he was able to pay a short visit to Germany, where he gained some\nsupport from the towns by grants of extensive privileges.\n\nThe successor of Gregory was Pope Celestine IX. But this pontiff died\nsoon after his election; and after a delay of eighteen months, during\nwhich Frederick marched against Rome on two occasions and devastated the\nlands of his opponents, one of his partisans, Sinibaldo Fiesco, was\nchosen pope, and took the name of Innocent IV. Negotiations for peace\nwere begun, but the relations of the Lombard cities to the Empire could\nnot be adjusted, and when the emperor began again to ravage the papal\nterritories Innocent fled to Lyons. Hither he summoned a general\ncouncil, which met in June 1245; but although Frederick sent his\njusticiar, Thaddeus of Suessa, to represent him, and expressed his\nwillingness to treat, sentence of excommunication and deposition was\npronounced against him. Once more an interchange of recriminations\nbegan, charged with all the violent hyperbole characteristic of the\ncontroversial style of the age. Accused of violating treaties, breaking\noaths, persecuting the church and abetting heresy, Frederick replied by\nan open letter rebutting these charges, and in equally unmeasured terms\ndenounced the arrogance and want of faith of the clergy from the pope\ndownwards. The source of all the evil was, he declared, the excessive\nwealth of the church, which, in retaliation for the sentence of\nexcommunication, he threatened to confiscate. In vain the mediation of\nthe saintly king of France, Louis IX., was invoked. Innocent surpassed\nhis predecessors in the ferocity and unscrupulousness of his attacks on\nthe emperor (see INNOCENT IV.). War soon became general in Germany and\nItaly. Henry Raspe, landgrave of Thuringia, was chosen German king in\nopposition to Frederick in May 1246, but neither he nor his successor,\nWilliam II., count of Holland, was successful in driving the\nHohenstaufen from Germany. In Italy, during the emperor's absence, his\ncause had been upheld by Enzio and by the ferocious Eccelino da Romano.\nIn 1246 a formidable conspiracy of the discontented Apulian barons\nagainst the emperor's power and life, fomented by papal emissaries, was\ndiscovered and crushed with ruthless cruelty. The emperor's power seemed\nmore firmly established than ever, when suddenly the news reached him\nthat Parma, a stronghold of the imperial authority in the north, had\nbeen surprised, while the garrison was off its guard, by the Guelphs. To\nrecover the city was a matter of prime importance, and in 1247 Frederick\nconcentrated his forces round it, building over against it a wooden town\nwhich, in anticipation of the success that astrologers had predicted, he\nnamed Vittoria. The siege, however, was protracted, and finally, in\nFebruary 1248, during the absence of the emperor on a hunting\nexpedition, was brought to an end by a sudden sortie of the men of\nParma, who stormed the imperial camp. The disaster was complete. The\nemperor's forces were destroyed or scattered; the treasury, with the\nimperial insignia, together with Frederick's harem and some of the most\ntrusted of his ministers, fell into the hands of the victors. Thaddeus\nof Suessa was hacked to pieces by the mob; the imperial crown was placed\nin mockery on the head of a hunch-backed beggar, who was carried back in\ntriumph into the city.\n\nFrederick struggled hard to retrieve his fortunes, and for a while with\nsuccess. But his old confidence had left him; he had grown moody and\nsuspicious, and his temper gave a ready handle to his enemies. Pier\ndella Vigna, accused of treasonable designs, was disgraced; and the once\nall-powerful favourite and minister, blinded now and in rags, was\ndragged in the emperor's train, as a warning to traitors, till in\ndespair he dashed out his brains. Then, in May 1248, came the tidings of\nEnzio's capture by the Bolognese, and of his hopeless imprisonment, the\ncaptors refusing all offers of ransom. This disaster to his favourite\nson broke the emperor's spirit. He retired to southern Italy, and after\na short illness died at Fiorentino on the 13th of December 1250, after\nhaving been loosed from the ban by the archbishop of Palermo. He was\nburied in the cathedral of that city, where his splendid tomb may still\nbe seen. By his will he appointed his son Conrad to succeed him in\nGermany and Sicily, and Henry, his son by Isabella of England, to be\nking of Jerusalem or Arles, neither of which kingdoms, however, he\nobtained. Frederick left several illegitimate children: Enzio has\nalready been referred to; Frederick, who was made the imperial vicar in\nTuscany; and Manfred, his son by the beloved Bianca Lancia or Lanzia,\nwho was legitimatized just before his father's death, and was appointed\nby his will prince of Tarento and regent of Sicily.\n\nThe character of Frederick is one of extraordinary interest and\nversatility, and contemporary opinion is expressed in the words _stupor\nmundi et immutator mirabilis_. Licentious and luxurious in his manners,\ncultured and catholic in his tastes, he united in his person the most\ndiverse qualities. His Sicilian court was a centre of intellectual\nactivity. Michael Scott, the translator of some treatises of Aristotle\nand of the commentaries of Averroes, Leonard of Pisa, who introduced\nArabic numerals and algebra to the West, and other scholars, Jewish and\nMahommedan as well as Christian, were welcome at his court. Frederick\nhimself had a knowledge of six languages, was acquainted with\nmathematics, philosophy and natural history, and took an interest in\nmedicine and architecture. In 1224 he founded the university of Naples,\nand he was a liberal patron of the medical school at Salerno. He formed\na menagerie of strange animals, and wrote a treatise on falconry (_De\narte venandi cum avibus_) which is remarkable for its accurate\nobservation of the habits of birds.[1] It was at his court, too,\nthat--as Dante points out--Italian poetry had its birth. Pier della\nVigna there wrote the first sonnet, and Italian lyrics by Frederick\nhimself are preserved to us. His wives were kept secluded in oriental\nfashion; a harem was maintained at Lucera, and eunuchs were a prominent\nfeature of his household. His religious ideas have been the subject of\nmuch controversy. The theory of M. Huillard-Breholles that he wished to\nunite to the functions of emperor those of a spiritual pontiff, and\naspired to be the founder of a new religion, is insufficiently supported\nby evidence to be credible. Although at times he persecuted heretics\nwith great cruelty, he tolerated Mahommedans and Jews, and both acts\nappear rather to have been the outcome of political considerations than\nof religious belief. His jests, which were used by his enemies as a\ncharge against him, seem to have originated in religious indifference,\nor perhaps in a spirit of inquiry which anticipated the ideas of a later\nage. Frederick's rule in Germany and Italy was a failure, but this fact\nmay be accounted for by the conditions of the time and the inevitable\nconflict with the papacy. In Germany the enactments of 1220 and 1231\ncontributed to the disintegration of the Empire and the fall of the\nHohenstaufen, while conflicting interests made the government of Italy a\nproblem of exceptional difficulty. In Sicily Frederick was more\nsuccessful. He quelled disorder, and under his rule the island was\nprosperous and contented. His ideas of government were those of an\nabsolute monarch, and he probably wished to surround himself with some\nof the pomp which had encircled the older emperors of Rome. His chief\nclaim to fame, perhaps, is as a lawgiver. The code of laws which he gave\nto Sicily in 1231 bears the impress of his personality, and has been\ndescribed as \"the fullest and most adequate body of legislation\npromulgated by any western ruler since Charlemagne.\" Without being a\ngreat soldier, Frederick was not unskilful in warfare, but was better\nacquainted with the arts of diplomacy. In person he is said to have been\n\"red, bald and short-sighted,\" but with good features and a pleasing\ncountenance. It was seriously believed in Germany for about a century\nafter his death that Frederick was still alive, and many impostors\nattempted to personate him. A legend, afterwards transferred to\nFrederick Barbarossa, told how he sat in a cavern in the Kyffhaeusser\nbefore a stone table through which his beard had grown, waiting for the\ntime for him to awake and restore to the Empire the golden age of peace.\n\n  The contemporary documents relating to the reign of Frederick II. are\n  very numerous. Among the most important are: Richard of San Germano,\n  _Chronica regni Siciliae_; _Annales Placentini, Gibellini_; Albert of\n  Stade, _Annales_; Matthew Paris, _Historia major Angliae_; Burchard,\n  _Chronicon Urspergense_. All these are in the _Monumenta Germaniae\n  historica_. _Scriptores_ (Hanover and Berlin, 1826-1892). The _Rerum\n  Italicarum scriptores_, edited by L. A. Muratori (Milan, 1723-1751),\n  contains _Annales Mediolanenses_; Nicholas of Jamsilla, _Historia de\n  rebus gestis Friderici II._, and _Vita Gregorii IX. pontificis_. There\n  are also the _Epistolarum libri_ of Peter della Vigna, edited by J. R.\n  Iselin (Basel, 1740); and Salimbene of Parma's _Chronik_, published at\n  Parma (1857). Many of the documents concerning the history of the time\n  are found in the _Historia diplomatica Friderici II._, edited by M.\n  Huillard-Breholles (Paris, 1852-1861); _Acta imperii selecta.\n  Urkunden deutscher Koenige und Kaiser_, edited by J. F. Boehmer and J.\n  Ficker (Innsbruck, 1870); _Acta imperii inedita seculi XIII. Urkunden\n  und Briefe zur Geschichte des Kaiserreichs und des Koenigreichs\n  Sicilien_, edited by E. Winkelmann (Innsbruck, 1880); _Epistolae\n  saeculi XIII. selecta e regestis pontificum Romanorum_, edited by C.\n  Rodenberg, tome i. (Berlin, 1883); P. Pressutti, _Regesta Honorii\n  papae III_. (Rome, 1888); L. Auvray, _Les Registres de Gregoire IX_.\n  (Paris, 1890).\n\n  The best modern authorities are W. von Giesebrecht, _Geschichte der\n  deutschen Kaiserzeit_, Band v. (Leipzig, 1888); J. Jastrow, _Deutsche\n  Geschichte im Zeitalter der Hohenstaufen_ (Berlin, 1893); F. W.\n  Schirrmacher, _Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite_ (Goettingen, 1859-1865);\n  \"Beitraege zur Geschichte Kaiser Friedrichs II.\" in the _Forschungen\n  zur deutschen Geschichte_, Band xi. (Goettingen, 1862-1886), and _Die\n  letzten Hohenstaufen_ (Goettingen, 1871); E. Winkelmann, _Geschichte\n  Kaiser Friedrichs II und seiner Reiche_ (Berlin, 1865) and _Kaiser\n  Friedrich II._ (Leipzig, 1889); G. Blondel, _Etude sur la politique de\n  l'empereur Frederic II. en Allemagne_ (Paris, 1892); M. Halbe,\n  _Friedrich II. und der paepstliche Stuhl_ (Berlin, 1888); R. Roehricht,\n  _Die Kreuzfahrt des Kaisers Friedrich II._ (Berlin, 1874); C. Koehler,\n  _Das Verhaeltnis Kaiser Friedrichs II. zu den Paepsten seiner Zeit_\n  (Breslau, 1888); J. Feiten, _Papst Gregor IX_. (Freiburg, 1886); C.\n  Rodenberg, _Innocenz IV. und das Koenigreich Sicilien_ (Halle, 1892);\n  K. Lamprecht, _Deutsche Geschichte_, Band iii. (Berlin, 1891); M.\n  Huillard-Breholles, _Vie et correspondance de Pierre de la Vigne_\n  (Paris, 1865); A. del Vecchio, _La legislazione de Federico II_\n  (Turin, 1874); and K. Hampe, _Kaiser Friedrich II_. (Munich, 1899).\n       (A. W. H.*)\n\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n  [1] First printed at Augsburg in 1596; a German edition was published\n    at Berlin in 1896.\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK III. (1415-1493), Roman emperor,--as Frederick IV., German\nking, and as Frederick V., archduke of Austria,--son of Ernest of\nHabsburg, duke of Styria and Carinthia, was born at Innsbruck on the\n21st of September 1415. After his father's death in 1424 he passed his\ntime at the court of his uncle and guardian, Frederick IV., count of\nTirol. In 1435, together with his brother, Albert the Prodigal, he\nundertook the government of Styria and Carinthia, but the peace of these\nlands was disturbed by constant feuds between the brothers, which lasted\nuntil Albert's death in 1463. In 1439 the deaths of the German king\nAlbert II. and of Frederick of Tirol left Frederick the senior member of\nthe Habsburg family, and guardian of Sigismund, count of Tirol. In the\nfollowing year he also became guardian of Ladislaus, the posthumous son\nof Albert II., and heir to Bohemia, Hungary and Austria, but these\nresponsibilities brought only trouble and humiliation in their train. On\nthe 2nd of February 1440 Frederick was chosen German king at Frankfort,\nbut, owing to his absence from Germany, the coronation was delayed until\nthe 17th of June 1442, when it took place at Aix-la-Chapelle.\n\nDisregarding the neutral attitude of the German electors towards the\npapal schism, and acting under the influence of Aeneas Sylvius\nPiccolomini, afterwards Pope Pius II., Frederick in 1445 made a secret\ntreaty with Pope Eugenius IV. This developed into the Concordat of\nVienna, signed in 1448 with the succeeding pope, Nicholas V., by which\nthe king, in return for a sum of money and a promise of the imperial\ncrown, pledged the obedience of the German people to Rome, and so\nchecked for a time the rising tide of liberty in the German church.\nTaking up the quarrel between the Habsburgs and the Swiss cantons,\nFrederick invited the Armagnacs to attack his enemies, but after meeting\nwith a stubborn resistance at St Jacob on the 26th of August 1444, these\nallies proved faithless, and the king soon lost every vestige of\nauthority in Switzerland. In 1451 Frederick, disregarding the revolts in\nAustria and Hungary, travelled to Rome, where, on the 16th of March\n1452, his marriage with Leonora, daughter of Edward, king of Portugal,\nwas celebrated, and three days later he was crowned emperor by pope\nNicholas. On his return he found Germany seething with indignation. His\ncapitulation to the pope was not forgotten; his refusal to attend the\ndiets, and his apathy in the face of Turkish aggressions, constituted a\nserious danger; and plans for his deposition failed only because the\nelectors could not unite upon a rival king. In 1457 Ladislaus, king of\nHungary and Bohemia, and archduke of Austria, died; Frederick failed to\nsecure either kingdom, but obtained lower Austria, from which, however,\nhe was soon driven by his brother Albert, who occupied Vienna. On\nAlbert's death in 1463 the emperor united upper and lower Austria under\nhis rule, but these possessions were constantly ravaged by George\nPodebrad, king of Bohemia, and by Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary. A\nvisit to Rome in 1468 to discuss measures against the Turks with Pope\nPaul II. had no result, and in 1470 Frederick began negotiations for a\nmarriage between his son Maximilian and Mary, daughter and heiress of\nCharles the Bold, duke of Burgundy. The emperor met the duke at Treves\nin 1473, when Frederick, disliking to bestow the title of king upon\nCharles, left the city secretly, but brought about the marriage after\nthe duke's death in 1477. Again attacked by Matthias, the emperor was\ndriven from Vienna, and soon handed over the government of his lands to\nMaximilian, whose election as king of the Romans he vainly opposed in\n1486. Frederick then retired to Linz, where he passed his time in the\nstudy of botany, alchemy and astronomy, until his death on the 19th of\nAugust 1493.\n\nFrederick was a listless and incapable ruler, lacking alike the\nqualities of the soldier and of the diplomatist, but possessing a\ncertain cleverness in evading difficulties. With a fine presence, he had\nmany excellent personal qualities, is spoken of as mild and just, and\nhad a real love of learning. He had a great belief in the future\ngreatness of his family, to which he contributed largely by arranging\nthe marriage of Maximilian with Mary of Burgundy, and delighted to\ninscribe his books and other articles of value with the letters\nA.E.I.O.U. (_Austriae est imperare orbi universo_; or in German, _Alles\nErdreich ist Oesterreich unterthan_). His personality counts for very\nlittle in German history. One chronicler says: \"He was a useless\nemperor, and the nation during his long reign forgot that she had a\nking.\" His tomb, a magnificent work in red and white marble, is in the\ncathedral of St Stephen at Vienna.\n\n  See Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, _De rebus et gestis Friderici III_.\n  (trans. Th. Ilgen, Leipzig, 1889); J. Chmel, _Geschichte Kaiser\n  Friedrichs IV. und seines Sohnes Maximilians I_. (Hamburg, 1840); A.\n  Bachmann, _Deutsche Reichsgeschichte im Zeitalter Friedrichs III. und\n  Maximilians I_. (Leipzig, 1884); A. Huber, _Geschichte Oesterreichs_\n  (Gotha, 1885-1892); and E. M. Fuerst von Lichnowsky, _Geschichte des\n  Hauses Habsburg_ (Vienna, 1836-1844).\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK III. (c. 1286-1330), surnamed \"the Fair,\" German king and duke\nof Austria, was the second son of the German king, Albert I., and\nconsequently a member of the Habsburg family. In 1298, when his father\nwas chosen German king, Frederick was invested with some of the family\nlands, and in 1306, when his elder brother Rudolph became king of\nBohemia, he succeeded to the duchy of Austria. In 1307 Rudolph died, and\nFrederick sought to obtain the Bohemian throne; but an expedition into\nthat country was a failure, and his father's murder in May 1308 deprived\nhim of considerable support. He was equally unsuccessful in his efforts\nto procure the German crown at this time, and the relations between the\nnew king, Henry VII., and the Habsburgs were far from friendly.\nFrederick asked not only to be confirmed in the possession of Austria,\nbut to be invested with Moravia, a demand to which Henry refused to\naccede; but an arrangement was subsequently made by which the duke\nagreed to renounce Moravia in return for a payment of 50,000 marks.\nFrederick then became involved in a quarrel with his cousin Louis IV.,\nduke of Upper Bavaria (afterwards the emperor Louis IV.), over the\nguardianship of Henry II., duke of Lower Bavaria. Hostilities broke out,\nand on the 9th of November 1313 he was defeated by Louis at the battle\nof Gammelsdorf and compelled to renounce his claim.\n\nMeanwhile the emperor Henry VII. had died in Italy, and a stubborn\ncontest ensued for the vacant throne. After a long delay Frederick was\nchosen German king at Frankfort by a minority of the electors on the\n19th of October 1314, while a majority elected Louis of Bavaria. Six\ndays later Frederick was crowned at Bonn by the archbishop of Cologne,\nand war broke out at once between the rivals. During this contest, which\nwas carried on in a desultory fashion, Frederick drew his chief strength\nfrom southern and eastern Germany, and was supported by the full power\nof the Habsburgs. The defeat of his brother Leopold by the Swiss at\nMorgarten in November 1315 was a heavy blow to him, but he prolonged the\nstruggle for seven years. On the 28th of September 1322 a decisive\nbattle was fought at Muehldorf; Frederick was defeated and sent as a\nprisoner to Trausnitz. Here he was retained until three years later a\nseries of events induced Louis to come to terms. By the treaty of\nTrausnitz, signed on the 13th of March 1325, Frederick acknowledged the\nkingship of Louis in return for freedom, and promised to return to\ncaptivity unless he could induce his brother Leopold to make a similar\nacknowledgment. As Leopold refused to take this step, Frederick,\nalthough released from his oath by Pope John XXII., travelled back to\nBavaria, where he was treated by Louis rather as a friend than as a\nprisoner. A suggestion was then made that the kings should rule jointly,\nbut as this plan aroused some opposition it was agreed that Frederick\nshould govern Germany while Louis went to Italy for the imperial crown.\nBut this arrangement did not prove generally acceptable, and the death\nof Leopold in 1326 deprived Frederick of a powerful supporter. In these\ncircumstances he returned to Austria broken down in mind and body, and\non the 13th of January 1330 he died at Gutenstein, and was buried at\nMauerbach, whence his remains were removed in 1783 to the cathedral of\nSt Stephen at Vienna. He married Elizabeth, daughter of James I., king\nof Aragon, and left two daughters. His voluntary return into captivity\nis used by Schiller in his poem _Deutsche Treue_, and by J. L. Uhland in\nthe drama _Ludwig der Bayer_.\n\n  The authorities for the life of Frederick are found in the _Fontes\n  rerum Germanicarum_, Band i., edited by J. F. Boehmer (Stuttgart,\n  1843-1868), and in the _Fontes rerum Austriacarum_, part i. (Vienna,\n  1855). Modern works which may be consulted are: E. M. Fuerst von\n  Lichnowsky, G_eschichte des Hauses Habsburg_ (Vienna, 1836-1844); Th.\n  Lindner, _Deutsche Geschichte unter den Habsburgern und Luxemburgern_\n  (Stuttgart, 1888-1893). R. Doebner, _Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen\n  Ludwig IV. dem Bayer und Friedrich dem Schoenen von Oesterreich_\n  (Goettingen, 1875); F. Kurz, _Oesterreich unter Koenig Friedrich dem\n  Schoenen_ (Linz, 1818); F. Krones, _Handbuch der Geschichte\n  Oesterreichs_ (Berlin, 1876-1879); H. Schrohe, _Der Kampf der\n  Gegenkoenige Ludwig und Friedrich_ (Berlin, 1902); W. Friedensburg,\n  _Ludwig IV. der Bayer und Friedrich von Oesterreich_ (Goettingen, 1877);\n  B. Gebhardt, _Handbuch der deutschen Geschichte_ (Berlin, 1901).\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK II. (1534-1588), king of Denmark and Norway, son of Christian\nIII., was born at Hadersleben on the 1st of July 1534. His mother,\nDorothea of Saxe-Lauenburg, was the elder sister of Catherine, the first\nwife of Gustavus Vasa and the mother of Eric XIV. The two little\ncousins, born the same year, were destined to be lifelong rivals. At the\nage of two Frederick was proclaimed successor to the throne at the\n_Rigsdag_ of Copenhagen (October 30th, 1536), and homage was done to him\nat Oslo for Norway in 1548. The choice of his governor, the patriotic\nhistoriographer Hans Svaning, was so far fortunate that it ensured the\ndevotion of the future king of Denmark to everything Danish; but Svaning\nwas a poor pedagogue, and the wild and wayward lad suffered all his life\nfrom the defects of his early training. Frederick's youthful, innocent\nattachment to the daughter of his former tutor, Anna Hardenberg,\nindisposed him towards matrimony at the beginning of his reign (1558).\nAfter the hands of Elizabeth of England, Mary of Scotland and Renata of\nLorraine had successively been sought for him, the council of state grew\nanxious about the succession, but he finally married his cousin, Sophia\nof Mecklenburg, on the 20th of July 1572.\n\nThe reign of Frederick II. falls into two well-defined divisions: (1) a\nperiod of war, 1559-1570; and (2) a period of peace, 1570-1588. The\nperiod of war began with the Ditmarsh expedition, when the independent\npeasant-republic of the Ditmarshers of West Holstein, which had stoutly\nmaintained its independence for centuries against the counts of Holstein\nand the Danish kings, was subdued by a Dano-Holstein army of 20,000 men\nin 1559, Frederick and his uncles John and Adolphus, dukes of Holstein,\ndividing the land between them. Equally triumphant was Frederick in his\nwar with Sweden, though here the contest was much more severe, lasting\nas it did for seven years; whence it is generally described in northern\nhistory as the Scandinavian Seven Years' War. The tension which had\nprevailed between the two kingdoms during the last years of Gustavus\nVasa reached breaking point on the accession of Gustavus's eldest son\nEric XIV. There were many causes of quarrel between the two ambitious\nyoung monarchs, but the detention at Copenhagen in 1563 of a splendid\nmatrimonial embassy on its way to Germany, to negotiate a match between\nEric and Christina of Hesse, which King Frederick for political reasons\nwas determined to prevent, precipitated hostilities. During the war,\nwhich was marked by extraordinary ferocity throughout, the Danes were\ngenerally victorious on land owing to the genius of Daniel Rantzau, but\nat sea the Swedes were almost uniformly triumphant. By 1570 the strife\nhad degenerated into a barbarous devastation of border provinces; and in\nJuly of the same year both countries accepted the mediation of the\nEmperor, and peace was finally concluded at Stettin on Dec. 13, 1570.\nDuring the course of this Seven Years' War Frederick II. had narrowly\nescaped the fate of his deposed cousin Eric XIV. The war was very\nunpopular in Denmark, and the closing of the Sound against foreign\nshipping, in order to starve out Sweden, had exasperated the maritime\npowers and all the Baltic states. On New Year's Day 1570 Frederick's\ndifficulties seemed so overwhelming that he threatened to abdicate; but\nthe peace of Stettin came in time to reconcile all parties, and though\nFrederick had now to relinquish his ambitious dream of re-establishing\nthe Union of Kalmar, he had at least succeeded in maintaining the\nsupremacy of Denmark in the north. After the peace Frederick's policy\nbecame still more imperial. He aspired to the dominion of all the seas\nwhich washed the Scandinavian coasts, and before he died he succeeded in\nsuppressing the pirates who so long had haunted the Baltic and the\nGerman Ocean. He also erected the stately fortress of Kronborg, to guard\nthe narrow channel of the Sound. Frederick possessed the truly royal\ngift of discovering and employing great men, irrespective of personal\npreferences and even of personal injuries. With infinite tact and\nadmirable self-denial he gave free scope to ministers whose superiority\nin their various departments he frankly recognized, rarely interfering\npersonally unless absolutely called upon to do so. His influence, always\ngreat, was increased by his genial and unaffected manners as a host. He\nis also remarkable as one of the few kings of the house of Oldenburg who\nhad no illicit _liaison_. He died at Antvorskov on the 4th of April\n1588. No other Danish king was ever so beloved by his people.\n\n  See _Lund_ (_Troels_), _Danmarks og Norges Historie i Slutningen af\n  det XVI. Aarh._ (Copenhagen, 1879); _Danmarks Riges Historie_\n  (Copenhagen, 1897-1905), vol. 3; Robert Nisbet Bain, _Scandinavia_,\n  cap. 4 (Cambridge, 1905).     (R. N. B.)\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK III. (1609-1670), king of Denmark and Norway, son of Christian\nIV. and Anne Catherine of Brandenburg, was born on the 18th of March\n1609 at Hadersleben. His position as a younger son profoundly influenced\nhis future career. In his youth and early manhood there was no prospect\nof his ascending the Danish throne, and he consequently became the\ninstrument of his father's schemes of aggrandizement in Germany. While\nstill a lad he became successively bishop of Bremen, bishop of Verden\nand coadjutor of Halberstadt, while at the age of eighteen he was the\nchief commandant of the fortress of Stade. Thus from an early age he had\nconsiderable experience as an administrator, while his general education\nwas very careful and thorough. He had always a pronounced liking for\nliterary and scientific studies. On the 1st of October 1643 Frederick\nwedded Sophia Amelia of Brunswick Lueneburg, whose energetic, passionate\nand ambitious character was profoundly to affect not only Frederick's\ndestiny but the destiny of Denmark. During the disastrous Swedish War of\n1643-1645 Frederick was appointed generalissimo of the duchies by his\nfather, but the laurels he won were scanty, chiefly owing to his\nquarrels with the Earl-Marshal Anders Bille, who commanded the Danish\nforces. This was Frederick's first collision with the Danish nobility,\nwho ever afterwards regarded him with extreme distrust. The death of his\nelder brother Christian in June 1647 first opened to him the prospect of\nsucceeding to the Danish throne, but the question was still unsettled\nwhen Christian IV. died on the 28th of February 1648. Not till the 6th\nof July in the same year did Frederick III. receive the homage of his\nsubjects, and only after he had signed a _Haandfaestning_ or charter, by\nwhich the already diminished royal prerogative was still further\ncurtailed. It had been doubtful at first whether he would be allowed to\ninherit his ancestral throne at all; but Frederick removed the last\nscruples of the _Rigsraad_ by unhesitatingly accepting the conditions\nimposed upon him.\n\nThe new monarch was a reserved, enigmatical prince, who seldom laughed,\nspoke little and wrote less--a striking contrast to Christian IV. But if\nhe lacked the brilliant qualities of his impulsive, jovial father, he\npossessed in a high degree the compensating virtues of moderation,\nsobriety and self-control. But with all his good qualities Frederick was\nnot the man to take a clear view of the political horizon, or even to\nrecognize his own and his country's limitations. He rightly regarded the\naccession of Charles X. of Sweden (June 6th, 1654) as a source of danger\nto Denmark. He felt that temperament and policy would combine to make\nCharles an aggressive warrior-king: the only uncertainty was in which\ndirection he would turn his arms first. Charles's invasion of Poland\n(July 1654) came as a distinct relief to the Danes, though even the\nPolish War was full of latent peril to Denmark. Frederick was resolved\nupon a rupture with Sweden at the first convenient opportunity. The\n_Rigsdag_ which assembled on the 23rd of February 1657 willingly granted\nconsiderable subsidies for mobilization and other military expenses; on\nthe 15th of April Frederick III. desired, and on the 23rd of April he\nreceived, the assent of the majority of the _Rigsraad_ to attack\nSweden's German provinces; in the beginning of May the still pending\nnegotiations with that power were broken off, and on the 1st of June\nFrederick signed the manifesto justifying a war which was never formally\ndeclared. The Swedish king traversed all the plans of his enemies by his\npassage of the frozen Belts, in January and February 1658 (see CHARLES\nX. of Sweden). The effect of this unheard-of achievement on the Danish\ngovernment was crushing. Frederick III. at once sued for peace; and,\nyielding to the persuasions of the English and French ministers, Charles\nfinally agreed to be content with mutilating instead of annihilating the\nDanish monarchy (treaties of Taastrup, February 18th, and of Roskilde,\nFebruary 26th, 1658). The conclusion of peace was followed by a\nremarkable episode. Frederick expressed the desire to make the personal\nacquaintance of his conqueror; and Charles X. consented to be his guest\nfor three days (March 3-5) at the castle of Fredriksborg. Splendid\nbanquets lasting far into the night, private and intimate conversations\nbetween the princes who had only just emerged from a mortal struggle,\nseemed to point to nothing but peace and friendship in the future. But\nCharles's insatiable lust for conquest, and his ineradicable suspicion\nof Denmark, induced him, on the 17th of July, without any reasonable\ncause, without a declaration of war, in defiance of all international\nequity, to endeavour to despatch an inconvenient neighbour.\n\nTerror was the first feeling produced at Copenhagen by the landing of\nthe main Swedish army at Korsoer in Zealand. None had anticipated the\npossibility of such a sudden and brutal attack, and every one knew that\nthe Danish capital was very inadequately fortified and garrisoned.\nFortunately Frederick had never been deficient in courage. \"I will die\nin my nest\" were the memorable words with which he rebuked those\ncounsellors who advised him to seek safety in flight. On the 8th of\nAugust representatives from every class in the capital urged the\nnecessity of a vigorous resistance; and the citizens of Copenhagen,\nheaded by the great burgomaster Hans Nansen (q.v.), protested their\nunshakable loyalty to the king, and their determination to defend\nCopenhagen to the uttermost. The Danes had only three days' warning of\nthe approaching danger; and the vast and dilapidated line of defence had\nat first but 2000 regular defenders. But the government and the people\ndisplayed a memorable and exemplary energy, under the constant\nsupervision of the king, the queen, and burgomaster Nansen. By the\nbeginning of September all the breaches were repaired, the walls\nbristled with cannon, and 7000 men were under arms. So strong was the\ncity by this time that Charles X., abandoning his original intention of\ncarrying the place by assault, began a regular siege; but this also he\nwas forced to abandon when, on the 29th of October, an auxiliary Dutch\nfleet, after reinforcing and reprovisioning the garrison, defeated, in\nconjunction with the Danish fleet, the Swedish navy of 44 liners in the\nSound. Thus the Danish capital had saved the Danish monarchy. But it was\nFrederick III. who profited most by his spirited defence of the common\ninterests of the country and the dynasty. The traditional loyalty of the\nDanish middle classes was transformed into a boundless enthusiasm for\nthe king personally, and for a brief period Frederick found himself the\nmost popular man in his kingdom. He made use of his popularity by\nrealizing the dream of a lifetime and converting an elective into an\nabsolute monarchy by the Revolution of 1660 (see DENMARK: _History_).\nFrederick III. died on the 6th of February 1670 at the castle of\nCopenhagen.\n\n  See R. Nisbet Bain, _Scandinavia_, caps. ix. and x. (Cambridge, 1905).\n       (R. N. B.)\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK VIII. (1843-   ), king of Denmark, eldest son of King\nChristian IX., was born at Copenhagen on the 3rd of June 1843. As crown\nprince of Denmark he took part in the war of 1864 against Austria and\nPrussia, and subsequently assisted his father in the duties of\ngovernment, becoming king on Christian's death in January 1906. In 1869\nFrederick married Louise (b. 1851), daughter of Charles XV., king of\nSweden, by whom he had a family of four sons and four daughters. His\neldest son Christian, crown prince of Denmark (b. 1870), was married in\n1898 to Alexandrina (b. 1879), daughter of Frederick Francis III.,\ngrand-duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin; and his second son, Charles (b.\n1872), who married his cousin Maud, daughter of Edward VII. of Great\nBritain, became king of Norway as Haakon VII. in 1905.\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK I. (1657-1713), king of Prussia, and (as Frederick III.)\nelector of Brandenburg, was the second son of the great elector,\nFrederick William, by his first marriage with Louise Henriette, daughter\nof Frederick Henry of Orange. Born at Koenigsberg on the 11th of July\n1657, he was educated and greatly influenced by Eberhard Danckelmann,\nand became heir to the throne of Brandenburg through the death of his\nelder brother, Charles Emil, in 1674. He appears to have taken some part\nin public business before the death of his father; and the court at\nBerlin was soon disturbed by quarrels between the young prince and his\nstepmother, Dorothea of Holstein-Gluecksburg. In 1686 Dorothea persuaded\nher husband to bequeath outlying portions of his lands to her four sons;\nand Frederick, fearing he would be poisoned, left Brandenburg determined\nto prevent any diminution of his inheritance. By promising to restore\nSchwiebus to Silesia after his accession he won the support of the\nemperor Leopold I.; but eventually he gained his end in a peaceable\nfashion. Having become elector of Brandenburg in May 1688, he came to\nterms with his half-brothers and their mother. In return for a sum of\nmoney these princes renounced their rights under their father's will,\nand the new elector thus secured the whole of Frederick William's\nterritories. After much delay and grumbling he fulfilled his bargain\nwith Leopold and gave up Schwiebus in 1695. At home and abroad Frederick\ncontinued the policy of the great elector. He helped William of Orange\nto make his descent on England; added various places, including the\nprincipality of Neuchatel, to his lands; and exercised some influence on\nthe course of European politics by placing his large and efficient army\nat the disposal of the emperor and his allies (see BRANDENBURG). He was\npresent in person at the siege of Bonn in 1689, but was not often in\ncommand of his troops. The elector was very fond of pomp, and, striving\nto model his court upon that of Louis XIV., he directed his main\nenergies towards obtaining for himself the title of king. In spite of\nthe assistance he had given to the emperor his efforts met with no\nsuccess for some years; but towards 1700 Leopold, faced with the\nprospect of a new struggle with France, was inclined to view the idea\nmore favourably. Having insisted upon various conditions, prominent\namong them being military aid for the approaching war, he gave the\nimperial sanction to Frederick's request in November 1700; whereupon the\nelector, hurrying at once to Koenigsberg, crowned himself with great\nceremony king of Prussia on the 18th of January 1701. According to his\npromise the king sent help to the emperor; and during the War of the\nSpanish Succession the troops of Brandenburg-Prussia rendered great\nassistance to the allies, fighting with distinction at Blenheim and\nelsewhere. Frederick, who was deformed through an injury to his spine,\ndied on the 25th of February 1713. By his extravagance the king\nexhausted the treasure amassed by his father, burdened his country with\nheavy taxes, and reduced its finances to chaos. His constant obligations\nto the emperor drained Brandenburg of money which might have been\nemployed more profitably at home, and prevented her sovereign from\ninterfering in the politics of northern Europe. Frederick, however, was\nnot an unpopular ruler, and by making Prussia into a kingdom he\nundoubtedly advanced it several stages towards its future greatness. He\nfounded the university of Halle, and the Academy of Sciences at Berlin;\nwelcomed and protected Protestant refugees from France and elsewhere;\nand lavished money on the erection of public buildings.\n\nThe king was married three times. His second wife, Sophie Charlotte\n(1668-1705), sister of the English king George I., was the friend of\nLeibnitz and one of the most cultured princesses of the age; she bore\nhim his only son, his successor, King Frederick William I.\n\n  See W. Hahn, _Friedrich I., Koenig in Preussen_ (Berlin, 1876); J. G.\n  Droysen, _Geschichte der preussischen Politik_, Band iv. (Leipzig,\n  1872); E. Heyck, _Friedrich I. und die Begruendung des preussischen\n  Koenigtums_ (Bielefeld, 1901): C. Graf von Dohna, _Memoires originaux\n  sur le regne et la cour de Frederic I^er_ (Berlin, 1883); _Aus dem\n  Briefwechsel Koenig Friedrichs I. von Preussen und seiner Familie_\n  (Berlin, 1901); and T. Carlyle, _History of Frederick the Great_, vol.\n  i. (London, 1872).\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK II., known as \"the Great\" (1712-1786), king of Prussia, born\non the 24th of January 1712, was the eldest son of Frederick William I.\nHe was brought up with extreme rigour, his father devising a scheme of\neducation which was intended to make him a hardy soldier, and\nprescribing for him every detail of his conduct. So great was Frederick\nWilliam's horror of everything which did not seem to him practical, that\nhe strictly excluded Latin from the list of his son's studies.\nFrederick, however, had free and generous impulses which could not be\nrestrained by the sternest system. Encouraged by his mother, and under\nthe influence of his governess Madame de Roucoulle, and of his first\ntutor Duhan, a French refugee, he acquired an excellent knowledge of\nFrench and a taste for literature and music. He even received secret\nlessons in Latin, which his father invested with all the charms of\nforbidden fruit. As he grew up he became extremely dissatisfied with the\ndull and monotonous life he was compelled to lead; and his discontent\nwas heartily shared by his sister, Wilhelmina, a bright and intelligent\nyoung princess for whom Frederick had a warm affection.\n\nFrederick William, seeing his son apparently absorbed in frivolous and\neffeminate amusements, gradually conceived for him an intense dislike,\nwhich had its share in causing him to break off the negotiations for a\ndouble marriage between the prince of Wales and Wilhelmina, and the\nprincess Amelia, daughter of George II., and Frederick; for Frederick\nhad been so indiscreet as to carry on a separate correspondence with the\nEnglish court and to vow that he would marry Amelia or no one. Frederick\nWilliam's hatred of his son, openly avowed, displayed itself in violent\noutbursts and public insults, and so harsh was his treatment that\nFrederick frequently thought of running away and taking refuge at the\nEnglish court. He at last resolved to do so during a journey which he\nmade with the king to south Germany in 1730, when he was eighteen years\nof age. He was helped by his two friends, Lieutenant Katte and\nLieutenant Keith; but by the imprudence of the former the secret was\nfound out. Frederick was placed under arrest, deprived of his rank as\ncrown prince, tried by court-martial, and imprisoned in the fortress of\nCuestrin. Warned by Frederick, Keith escaped; but Katte delayed his\nflight too long, and a court-martial decided that he should be punished\nwith two years' fortress arrest. But the king was determined by a\nterrible example to wake Frederick once for all to a consciousness of\nthe heavy responsibility of his position. He changed the sentence on\nKatte to one of death and ordered the execution to take place in\nFrederick's presence, himself arranging its every detail; Frederick's\nown fate would depend upon the effect of this terrible object-lesson and\nthe response he should make to the exhortations of the chaplain sent to\nreason with him. On the morning of the 7th of November Katte was\nbeheaded before Frederick's window, after the crown prince had asked his\npardon and received the answer that there was nothing to forgive. On\nFrederick himself lay the terror of death, and the chaplain was able to\nsend to the king a favourable report of his orthodoxy and his changed\ndisposition. Frederick William, whose temper was by no means so\nruthlessly Spartan as tradition has painted it,was overjoyed, and\ncommissioned the clergyman to receive from the prince an oath of filial\nobedience, and in exchange for this proof of \"his intention to improve\nin real earnest\" his arrest was to be lightened, pending the earning of\na full pardon. \"The whole town shall be his prison,\" wrote the king; \"I\nwill give him employment, from morning to night, in the departments of\nwar, and agriculture, and of the government. He shall work at financial\nmatters, receive accounts, read minutes and make extracts.... But if he\nkicks or rears again, he shall forfeit the succession to the crown, and\neven, according to circumstances, life itself.\"\n\nFor about fifteen months Frederick lived in Custrin, busy according to\nthe royal programme with the details of the Prussian administrative\nsystem. He was very careful not to \"kick or rear,\" and his good conduct\nearned him a further stage in the restoration to favour. During this\nperiod of probation he had been deprived of his status as a soldier and\nrefused the right to wear uniform, while officers and soldiers were\nforbidden to give him the military salute; in 1732 he was made colonel\nin command of the regiment at Neuruppin. In the following year he\nmarried, in obedience to the king's orders, the princess Elizabeth\nChristina, daughter of the duke of Brunswick-Bevern. He was given the\nestate of Rheinsberg in the neighbourhood of Neuruppin, and there he\nlived until he succeeded to the throne. These years were perhaps the\nhappiest of his life. He discharged his duties with so much spirit and\nso conscientiously that he ultimately gained the esteem of Frederick\nWilliam, who no longer feared that he would leave the crown to one\nunworthy of wearing it. At the same time the crown prince was able to\nindulge to the full his personal tastes. He carried on a lively\ncorrespondence with Voltaire and other French men of letters, and was a\ndiligent student of philosophy, history and poetry. Two of his\nbest-known works were written at this time--_Considerations sur l'etat\npresent du corps politique de l'Europe_ and his _Anti-Macchiavel_. In\nthe former he calls attention to the growing strength of Austria and\nFrance, and insists on the necessity of some third power, by which he\nclearly means Prussia, counterbalancing their excessive influence. The\nsecond treatise, which was issued by Voltaire in Hague in 1740, contains\na generous exposition of some of the favourite ideas of the 18th-century\nphilosophers respecting the duties of sovereigns, which may be summed up\nin the famous sentence: \"the prince is not the absolute master, but only\nthe first servant of his people.\"\n\nOn the 31st of May 1740 he became king. He maintained all the forms of\ngovernment established by his father, but ruled in a far more\nenlightened spirit; he tolerated every form of religious opinion,\nabolished the use of torture, was most careful to secure an exact and\nimpartial administration of justice, and, while keeping the reins of\ngovernment strictly in his own hands, allowed every one with a genuine\ngrievance free access to his presence. The Potsdam regiment of giants\nwas disbanded, but the real interests of the army were carefully\nstudied, for Frederick realized that the two pillars of the Prussian\nstate were sound finances and a strong army. On the 20th of October 1740\nthe emperor Charles VI. died. Frederick at once began to make extensive\nmilitary preparations, and it was soon clear to all the world that he\nintended to enter upon some serious enterprise. He had made up his mind\nto assert the ancient claim of the house of Brandenburg to the three\nSilesian duchies, which the Austrian rulers of Bohemia had ever denied,\nbut the Hohenzollerns had never abandoned. Projects for the assertion of\nthis claim by force of arms had been formed by more than one of\nFrederick's predecessors, and the extinction of the male line of the\nhouse of Habsburg may well have seemed to him a unique opportunity for\nrealizing an ambition traditional in his family. For this resolution he\nis often abused still by historians, and at the time he had the approval\nof hardly any one out of Prussia. He himself, writing of the scheme in\nhis _Memoires_, laid no claim to lofty motives, but candidly confessed\nthat \"it was a means of acquiring reputation and of increasing the power\nof the state.\" He firmly believed, however, in the lawfulness of his\nclaims; and although his father had recognized the Pragmatic Sanction,\nwhereby the hereditary dominions of Charles VI. were to descend to his\ndaughter, Maria Theresa, Frederick insisted that this sanction could\nrefer only to lands which rightfully belonged to the house of Austria.\nHe could also urge that, as Charles VI. had not fulfilled the\nengagements by which Frederick William's recognition of the Pragmatic\nSanction had been secured, Prussia was freed from her obligation.\n\nFrederick sent an ambassador to Vienna, offering, in the event of his\nrights in Silesia being conceded, to aid Maria Theresa against her\nenemies. The queen of Hungary, who regarded the proposal as that of a\nmere robber, haughtily declined; whereupon Frederick immediately invaded\nSilesia with an army of 30,000 men. His first victory was gained at\nMollwitz on the 10th of April 1741. Under the impression, in consequence\nof a furious charge of Austrian cavalry, that the battle was lost, he\nrode rapidly away at an early stage of the struggle--a mistake which\ngave rise for a time to the groundless idea that he lacked personal\ncourage. A second Prussian victory was gained at Chotusitz, near Caslau,\non the 17th May 1742; by this time Frederick was master of all the\nfortified places of Silesia. Maria Theresa, in the heat of her struggle\nwith France and the elector of Bavaria, now Charles VII., and pressed by\nEngland to rid herself of Frederick, concluded with him, on the 11th of\nJune 1742, the peace of Breslau, conceding to Prussia, Upper and Lower\nSilesia as far as the Oppa, together with the county of Glatz. Frederick\nmade good use of the next two years, fortifying his new territory, and\nrepairing the evils inflicted upon it by the war. By the death of the\nprince of East Friesland without heirs, he also gained possession of\nthat country (1744). He knew well that Maria Theresa would not, if she\ncould help it, allow him to remain in Silesia; accordingly, in 1744,\nalarmed by her victories, he arrived at a secret understanding with\nFrance, and pledged himself, with Hesse-Cassel and the palatinate, to\nmaintain the imperial rights of Charles VII., and to defend his\nhereditary Bavarian lands. Frederick began the second Silesian War by\nentering Bohemia in August 1744 and taking Prague. By this brilliant but\nrash venture he put himself in great danger, and soon had to retreat;\nbut in 1745 he gained the battles of Hohenfriedberg, Soor and\nHennersdorf; and Leopold of Dessau (\"Der alte Dessauer\") won for him the\nvictory of Kesselsdorf in Saxony. The latter victory was decisive, and\nthe peace of Dresden (December 25, 1745) assured to Frederick a second\ntime the possession of Silesia. (See AUSTRIAN SUCCESSION, WAR OF THE.)\n\nFrederick had thus, at the age of thirty-three, raised himself to a\ngreat position in Europe, and henceforth he was the most conspicuous\nsovereign of his time. He was a thoroughly absolute ruler, his so-called\nministers being mere clerks whose business was to give effect to his\nwill. To use his own famous phrase, however, he regarded himself as but\n\"the first servant of the state\"; and during the next eleven years he\nproved that the words expressed his inmost conviction and feeling. All\nkinds of questions were submitted to him, important and unimportant; and\nhe is frequently censured for having troubled himself so much with mere\ndetails. But in so far as these details related to expenditure he was\nfully justified, for it was absolutely essential for him to have a large\narmy, and with a small state this was impossible unless he carefully\nprevented unnecessary outlay. Being a keen judge of character, he filled\nthe public offices with faithful, capable, energetic men, who were kept\nup to a high standard of duty by the consciousness that their work might\nat any time come under his strict supervision. The Academy of Sciences,\nwhich had fallen into contempt during his father's reign, he restored,\ninfusing into it vigorous life; and he did more to promote elementary\neducation than any of his predecessors. He did much too for the economic\ndevelopment of Prussia, especially for agriculture; he established\ncolonies, peopling them with immigrants, extended the canal system,\ndrained and diked the great marshes of the Oderbruch, turning them into\nrich pasturage, encouraged the planting of fruit trees and of root\ncrops; and, though in accordance with his ideas of discipline he\nmaintained serfdom, he did much to lighten the burdens of the peasants.\nAll kinds of manufacture, too, particularly that of silk, owed much to\nhis encouragement. To the army he gave unremitting attention, reviewing\nit at regular intervals, and sternly punishing negligence on the part of\nthe officers. Its numbers were raised to 160,000 men, while fortresses\nand magazines were always kept in a state of readiness for war. The\ninfluence of the king's example was felt far beyond the limits of his\nimmediate circle. The nation was proud of his genius, and displayed\nsomething of his energy in all departments of life. Lessing, who as a\nyouth of twenty came to Berlin in 1749, composed enthusiastic odes in\nhis honour, and Gleim, the Halberstadt poet, wrote of him as of a kind\nof demi-god. These may be taken as fair illustrations of the popular\nfeeling long before the Seven Years' War.\n\nHe despised German as the language of boors, although it is remarkable\nthat at a later period, in a French essay on German literature, he\npredicted for it a great future. He habitually wrote and spoke French,\nand had a strong ambition to rank as a distinguished French author.\nNobody can now read his verses, but his prose writings have a certain\ncalm simplicity and dignity, without, however, giving evidence of the\nsplendid mental qualities which he revealed in practical life. To this\nperiod belong his _Memoires pour servir a l'histoire de Brandebourg_ and\nhis poem _L'Art de la guerre_. The latter, judged as literature, is\nintolerably dull; but the former is valuable, throwing as it does\nconsiderable light on his personal sympathies as well as on the motives\nof important epochs in his career. He continued to correspond with\nFrench writers, and induced a number of them to settle in Berlin,\nMaupertuis being president of the Academy. In 1752 Voltaire, who had\nrepeatedly visited him, came at Frederick's urgent entreaty, and\nreceived a truly royal welcome. The famous Hirsch trial, and Voltaire's\nvanity and caprice, greatly lowered him in the esteem of the king, who,\non his side, irritated his guest by often requiring him to correct bad\nverses, and by making him the object of rude banter. The publication of\n_Doctor Akakia_, which brought down upon the president of the Academy a\nstorm of ridicule, finally alienated Frederick; while Voltaire's wrongs\nculminated in the famous arrest at Frankfort, the most disagreeable\nelements of which were due to the misunderstanding of an order by a\nsubordinate official.\n\nThe king lived as much as possible in a retired mansion, to which he\ngave the name of Sanssouci--not the palace so called, which was built\nafter the Seven Years' War, and was never a favourite residence. He rose\nregularly in summer at five, in winter at six, devoting himself to\npublic business till about eleven. During part of this time, after\ncoffee, he would aid his reflections by playing on the flute, of which\nhe was passionately fond, being a really skilful performer. At eleven\ncame parade, and an hour afterwards, punctually, dinner, which continued\ntill two, or later, if conversation happened to be particularly\nattractive. After dinner he glanced through and signed cabinet orders\nwritten in accordance with his morning instructions, often adding\nmarginal notes and postscripts, many of which were in a caustic tone.\nThese disposed of, he amused himself for a couple of hours with literary\nwork; between six and seven he would converse with his friends or listen\nto his reader (a post held for some time by La Mettrie); at seven there\nwas a concert; and at half-past eight he sat down to supper, which might\ngo on till midnight. He liked good eating and drinking, although even\nhere the cost was sharply looked after, the expenses of his kitchen\nmounting to no higher figure than L1800 a year. At supper he was always\nsurrounded by a number of his most intimate friends, mainly Frenchmen;\nand he insisted on the conversation being perfectly free. His wit,\nhowever, was often cruel, and any one who responded with too much spirit\nwas soon made to feel that the licence of talk was to be complete only\non one side.\n\nAt Frederick's court ladies were seldom seen, a circumstance that gave\noccasion to much scandal for which there seems to have been no\nfoundation. The queen he visited only on rare occasions. She had been\nforced upon him by his father, and he had never loved her; but he always\ntreated her with marked respect, and provided her with a generous\nincome, half of which she gave away in charity. Although without charm,\nshe was a woman of many noble qualities; and, like her husband, she\nwrote French books, some of which attracted a certain attention in their\nday. She survived him by eleven years, dying in 1797.\n\nMaria Theresa had never given up hope that she would recover Silesia;\nand as all the neighbouring sovereigns were bitterly jealous of\nFrederick, and somewhat afraid of him, she had no difficulty in inducing\nseveral of them to form a scheme for his ruin. Russia and Saxony entered\ninto it heartily, and France, laying aside her ancient enmity towards\nAustria, joined the empress against the common object of dislike.\nFrederick, meanwhile, had turned towards England, which saw in him a\npossible ally of great importance against the French. A convention\nbetween Prussia and Great Britain was signed in January 1756, and it\nproved of incalculable value to both countries, leading as it did to a\nclose alliance during the administration of Pitt. Through the treachery\nof a clerk in the Saxon foreign office Frederick was made aware of the\nfuture which was being prepared for him. Seeing the importance of taking\nthe initiative, and if possible, of securing Saxony, he suddenly, on the\n24th of August 1756, crossed the frontier of that country, and shut in\nthe Saxon army between Pirna and Koenigstein, ultimately compelling it,\nafter a victory gained over the Austrians at Lobositz, to surrender.\nThus began the Seven Years' War, in which, supported by England,\nBrunswick and Hesse-Cassel, he had for a long time to oppose Austria,\nFrance, Russia, Saxony and Sweden. Virtually the whole Continent was in\narms against a small state which, a few years before, had been regarded\nby most men as beneath serious notice. But it happened that this small\nstate was led by a man of high military genius, capable of infusing into\nothers his own undaunted spirit, while his subjects had learned both\nfrom him and his predecessors habits of patience, perseverance and\ndiscipline. In 1757, after defeating the Austrians at Prague, he was\nhimself defeated by them at Kolin; and by the shameful convention of\nCloster-Seven, he was freely exposed to the attack of the French. In\nNovember 1757, however, when Europe looked upon him as ruined, he rid\nhimself of the French by his splendid victory over them at Rossbach, and\nin about a month afterwards, by the still more splendid victory at\nLeuthen, he drove the Austrians from Silesia. From this time the French\nwere kept well employed in the west by Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick,\nwho defeated them at Crefeld in 1758, and at Minden in 1759. In the\nformer year Frederick triumphed, at a heavy cost, over the Russians at\nZorndorf; and although, through lack of his usual foresight, he lost the\nbattle of Hochkirch, he prevented the Austrians from deriving any real\nadvantage from their triumph, Silesia still remaining in his hands at\nthe end of the year. The battle of Kunersdorf, fought on the 12th of\nAugust 1759, was the most disastrous to him in the course of the war. He\nhad here to contend both with the Russians and the Austrians; and\nalthough at first he had some success, his army was in the end\ncompletely broken. \"All is lost save the royal family,\" he wrote to his\nminister Friesenstein; \"the consequences of this battle will be worse\nthan the battle itself. I shall not survive the ruin of the Fatherland.\nAdieu for ever!\" But he soon recovered from his despair, and in 1760\ngained the important victories of Liegnitz and Torgau. He had now,\nhowever, to act on the defensive, and fortunately for him, the Russians,\non the death of the empress Elizabeth, not only withdrew in 1762 from\nthe compact against him, but for a time became his allies. On the 29th\nof October of that year he gained his last victory over the Austrians at\nFreiberg. Europe was by that time sick of war, every power being more or\nless exhausted. The result was that, on the 15th of February 1763, a\nfew days after the conclusion of the peace of Paris, the treaty of\nHubertusburg was signed, Austria confirming Prussia in the possession of\nSilesia. (See SEVEN YEARS' WAR.)\n\nIt would be difficult to overrate the importance of the contribution\nthus made by Frederick to the politics of Europe. Prussia was now\nuniversally recognized as one of the great powers of the Continent, and\nshe definitely took her place in Germany as the rival of Austria. From\nthis time it was inevitable that there should be a final struggle\nbetween the two nations for predominance, and that the smaller German\nstates should group themselves around one or the other. Frederick\nhimself acquired both in Germany and Europe the indefinable influence\nwhich springs from the recognition of great gifts that have been proved\nby great deeds.\n\nHis first care after the war was, as far as possible, to enable the\ncountry to recover from the terrific blows by which it had been almost\ndestroyed; and he was never, either before or after, seen to better\nadvantage than in the measures he adopted for this end. Although his\nresources had been so completely drained that he had been forced to melt\nthe silver in his palaces and to debase the coinage, his energy soon\nbrought back the national prosperity. Pomerania and Neumark were freed\nfrom taxation for two years, Silesia for six months. Many nobles whose\nlands had been wasted received corn for seed; his war horses were within\na few months to be found on farms all over Prussia; and money was freely\nspent in the re-erection of houses which had been destroyed. The coinage\nwas gradually restored to its proper value, and trade received a\nfavourable impulse by the foundation of the Bank of Berlin. All these\nmatters were carefully looked into by Frederick himself, who, while\nacting as generously as his circumstances would allow, insisted on\neverything being done in the most efficient manner at the least possible\ncost. Unfortunately, he adopted the French ideas of excise, and the\nFrench methods of imposing and collecting taxes--a system known as the\nRegie. This system secured for him a large revenue, but it led to a vast\namount of petty tyranny, which was all the more intolerable because it\nwas carried out by French officials. It was continued to the end of\nFrederick's reign, and nothing did so much to injure his otherwise\nimmense popularity. He was quite aware of the discontent the system\nexcited, and the good-nature with which he tolerated the criticisms\ndirected against it and him is illustrated by a well-known incident.\nRiding along the Jaeger Strasse one day, he saw a crowd of people. \"See\nwhat it is,\" he said to the groom who was attending him. \"They have\nsomething posted up about your Majesty,\" said the groom, returning.\nFrederick, riding forward, saw a caricature of himself: \"King in very\nmelancholy guise,\" says Preuss (as translated by Carlyle), \"seated on a\nstool, a coffee-mill between his knees, diligently grinding with the one\nhand, and with the other picking up any bean that might have fallen.\n'Hang it lower,' said the king, beckoning his groom with a wave of the\nfinger; 'lower, that they may not have to hurt their necks about it.' No\nsooner were the words spoken, which spread instantly, than there rose\nfrom the whole crowd one universal huzzah of joy. They tore the\ncaricature into a thousand pieces, and rolled after the king with loud\n'_Lebe Hoch_, our Frederick for ever,' as he rode slowly away.\" There\nare scores of anecdotes about Frederick, but not many so well\nauthenticated as this.\n\nThere was nothing about which Frederick took so much trouble as the\nproper administration of justice. He disliked the formalities of the\nlaw, and in one instance, \"the miller Arnold case,\" in connexion with\nwhich he thought injustice had been done to a poor man, he dismissed the\njudges, condemned them to a year's fortress arrest, and compelled them\nto make good out of their own pockets the loss sustained by their\nsupposed victim--not a wise proceeding, but one springing from a\ngenerous motive. He once defined himself as \"l'avocat du pauvre,\" and\nfew things gave him more pleasure than the famous answer of the miller\nwhose windmill stood on ground which was wanted for the king's garden.\nThe miller sturdily refused to sell it. \"Not at any price?\" said the\nking's agent; \"could not the king take it from you for nothing, if he\nchose?\" \"Have we not the Kammergericht at Berlin?\" was the answer, which\nbecame a popular saying in Germany. Soon after he came to the throne\nFrederick began to make preparations for a new code. In 1747 appeared\nthe _Codex Fridericianus_, by which the Prussian judicial body was\nestablished. But a greater monument of Frederick's interest in legal\nreform was the _Allgemeines preussisches Landrecht_, completed by the\ngrand chancellor Count Johann H. C. von Carmer (1721-1801) on the basis\nof the _Project des Corporis Juris Fridericiani_, completed in the year\n1749-1751 by the eminent jurist Samuel von Cocceji (1679-1755). The\n_Landrecht_, a work of vast labour and erudition, combines the two\nsystems of German and Roman law supplemented by the law of nature; it\nwas the first German code, but only came into force in 1794, after\nFrederick's death.\n\nLooking ahead after the Seven Years' War, Frederick saw no means of\nsecuring himself so effectually as by cultivating the goodwill of\nRussia. In 1764 he accordingly concluded a treaty of alliance with the\nempress Catherine for eight years. Six years afterwards, unfortunately\nfor his fame, he joined in the first partition of Poland, by which he\nreceived Polish Prussia, without Danzig and Thorn, and Great Poland as\nfar as the river Netze. Prussia was then for the first time made\ncontinuous with Brandenburg and Pomerania.\n\nThe emperor Joseph II. greatly admired Frederick, and visited him at\nNeisse, in Silesia, in 1769, a visit which Frederick returned, in\nMoravia, in the following year. The young emperor was frank and cordial;\nFrederick was more cautious, for he detected under the respectful manner\nof Joseph a keen ambition that might one day become dangerous to\nPrussia. Ever after these interviews a portrait of the emperor hung\nconspicuously in the rooms in which Frederick lived, a circumstance on\nwhich some one remarked. \"Ah yes,\" said Frederick, \"I am obliged to keep\nthat young gentleman in my eye.\" Nothing came of these suspicions till\n1777, when, after the death of Maximilian Joseph, elector of Bavaria,\nwithout children, the emperor took possession of the greater part of his\nlands. The elector palatine, who lawfully inherited Bavaria, came to an\narrangement, which was not admitted by his heir, Charles, duke of\nZweibruecken. Under these circumstances the latter appealed to Frederick,\nwho, resolved that Austria should gain no unnecessary advantage, took\nhis part, and brought pressure to bear upon the emperor. Ultimately,\ngreatly against his will, Frederick felt compelled to draw the sword,\nand in July 1778 crossed the Bohemian frontier at the head of a powerful\narmy. No general engagement was fought, and after a great many delays\nthe treaty of Teschen was signed on the 13th of May 1779. Austria\nreceived the circle of Burgau, and consented that the king of Prussia\nshould take the Franconian principalities. Frederick never abandoned his\njealousy of Austria, whose ambition he regarded as the chief danger\nagainst which Europe had to guard. He seems to have had no suspicion\nthat evil days were coming in France. It was Austria which had given\ntrouble in his time; and if her pride were curbed, he fancied that\nPrussia at least would be safe. Hence one of the last important acts of\nhis life was to form, in 1785, a league of princes (the \"Fuerstenbund\")\nfor the defence of the imperial constitution, believed to be imperilled\nby Joseph's restless activity. The league came to an end after\nFrederick's death; but it is of considerable historical interest, as the\nfirst open attempt of Prussia to take the lead in Germany.\n\nFrederick's chief trust was always in his treasury and his army. By\ncontinual economy he left in the former the immense sum of 70 million\nthalers; the latter, at the time of his death, numbered 200,000 men,\ndisciplined with all the strictness to which he had throughout life\naccustomed his troops. He died at Sanssouci on the 17th of August 1786;\nhis death being hastened by exposure to a storm of rain, stoically\nborne, during a military review. He passed away on the eve of tremendous\nevents, which for a time obscured his fame; but now that he can be\nimpartially estimated, he is seen to have been in many respects one of\nthe greatest figures in modern history.\n\nHe was rather below the middle size, in youth inclined to stoutness,\nlean in old age, but of vigorous and active habits. An expression of\nkeen intelligence lighted up his features, and his large, sparkling grey\neyes darted penetrating glances at every one who approached him. In his\nlater years an old blue uniform with red facings was his usual dress,\nand on his breast was generally some Spanish snuff, of which he consumed\nlarge quantities. He shared many of the chief intellectual tendencies of\nhis age, having no feeling for the highest aspirations of human nature,\nbut submitting all things to a searching critical analysis. Of\nChristianity he always spoke in the mocking tone of the \"enlightened\"\nphilosophers, regarding it as the invention of priests; but it is\nnoteworthy that after the Seven Years' War, the trials of which steadied\nhis character, he sought to strengthen the church for the sake of its\nelevating moral influence. In his judgments of mankind he often talked\nas a misanthrope. He was once conversing with Sulzer, who was a school\ninspector, about education. Sulzer expressed the opinion that education\nhad of late years greatly improved. \"In former times, your Majesty,\" he\nsaid, \"the notion being that mankind were naturally inclined to evil, a\nsystem of severity prevailed in schools; but now, when we recognize that\nthe inborn inclination of men is rather to good than to evil,\nschoolmasters have adopted a more generous procedure.\" \"Ah, my dear\nSulzer,\" replied the king, \"you don't know this damned race\" (\"Ach, mein\nlieber Sulzer, er kennt nicht diese verdammte Race\"). This fearful\nsaying unquestionably expressed a frequent mood of Frederick's; and he\nsometimes acted with great harshness, and seemed to take a malicious\npleasure in tormenting his acquaintances. Yet he was capable of genuine\nattachments. He was beautifully loyal to his mother and his sister\nWilhelmina; his letters to the duchess of Gotha are full of a certain\ntender reverence; the two Keiths found him a devoted friend. But the\ntrue evidence that beneath his misanthropical moods there was an\nenduring sentiment of humanity is afforded by the spirit in which he\nexercised his kingly functions. Taking his reign as a whole, it must be\nsaid that he looked upon his power rather as a trust than as a source of\npersonal advantage; and the trust was faithfully discharged according to\nthe best lights of his day. He has often been condemned for doing\nnothing to encourage German literature; and it is true that he was\nsupremely indifferent to it. Before he died a tide of intellectual life\nwas rising all about him; yet he failed to recognize it, declined to\ngive Lessing even the small post of royal librarian, and thought _Goetz\nvon Berlichingen_ a vulgar imitation of vulgar English models. But when\nhis taste was formed, German literature did not exist; the choice was\nbetween Racine and Voltaire on the one hand and Gottsched and Gellert on\nthe other. He survived into the era of Kant, Goethe and Schiller, but he\nwas not of it, and it would have been unreasonable to expect that he\nshould in old age pass beyond the limits of his own epoch. As Germans\nnow generally admit, it was better that he let their literature alone,\nsince, left to itself, it became a thoroughly independent product.\nIndirectly he powerfully promoted it by deepening the national life from\nwhich it sprang. At a time when there was no real bond of cohesion\nbetween the different states, he stirred among them a common enthusiasm;\nand in making Prussia great he laid the foundation of a genuinely united\nempire.\n\n  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.--The main sources for the biography of Frederick\n  the Great are his own works, which, in the words of Leopold von Ranke,\n  \"deal with the politics and wars of the period with the greatest\n  possible objectivity, i.e. truthfulness, and form an imperishable\n  monument of his life and opinions.\" A magnificent edition of\n  Frederick's complete works was issued (1846-1857), at the instance of\n  Frederick William IV., under the supervision of the historian Johann\n  D. E. Preuss (1785-1868). It is in thirty volumes, of which six\n  contain verse, seven are historical, two philosophical, and three\n  military, twelve being made up of correspondence. So long as the\n  various state archives remained largely inaccessible historians relied\n  upon this as their chief authority. Among works belonging to this\n  period may be mentioned Thomas Carlyle, _History of Frederick II. of\n  Prussia_ (6 vols., London, 1858-1865); J. G. Droysen, _Friedrich der\n  Grosse_ (2 vols., Leipzig, 1874-1876, forming part V. of his\n  _Geschichte der preussischen Politik_); Ranke, _Friedrich II., Koenig\n  von Preussen_ (_Werke_, vols. li. and lii.). A great stimulus to the\n  study of Frederick's history has since been given by the publication\n  of collections of documents preserved in various archives. Of these\n  the most important is the great official edition of Frederick's\n  political correspondence (Berlin, 1879), of which the thirty-first\n  vol. appeared in 1906. Of later works, based on modern research, may\n  be mentioned R. Koser, _Koenig Friedrich der Grosse_, Bd. 2 (Stuttgart,\n  1893 and 1903; 3rd ed., 1905); Bourdeau, _Le Grand Frederic_ (2 vols.,\n  Paris, 1900-1902); L. Paul-Dubois, _Frederic le Grand, d'apres sa\n  correspondance politique_ (Paris, 1903); W. F. Reddaway, _Frederick\n  the Great and the Rise of Prussia_ (London, 1904). Of the numerous\n  special studies may be noticed E. Zeller, _Friedrich der Grosse als\n  Philosoph_ (Berlin, 1886); H. Pigge, _Die Staatstheorie Friedrichs des\n  Grossen_ (Muenster, 1904); T. von Bernhardi, _Friedrich der Grosse als\n  Feldherr_ (2 vols., Berlin, 1881); Ernest Lavisse, _La Jeunesse du\n  Grand Frederic_ (Paris, 1891, 3rd ed., 1899; Eng. transl., London,\n  1891); R. Brode, _Friedrich der Grosse und der Konflikt mit seinem\n  Vater_ (Leipzig, 1904); W. von Bremen, _Friedrich der Grosse_ (Bd. ii.\n  of _Erzieher des preussischen Heeres_, Berlin, 1905); G. Winter,\n  _Friedrich der Grosse_ (3 vols. in _Geisteshelden_ series, Berlin,\n  1906); _Dreissig Jahre am Hofe Friedrichs des Grossen_. _Aus den\n  Tagebuechern des Reichsgrafen Ahasuerus Heinrich von Lehndorff,\n  Kammerherrn der Koenigin Elisabett Christine von Preussen_ (Gotha,\n  1907). The great work on the wars of Frederick is that issued by the\n  Prussian General Staff: _Die Kriege Friedrichs des Grossen_ (12 vols.\n  in three parts, Berlin, 1890-1904). For a full list of other works see\n  Dahlmann-Waitz, _Quellenkunde_ (Leipzig, 1906).     (J. Si.; W. A. P.).\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK III. (1831-1888), king of Prussia and German emperor, was born\nat Potsdam on the 18th of October 1831, being the eldest son of Prince\nWilliam of Prussia, afterwards first German emperor, and the princess\nAugusta. He was carefully educated, and in 1849-1850 studied at the\nuniversity of Bonn. The next years were spent in military duties and in\ntravels, in which he was accompanied by Moltke. In 1851 he visited\nEngland on the occasion of the Great Exhibition, and in 1855 became\nengaged to Victoria, princess royal of Great Britain, to whom he was\nmarried in London on the 25th of January 1858. On the death of his uncle\nin 1861 and the accession of his father, Prince Frederick William, as he\nwas then always called, became crown prince of Prussia. His education,\nthe influence of his mother, and perhaps still more that of his wife's\nfather, the Prince Consort, had made him a strong Liberal, and he was\nmuch distressed at the course of events in Prussia after the appointment\nof Bismarck as minister. He was urged by the Liberals to put himself\ninto open opposition to the government; this he refused to do, but he\nremonstrated privately with the king. In June 1863, however, he publicly\ndissociated himself from the press ordinances which had just been\npublished. He ceased to attend meetings of the council of state, and was\nmuch away from Berlin. The opposition of the crown prince to the\nministers was increased during the following year, for he was a warm\nfriend of the prince of Augustenburg, whose claims to Schleswig-Holstein\nBismarck refused to support. During the war with Denmark he had his\nfirst military experience, being attached to the staff of Marshal von\nWrangel; he performed valuable service in arranging the difficulties\ncaused by the disputes between the field marshal and the other officers,\nand was eventually given a control over him. After the war he continued\nto support the prince of Augustenburg and was strongly opposed to the\nwar with Austria. During the campaign of 1866 he received the command of\nan army consisting of four army corps; he was assisted by General von\nBlumenthal, as chief of the staff, but took a very active part in\ndirecting the difficult operations by which his army fought its way\nthrough the mountains from Silesia to Bohemia, fighting four engagements\nin three days, and showed that he possessed genuine military capacity.\nIn the decisive battle of Koeniggraetz the arrival of his army on the\nfield of battle, after a march of nearly 20 m., secured the victory.\nDuring the negotiations which ended the war he gave valuable assistance\nby persuading the king to accept Bismarck's policy as regards peace with\nAustria. From this time he was very anxious to see the king of Prussia\nunite the whole of Germany, with the title of emperor, and was impatient\nof the caution with which Bismarck proceeded. In 1869 he paid a visit to\nItaly, and in the same year was present at the opening of the Suez\nCanal; on his way he visited the Holy Land.\n\nHe played a conspicuous part in the year 1870-1871, being appointed to\ncommand the armies of the Southern States, General Blumenthal again\nbeing his chief of the staff; his troops won the victory of Woerth, took\nan important part in the battle of Sedan, and later in the siege of\nParis. The popularity he won was of political service in preparing the\nway for the union of North and South Germany, and he was the foremost\nadvocate of the imperial idea at the Prussian court. During the years\nthat followed, little opportunity for political activity was open to\nhim. He and the crown princess took a great interest in art and\nindustry, especially in the royal museums; and the excavations conducted\nat Olympia and Pergamon with such great results were chiefly due to him.\nThe crown princess was a keen advocate of the higher education of women,\nand it was owing to her exertions that the Victoria Lyceum at Berlin\n(which was named after her) was founded. In 1878, when the emperor was\nincapacitated by the shot of an assassin, the prince acted for some\nmonths as regent. His palace was the centre of all that was best in the\nliterary and learned society of the capital. He publicly expressed his\ndisapproval of the attacks on the Jews in 1878; and the coalition of\nLiberal parties founded in 1884 was popularly known as the \"crown\nprince's party,\" but he scrupulously refrained from any act that might\nembarrass his father's government. For many reasons the accession of the\nprince was looked forward to with great hope by a large part of the\nnation. Unfortunately he was attacked by cancer in the throat; he spent\nthe winter of 1887-1888 at San Remo; in January 1888 the operation of\ntracheotomy had to be performed. On the death of his father, which took\nplace on the 9th of March, he at once journeyed to Berlin; but his days\nwere numbered, and he came to the throne only to die. In these\ncircumstances his accession could not have the political importance\nwhich would otherwise have attached to it, though it was disfigured by a\nvicious outburst of party passion in which the names of the emperor and\nthe empress were constantly misused. While the Liberals hoped the\nemperor would use his power for some signal declaration of policy, the\nadherents of Bismarck did not scruple to make bitter attacks on the\nempress. The emperor's most important act was a severe reprimand\naddressed to Herr von Puttkamer, the reactionary minister of the\ninterior, which caused his resignation; in the distribution of honours\nhe chose many who belonged to classes and parties hitherto excluded from\ncourt favour. A serious difference of opinion with the chancellor\nregarding the proposal for a marriage between Prince Alexander of\nBattenberg and the princess Victoria of Prussia was arranged by the\nintervention of Queen Victoria, who visited Berlin to see her dying\nson-in-law. He expired at Potsdam on the 15th of June 1888, after a\nreign of ninety-nine days.\n\nAfter the emperor's death Professor Geffcken, a personal friend,\npublished in the _Deutsche Rundschau_ extracts from the diary of the\ncrown prince containing passages which illustrated his differences with\nBismarck during the war of 1870. The object was to injure Bismarck's\nreputation, and a very unseemly dispute ensued. Bismarck at first, in a\nletter addressed to the new emperor, denied the authenticity of the\nextracts on the ground that they were unworthy of the crown prince.\nGeffcken was then arrested and imprisoned. He had undoubtedly shown that\nhe was an injudicious friend, for the diary proved that the prince, in\nhis enthusiasm for German unity, had allowed himself to consider\nprojects which would have seriously compromised the relations of Prussia\nand Bavaria. The treatment of the crown prince's illness also gave rise\nto an acrimonious controversy. It arose from the fact that as early as\nMay 1887 the German physicians recognized the presence of cancer in the\nthroat, but Sir Morell Mackenzie, the English specialist who was also\nconsulted, disputed the correctness of this diagnosis, and advised that\nthe operation for removal of the larynx, which they had recommended,\nshould not be undertaken. His advice was followed, and the differences\nbetween the medical men were made the occasion for a considerable\ndisplay of national and political animosity.\n\nThe empress VICTORIA, who, after the death of her husband, was known as\nthe empress Frederick, died on the 5th of August 1901 at the castle of\nFriedrichskron, Cronberg, near Homburg v. d. H., where she spent her\nlast years. Of the emperor's children two, Prince Sigismund (1864-1866)\nand Prince Waldemar (1869-1879), died in childhood. He left two sons,\nWilliam, his successor as emperor, and Henry, who adopted a naval\ncareer. Of his daughters, the princess Charlotte was married to Bernard,\nhereditary prince of Meiningen; the princess Victoria to Prince Adolf of\nSchaumburg-Lippe; the princess Sophie to the duke of Sparta, crown\nprince of Greece; and the princess Margaretha to Prince Friedrich Karl\nof Hesse.\n\n  AUTHORITIES.--M. von Poschinger, _Kaiser Friedrich_ (3 vols., Berlin,\n  1898-1900). Adapted into English by Sidney Whitman, _Life of the\n  Emperor Frederick_ (1901). See also Bismarck, _Reflections and\n  Reminiscences_; Rennell Rodd, _Frederick, Crown Prince and Emperor_\n  (1888); Gustav Freytag, _Der Kronprinz und die deutsche Kaiserkrone_\n  (1889; English translation, 1890); Otto Richter, _Kaiser Friedrich\n  III._ (2nd ed., Berlin, 1903). For his illness, the official\n  publications, published both in English and German: _Die Krankheit\n  Kaiser Friedrichs III._ (Berlin, 1888), and Morell Mackenzie, _The\n  Fatal Illness of Frederick the Noble_ (1888). Most of the copies of\n  the _Deutsche Rundschau_ containing the extracts from the crown\n  prince's diary were confiscated, but there is an English edition,\n  published in 1889.     (J. W. He.)\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK III. (1272-1337), king of Sicily, third son of King Peter of\nAragon and Sicily, and of Constance, daughter of Manfred. Peter died in\n1285, leaving Aragon to his eldest son Alphonso, and Sicily to his\nsecond son James. When Alphonso died in 1291 James became king of\nAragon, and left his brother Frederick as regent of Sicily. The war\nbetween the Angevins and the Aragonese for the possession of Sicily was\nstill in progress, and although the Aragonese were successful in Italy,\nJames's position in Spain became very insecure to internal troubles and\nFrench attacks. Peace negotiations were begun with Charles II. of Anjou,\nbut were interrupted by the successive deaths of two popes; at last\nunder the auspices of Boniface VIII. James concluded a shameful treaty,\nby which, in exchange for being left undisturbed in Aragon and promised\npossession of Sardinia and Corsica, he gave up Sicily to the Church, for\nwhom it was to be held by the Angevins (1295). The Sicilians refused to\nbe made over once more to the hated French whom they had expelled in\n1282, and found a national leader in the regent Frederick. In vain the\npope tried to bribe him with promises and dignities; he was determined\nto stand by his subjects, and was crowned king by the nobles at Palermo\nin 1296. Young, brave and handsome, he won the love and devotion of his\npeople, and guided them through the long years of storm and stress with\nwisdom and ability. Although the second Frederick of Sicily, he called\nhimself third, being the third son of King Peter. He reformed the\nadministration and extended the powers of the Sicilian parliament, which\nwas composed of the barons, the prelates and the representatives of the\ntowns.\n\nHis refusal to comply with the pope's injunctions led to a renewal of\nthe war. Frederick landed in Calabria, where he seized several towns,\nencouraged revolt in Naples, negotiated with the Ghibellines of Tuscany\nand Lombardy, and assisted the house of Colonna against Pope Boniface.\nIn the meanwhile James, who received many favours from the Church,\nmarried his sister Yolanda to Robert, the third son of Charles II.\nUnfortunately for Frederick, a part of the Aragonese nobles of Sicily\nfavoured King James, and both John of Procida and Ruggiero di Lauria,\nthe heroes of the war of the Vespers, went over to the Angevins, and the\nlatter completely defeated the Sicilian fleet off Cape Orlando.\nCharles's sons Robert and Philip landed in Sicily, but after capturing\nCatania were defeated by Frederick, Philip being taken prisoner (1299),\nwhile several Calabrian towns were captured by the Sicilians. For two\nyears more the fighting continued with varying success, until Charles of\nValois, who had been sent by Boniface to invade Sicily, was forced to\nsue for peace, his army being decimated by the plague, and in August\n1302 the treaty of Caltabellotta was signed, by which Frederick was\nrecognized king of Trinacria (the name Sicily was not to be used) for\nhis lifetime, and was to marry Eleonora, the daughter of Charles II.; at\nhis death the kingdom was to revert to the Angevins (this clause was\ninserted chiefly to save Charles's face), and his children would receive\ncompensation elsewhere. Boniface tried to induce King Charles to break\nthe treaty, but the latter was only too anxious for peace, and finally\nin May 1303 the pope ratified it, Frederick agreeing to pay him a\ntribute.\n\nFor a few years Sicily enjoyed peace, and the kingdom was reorganized.\nBut on the descent of the emperor Henry VII., Frederick entered into an\nalliance with him, and in violation of the pact of Caltabellotta made\nwar on the Angevins again (1313) and captured Reggio. He set sail for\nTuscany to cooperate with the emperor, but on the latter's death (1314)\nhe returned to Sicily. Robert, who had succeeded Charles II. in 1309,\nmade several raids into the island, which suffered much material injury.\nA truce was concluded in 1317, but as the Sicilians helped the north\nItalian Ghibellines in the attack on Genoa, and Frederick seized some\nChurch revenues for military purposes, the pope (John XXII.)\nexcommunicated him and placed the island under an interdict (1321) which\nlasted until 1335. An Angevin fleet and army, under Robert's son\nCharles, was defeated at Palermo by Giovanni da Chiaramonte in 1325, and\nin 1326 and 1327 there were further Angevin raids on the island, until\nthe descent into Italy of the emperor Louis the Bavarian distracted\ntheir attention. The election of Pope Benedict XII. (1334), who was\nfriendly to Frederick, promised a respite; but after fruitless\nnegotiations the war broke out once more, and Chiaramonte went over to\nRobert, owing to a private feud. In 1337 Frederick died at Paternione,\nand in spite of the peace of Caltabellotta his son Peter succeeded.\nFrederick's great merit was that during his reign the Aragonese dynasty\nbecame thoroughly national and helped to weld the Sicilians into a\nunited people.\n\n  BIBLIOGRAPHY.--G. M. Mira, _Bibliografia Siciliana_ (Palermo, 1875);\n  of the contemporary authorities N. Speciale's \"Historia Sicula\" (in\n  Muratori's _Script. rer. ital._ x.) is the most important; for the\n  first years of Frederick's reign see M. Amari, _La Guerra del Vespro\n  Siciliano_ (Florence, 1876), and F. Lanzani, _Storia dei Comuni\n  italiani_ (Milan, 1882); for the latter years C. Cipolla, _Storia\n  delle signorie italiane_ (Milan, 1881); also Testa, _Vita di Federigo\n  di Sicilia_.     (L. V.)\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK I. (c. 1371-1440), elector of Brandenburg, founder of the\ngreatness of the House of Hohenzollern, was a son of Frederick V.,\nburgrave of Nuremberg, and first came into prominence by saving the life\nof Sigismund, king of Hungary, at the battle of Nicopolis in 1396. In\n1397 he became burgrave of Nuremberg, and after his father's death in\n1398 he shared Ansbach, Bayreuth, and the smaller possessions of the\nfamily, with his only brother John, but became sole ruler after his\nbrother's death in 1420. Loyal at first to King Wenceslaus, the king's\nneglect of Germany drove Frederick to take part in his deposition in\n1400, and in the election of Rupert III., count palatine of the Rhine,\nwhom he accompanied to Italy in the following year. In 1401 he married\nElizabeth, or Elsa, daughter of Frederick, duke of Bavaria-Landshut (d.\n1393), and after spending some time in family and other feuds, took\nservice again with King Sigismund in 1409, whom he assisted in his\nstruggle with the Hungarian rebels. The double election to the German\nthrone in 1410 first brought Frederick into relation with Brandenburg.\nSigismund, anxious to obtain another vote in the electoral college,\nappointed Frederick to exercise the Brandenburg vote on his behalf, and\nit was largely through his efforts that Sigismund was chosen German\nking. Frederick then passed some time as administrator of Brandenburg,\nwhere he restored a certain degree of order, and was formally invested\nwith the electorate and margraviate by Sigismund at Constance on the\n18th of April 1417 (see BRANDENBURG). He took part in the war against\nthe Hussites, but became estranged from Sigismund when in 1423 the king\ninvested Frederick of Wettin, margrave of Meissen, with the vacant\nelectoral duchy of Saxe-Wittenberg. In 1427 he sold his rights as\nburgrave to the town of Nuremberg, and he was a prominent member of the\nband of electors who sought to impose reforms upon Sigismund. After\nhaving been an unsuccessful candidate for the German throne in 1438,\nFrederick was chosen king of Bohemia in 1440, but declined the proffered\nhonour. He took part in the election of Frederick III. as German king\nin 1440, and died at Radolzburg on the 21st of September in the same\nyear. In 1902 a bronze statue was erected to his memory at Friesack, and\nthere is also a marble one of the elector in the \"Siegesallee\" at\nBerlin.\n\n  See A. F. Riedel, _Zehn Jahre aus der Geschichte der Ahnherren des\n  preussischen Koenigshauses_ (Berlin, 1851); E. Brandenburg, _Koenig\n  Sigmund und Kurfuerst Friedrich I. von Brandenburg_ (Berlin, 1891); and\n  O. Franklin, _Die deutsche Politik Friedrichs I. Kurfuersten von\n  Brandenburg_ (Berlin, 1851).\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK I. (1425-1476), elector palatine of the Rhine, surnamed \"the\nVictorious,\" and called by his enemies \"wicked Fritz,\" second son of the\nelector palatine Louis III., was born on the 1st of August 1425. He\ninherited a part of the Palatinate on his father's death in 1439, but\nsoon surrendered this inheritance to his elder brother, the elector\nLouis IV. On his brother's death in 1449, however, he became guardian of\nthe young elector Philip, and ruler of the land. In 1451 he persuaded\nthe nobles to recognize him as elector, on condition that Philip should\nbe his successor, a scheme which was disliked by the emperor Frederick\nIII. The elector was successful in various wars with neighbouring\nrulers, and was a leading member of the band of princes who formed plans\nto secure a more efficient government for Germany, and even discussed\nthe deposition of Frederick III. Frederick himself was mentioned as a\ncandidate for the German throne, but the jealousies of the princes\nprevented any decisive action, and soon became so acute that in 1459\nthey began to fight among themselves. In alliance with Louis IX., duke\nof Bavaria-Landshut, Frederick gained several victories during the\nstruggle, and in 1462 won a decisive battle at Seckenheim over Ulrich\nV., count of Wuerttemberg. In 1472 the elector married Clara Tott, or\nDett, the daughter of an Augsburg citizen, and by her he had two sons,\nFrederick, who died during his father's lifetime, and Louis (d. 1524),\nwho founded the line of the counts of Loewenstein. He died at Heidelberg\non the 12th of December 1476, and was succeeded, according to the\ncompact, by his nephew Philip. Frederick was a cultured prince, and, in\nspite of his warlike career, a wise and intelligent ruler. He added\nlargely to the area of the Palatinate, and did not neglect to further\nits internal prosperity.\n\n  See N. Feeser, _Friedrich der Siegreiche, Kurfuerst von der Pfalz_\n  (Neuburg, 1880); C. J. Kremer, _Geschichte des Kurfuersten Friedrichs\n  I. von der Pfalz_ (Leipzig, 1765); and K. Menzel, _Kurfuerst Friedrich\n  der Siegreiche von der Pfalz_ (Munich, 1861).\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK II. (1482-1556), surnamed \"the Wise,\" elector palatine of the\nRhine, fourth son of the elector Philip, was bom on the 9th of December\n1482. Of an active and adventurous temperament, he fought under the\nemperor Maximilian I. in 1508, and afterwards served the Habsburgs\nloyally in other ways. He worked to secure the election of Charles,\nafterwards the emperor Charles V., as the successor of Maximilian in\n1519; fought in two campaigns against the Turks; and being disappointed\nin his hope of obtaining the hand of one of the emperor's sisters,\nmarried in 1535 Dorothea (d. 1580), daughter of Christian II., who had\nbeen driven from the Danish throne. The Habsburgs promised their aid in\nsecuring this crown for Frederick, but, like many previous promises made\nto him, this came to nothing. Having spent his time in various parts of\nEurope, and incurred heavy debts on account of his expensive tastes,\nFrederick became elector palatine by the death of his brother, Louis V.,\nin March 1544. With regard to the religious troubles of Germany, he took\nup at first the role of a mediator, but in 1545 he joined the league of\nSchmalkalden, and in 1546 broke definitely with the older faith. He gave\na little assistance to the league in its war with Charles, but soon\nsubmitted to the emperor, accepted the _Interim_ issued from Augsburg in\nMay 1548, and afterwards acted in harmony with Charles. The elector died\non the 26th of February 1556, and as he left no children was succeeded\nby his nephew, Otto Henry (1502-1559). He was a great benefactor to the\nuniversity of Heidelberg.\n\n  Frederick's life, _Annales de vita et rebus gestis Friderici II.\n  electoris palatini_ (Frankfort, 1624), was written by his secretary\n  Hubert Thomas Leodius; this has been translated into German by E. von\n  Buelow (Breslau, 1849). See also Rott, _Friedrich II. von der Pfalz und\n  die Reformation_ (Heidelberg, 1904).\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK III. (1515-1576), called \"the Pious,\" elector palatine of the\nRhine, eldest son of John II., count palatine of Simmern, was born at\nSimmern on the 14th of February 1515. In 1537 he married Maria (d.\n1567), daughter of Casimir, prince of Bayreuth, and in 1546, mainly as a\nresult of this union, adopted the reformed doctrines, which had already\nmade considerable progress in the Palatinate. He lived in comparative\nobscurity and poverty until 1557, when he became count palatine of\nSimmern by his father's death, succeeding his kinsman, Otto Henry\n(1502-1559), as elector palatine two years later. Although inclined to\nthe views of Calvin rather than to those of Luther, the new elector\nshowed great anxiety to unite the Protestants; but when these efforts\nfailed, and the breach between the followers of the two reformers became\nwider, he definitely adopted Calvinism. This form of faith was quickly\nestablished in the Palatinate; in its interests the \"Heidelberg\nCatechism\" was drawn up in 1563; and Catholics and Lutherans were\npersecuted alike, while the churches were denuded of all their\nornaments. The Lutheran princes wished to root out Calvinism in the\nPalatinate, but were not willing to exclude the elector from the\nbenefits of the religious peace of Augsburg, which were confined to the\nadherents of the confession of Augsburg, and the matter came before the\ndiet in 1566. Boldly defending his position, Frederick refused to give\nway an inch, and as the Lutherans were unwilling to proceed to\nextremities the emperor Maximilian II. could only warn him to mend his\nways. The elector was an ardent supporter of the Protestants abroad,\nwhom, rather than the German Lutherans, he regarded as his\nco-religionists. He aided the Huguenots in France and the insurgents in\nthe Netherlands with men and money; one of his sons, John Casimir\n(1543-1592), took a prominent part in the French wars of religion, while\nanother, Christopher, was killed in 1574 fighting for the Dutch at\nMooker Heath. In his later years Frederick failed in his efforts to\nprevent the election of a member of the Habsburg family as Roman king,\nto secure the abrogation of the \"ecclesiastical reservation\" clause in\nthe peace of Augsburg, or to obtain security for Protestants in the\nterritories of the spiritual princes. He was assiduous in caring for the\nmaterial, moral and educational welfare of his electorate, and was a\nbenefactor to the university of Heidelberg. The elector died at\nHeidelberg on the 26th of October 1576, and was succeeded by his elder\nsurviving son, Louis (1539-1583), who had offended his father by\nadopting Lutheranism.\n\n  See A. Kluckhohn, _Friedrich der Fromme_ (Noerdlingen, 1877-1879); and\n  _Briefe Friedrichs des Frommen_, edited by Kluckhohn (Brunswick,\n  1868-1872).\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK IV. (1574-1610), elector palatine of the Rhine, only surviving\nson of the elector Louis VI., was born at Amberg on the 5th of March\n1574. His father died in October 1583, when the young elector came under\nthe guardianship of his uncle John Casimir, an ardent Calvinist, who, in\nspite of the wishes of the late elector, a Lutheran, had his nephew\neducated in his own form of faith. In January 1592, on the death of John\nCasimir, Frederick undertook the government of the Palatinate, and\ncontinued the policy of his uncle, hostility to the Catholic Church and\nthe Habsburgs, and co-operation with foreign Protestants. He was often\nin communication with Henry of Navarre, afterwards Henry IV. of France,\nand like him was unremitting in his efforts to conclude a league among\nthe German Protestants, while he sought to weaken the Habsburgs by\nrefusing aid for the Turkish War. After many delays and disappointments\nthe Union of Evangelical Estates was actually formed in May 1608, under\nthe leadership of the elector, and he took a prominent part in directing\nthe operations of the union until his death, which occurred on the 19th\nof September 1610. Frederick was very extravagant, and liked to surround\nhimself with pomp and luxury. He married in 1593 Louise, daughter of\nWilliam the Silent, prince of Orange, and was succeeded by Frederick,\nthe elder of his two sons.\n\n  See M. Ritter, _Geschichte der deutschen Union_ (Schaffhausen,\n  1867-1873); and L. Haeusser, _Geschichte der rheinischen Pfalz_\n  (Heidelberg, 1856).\n\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK V. (1596-1632), elector palatine of the Rhine and king of\nBohemia, son of the elector Frederick IV. by his wife, Louisa Juliana,\ndaughter of William the Silent, prince of Orange, was born at Amberg on\nthe 26th of August 1596. He became elector on his father's death in\nSeptember 1610, and was under the guardianship of his kinsman, John II.,\ncount palatine of Zweibruecken (d. 1635), until he was declared of age in\nJuly 1614. Having received a good education, Frederick had married\nElizabeth, daughter of the English king James I., in February 1613, and\nwas the recognized head of the Evangelical Union founded by his father\nto protect the interests of the Protestants. In 1619 he stepped into a\nlarger arena. Before this date the estates of Bohemia, Protestant in\nsympathy and dissatisfied with the rule of the Habsburgs, had been in\nfrequent communication with the elector palatine, and in August 1619, a\nfew months after the death of the emperor Matthias, they declared his\nsuccessor, Ferdinand, afterwards the emperor Ferdinand II., deposed, and\nchose Frederick as their king. After some hesitation the elector yielded\nto the entreaties of Christian I., prince of Anhalt (1568-1630), and\nother sanguine supporters, and was crowned king of Bohemia at Prague on\nthe 4th of November 1619. By this time the emperor Ferdinand was able to\ntake the aggressive, while Frederick, disappointed at receiving no\nassistance either from England or from the Union, had few soldiers and\nlittle money. Consequently on the 8th of November, four days after his\ncoronation, his forces were easily routed by the imperial army under\nTilly at the White Hill, near Prague, and his short reign in Bohemia\nended abruptly. Soon afterwards the Palatinate was overrun by the\nSpaniards and Bavarians, and after a futile attempt to dislodge them,\nFrederick, called in derision the \"Winter King,\" sought refuge in the\nNetherlands. Having been placed under the imperial ban his electorate\nwas given in 1623 to Maximilian I. of Bavaria, who also received the\nelectoral dignity.\n\nThe remainder of Frederick's life was spent in comparative obscurity,\nalthough his restoration was a constant subject of discussion among\nEuropean diplomatists. He died at Mainz on the 29th of November 1632,\nhaving had a large family, among his children being Charles Louis\n(1617-1680), who regained the Palatinate at the peace of Westphalia in\n1648, and Sophia, who married Ernest Augustus, afterwards elector of\nHanover, and was the mother of George I., king of Great Britain. His\nthird son was Prince Rupert, the hero of the English civil war, and\nanother son was Prince Maurice (1620-1652), who also assisted his uncle\nCharles I. during the civil war. Having sailed with Rupert to the West\nIndies, Maurice was lost at sea in September 1652.\n\n  In addition to the numerous works which treat of the outbreak of the\n  Thirty Years' War see A. Gindely, _Friedrich V. von der Pfalz_\n  (Prague, 1884); J. Krebs, _Die Politik der evangelischen Union im\n  Jahre 1618_ (Breslau, 1890-1901); M. Ritter, \"Friedrich V.,\" in the\n  _Allgemeine deutsche Biographie_, Band vii. (Leipzig, 1878); and\n  _Deutsche Lieder auf den Winterkoenig_, edited by R. Wolkan (Prague,\n  1899).\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK I. (1369-1428), surnamed \"the Warlike,\" elector and duke of\nSaxony, was the eldest son of Frederick \"the Stern,\" count of Osterland,\nand Catherine, daughter and heiress of Henry VIII., count of Coburg. He\nwas born at Altenburg on the 29th of March 1369, and was a member of the\nfamily of Wettin. When his father died in 1381 some trouble arose over\nthe family possessions, and in the following year an arrangement was\nmade by which Frederick and his brothers shared Meissen and Thuringia\nwith their uncles Balthasar and William. Frederick's brother George died\nin 1402, and his uncle William in 1407. A further dispute then arose,\nbut in 1410 a treaty was made at Naumburg, when Frederick and his\nbrother William added the northern part of Meissen to their lands; and\nin 1425 the death of William left Frederick sole ruler. In the German\ntown war of 1388 he assisted Frederick V. of Hohenzollern, burgrave of\nNuremberg, and in 1391 did the same for the Teutonic Order against\nLadislaus V., king of Poland and prince of Lithuania. He supported\nRupert III., elector palatine of the Rhine, in his struggle with King\nWenceslaus for the German throne, probably because Wenceslaus refused\nto fulfil a promise to give him his sister Anna in marriage. The danger\nto Germany from the Hussites induced Frederick to ally himself with the\nGerman and Bohemian king Sigismund; and he took a leading part in the\nwar against them, during the earlier years of which he met with\nconsiderable success. In the prosecution of this enterprise Frederick\nspent large sums of money, for which he received various places in\nBohemia and elsewhere in pledge from Sigismund, who further rewarded him\nin January 1423 with the vacant electoral duchy of Saxe-Wittenberg; and\nFrederick's formal investiture followed at Ofen on the 1st of August\n1425. Thus spurred to renewed efforts against the Hussites, the elector\nwas endeavouring to rouse the German princes to aid him in prosecuting\nthis war when the Saxon army was almost annihilated at Aussig on the\n16th of August 1426. Returning to Saxony, Frederick died at Altenburg on\nthe 4th of January 1428, and was buried in the cathedral at Meissen. In\n1402 he married Catherine of Brunswick, by whom he left four sons and\ntwo daughters. In 1409, in conjunction with his brother William, he\nfounded the university of Leipzig, for the benefit of German students\nwho had just left the university of Prague. Frederick's importance as an\nhistorical figure arises from his having obtained the electorate of\nSaxe-Wittenberg for the house of Wettin, and transformed the margraviate\nof Meissen into the territory which afterwards became the kingdom of\nSaxony. In addition to the king of Saxony, the sovereigns of England and\nof the Belgians are his direct descendants.\n\n  There is a life of Frederick by G. Spalatin in the _Scriptores rerum\n  Germanicarum praecipue Saxonicarum_, Band ii., edited by J. B. Mencke\n  (Leipzig, 1728-1730). See also C. W. Boettiger and Th. Flathe,\n  _Geschichte des Kurstaates und Koenigreichs Sachsen_ (Gotha,\n  1867-1873); and J. G. Horn, _Lebens- und Heldengeschichte Friedrichs\n  des Streitbaren_ (Leipzig, 1733).\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK II. (1411-1464), called \"the Mild,\" elector and duke of\nSaxony, eldest son of the elector Frederick I., was born on the 22nd of\nAugust 1411. He succeeded his father as elector in 1428, but shared the\nfamily lands with his three brothers, and was at once engaged in\ndefending Saxony against the attacks of the Hussites. Freed from these\nenemies about 1432, and turning his attention to increasing his\npossessions, he obtained the burgraviate of Meissen in 1439, and some\npart of Lower Lusatia after a struggle with Brandenburg about the same\ntime. In 1438 it was decided that Frederick, and not his rival, Bernard\nIV., duke of Saxe-Lauenburg, was entitled to exercise the Saxon\nelectoral vote at the elections for the German throne; and the elector\nthen aided Albert II. to secure this dignity, performing a similar\nservice for his own brother-in-law, Frederick, afterwards the emperor\nFrederick III., two years later. Family affairs, meanwhile, occupied\nFrederick's attention. One brother, Henry, having died in 1435, and\nanother, Sigismund (d. 1463), having entered the church and become\nbishop of Wuerzburg, Frederick and his brother William (d. 1482) were the\nheirs of their childless cousin, Frederick \"the Peaceful,\" who ruled\nThuringia and other parts of the lands of the Wettins. On his death in\n1440 the brothers divided Frederick's territory, but this arrangement\nwas not satisfactory, and war broke out between them in 1446. Both\ncombatants obtained extraneous aid, but after a desolating struggle\npeace was made in January 1451, when William received Thuringia, and\nFrederick Altenburg and other districts. The remainder of the elector's\nreign was uneventful, and he died at Leipzig on the 7th of September\n1464. By his wife, Margaret (d. 1486), daughter of Ernest, duke of\nStyria, he left two sons and four daughters. In July 1455 occurred the\ncelebrated _Prinzenraub_, the attempt of a knight named Kunz von\nKaufungen (d. 1455) to abduct Frederick's two sons, Ernest and Albert.\nHaving carried them off from Altenburg, Kunz was making his way to\nBohemia when the plot was accidentally discovered and the princes\nrestored.\n\n  See W. Schaefer, _Der Montag vor Kiliani_ (1855); J. Gersdorf, _Einige\n  Aktenstuecke zur Geschichte des saechsischen Prinzenraubes_ (1855); and\n  T. Carlyle, _Critical and Miscellaneous Essays_, vol. iv. (London,\n  1899).\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK III. (1463-1525), called \"the Wise,\" elector of Saxony, eldest\nson of Ernest, elector of Saxony, and Elizabeth, daughter of Albert,\nduke of Bavaria-Munich (d. 1508), was born at Torgau, and succeeded his\nfather as elector in 1486. Retaining the government of Saxony in his own\nhands, he shared the other possessions of his family with his brother\nJohn, called \"the Stedfast\" (1468-1532). Frederick was among the princes\nwho pressed the need of reform upon the German king Maximilian I. in\n1495, and in 1500 he became president of the newly-formed council of\nregency (_Reichsregiment_). He took a genuine interest in learning; was\na friend of Georg Spalatin; and in 1502 founded the university of\nWittenberg, where he appointed Luther and Melanchthon to professorships.\nIn 1493 he had gone as a pilgrim to Jerusalem, and had been made a\nknight of the Holy Sepulchre; but, although he remained throughout life\nan adherent of the older faith, he seems to have been drawn into\nsympathy with the reformers, probably through his connexion with the\nuniversity of Wittenberg. In 1520 he refused to put into execution the\npapal bull which ordered Luther's writings to be burned and the reformer\nto be put under restraint or sent to Rome; and in 1521, after Luther had\nbeen placed under the imperial ban by the diet at Worms, the elector\ncaused him to be conveyed to his castle at the Wartburg, and afterwards\nprotected him while he attacked the enemies of the Reformation. In 1519,\nFrederick, who alone among the electors refused to be bribed by the\nrival candidates for the imperial throne, declined to be a candidate for\nthis high dignity himself, and assisted to secure the election of\nCharles V. He died unmarried at Langau, near Annaberg, on the 5th of May\n1525.\n\n  See G. Spalatin, _Das Leben und die Zeitgeschichte Friedrichs des\n  Weisen_, edited by C. G. Neudecker and L. Preller (Jena, 1851); M. M.\n  Tutzschmann, _Friedrich der Weise, Kurfuerst von Sachsen_ (Grimma,\n  1848); and T. Kolde, _Friedrich der Weise und die Anfaenge der\n  Reformation_ (Erlangen, 1881).\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK, a city and the county-seat of Frederick county, Maryland,\nU.S.A., on Carroll's Creek, a tributary of the Monocacy, 61 m. by rail\nW. by N. from Baltimore and 45 m. N.W. from Washington. Pop. (1890)\n8193; (1900) 9296, of whom 1535 were negroes; (1910 census) 10,411. It\nis served by the Baltimore & Ohio and the Northern Central railways, and\nby two interurban electric lines. Immediately surrounding it is the rich\nfarming land of the Monocacy valley, but from a distance it appears to\nbe completely shut in by picturesque hills and mountains; to the E., the\nLinga ore Hills; to the W., Catoctin Mountain; and to the S., Sugar Loaf\nMountain. It is built for the most part of brick and stone. Frederick is\nthe seat of the Maryland school for the deaf and dumb and of the Woman's\nCollege of Frederick (1893; formerly the Frederick Female Seminary,\nopened in 1843), which in 1907-1908 had 212 students, 121 of whom were\nin the Conservatory of Music. Francis Scott Key and Roger Brooke Taney\nwere buried here, and a beautiful monument erected to the memory of Key\nstands at the entrance to Mount Olivet cemetery. Frederick has a\nconsiderable agricultural trade and is an important manufacturing\ncentre, its industries including the canning of fruits and vegetables,\nand the manufacture of flour, bricks, brushes, leather goods and\nhosiery. The total value of the factory product in 1905 was $1,937,921,\nbeing 34.7% more than in 1900. The municipality owns and operates its\nwater-works and electric-lighting plant. Frederick, so named in honour\nof Frederick Calvert, son and afterward successor of Charles, Lord\nBaltimore, was settled by Germans in 1733, and was laid out as a town in\n1745, but was not incorporated until 1817. Here in 1755 General Braddock\nprepared for his disastrous expedition against the French at Fort\nDuquesne (Pittsburg). During the Civil War the city was occupied on\ndifferent occasions by Unionists and Confederates, and was made famous\nby Whittier's poem \"Barbara Frietchie.\"\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK AUGUSTUS I. (1750-1827), king of Saxony, son of the elector\nFrederick Christian, was born at Dresden on the 23rd of December 1750.\nHe succeeded his father under the guardianship of Prince Xavier in 1763,\nand was declared of age in 1768. In the following year (January 17,\n1769) he married Princess Maria Amelia, daughter of Duke Frederick of\nZweibruecken, by whom he had only one child, Princess Augusta (born June\n21, 1782). One of his chief aims was the reduction of taxes and imposts\nand of the army. He was always extremely methodical and conscientious,\nand a good example to all his officials, whence his surname \"the Just.\"\nOn account of the claims of his mother on the inheritance of her\nbrother, the elector of Bavaria, he sided with Frederick the Great in\nthe short Bavarian succession war of 1778 against Austria. At the peace\nof Teschen, which concluded the war, he received 6 million florins,\nwhich he employed partly in regaining those parts of his kingdom which\nhad been lost, and partly in favour of his relatives. In 1785 he joined\nthe league of German princes (_Deutscher Fuerstenbund_) formed by\nPrussia, but without prejudice to his neutrality. Thus he remained\nneutral during the quarrel between Austria and Prussia in 1790. In the\nfollowing year he declined the crown of Poland. He refused to join the\nleague against France (February 7, 1792), but when war was declared his\nduty to the Empire necessitated his taking part in it. Even after the\npeace of Basel (April 5, 1795) he continued the war. But when the French\narmy, during the following year, advanced into the heart of Germany, he\nwas compelled by General Jourdan to retreat (August 13, 1796). He\nmaintained his neutrality during the war between France and Austria in\n1805, but in the following year he joined Prussia against France. After\nthe disastrous battle of Jena he concluded a treaty of peace with\nNapoleon at Posen (December 11, 1806), and, assuming the title of king,\nhe joined the Confederation of the Rhine. But he did not alter the\nconstitution and administration of his new kingdom. After the peace of\nTilsit (July 9, 1807) he was created by Napoleon grand-duke of Warsaw,\nbut his sovereignty of Poland was little more than nominal. There was a\nkind of friendship between Frederick Augustus and Napoleon. In 1809\nFrederick Augustus fought with him against Austria. On several occasions\n(1807, 1812, 1813) Napoleon was entertained at Dresden, and when, on his\nreturn from his disastrous Russian campaign, he passed through Saxony by\nDresden (December 16, 1812), Frederick Augustus remained true to his\nfriend and ally. It was only during April 1813 that he made overtures to\nAustria, but he soon afterwards returned to the side of the French. He\nreturned to Dresden on the 10th of May and was present at the terrible\nbattle of August 26 and 27, in which Napoleon's army and his own were\ndefeated. He fell into the hands of the Allies after their entry into\nLeipzig on the 19th of October 1813; and, although he regained his\nfreedom after the congress of Vienna, he was compelled to give up the\nnorthern part--three-fifths--of his kingdom to Prussia (May 21, 1814).\nHe entered Dresden on the 7th of July, and was enthusiastically welcomed\nby his people. The remainder of his life was spent in repairing the\ndamages caused by the Napoleonic wars, in developing the agricultural,\ncommercial and industrial resources of his kingdom, reforming the\nadministration of justice, establishing hospitals and other charitable\ninstitutions, encouraging art and science and promoting education. He\nhad a special interest in botany, and originated the beautiful park at\nPillnitz. His reign throughout was characterized by justice, probity,\nmoderation and prudence. He died on the 5th of May 1827.\n\n  BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The earlier lives, by C. E. Weisse (1811), A. L.\n  Herrmann (1827), Poelitz (1830), are mere panegyrics. On the other side\n  see Flathe in _Allgemeine deutsche Biographie_, and Boettiger-Flathe,\n  _History of Saxony_ (2nd ed., 1867 ff.), vols. ii. and iii.; A.\n  Bonnefons, _Un Allie de Napoleon, Frederic Auguste, premier roi de\n  Saxe_ ... (Paris, 1902); Fritz Friedrich, _Politik Sachsens 1801-1803_\n  (1898); P. Ruehlmann, _Oeffentliche Meinung ... 1806-1813_ (1902). There\n  are many pamphlets bearing on the Saxon question and on Frederick\n  Augustus during the years 1814 and 1815.     (J. Hn.)\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK AUGUSTUS II. (1797-1854), king of Saxony, eldest son of Prince\nMaximilian and of Caroline Maria Theresa of Parma, was born on the 18th\nof May 1797. The unsettled times in which his youth was passed\nnecessitated his frequent change of residence, but care was nevertheless\ntaken that his education should not be interrupted, and he also\nacquired, through his journeys in foreign states (Switzerland 1818,\nMontenegro 1838, England and Scotland 1844) and his intercourse with men\nof eminence, a special taste for art and for natural science. He was\nhimself a good landscape-painter and had a fine collection of\nengravings on copper. He was twice married--in 1819 (October 7) to the\nduchess Caroline, fourth daughter of the emperor Francis I. of Austria\n(d. May 22, 1832), and in 1833 (April 4) to Maria, daughter of\nMaximilian I. of Bavaria. There were no children of either marriage.\nDuring the government of his uncles (Frederick Augustus I. and Anthony)\nhe took no part in the administration of the country, though he was the\nsole heir to the crown. In 1830 a rising in Dresden led to his being\nnamed joint regent of the kingdom along with King Anthony on the 13th of\nSeptember; and in this position his popularity and his wise and liberal\nreforms (for instance, in arranging public audiences) speedily quelled\nall discontent. On the 6th of June 1836 he succeeded his uncle. Though\nhe administered the affairs of his kingdom with enlightened liberality\nSaxony did not escape the political storms which broke upon Germany in\n1848. He elected Liberal ministers, and he was at first in favour of the\nprogramme of German unity put forward at Frankfort, but he refused to\nacknowledge the democratic constitution of the German parliament. This\nattitude led to the insurrection at Dresden in May 1849, which was\nsuppressed by the help of Prussian troops. From that time onward his\nreign was tranquil and prosperous. Later Count Beust, leader of the\nAustrian and feudal party in Saxony, became his principal minister and\nguided his policy on most occasions. His death occurred accidentally\nthrough the upsetting of his carriage near Brennbuehel, between Imst and\nWenns in Tirol (August 9, 1854). Frederick Augustus devoted his leisure\nhours chiefly to the study of botany. He made botanical excursions into\ndifferent countries, and _Flora Marienbadensis, oder Pflanzen und\nGebirgsarten, gesammelt und beschrieben_, written by him, was published\nat Prague by Kedler, 1837.\n\n  See Boettiger-Flathe, _History of Saxony_, vol. iii.; R. Freiherr von\n  Friesen, _Erinnerungen_ (2 vols., Dresden, 1881); F. F. Graf von\n  Beust, Aus _drei-viertel Jahrhunderten_ (2 vols., 1887); Flathe, in\n  _Allg. deutsche Biogr._     (J. Hn.)\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK CHARLES (FRIEDRICH KARL NIKOLAUS), PRINCE (1828-1885),\nPrussian general field marshal, son of Prince Charles of Prussia and\ngrandson of King Frederick William III., was born in Berlin on the 20th\nof March 1828. He was educated for the army, which he entered on his\ntenth birthday as second lieutenant in the 14th Foot Guards. He became\nfirst lieutenant in 1844, and in 1846 entered the university of Bonn,\nwhere he stayed for two years, being accompanied throughout by Major von\nRoon, afterwards the famous war minister. In 1848 he became a company\ncommander in his regiment, and soon afterwards served in the\nSchleswig-Holstein War on the staff of Marshal von Wrangel, being\npresent at the battle of Schleswig (April 23, 1848). Later in 1848 he\nbecame _Rittmeister_ in the _Garde du Corps_ cavalry regiment, and in\n1849 major in the Guard Hussars. In this year the prince took part in\nthe campaign against the Baden insurgents, and was wounded at the action\nof Wiesenthal while leading a desperate charge against entrenched\ninfantry. After this experience the wild courage of his youth gave place\nto the unshakable resolution which afterwards characterized the prince's\ngeneralship. In 1852 he became colonel, and in 1854 major-general and\ncommander of a cavalry brigade. In this capacity he was brought closely\nin touch with General von Reyher, the chief of the general staff, and\nwith Moltke. He married, in the same year, Princess Marie Anne of\nAnhalt. In 1857 he became commander of the 1st Guard Infantry division,\nbut very shortly afterwards, on account of disputes concerned with the\ntraining methods then in force, he resigned the appointment.\n\nIn 1858 he visited France, where he minutely investigated the state of\nthe French army, but it was not long before he was recalled, for in\n1859, in consequence of the Franco-Austrian War, Prussia mobilized her\nforces, and Frederick Charles was made a divisional commander in the II.\narmy corps. In this post he was given the liberty of action which had\npreviously been denied to him. About this time (1860) the prince gave a\nlecture to the officers of his command on the French army and its\nmethods, the substance of which (_Eine militaerische Denkschrift von\nP.F.K._, Frankfort on Main, 1860) was circulated more widely than the\nauthor intended, and in the French translation gave rise to much\nindignation in France. In 1861 Frederick Charles became general of\ncavalry. He was then commander of the III. (Brandenburg) army corps.\nThis post he held from 1860 to 1870, except during the campaigns of 1864\nand 1866, and in it he displayed his real qualities as a troop leader.\nHis self-imposed task was to raise the military spirit of his troops to\nthe highest possible level, and ten years of his continuous and thorough\ntraining brought the III. corps to a pitch of real efficiency which the\nGuard corps alone, in virtue of its special recruiting powers, slightly\nsurpassed. Prince Frederick Charles' work was tested to the full when\nvon Alvensleben and the III. corps engaged the whole French army on the\n16th of August 1870. In 1864 the prince once more fought against the\nDanes under his old leader \"Papa\" Wrangel. The Prussian contingent under\nFrederick Charles formed a corps of the allied army, and half of it was\ndrawn from the III. corps. After the storming of the Dueppel lines the\nprince succeeded Wrangel in the supreme command, with Lieutenant-General\nFreiherr von Moltke as his chief of staff. These two great soldiers then\nplanned and brilliantly carried out the capture of the island of Alsen,\nafter which the war came to an end.\n\nIn 1860 came the Seven Weeks' War with Austria. Prince Frederick Charles\nwas appointed to command the I. Army, which he led through the mountains\ninto Bohemia, driving before him the Austrians and Saxons to the upper\nElbe, where on the 3rd of July took place the decisive battle of\nKoeniggraetz or Sadowa. This was brought on by the initiative of the\nleader of the I. Army, which had to bear the brunt of the fighting until\nthe advance of the II. Army turned the Austrian flank. After the peace\nhe returned to the III. army corps, which he finally left, in July 1870,\nwhen appointed to command the II. German Army in the war with France. In\nthe early days of the advance the prince's ruthless energy led to much\nfriction between the I. and II. Armies (see FRANCO-GERMAN WAR), while\nhis strategical mistakes seriously embarrassed the great headquarters\nstaff. The advance of the II. Army beyond the Saar to the Moselle and\nfrom that river to the Meuse displayed more energy than careful\nstrategy, but herein at least the \"Red Prince\" (as he was called from\nthe colour of his favourite hussar uniform) was in thorough sympathy\nwith the king's headquarters on the one hand and the feelings of the\ntroops on the other. Then came the discovery that the French were not in\nfront, but to the right rear of the II. Army (August 16). Alvensleben\nwith the III. corps held the French to their ground at Vionville while\nthe prince hurried together his scattered forces. He himself directed\nwith superb tactical skill the last efforts of the Germans at Vionville,\nand the victory of St Privat on the 18th was due to his leadership (see\nMETZ), which shone all the more by contrast with the failures of the I.\nArmy at Gravelotte. The prince was left in command of the forces which\nblockaded Bazaine in Metz, and received the surrender of that place and\nof the last remaining field army of the enemy. He was promoted at once\nto the rank of general field marshal, and shortly afterwards the II.\nArmy was despatched to aid in crushing the newly organized army of the\nFrench republic on the Loire. Here again he retrieved strategical errors\nby energy and tactical skill, and his work was in the end crowned by the\nvictory of Le Mans on the 12th of January 1871. Of all the subordinate\nleaders on the German side none enjoyed a greater and a better deserved\nreputation than the Red Prince.\n\nHe now became inspector-general of the 3rd \"army inspection,\" and a\nlittle later inspector of cavalry, and in the latter post he was largely\ninstrumental in bringing the German cavalry to the degree of perfection\nin manoeuvre and general training which it gradually attained in the\nyears after the war. He never ceased to improve his own soldierly\nqualities by further study and by the conduct of manoevres on a large\nscale. His sternness of character kept him aloof from the court and from\nhis own family, and he spent his leisure months chiefly on his various\ncountry estates. In 1872 and in 1882 he travelled in the Mediterranean\nand the Near East. He died on the 15th of June 1885 at Klein-Glienicke\nnear Berlin, and was buried at the adjacent church of Nikolskoe. His\nthird daughter, Princess Louise Margareta, was married, in March 1879,\nto the duke of Connaught.\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK HENRY (1584-1647), prince of Orange, the youngest child of\nWilliam the Silent, was born at Delft about six months before his\nfather's assassination on the 29th of January 1584. His mother, Louise\nde Coligny, was daughter of the famous Huguenot leader, Admiral de\nColigny, and was the fourth wife of William the Silent. The boy was\ntrained to arms by his elder brother, Maurice of Nassau, one of the\nfirst generals of his age. On the death of Maurice in 1625, Frederick\nHenry succeeded him in his paternal dignities and estates, and also in\nthe stadtholderates of the five provinces of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht,\nOverysel and Gelderland, and in the important posts of captain and\nadmiral-general of the Union. Frederick Henry proved himself scarcely\ninferior to his brother as a general, and a far more capable statesman\nand politician. During twenty-two years he remained at the head of\naffairs in the United Provinces, and in his time the power of the\nstadtholderate reached its highest point. The \"Period of Frederick\nHenry,\" as it is usually styled by Dutch writers, is generally accounted\nthe golden age of the republic. It was marked by great military and\nnaval triumphs, by world-wide maritime and commercial expansion, and by\na wonderful outburst of activity in the domains of art and literature.\nThe chief military exploits of Frederick Henry were the sieges and\ncaptures of Hertogenbosch in 1629, of Maastricht in 1632, of Breda in\n1637, of Sas van Ghent in 1644, and of Hulst in 1645. During the greater\npart of his administration the alliance with France against Spain had\nbeen the pivot of Frederick Henry's foreign policy, but in his last\nyears he sacrificed the French alliance for the sake of concluding a\nseparate peace with Spain, by which the United Provinces obtained from\nthat power all the advantages for which they had for eighty years been\ncontending. Frederick Henry died on the 14th of March 1647, and was\nburied with great pomp beside his father and brother at Delft. The\ntreaty of Muenster, ending the long struggle between the Dutch and the\nSpaniards, was not actually signed until the 30th of January 1648, the\nillness and death of the stadtholder having caused a delay in the\nnegotiations. Frederick Henry was married in 1625 to Amalia von Solms,\nand left one son, William II. of Orange, and four daughters.\n\n  Frederick Henry left an account of his campaigns in his _Memoires de\n  Frederic Henri_ (Amsterdam, 1743). See _Cambridge Mod. Hist._ vol. iv.\n  chap. 24, and the bibliography on p. 931.\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK LOUIS (1707-1751), prince of Wales, eldest son of George II.,\nwas born at Hanover on the 20th of January 1707. After his grandfather,\nGeorge I., became king of Great Britain and Ireland in 1714, Frederick\nwas known as duke of Gloucester[1] and made a knight of the Garter,\nhaving previously been betrothed to Wilhelmina Sophia Dorothea\n(1709-1758), daughter of Frederick William I., king of Prussia, and\nsister of Frederick the Great. Although he was anxious to marry this\nlady, the match was rendered impossible by the dislike of George II. and\nFrederick William for each other. Soon after his father became king in\n1727 Frederick took up his residence in England and in 1729 was created\nprince of Wales; but the relations between George II. and his son were\nvery unfriendly, and there existed between them the jealousy which\nStubbs calls the \"incurable bane of royalty.\" The faults were not all on\none side. The prince's character was not attractive, and the king\nrefused to make him an adequate allowance. In 1735 Frederick wrote, or\ninspired the writing of, the _Histoire du prince Titi_, a book\ncontaining offensive caricatures of both king and queen; and losing no\nopportunity of irritating his father, \"he made,\" says Lecky, \"his court\nthe special centre of opposition to the government, and he exerted all\nhis influence for the ruin of Walpole.\" After a marriage between the\nprince and Lady Diana Spencer, afterwards the wife of John, 4th duke of\nBedford, had been frustrated by Walpole, Frederick was married in April\n1736 to Augusta (1719-1772), daughter of Frederick II., duke of\nSaxe-Gotha, a union which was welcomed by his parents, but which led to\nfurther trouble between father and son. George proposed to allow the\nprince L50,000 a year; but this sum was regarded as insufficient by the\nlatter, whose appeal to parliament was unsuccessful. After the birth of\nhis first child, Augusta, in 1737, Frederick was ordered by the king to\nquit St James' Palace, and the foreign ambassadors were requested to\nrefrain from visiting him. The relations between the two were now worse\nthan before. In 1745 George II. refused to allow his son to command the\nBritish army against the Jacobites. On the 20th of March 1751 the prince\ndied in London, and was buried in Westminster Abbey. He left five sons\nand two daughters. The sons were George (afterwards King George III.),\nEdward Augustus, duke of York and Albany (1739-1767), William Henry,\nduke of Gloucester and Edinburgh (1743-1805), Henry Frederick, duke of\nCumberland (1745-1790), and Frederick William (1750-1765); the daughters\nwere Augusta (1737-1813), wife of Charles William Ferdinand, duke of\nBrunswick, and Caroline Matilda (1751-1775), wife of Christian VII.,\nking of Denmark.\n\n  See Lord Hervey of Ickworth, _Memoirs of the Reign of George II._,\n  edited by J. W. Croker (London, 1884); Horace Walpole, _Memoirs of the\n  Reign of George II._ (London, 1847); and Sir N. W. Wraxall, _Memoirs_,\n  edited by H. B. Wheatley, vol. i. (London, 1884).\n\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n  [1] Frederick was never actually created duke of Gloucester, and when\n    he was raised to the peerage in 1736 it was as duke of Edinburgh\n    only. See G. E. C(okayne), _Complete Peerage_, sub \"Gloucester.\"\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK WILLIAM I. (1688-1740), king of Prussia, son of Frederick I.\nby his second marriage was born on the 15th of August 1688. He spent a\nconsiderable time in early youth at the court of his grandfather, the\nelector Ernest Augustus of Hanover. On his return to Berlin he was\nplaced under General von Dohna and Count Finkenstein, who trained him to\nthe energetic and regular habits which ever afterwards characterized\nhim. He was soon imbued with a passion for military life, and this was\ndeepened by acquaintance with the duke of Marlborough (1709), Prince\nEugene, whom he visited during the siege of Tournai, and Prince Leopold\nof Anhalt (the \"Old Dessauer\"). In nearly every respect he was the\nopposite of his father, having frugal, simple tastes, a passionate\ntemper and a determined will. Throughout his life he was always the\nprotector of the church and of religion. But he detested religious\nquarrels and was very tolerant towards his Catholic subjects, except the\nJesuits. His life was simple and puritanical, being founded on the\nteaching of the Bible. He was, however, fond of hunting and somewhat\ngiven to drinking. He intensely disliked the French, and highly\ndisapproved of the imitation of their manners by his father and his\ncourt. When he came to the throne (February 25, 1713) his first act was\nto dismiss from the palace every unnecessary official and to regulate\nthe royal household on principles of the strictest parsimony. The\ngreater part of the beautiful furniture was sold. His importance for\nPrussia is twofold: in internal politics he laid down principles which\ncontinued to be followed long after his death. This was a province\npeculiarly suited to his genius; he was one of the greatest\nadministrators who have ever worn the Prussian crown. His foreign policy\nwas less successful, though under his rule the kingdom acquired some\nextension of territory.\n\nThus at the peace of Utrecht (April 11, 1713), after the War of the\nSpanish Succession, he acquired the greater part of the duchy of\nGelderland. By the treaty of Schwedt, concluded with Russia on the 6th\nof October, he was assured of an important influence in the solution of\nthe Baltic question, which during the long absence of Charles XII. had\nbecome burning; and Swedish Pomerania, as far as the Peene, was occupied\nby Prussia. But Charles XII. on his return turned against the king,\nthough without success, for the Pomeranian campaign of 1715 ended in\nfavour of Prussia (fall of Stralsund, December 22). This enabled\nFrederick William I. to maintain a more independent attitude towards the\ntsar; he refused, for example, to provide him with troops for a campaign\n(in Schonen) against the Swedes. When on the 28th of May 1718, in view\nof the disturbances in Mecklenburg, he signed at Havelberg the alliance\nwith Russia, he confined himself to taking up a defensive attitude, and,\non the other hand, on the 14th of August 1719 he also entered into\nrelations with his former enemies, England and Hanover. And so, by the\ntreaty of Stockholm (February 1, 1720), Frederick William succeeded in\nobtaining the consent of Sweden to the cession of that part of Pomerania\nwhich he had occupied (Usedom, Wollin, Stettin, Hither Pomerania, east\nof the Peene) in return for a payment of 2,000,000 thalers.\n\nWhile Frederick William I. succeeded in carrying his wishes into effect\nin this direction, he was unable to realize another project which he had\nmuch at heart, namely, the Prussian succession to the Lower Rhine\nduchies of Juelich and Berg. The treaty concluded in 1725 at Vienna\nbetween the emperor and Spain brought the whole of this question up\nagain, for both sides had pledged themselves to support the\nPalatinate-Sulzbach succession (in the event of the Palatinate-Neuberg\nline becoming extinct). Frederick William turned for help to the western\npowers, England and France, and secured it by the treaty of alliance\nsigned at Herrenhausen on the 3rd of September 1725 (League of Hanover).\nBut since the western powers soon sought to use the military strength of\nPrussia for their own ends, Frederick again turned towards the east,\nstrengthened above all his relations with Russia, which had continued to\nbe good, and finally, by the treaty of Wuesterhausen (October 12, 1726;\nratified at Berlin, December 23, 1728), even allied himself with his\nformer adversary, the court of Vienna; though this treaty only\nimperfectly safeguarded Prussian interests, inasmuch as Frederick\nWilliam consented to renounce his claims to Juelich. But as in the\nfollowing years the European situation became more and more favourable\nto the house of Habsburg, the latter began to try to withdraw part of\nthe concessions which it had made to Frederick William. As early as 1728\nDuesseldorf, the capital, was excluded from the guarantee of Berg.\nNevertheless, in the War of the Polish Succession against France\n(1734-1735), Frederick William remained faithful to the emperor's cause,\nand sent an auxiliary force of 10,000 men. The peace of Vienna, which\nterminated the war, led to a reconciliation between France and Austria,\nand so to a further estrangement between Frederick William and the\nemperor. Moreover, in 1738 the western powers, together with the\nemperor, insisted in identical notes on the recognition of the emperor's\nright to decide the question of the succession in the Lower Rhine\nduchies. A breach with the emperor was now inevitable, and this explains\nwhy in a last treaty (April 5, 1739) Frederick William obtained from\nFrance a guarantee of a part, at least, of Berg (excluding Duesseldorf).\n\nBut Frederick William's failures in foreign policy were more than\ncompensated for by his splendid services in the internal administration\nof Prussia. He saw the necessity of rigid economy not only in his\nprivate life but in the whole administration of the state. During his\nreign Prussia obtained for the first time a centralized and uniform\nfinancial administration. It was the king himself who composed and wrote\nin the year 1722 the famous instruction for the general directory\n(_Generaldirektorium_) of war, finance and domains. When he died the\nincome of the state was about seven million thalers (L1,050,000). The\nconsequence was that he paid off the debts incurred by his father, and\nleft to his successor a well filled treasury. In the administration of\nthe domains he made three innovations: (1) the private estates of the\nking were turned into domains of the crown (August 13, 1713); (2) the\nfreeing of the serfs on the royal domains (March 22, 1719); (3) the\nconversion of the hereditary lease into a short-term lease on the basis\nof productiveness. His industrial policy was inspired by the mercantile\nspirit. On this account he forbade the importation of foreign\nmanufactures and the export of raw materials from home, a policy which\nhad a very good effect on the growth of Prussian industries.\n\nThe work of internal colonization he carried on with especial zeal. Most\nnotable of all was his _retablissement_ of East Prussia, to which he\ndevoted six million thalers (c. L900,000). His policy in respect of the\ntowns was motived largely by fiscal considerations, but at the same time\nhe tried also to improve their municipal administration; for example, in\nthe matter of buildings, of the letting of domain lands and of the\ncollection of the excise in towns. Frederick William had many opponents\namong the nobles because he pressed on the abolition of the old feudal\nrights, introduced in East Prussia and Lithuania a general land tax (the\n_Generalhufenschoss_), and finally in 1739 attacked in a special edict\nthe _Legen_, i.e. the expropriation of the peasant proprietors. He did\nnothing for the higher learning, and even banished the philosopher\nChristian Wolff at forty-eight hours' notice \"on pain of the halter,\"\nfor teaching, as he believed, fatalist doctrines. Afterwards he modified\nhis judgment in favour of Wolff, and even, in 1739, recommended the\nstudy of his works. He established many village schools, which he often\nvisited in person; and after the year 1717 (October 23) all Prussian\nparents were obliged to send their children to school (_Schulzwang_). He\nwas the especial friend of the _Franckische Stiftungen_ at Halle on the\nSaale. Under him the people flourished; and although it stood in awe of\nhis vehement spirit it respected him for his firmness, his honesty of\npurpose and his love of justice. He was devoted also to his army, the\nnumber of which he raised from 38,000 to 83,500, so that under him\nPrussia became the third military power in the world, coming next after\nRussia and France. There was not a more thoroughly drilled or better\nappointed force. The Potsdam guard, made up of giants collected from all\nparts of Europe, sometimes kidnapped, was a sort of toy with which he\namused himself. The reviewing of his troops was his chief pleasure. But\nhe was also fond of meeting his friends in the evening in what he called\nhis Tobacco-College, where amid clouds of tobacco smoke he not only\ndiscussed affairs of state but heard the newest \"guard-room jokes.\" He\ndied on the 31st of May 1740, leaving behind him his widow, Sophia\nDorothea of Hanover, whom he had married on the 26th of November 1706.\nHis son was Frederick the Great, who was the opposite of Frederick\nWilliam. This opposition became so strong in 1730 that the crown prince\nfled from the court, and was later arrested and brought before a\ncourt-martial. A reconciliation was brought about, at first gradually.\nIn later years the relations between father and son came to be of the\nbest (see FREDERICK II., king of Prussia).\n\n  BIBLIOGRAPHY.--D. Fassmann, _Leben und Thaten Friedrich Wilhelms_ (2\n  vols., Hamburg and Breslau, 1735, 1741); F. Foerster, _Friedrich\n  Wilhelm I._ (3 vols., Potsdam, 1834 and 1835); C. v. Noorden,\n  _Historische Vortraege_ (Leipzig, 1884); O. Krauske, \"Vom Hofe\n  Friedrich Wilhelms I.,\" _Hohenzollernjahrbuch_, v. (1902); R. Koser,\n  _Friedrich der Grosse als Kronprinz_ (2nd ed., Stuttgart, 1901); W.\n  Oncken, \"Sir Charles Hotham und Friedrich Wilhelm I. im Jahre 1730,\"\n  _Forschungen zur brandenburgischen Geschichte_, vol. vii. et seq.; J.\n  G. Droysen in the _Allgemeine deutsche Biographie_, vii. (1878), and\n  in _Geschichte der preussischen Politik_, section iv., vols. ii.-iv.\n  (2nd ed., 1868 et seq.); L. v. Ranke, _Zwoelf Buecher preussischer\n  Geschichte_ (1874 et seq.); Stenzel, _Geschichte des preussischen\n  Staates_, iii. (1841); F. Holke, \"Strafrechtspflege unter Friedrich\n  Wilhelm I.,\" _Beitraege zur brandenburgischen Rechtsgeschichte_, iii.\n  (1894); V. Loewe, \"Allodifikation der Leben unter Friedrich Wilhelm\n  I.,\" _Forschungen zur brandenburgischen Geschichte_, xi.; G.\n  Schmoller, \"Epochen der preuss. Finanzpolitik,\" _Umrisse und\n  Untersuchungen_ (Leipzig, 1898), \"Innere Verwaltung unter Friedrich\n  Wilhelm I.,\" _Preuss. Jahrbuecher_, xxvi., \"Staedtewesen unter Friedrich\n  Wilhelm I.,\" _Zeitschrift fuer preussische Geschichte_, x. et seq.; B.\n  Reuter, \"Koenig Friedrich Wilhelm I. und das General-Direktorium,\"\n  _ibid._ xii.; V. Loewe, \"Zur Grundungsgeschichte des\n  General-Direktoriums,\" _Forschungen_, &c., xiii.; R. Stadelmann,\n  _Preussens Koenige in ihrer Taetigkeit fuer die Landeskultur_, vol. i.\n  \"Friedrich Wilhelm I.\" (1878); M. Beheim-Schwarzbach,\n  _Hohenzollern'sche Kolonizationen_ (Leipzig, 1874); W. Naude, \"Die\n  merkantilistische Wirtschaftspolitik Friedrich Wilhelms I.,\"\n  _Historische Zeitschrift_, xc.; M. Lehmann, \"Werbung, &c., im Heere\n  Friedrich Wilhelms I.,\" _ibid._ lxvii.; Isaacson, \"Erbpachtsystem in\n  der preussischen Domaenenverwaltung,\" _Zeitschrift fuer preuss. Gesch._\n  xi. Cf. also _Hohenzollernjahrbuch_, viii. (1905), for particulars of\n  his education and death; letters to Prince Leopold of Anhalt-Dessau in\n  the _Acta Borussica_ (1905). English readers will find a picturesque\n  account of him in Thomas Carlyle's _Frederick the Great_.     (J. Hn.)\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK WILLIAM II. (1744-1797), king of Prussia, son of Augustus\nWilliam, second son of King Frederick William I. and of Louise Amalie of\nBrunswick, sister of the wife of Frederick the Great, was born at Berlin\non the 25th of September 1744, and became heir to the throne on his\nfather's death in 1757. The boy was of an easy-going and pleasure-loving\ndisposition, averse from sustained effort of any kind, and sensual by\nnature. His marriage with Elisabeth Christine, daughter of Duke Charles\nof Brunswick, contracted in 1765, was dissolved in 1769, and he soon\nafterwards married Frederika Louisa, daughter of the landgrave Louis\nIX. of Hesse-Darmstadt. Although he had a numerous family by his wife,\nhe was completely under the influence of his mistress, Wilhelmine Enke,\nafterwards created Countess Lichtenau, a woman of strong intellect and\nmuch ambition. He was a man of singularly handsome presence, not without\nmental qualities of a high order; he was devoted to the arts--Beethoven\nand Mozart enjoyed his patronage and his private orchestra had a\nEuropean reputation. But an artistic temperament was hardly that\nrequired of a king of Prussia on the eve of the Revolution; and\nFrederick the Great, who had employed him in various services--notably\nin an abortive confidential mission to the court of Russia in\n1780--openly expressed his misgivings as to the character of the prince\nand his surroundings.\n\nThe misgivings were justified by the event. Frederick William's\naccession to the throne (August 17, 1786) was, indeed, followed by a\nseries of measures for lightening the burdens of the people, reforming\nthe oppressive French system of tax-collecting introduced by Frederick,\nand encouraging trade by the diminution of customs dues and the making\nof roads and canals. This gave the new king much popularity with the\nmass of the people; while the educated classes were pleased by his\nremoval of Frederick's ban on the German language by the admission of\nGerman writers to the Prussian Academy, and by the active encouragement\ngiven to schools and universities. But these reforms were vitiated in\ntheir source. In 1781 Frederick William, then prince of Prussia,\ninclined, like many sensual natures, to mysticism, had joined the\nRosicrucians, and had fallen under the influence of Johann Christof\nWoellner (1732-1800), and by him the royal policy was inspired. Woellner,\nwhom Frederick the Great had described as a \"treacherous and intriguing\npriest,\" had started life as a poor tutor in the family of General von\nItzenplitz, a noble of the mark of Brandenburg, had, after the general's\ndeath and to the scandal of king and nobility, married the general's\ndaughter, and with his mother-in-law's assistance settled down on a\nsmall estate. By his practical experiments and by his writings he gained\na considerable reputation as an economist; but his ambition was not\ncontent with this, and he sought to extend his influence by joining\nfirst the Freemasons and afterwards (1779) the Rosicrucians. Woellner,\nwith his impressive personality and easy if superficial eloquence, was\njust the man to lead a movement of this kind. Under his influence the\norder spread rapidly, and he soon found himself the supreme director\n(_Oberhauptdirektor_) of some 26 \"circles,\" which included in their\nmembership princes, officers and high officials. As a Rosicrucian\nWoellner dabbled in alchemy and other mystic arts, but he also affected\nto be zealous for Christian orthodoxy, imperilled by Frederick II.'s\npatronage of \"enlightenment,\" and a few months before Frederick's death\nwrote to his friend the Rosicrucian Johann Rudolph von Bischoffswerder\n(1741-1803) that his highest ambition was to be placed at the head of\nthe religious department of the state \"as an unworthy instrument in the\nhand of Ormesus\" (the prince of Prussia's Rosicrucian name) \"for the\npurpose of saving millions of souls from perdition and bringing back the\nwhole country to the faith of Jesus Christ.\"\n\nSuch was the man whom Frederick William II., immediately after his\naccession, called to his counsels. On the 26th of August 1786 he was\nappointed privy councillor for finance (_Geheimer Oberfinanzrath_), and on\nthe 2nd of October was ennobled. Though not in name, in fact he was prime\nminister; in all internal affairs it was he who decided; and the fiscal\nand economic reforms of the new reign were the application of his\ntheories. Bischoffswerder, too, still a simple major, was called into the\nking's counsels; by 1789 he was already an adjutant-general. These were\nthe two men who enmeshed the king in a web of Rosicrucian mystery and\nintrigue, which hampered whatever healthy development of his policy might\nhave been possible, and led ultimately to disaster. The opposition to\nWoellner was, indeed, at the outset strong enough to prevent his being\nentrusted with the department of religion; but this too in time was\novercome, and on the 3rd of July 1788 he was appointed active privy\ncouncillor of state and of justice and head of the spiritual department\nfor Lutheran and Catholic affairs. War was at once declared on what--to\nuse a later term--we may call the \"modernists.\" The king, so long as\nWoellner was content to condone his immorality (which Bischoffswerder, to\ndo him justice, condemned), was eager to help the orthodox crusade. On the\n9th of July was issued the famous religious edict, which forbade\nEvangelical ministers to teach anything not contained in the letter of\ntheir official books, proclaimed the necessity of protecting the Christian\nreligion against the \"enlighteners\" (_Aufklaerer_), and placed educational\nestablishments under the supervision of the orthodox clergy. On the 18th\nof December a new censorship law was issued, to secure the orthodoxy of\nall published books; and finally, in 1791, a sort of Protestant\nInquisition was established at Berlin (_Immediat-Examinations-commission_)\nto watch over all ecclesiastical and scholastic appointments. In his zeal\nfor orthodoxy, indeed, Frederick William outstripped his minister; he even\nblamed Woellner's \"idleness and vanity\" for the inevitable failure of the\nattempt to regulate opinion from above, and in 1794 deprived him of one of\nhis secular offices in order that he might have more time \"to devote\nhimself to the things of God\"; in edict after edict the king continued to\nthe end of his reign to make regulations \"in order to maintain in his\nstates a true and active Christianity, as the path to genuine fear of\nGod.\"\n\nThe effects of this policy of blind obscurantism far outweighed any good\nthat resulted from the king's well-meant efforts at economic and\nfinancial reform; and even this reform was but spasmodic and partial,\nand awoke ultimately more discontent than it allayed. But far more\nfateful for Prussia was the king's attitude towards the army and foreign\npolicy. The army was the very foundation of the Prussian state, a truth\nwhich both Frederick William I. and the great Frederick had fully\nrealized; the army had been their first care, and its efficiency had\nbeen maintained by their constant personal supervision. Frederick\nWilliam, who had no taste for military matters, put his authority as\n\"War-Lord\" into commission under a supreme college of war\n(_Oberkriegs-Collegium_) under the duke of Brunswick and General von\nMoellendorf. It was the beginning of the process that ended in 1806 at\nJena.\n\nIn the circumstances Frederick William's intervention in European\naffairs was not likely to prove of benefit to Prussia. The Dutch\ncampaign of 1787, entered on for purely family reasons, was indeed\nsuccessful; but Prussia received not even the cost of her intervention.\nAn attempt to intervene in the war of Russia and Austria against Turkey\nfailed of its object; Prussia did not succeed in obtaining any\nconcessions of territory from the alarms of the Allies, and the\ndismissal of Hertzberg in 1791 marked the final abandonment of the\nanti-Austrian tradition of Frederick the Great. For, meanwhile, the\nFrench Revolution had entered upon alarming phases, and in August 1791\nFrederick William, at the meeting at Pillnitz, arranged with the emperor\nLeopold to join in supporting the cause of Louis XVI. But neither the\nking's character, nor the confusion of the Prussian finances due to his\nextravagance, gave promise of any effective action. A formal alliance\nwas indeed signed on the 7th of February 1792, and Frederick William\ntook part personally in the campaigns of 1792 and 1793. He was hampered,\nhowever, by want of funds, and his counsels were distracted by the\naffairs of Poland, which promised a richer booty than was likely to be\ngained by the anti-revolutionary crusade into France. A subsidy treaty\nwith the sea powers (April 19, 1794) filled his coffers; but the\ninsurrection in Poland that followed the partition of 1793, and the\nthreat of the isolated intervention of Russia, hurried him into the\nseparate treaty of Basel with the French Republic (April 5, 1795), which\nwas regarded by the great monarchies as a betrayal, and left Prussia\nmorally isolated in Europe on the eve of the titanic struggle between\nthe monarchical principle and the new political creed of the Revolution.\nPrussia had paid a heavy price for the territories acquired at the\nexpense of Poland in 1793 and 1795, and when, on the 16th of November\n1797, Frederick William died, he left the state in bankruptcy and\nconfusion, the army decayed and the monarchy discredited.\n\nFrederick William II. was twice married: (1) in 1765 to Elizabeth of\nBrunswick (d. 1841), by whom he had a daughter, Frederika, afterwards\nduchess of York, and from whom he was divorced in 1769; (2) in 1769 to\nFrederika Louisa of Hesse-Darmstadt, by whom he had four sons, Frederick\nWilliam III., Louis (d. 1796), Henry and William, and two daughters,\nWilhelmina, wife of William of Orange, afterwards William I., king of\nthe Netherlands, and Augusta, wife of William II., elector of Hesse.\nBesides his relations with his _maitresse en titre_, the countess\nLichtenau, the king--who was a frank polygamist--contracted two\n\"marriages of the left hand\" with Fraeulein von Voss and the countess\nDoenhoff.\n\n  See article by von Hartmann in _Allgem. deutsche Biog._ (Leipzig,\n  1878); Stadelmann, _Preussens Koenige in ihrer Taetigkeit fuer die\n  Landeskultur_, vol. iii. \"Friedrich Wilhelm II.\" (Leipzig, 1885);\n  Paulig, _Friedrich Wilhelm II., sein Privatleben u. seine Regierung_\n  (Frankfurt-an-der-Oder, 1896).\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK WILLIAM III. (1770-1840), king of Prussia, eldest son of King\nFrederick William II., was born at Potsdam on the 3rd of August 1770.\nHis father, then prince of Prussia, was out of favour with Frederick the\nGreat and entirely under the influence of his mistress; and the boy,\nhanded over to tutors appointed by the king, lived a solitary and\nrepressed life which tended to increase the innate weakness of his\ncharacter. But though his natural defects of intellect and will-power\nwere not improved by the pedantic tutoring to which he was submitted, he\ngrew up pious, honest and well-meaning; and had fate cast him in any but\nthe most stormy times of his country's history he might well have left\nthe reputation of a model king. As a soldier he received the usual\ntraining of a Prussian prince, obtained his lieutenancy in 1784, became\na colonel commanding in 1790, and took part in the campaigns of 1792-94.\nIn 1793 he married Louise, daughter of Prince Charles of\nMecklenburg-Strelitz, whom he had met and fallen in love with at\nFrankfort (see LOUISE, queen of Prussia). He succeeded to the throne on\nthe 16th of November 1797 and at once gave earnest of his good\nintentions by cutting down the expenses of the royal establishment,\ndismissing his father's ministers, and reforming the most oppressive\nabuses of the late reign. Unfortunately, however, he had all the\nHohenzollern tenacity of personal power without the Hohenzollern genius\nfor using it. Too distrustful to delegate his responsibility to his\nministers, he was too infirm of will to strike out and follow a\nconsistent course for himself.\n\nThe results of this infirmity of purpose are written large on the\nhistory of Prussia from the treaty of Luneville in 1801 to the downfall\nthat followed the campaign of Jena in 1806. By the treaty of Tilsit\n(July 9th, 1807) Frederick William had to surrender half his dominions,\nand what remained to him was exhausted by French exactions and liable at\nany moment to be crushed out of existence by some new whim of Napoleon.\nIn the dark years that followed it was the indomitable courage of Queen\nLouise that helped the weak king not to despair of the state. She\nseconded the reforming efforts of Stein and the work of Scharnhorst and\nGneisenau in reorganizing the army, by which the resurrection of Prussia\nbecame a possibility. When Stein was dismissed at the instance of\nNapoleon, Hardenberg succeeded him as chancellor (June 1810). In the\nfollowing month Queen Louise died, and the king was left alone to deal\nwith circumstances of ever-increasing difficulty. He was forced to join\nNapoleon in the war against Russia; and even when the disastrous\ncampaign of 1812 had for the time broken the French power, it was not\nhis own resolution, but the loyal disloyalty of General York in\nconcluding with Russia the convention of Tauroggen that forced him into\nline with the patriotic fervour of his people.\n\nOnce committed to the Russian alliance, however, he became the faithful\nhenchman of the emperor Alexander, whose fascinating personality\nexercised over him to the last a singular power, and began that\ninfluence of Russia at the court of Berlin which was to last till\nFrederick William IV.'s supposed Liberalism was to shatter the\ncordiality of the _entente_. That during and after the settlement of\n1815 Frederick William played a very secondary part in European affairs\nis explicable as well by his character as by the absorbing character of\nthe internal problems of Prussia. He was one of the original\nco-signatories of the Holy Alliance, though, in common with most, he\nsigned it with reluctance; and in the counsels of the Grand Alliance he\nallowed himself to be practically subordinated to Alexander and later to\nMetternich. In a ruler of his character it is not surprising that the\nRevolution and its developments had produced an unconquerable suspicion\nof constitutional principles and methods, which the Liberal agitations\nin Germany tended to increase. At the various congresses, from\nAix-la-Chapelle (1818) to Verona (1822), therefore, he showed himself\nheartily in sympathy with the repressive policy formulated in the\nTroppau Protocol. The promise of a constitution, which in the excitement\nof the War of Liberation he had made to his people, remained unfulfilled\npartly owing to this mental attitude, partly, however, to the all but\ninsuperable difficulties in the way of its execution. But though\nreluctant to play the part of a constitutional king, Frederick William\nmaintained to the full the traditional character of \"first servant of\nthe state.\" Though he chastised Liberal professors and turbulent\nstudents, it was in the spirit of a benevolent _Landesvater_; and he\nlaboured assiduously at the enormous task of administrative\nreconstruction necessitated by the problem of welding the heterogeneous\nelements of the new Prussian kingdom into a united whole. He was\nsincerely religious; but his well-meant efforts to unite the Lutheran\nand Reformed Churches, in celebration of the tercentenary of the\nReformation (1817), revealed the limits of his paternal power; eleven\nyears passed in vain attempts to devise common formulae; a stubborn\nLutheran minority had to be coerced by military force, the confiscation\nof their churches and the imprisonment or exile of their pastors; not\ntill 1834 was outward union secured on the basis of common worship but\nseparate symbols, the opponents of the measure being forbidden to form\ncommunities of their own. With the Roman Church, too, the king came into\nconflict on the vexed question of \"mixed marriages,\" a conflict in which\nthe Vatican gained an easy victory (see BUNSEN, C. C. J., BARON VON).\n\nThe revolutions of 1830 strengthened Frederick William in his\nreactionary tendencies; the question of the constitution was\nindefinitely shelved; and in 1831 Prussian troops concentrated on the\nfrontier helped the task of the Russians in reducing the military rising\nin Poland. Yet, in spite of all, Frederick William was beloved by his\nsubjects, who valued him for the simplicity of his manners, the goodness\nof his heart and the memories of the dark days after 1806. He died on\nthe 7th of June 1840. In 1824 he had contracted a morganatic marriage\nwith the countess Auguste von Harrach, whom he created Princess von\nLiegnitz. He wrote _Luther in Bezug auf die Kirchenagenda von 1822 und\n1823_ (Berlin, 1827), _Reminiszenzen aus der Kampagne 1792 in\nFrankreich_, and _Journal meiner Brigade in der Kampagne am Rhein 1793_.\n\n  The correspondence (_Briefwechsel_) of King Frederick William III. and\n  Queen Louise with the emperor Alexander I. has been published\n  (Leipzig, 1900) and also that between the king and queen (ib. 1903),\n  both edited by P. Bailleu. See W. Hahn, _Friedrich Wilhelm III. und\n  Luise_ (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1877); M. W. Duncker, _Aus der Zeit\n  Friedrichs des Grossen und Friedrich Wilhelms III._ (Leipzig, 1876);\n  Bishop R. F. Eylert, _Charakterzuege aus dem Leben des Koenigs von\n  Preussen Friedrich Wilhelm III._ (3 vols., Magdeburg, 1843-1846).\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK WILLIAM IV. (1795-1861), king of Prussia, eldest son of\nFrederick William III., was born on the 15th of October 1795. From his\nfirst tutor, Johann Delbrueck, he imbibed a love of culture and art, and\npossibly also the dash of Liberalism which formed an element of his\ncomplex habit of mind. But after a time Delbrueck, suspected of inspiring\nhis charge with a dislike of the Prussian military caste and even of\nbelonging to a political secret society, was dismissed, his place being\ntaken by the pastor and historian Friedrich Ancillon, while a military\ngovernor was also appointed. By Ancillon he was grounded in religion, in\nhistory and political science, his natural taste for the antique and the\npicturesque making it easy for his tutor to impress upon him his own\nhatred of the Revolution and its principles. This hatred was confirmed\nby the sufferings of his country and family in the terrible years after\n1806, and his first experience of active soldiering was in the campaigns\nthat ended in the occupation of Paris by the Allies in 1814. In action\nhis reckless bravery had earned him rebuke, and in Paris he was remarked\nfor the exact performance of his military duties, though he found time\nto whet his appetite for art in the matchless collections gathered by\nNapoleon as the spoil of all Europe. On his return to Berlin he studied\nart under the sculptor Christian Daniel Rauch and the painter and\narchitect Karl Friedrich Schinkel (1781-1841), proving himself in the\nend a good draughtsman, a born architect and an excellent landscape\ngardener. At the same time he was being tutored in law by Savigny and in\nfinance by a series of distinguished masters. In 1823 he married the\nprincess Elizabeth of Bavaria, who adopted the Lutheran creed. The\nunion, though childless, was very happy. A long tour in Italy in 1828\nwas the beginning of his intimacy with Bunsen and did much to develop\nhis knowledge of art and love of antiquity.\n\nOn his accession to the throne in 1840 much was expected of a prince so\nvariously gifted and of so amiable a temper, and his first acts did not\nbelie popular hopes. He reversed the unfortunate ecclesiastical policy\nof his father, allowing a wide liberty of dissent, and releasing the\nimprisoned archbishop of Cologne; he modified the strictness of the\npress censorship; above all he undertook, in the presence of the\ndeputations of the provincial diets assembled to greet him on his\naccession, to carry out the long-deferred project of creating a central\nconstitution, which he admitted to be required alike by the royal\npromises, the needs of the country and the temper of the times. The\nstory of the evolution of the Prussian parliament belongs to the history\nof Prussia. Here it must suffice to notice Frederick William's personal\nshare in the question, which was determined by his general attitude of\nmind. He was an idealist; but his idealism was of a type the exact\nreverse of that which the Revolution in arms had sought to impose upon\nEurope. The idea of the sovereignty of the people was to him utterly\nabhorrent, and even any delegation of sovereign power on his own part\nwould have seemed a betrayal of a God-given trust. \"I will never,\" he\ndeclared, \"allow to come between Almighty God and this country a blotted\nparchment, to rule us with paragraphs, and to replace the ancient,\nsacred bond of loyalty.\" His vision of the ideal state was that of a\npatriarchial monarchy, surrounded and advised by the traditional estates\nof the realm--nobles, peasants, burghers--and cemented by the bonds of\nevangelical religion; but in which there should be no question of the\nsovereign power being vested in any other hands than those of the king\nby divine right. In Prussia, with its traditional loyalty and its\nold-world caste divisions, he believed that such a conception could be\nrealized, and he took up an attitude half-way between those who would\nhave rejected the proposal for a central diet altogether as a dangerous\n\"thin end of the wedge,\" and those who would have approximated it more\nto the modern conception of a parliament. With a charter, or a\nrepresentative system based on population, he would have nothing to do.\nThe united diet which was opened on the 3rd of February 1847 was no more\nthan a congregation of the diets instituted by Frederick William III. in\nthe eight provinces of Prussia. Unrepresentative though it was--for the\nindustrial working-classes had no share in it--it at once gave voice to\nthe demand for a constitutional system.\n\nThis demand gained overwhelmingly in force with the revolutionary\noutbreaks of 1848. To Frederick William these came as a complete\nsurprise, and, rudely awakened from his medieval dreamings, he even\nallowed himself to be carried away for a while by the popular tide. The\nloyalty of the Prussian army remained inviolate; but the king was too\ntender-hearted to use military force against his \"beloved Berliners,\"\nand when the victory of the populace was thus assured his impressionable\ntemper yielded to the general enthusiasm. He paraded the streets of\nBerlin wrapped in a scarf of the German black and gold, symbol of his\nintention to be the leader of the united Germany; and he even wrote to\nthe indignant tsar in praise of \"the glorious German revolution.\" The\nchange of sentiment was, however, apparent rather than real. The shadow\nof venerable institutions, past or passing, still darkened his\ncounsels. The united Germany which he was prepared to champion was not\nthe democratic state which the theorists of the Frankfort national\nparliament were evolving on paper with interminable debate, but the old\nHoly Roman Empire, the heritage of the house of Habsburg, of which he\nwas prepared to constitute himself the guardian so long as its lawful\npossessors should not have mastered the forces of disorder by which they\nwere held captive. Finally, when Austria had been excluded from the new\nempire, he replied to the parliamentary deputation that came to offer\nhim the imperial crown that he might have accepted it had it been freely\noffered to him by the German princes, but that he would never stoop \"to\npick up a crown out of the gutter.\"\n\nWhatever may be thought of the manner of this refusal, or of its\nimmediate motives, it was in itself wise, for the German empire would\nhave lost immeasurably had it been the cause rather than the result of\nthe inevitable struggle with Austria, and Bismarck was probably right\nwhen he said that, to weld the heterogeneous elements of Germany into a\nunited whole, what was needed was, not speeches and resolutions, but a\npolicy of \"blood and iron.\" In any case Frederick William, uneasy enough\nas a constitutional king, would have been impossible as a constitutional\nemperor. As it was, his refusal to play this part gave the deathblow to\nthe parliament and to all hope of the immediate creation of a united\nGermany. For Frederick William the position of leader of Germany now\nmeant the employment of the military force of Prussia to crush the\nscattered elements of revolution that survived the collapse of the\nnational movement. His establishment of the northern confederacy was a\nreversion to the traditional policy of Prussia in opposition to Austria,\nwhich, after the emperor Nicholas had crushed the insurrection in\nHungary, was once more free to assert her claims to dominance in\nGermany. But Prussia was not ripe for a struggle with Austria, even had\nFrederick William found it in his conscience to turn his arms against\nhis ancient ally, and the result was the humiliating convention of\nOlmuetz (November 29th, 1850), by which Prussia agreed to surrender her\nseparatist plans and to restore the old constitution of the\nconfederation. Yet Frederick William had so far profited by the lessons\nof 1848 that he consented to establish (1850) a national parliament,\nthough with a restricted franchise and limited powers. The House of\nLords (_Herrenhaus_) justified the king's insistence in calling it into\nbeing by its support of Bismarck against the more popular House during\nthe next reign.\n\nIn religious matters Frederick William was also largely swayed by his\nlove for the ancient and picturesque. In concert with his friend Bunsen\nhe laboured to bring about a rapprochement between the Lutheran and\nAnglican churches, the first-fruits of which was the establishment of\nthe Jerusalem bishopric under the joint patronage of Great Britain and\nPrussia; but the only result of his efforts was to precipitate the\nsecession of J. H. Newman and his followers to the Church of Rome. In\ngeneral it may be said that Frederick William, in spite of his talents\nand his wide knowledge, lived in a dream-land of his own, out of touch\nwith actuality. The style of his letters reveals a mind enthusiastic and\nill-balanced. In the summer of 1857 he had a stroke of paralysis, and a\nsecond in October. From this time, with the exception of brief\nintervals, his mind was completely clouded, and the duties of government\nwere undertaken by his brother William (afterwards emperor), who on the\n7th of October 1858 was formally recognized as regent. Frederick William\ndied on the 2nd of January 1861.\n\n  Selections from the correspondence (_Briefwechsel_) of Frederick\n  William IV. and Bunsen were edited by Ranke (Leipzig, 1873); his\n  proclamations, speeches, &c., from the 6th of March 1848 to the 31st\n  of May 1851 have been published (Berlin, 1851); also his\n  correspondence with Bettina von Arnim, _Bettina von Arnim und\n  Friedrich Wilhelm IV., ungedruckte Briefe und Aktenstuecke_, ed. L.\n  Geiger (Frankfort-on-Main, 1902). See L. von Ranke, _Friedrich Wilhelm\n  IV., Koenig von Preussen_ (works 51, 52 also in _Allgem. deutsche\n  Biog._ vol. vii.), especially for the king's education and the inner\n  history of the debates leading up to the united diet of 1847; H. von\n  Petersdorff, _Koenig Friedrich Wilhelm IV._ (Stuttgart, 1900); F.\n  Rachfahl, _Deutschland, Koenig Friedrich Wilhelm IV. und die Berliner\n  Maerzrevolution_ (Halle, 1901); H. von Poschinger (ed.), _Unter\n  Friedrich Wilhelm IV. Denkwuerdigkeiten des Ministers Otto Frhr. von\n  Manteuffel_, 1848-1858 (3 vols., Berlin, 1900-1901); and _Preussens\n  auswaertige Politik_, 1850-1858 (3 vols., ib., 1902), documents\n  selected from those left by Manteuffel; E. Friedberg, _Die Grundlagen\n  der preussischen Kirchenpolitik unter Friedrich Wilhelm IV._ (Leipzig,\n  1882).\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK WILLIAM (1620-1688), elector of Brandenburg, usually called\nthe \"Great Elector,\" was born in Berlin on the 16th of February 1620.\nHis father was the elector George William, and his mother was Elizabeth\nCharlotte, daughter of Frederick IV., elector palatine of the Rhine.\nOwing to the disorders which were prevalent in Brandenburg he passed\npart of his youth in the Netherlands, studying at the university of\nLeiden and learning something of war and statecraft under Frederick\nHenry, prince of Orange. During his boyhood a marriage had been\nsuggested between him and Christina, afterwards queen of Sweden; but\nalthough the idea was revived during the peace negotiations between\nSweden and Brandenburg, it came to nothing, and in 1646 he married\nLouise Henriette (d. 1667), daughter of Frederick Henry of Orange, a\nlady whose counsel was very helpful to him and who seconded his efforts\nfor the welfare of his country.\n\nHaving become ruler of Brandenburg and Prussia by his father's death in\nDecember 1640, Frederick William set to work at once to repair the\nextensive damage wrought during the Thirty Years' War, still in\nprogress. After some difficulty he secured his investiture as duke of\nPrussia from Wladislaus, king of Poland, in October 1641, but was not\nequally successful in crushing the independent tendencies of the estates\nof Cleves. It was in Brandenburg, however, that he showed his supreme\nskill as a diplomatist and administrator. His disorderly troops were\nreplaced by an efficient and disciplined force; his patience and\nperseverance freed his dominions from the Swedish soldiers; and the\nrestoration of law and order was followed by a revival of trade and an\nincrease of material prosperity. After a tedious struggle he succeeded\nin centralizing the administration, and controlling and increasing the\nrevenue, while no department of public life escaped his sedulous care\n(see BRANDENBURG). The area of his dominions was largely increased at\nthe peace of Westphalia in 1648, and this treaty and the treaty of Oliva\nin 1660 alike added to his power and prestige. By a clever but\nunscrupulous use of his intermediate position between Sweden and Poland\nhe procured his recognition as independent duke of Prussia from both\npowers, and eventually succeeded in crushing the stubborn and lengthened\nopposition which was offered to his authority by the estates of the\nduchy (see PRUSSIA). After two checks he made his position respected in\nCleves, and in 1666 his title to Cleves, Juelich and Ravensberg was\ndefinitely recognized. His efforts, however, to annex the western part\nof the duchy of Pomerania, which he had conquered from the Swedes,\nfailed owing to the insistence of Louis XIV. at the treaty of St\nGermain-en-Laye in 1679, and he was unable to obtain the Silesian\nduchies of Liegnitz, Brieg and Wohlau from the emperor Leopold I. after\nthey had been left without a ruler in 1675.\n\nFrederick William played an important part in European politics.\nAlthough found once or twice on the side of France, he was generally\nloyal to the interests of the empire and the Habsburgs, probably because\nhis political acumen scented danger to Brandenburg from the aggressive\npolicy of Louis XIV. He was a Protestant in religion, but he supported\nProtestant interests abroad on political rather than on religious\ngrounds, and sought, but without much success, to strengthen Brandenburg\nby allaying the fierce hostility between Lutherans and Calvinists. His\nsuccess in founding and organizing the army of Brandenburg-Prussia was\namply demonstrated by the great victory which he gained over the Swedes\nat Fehrbellin in June 1675, and by the eagerness with which foreign\npowers sought his support. He was also the founder of the Prussian navy.\nThe elector assisted trade in every possible way. He made the canal\nwhich still bears his name between the Oder and the Spree; established a\ntrading company; and founded colonies on the west coast of Africa. He\nencouraged Flemings to settle in Brandenburg, and both before and after\nthe revocation of the edict of Nantes in 1685 welcomed large numbers of\nHuguenots, who added greatly to the welfare of the country. Education\nwas not neglected; and if in this direction some of his plans were\nabortive, it was from lack of means and opportunity rather than effort\nand inclination. It is difficult to overestimate the services of the\ngreat elector to Brandenburg and Prussia. They can only be properly\nappreciated by those who compare the condition of his country in 1640\nwith its condition in 1688. Both actually and relatively its importance\nhad increased enormously; poverty had given place to comparative wealth,\nand anarchy to a system of government which afterwards made Prussia the\nmost centralized state in Europe. He had scant sympathy with local\nprivileges, and in fighting them his conduct was doubtless despotic. His\naim was to make himself an absolute ruler, as he regarded this as the\nbest guarantee for the internal and external welfare of the state.\n\nThe great elector died at Potsdam from dropsy on the 9th of May 1688,\nand was succeeded by his eldest surviving son, Frederick. His personal\nappearance was imposing, and although he was absolutely without scruples\nwhen working for the interests of Brandenburg, he did not lack a sense\nof justice and generosity. At all events he deserves the eulogy passed\nupon him by Frederick the Great, \"_Messieurs; celui-ci a fait de grandes\nchoses_.\" His second wife, whom he married in 1668, was Dorothea (d.\n1689), daughter of Philip, duke of Holstein-Gluecksburg, and widow of\nChristian Louis, duke of Brunswick-Lueneburg; she bore him four sons and\nthree daughters. His concluding years were troubled by differences\nbetween his wife and her step-son, Frederick; and influenced by Dorothea\nhe bequeathed portions of Brandenburg to her four sons, a bequest which\nwas annulled under his successor.\n\n  See S. de Pufendorf, _De rebus gestis Friderici Wilhelmi Magni_\n  (Leipzig and Berlin, 1733); L. von Orlich, _Friedrich Wilhelm der\n  grosse Kurfuerst_ (Berlin, 1836); K. H. S. Roedenbeck, _Zur Geschichte\n  Friedrich Wilhelms des grossen Kurfuersten_ (Berlin, 1851); B.\n  Erdmannsdoerffer, _Der grosse Kurfuerst_ (Leipzig, 1879); J. G. Droysen,\n  _Geschichte der preussischen Politik_ (Berlin, 1855-1886); M.\n  Philippson, _Der grosse Kurfuerst_ (Berlin, 1897-1903); E. Heyck, _Der\n  grosse Kurfuerst_ (Bielefeld, 1902); Spahn, _Der grosse Kurfuerst_\n  (Mainz, 1902); H. Landwehr, _Die Kirchenpolitik des grossen\n  Kurfuersten_ (Berlin, 1894); H. Prutz, _Aus des grossen Kurfuersten\n  letzten Jahren_ (Berlin, 1897). Also _Urkunden und Aktenstuecke zur\n  Geschichte des Kurfuersten Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg_ (Berlin,\n  1864-1902); T. Carlyle, _History of Frederick the Great_, vol. i.\n  (London, 1858); and A. Waddington, _Le Grand Electeur et Louis XIV_\n  (Paris, 1905).\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICK-LEMAITRE, ANTOINE LOUIS PROSPER (1800-1876) French actor, the\nson of an architect, was born at Havre on the 28th of July 1800. He\nspent two years at the Conservatoire, and made his first appearance at a\nvariety performance in one of the basement restaurants at the Palais\nRoyal. At the Ambigu on the 12th of July 1823 he played the part of\nRobert Macaire in _L'Auberge des Adrets_. The melodrama was played\nseriously on the first night and was received with little favour, but it\nwas changed on the second night to burlesque, and thanks to him had a\ngreat success. All Paris came to see it, and from that day he was\nfamous. He created a number of parts that added to his popularity,\nespecially Cardillac, Cagliostro and Cartouche. His success in the last\nled to an engagement at the Porte St Martin, where in 1827 he produced\n_Trente ans, ou la vie d'un joueur_, in which his vivid acting made a\nprofound impression. Afterwards at the Odeon and other theatres he\npassed from one success to another, until he put the final touch to his\nreputation as an artist by creating the part of Ruy Blas in Victor\nHugo's play. On his return to the Porte St Martin he created the\ntitle-role in Balzac's _Vautrin_, which was forbidden a second\npresentation, on account, it is said, of the resemblance of the actor's\nwig to the well-known _toupet_ worn by Louis Philippe. His last\nappearance was at this theatre in 1873 as the old Jew in _Marie Tudor_,\nand he died at Paris on the 26th of January 1876.\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICKSBURG, a city of Spottsylvania county, Virginia, U.S.A., on the\nRappahannock river, at the head of tide-water navigation, about 60 m.\nN. of Richmond and about 55 m. S.S.W. of Washington. Pop. (1890) 4528;\n(1900) 5068 (1621 negroes); (1910) 5874. It is served by the Potomac,\nFredericksburg & Piedmont, and the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac\nrailways, and by several coasting steamship lines. The city is built on\na series of terraces between the river and hills of considerable height.\nThe river is here spanned by iron bridges, and just above the city is a\ndam 900 ft. long and 18 ft. high. By means of this dam and a canal good\nwater-power is furnished, and the city's manufactures include flour,\nleather, shoes, woollens, silks, wagons, agricultural implements and\nexcelsior (fine wood-shavings for packing or stuffing). The water-works,\ngas and electric-lighting plants are owned and operated by the\nmunicipality. At Fredericksburg are Fredericksburg College (founded in\n1893; co-educational), which includes the Kenmore school for girls and\nthe Saunders memorial school for boys (both preparatory); a Confederate\nand a National cemetery (the latter on Marye's Heights), a monument\n(erected in 1906) to General Hugh Mercer (c. 1720-1777), whose home for\nseveral years was here and who fell in the battle of Princeton; and a\nmonument to the memory of Washington's mother, who died here in 1789 and\nwhose home is still standing. Other buildings of interest are the old\nRising Sun Hotel, a popular resort during Washington's time, and\n\"Kenmore,\" the home of Colonel Fielding Lewis, who married a sister of\nWashington. The city was named in honour of Frederick, father of George\nIII., and was incorporated in 1727, long after its first settlement; in\n1871 it was re-chartered by act of the General Assembly of Virginia.\n\nThe battle of Fredericksburg in the American Civil War was fought on the\n13th of December 1862 between the Union forces (Army of the Potomac)\nunder Major-General A. E. Burnside and the Confederates (Army of\nNorthern Virginia) under General R. E. Lee. In the middle of November,\nBurnside, newly appointed to command the Army of the Potomac, had\nmanoeuvred from the neighbourhood of Warrenton with a view to beginning\nan offensive move from Fredericksburg and, as a preliminary, to seizing\na foothold beyond the Rappahannock at or near that place. On arriving\nnear Falmouth, however, he found that the means of crossing that he had\nasked for had not been forwarded from Washington, and he sat down to\nwait for them, while, on the other side, the Confederate army gradually\nassembled south of the Rappahannock in a strong position with the left\non the river above Fredericksburg and the right near Hamilton's Crossing\non the Richmond railway. On the 10th of December Burnside, having by now\nreceived his pontoons, prepared to cross the river and to attack the\nConfederate entrenched position on the heights beyond the town. The\nrespective forces were Union 122,000, Confederate 79,000. Major-General\nE. V. Sumner, commanding the Federal right wing (II. and IX. corps), was\nto cross at Fredericksburg, Major-General W. B. Franklin with the left\n(I. and VI. corps) some miles below, while the centre (III. and V.\ncorps) under Major-General Joseph Hooker was to connect the two attacks\nand to reinforce either at need. The Union artillery took position along\nthe heights of the north bank to cover the crossing, and no opposition\nwas encountered opposite Franklin's command, which formed up on the\nother side during the 11th and 12th. Opposite Sumner, however, the\nConfederate riflemen, hidden in the gardens and houses of\nFredericksburg, caused much trouble and considerable losses to the Union\npioneers, and a forlorn hope of volunteers from the infantry had to be\nrowed across under fire before the enemy's skirmishers could be\ndislodged. Sumner's two corps crossed on the 12th. The battle took place\nnext morning.\n\nControversy has raged round Burnside's plan of action and in particular\nround his orders to Franklin, as to which it can only be said that\nwhatever chance of success there was in so formidable an undertaking as\nattacking the well-posted enemy was thrown away through\nmisunderstandings, and that nothing but misunderstandings could be\nexpected from the vague and bewildering orders issued by the general in\ncommand. The actual battle can be described in a few words. Jackson held\nthe right of Lee's line, Longstreet the left, both entrenched. Franklin,\ntied by his instructions, attacked with one division only, which a\nlittle later he supported by two more (I. corps, Major-General J. F.\nReynolds) out of eight or nine available. His left flank was harassed by\nthe Confederate horse artillery under the young and brilliant Captain\nJohn Pelham, and after breaking the first line of Stonewall Jackson's\ncorps the assailants were in the end driven back with heavy losses. On\nthe other flank, where part of Longstreet's corps held the low ridge\nopposite Fredericksburg called Marye's Heights, Burnside ordered in the\nII. corps under Major-General D. N. Couch about 11 A.M., and\nthenceforward division after division, on a front of little more than\n800 yds., was sent forward to assault with the bayonet. The \"Stone Wall\"\nalong the foot of Marye's was lined with every rifle of Longstreet's\ncorps that could find room to fire, and above them the Confederate guns\nfired heavily on the assailants, whose artillery, on the height beyond\nthe river, was too far off to assist them. Not a man of the Federals\nreached the wall, though the bravest were killed a few paces from it,\nand Sumner's and most of Hooker's brigades were broken one after the\nother as often as they tried to assault. At night the wrecks of the\nright wing were withdrawn. Burnside proposed next day to lead the IX.\ncorps, which he had formerly commanded, in one mass to the assault of\nthe Stone Wall, but his subordinates dissuaded him, and on the night of\nthe 15th the Army of the Potomac withdrew to its camps about Falmouth.\nThe losses of the Federals were 12,650 men, those of the Confederates\n4200, little more than a third of which fell on Longstreet's corps.\n\n  See F. W. Palfrey, _Antietam and Fredericksburg_ (New York, 1881); G.\n  W. Redway, _Fredericksburg_ (London, 1906); and G. F. R. Henderson,\n  _Fredericksburg_ (London, 1889).\n\n\n\n\nFREDERICTON, a city and port of entry of New Brunswick, Canada, capital\nof the province, situated on the St John river, 84 m. from its mouth,\nand on the Canadian Pacific railway. It stands on a plain bounded on one\nside by the river, which is here 3/4 m. broad, and on the other by a range\nof hills which almost encircle the town. It is regularly built with long\nand straight streets, and contains the parliament buildings, government\nhouse, the Anglican cathedral, the provincial university and several\nother educational establishments. Fredericton is the chief commercial\ncentre in the interior of the province, and has also a large trade in\nlumber. Its industries include canneries, tanneries and wooden ware\nfactories. The river is navigable for large steamers up to the city, and\nabove it by vessels of lighter draught. Two bridges, passenger and\nrailway, unite the city with the towns of St Marye's and Gibson on the\neast side of the river, at its junction with the Nashwaak. The city was\nfounded in 1785 by Sir Guy Carleton, and made the capital of the\nprovince, in spite of the jealousy of St John, on account of its\nsuperior strategical position. Pop. (1901) 7117.\n\n\n\n\nFREDONIA, a village of Chautauqua county, New York, U.S.A., about 45 m.\nS.W. of Buffalo, and 3 m. from Lake Erie. Pop. (1900) 4127; (1905, state\ncensus) 5148; (1910 census) 5285. Fredonia is served by the Dunkirk,\nAllegheny Valley & Pittsburg railway, which connects at Dunkirk, 3 m. to\nthe N., with the Erie, the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern, the New York,\nChicago & St Louis, and the Pennsylvania railways; and by electric\nrailway to Erie, Buffalo and Dunkirk. It is the seat of a State Normal\nSchool. The Darwin R. Barker public library contained 9700 volumes in\n1908. Fredonia is situated in the grape-growing region of western New\nYork, is an important shipping point for grapes, and has large\ngrape-vine and general nurseries. The making of wine and of unfermented\ngrape-juice are important industries of the village. Among other\nmanufactures are canned goods, coal dealers' supplies, and patent\nmedicines. The first settlement here was made in 1804, and the place was\ncalled Canandaway until 1817, when the present name was adopted. The\nvillage was incorporated in 1829. Fredonia was one of the first places\nin the United States, if not the first, to make use of natural gas for\npublic purposes. Within the village limits, near a creek, whose waters\nshowed the presence of gas, a well was sunk in 1821, and the supply of\ngas thus tapped was sufficient to light the streets of the village.\nAnother well was sunk within the village limits in 1858. About 1905\nnatural gas was again obtained by deep drilling near Fredonia and came\ninto general use for heat, light and power. In the Fredonia Baptist\nchurch on the 14th of December 1873 a Woman's Temperance Union was\norganized, and from this is sometimes dated the beginning of the Woman's\nChristian Temperance Union movement.\n\n\n\n\nFREDRIKSHALD (FREDERICKSHALD, FRIEDERICHSHALL), a seaport and garrison\ntown of Norway, in Smaalenene _amt_ (county), 85 m. by rail S. by E. of\nChristiania. Pop. (1900) 11,948. It is picturesquely situated on both\nbanks of the Tistedal river at its outflow to the Ide fjord, surrounded\nby several rocky eminences. The chief of these is occupied by the famous\nfortress Fredriksten, protected on three sides by precipices, founded by\nFrederick III. (1661), and mainly showing, in its present form, the\nworks of Frederick V. (1766) and Christian VII. (1808). Between it and\nthe smaller Gyldenloeve fort a monument marks the spot where Charles XII.\nwas shot in the trenches while besieging the town (1718). The siege,\nwhich was then raised, is further commemorated by a monument to the\nbrave defence of the brothers Peter and Hans Kolbjoernsen. Fredrikshald\nis close to the Swedish frontier, and had previously (1660) withstood\ninvasion, after which its name was changed from Halden to the present\nform in 1665 in honour of Frederick III. The town was almost totally\ndestroyed by fire in 1759 and 1826. The castle surrendered to the\nSwedish crown prince Bernadotte in 1814, and its capture was speedily\nfollowed by the conquest of the kingdom and its union with Sweden.\nFredrikshald is one of the principal ports of the kingdom for the export\nof timber. Marble of very fine quality and grain is extensively quarried\nand exported for architectural ornamentation and for furniture-making.\nWood-pulp is also exported. The industries embrace granite quarries,\nwood-pulp factories, and factories for sugar, tobacco, curtains,\ntravelling-bags, boots, &c. There are railway communications with\nGothenburg and all parts of Sweden and regular coastal and steamer\nservices.\n\n\n\n\nFREDRIKSTAD (FREDERIKSTAD), a seaport and manufacturing town of Norway\nin Smaalenene _amt_ (county), 58 m. S. by E. of Christiania by the\nChristiania-Gothenburg railway. Pop. (1900) 14,553. It lies at the mouth\nand on the eastern shore of Christiania fjord, occupying both banks of\nthe great river Glommen, which, descending from the richly-wooded\ndistrict of Oesterdal, floats down vast quantities of timber. The new\ntown on the right bank is therefore a centre of the timber export trade,\nthis place being the principal port in Norway for the export of\npit-props, planed boards, and other varieties of timber. There is also a\ngreat industry in the making of red bricks, owing to the expansion of\nChristiania, Gothenburg and other towns. Granite is quarried and\nexported. Besides the large number of saw and planing mills, there are\nshipbuilding yards, engine and boiler works, cotton and woollen mills,\nand factories for acetic acid and naphtha. The harbour, which can be\nentered by vessels drawing 14 ft., is kept open in winter by an\nice-breaker. In the vicinity is the island Hankoe, the most fashionable\nNorwegian seaside resort. The old town on the left bank was founded by\nFrederick II. in 1567. It was for a long time strongly fortified, and in\n1716 Charles XII. of Sweden made a vain attempt to capture it.\n\n\n\n\nFREE BAPTISTS, formerly called (but no longer officially) FREEWILL\nBAPTISTS, an American denomination holding anti-paedobaptist and\nanti-Calvinistic doctrines, and practically identical in creed with the\nGeneral Baptists of Great Britain. Many of the early Baptist churches in\nRhode Island and throughout the South were believers in \"general\nredemption\" (hence called \"general\" Baptists); and there was a largely\nattended conference of this Arminian branch of the church at Newport in\n1729. But the denomination known as \"Free-willers\" had its rise in\n1779-1780, when anti-Calvinists in Loudon, Barrington and Canterbury,\nNew Hampshire, seceded and were organized by Benjamin Randall\n(1749-1808), a native of New Hampshire. Randall was an itinerant\nmissionary, who had been preaching for two years before his ordination\nin 1780; in the same year he was censured for \"heterodox\" teaching. The\nwork of the church suffered a relapse after his death, and a movement to\njoin the Freewill Baptists with the \"Christians,\" who were led by Elias\nSmith (1769-1846) and had been bitterly opposed by Randall, was nearly\nsuccessful. Between 1820 and 1830 the denomination made considerable\nprogress, especially in New England and the Middle West. The Freewill\nBaptists were joined in 1841 by many \"open-communion Baptists\"--those in\nthe Carolinas who did not join the larger body distinguishing themselves\nby the name of Original Freewill Baptists--and soon afterwards by some\nof the General Baptists of North Carolina and some of the Six Principle\nBaptists of Rhode Island (who had added the \"laying on of hands\" to the\nFive Principles hitherto held); and the abbreviation of the\ndenominational name to \"Free Baptists\" suggests their liberal\npolicy--indeed open communion is the main if not the only hindrance to\nunion with the \"regular\" Baptist Church.\n\nColleges founded by the denomination, all co-educational, are: Hillsdale\nCollege, opened at Spring Harbor as Michigan Central College in 1844,\nand established at Hillsdale, Michigan, in 1855; Bates College,\nLewiston, Maine, 1863, now non-sectarian; Rio Grande College, Rio\nGrande, Ohio, 1876; and Parker College, Winnebago City, Minnesota,\nopened in 1888. At the close of 1909 there were 1294 ministers, 1303\nchurches, and 73,536 members of the denomination in the United States.\n_The Morning Star_ of Boston, established in 1826, is the most prominent\njournal published by the church. In British North America, according to\na Canadian census bulletin of 1902, there were, in 1901, 24,229 Free\nBaptists, of whom 15,502 were inhabitants of New Brunswick, 8355 of Nova\nScotia, 246 of Ontario, and 87 of Quebec. The United Societies of Free\nBaptist Young People, an international organization founded in 1888, had\nin 1907 about 15,000 members. At the close of 1907 the \"Original\nFreewill Baptists\" had 120 ministers, 167 churches, and 12,000 members,\npractically all in the Carolinas.\n\n  See I. D. Stewart, _History of the Free Will Baptists_ (Dover, N. H.,\n  1862) for 1780-1830, and his edition of the _Minutes of the General\n  Conference of the Free Will Baptist Connection_ (Boston, 1887); James\n  B. Taylor, _The Centennial Record of the Free Will Baptists_ (Dover,\n  1881); John Buzzell, _Memoir of Elder Benjamin Randall_ (Parsonfield,\n  Maine, 1827); and P. Richardson, \"Randall and the Free Will Baptists,\"\n  in _The Christian Review_, vol. xxiii. (Baltimore, 1858).\n\n\n\n\nFREEBENCH, in English law, the interest which a widow has in the\ncopyhold lands of her husband, corresponding to dower in the case of\nfreeholds. It depends upon the custom of the manor, but as a general\nrule the widow takes a third for her life of the lands of which her\nhusband dies seised, but it may be an estate greater or less than a\nthird. If the husband surrenders his copyhold and the surrenderee is\nadmitted, or if he contracts for a sale, it will defeat the widow's\nfreebench. As freebench is regarded as a continuation of the husband's\nestate, the widow does not (except by special custom) require to be\nadmitted.\n\n\n\n\nFREE CHURCH FEDERATION, a voluntary association of British Nonconformist\nchurches for co-operation in religious, social and civil work. It was\nthe outcome of a unifying tendency displayed during the latter part of\nthe 19th century. About 1890 the proposal that there should be a\nNonconformist Church Congress analogous to the Anglican Church Congress\nwas seriously considered, and the first was held in Manchester on the\n7th of November 1892. In the following year it was resolved that the\nbasis of representation should be neither personal (as in the Anglican\nChurch Congress) nor denominational, but territorial. England and Wales\nhave since been completely covered with a network of local councils,\neach of which elects its due proportion of representatives to the\nnational gathering. This territorial arrangement eliminated all\nsectarian distinctions, and also the possibility of committing the\ndifferent churches as such to any particular policy. The representatives\nof the local councils attend not as denominationalists but as\nEvangelical Free Churchmen. The name of the organization was changed\nfrom Congress to National Council as soon as the assembly ceased to be a\nfortuitous concourse of atoms, and consisted of duly appointed\nrepresentatives from the local councils of every part of England. The\nlocal councils consist of representatives of the Congregational and\nBaptist Churches, the Methodist Churches, the Presbyterian Church of\nEngland, the Free Episcopal Churches, the Society of Friends, and such\nother Evangelical Churches as the National Council may at any time\nadmit. The constitution states the following as the objects of the\nNational Council: (a) To facilitate fraternal intercourse and\nco-operation among the Evangelical Free Churches; (b) to assist in the\norganization of local councils; (c) to encourage devotional fellowship\nand mutual counsel concerning the spiritual life and religious\nactivities of the Churches; (d) to advocate the New Testament doctrine\nof the Church, and to defend the rights of the associated Churches; (e)\nto promote the application of the law of Christ in every relation of\nhuman life. Although the objects of the Free Church councils are thus in\ntheir nature and spirit religious rather than political, there are\noccasions on which action is taken on great national affairs. Thus a\nthorough-going opposition was offered to the Education Act of 1902, and\nwhole-hearted support accorded to candidates at the general election of\n1906 who pledged themselves to altering that measure.\n\nA striking feature of the movement is the adoption of the parochial\nsystem for the purpose of local work. Each of the associated churches is\nrequested to look after a parish, not of course with any attempt to\nexclude other churches, but as having a special responsibility for those\nin that area who are not already connected with some existing church.\nThroughout the United Kingdom local councils are formed into\nfederations, some fifty in number, which are intermediate between them\nand the national council. The local councils do what is possible to\nprevent overlapping and excessive competition between the churches. They\nalso combine the forces of the local churches for evangelistic and\ngeneral devotional work, open-air services, efforts on behalf of Sunday\nobservance, and the prevention of gambling. Services are arranged in\nconnexion with workhouses, hospitals and other public institutions.\nSocial work of a varied character forms a large part of the operations\nof the local councils, and the Free Church Girls' Guild has a function\nsimilar to that of the Anglican Girls' Friendly Society. The national\ncouncil engages in mission work on a large scale, and a considerable\nnumber of periodicals, hymn-books for special occasions, and works of\ndifferent kinds explaining the history and ideals of the Evangelical\nFree Churches have been published. The churches represented in the\nNational Council have 9966 ministers, 55,828 local preachers, 407,991\nSunday-school teachers, 3,416,377 Sunday scholars, 2,178,221\ncommunicants, and sitting accommodation for 8,555,460.\n\nA remarkable manifestation of this unprecedented reunion was the fact\nthat a committee of the associated churches prepared and published a\ncatechism expressing the positive and fundamental agreement of all the\nEvangelical Free Churches on the essential doctrines of Christianity\n(see _The Contemporary Review_, January 1899). The catechism represents\nsubstantially the creed of not less than 80,000,000 Protestants. It has\nbeen widely circulated throughout Great Britain, the British Colonies\nand the United States of America, and has also been translated into\nWelsh, French and Italian.\n\nThe movement has spread to all parts of Australia, New Zealand, South\nAfrica, Jamaica, the United States of America and India. It is perhaps\nnecessary to add that it differs essentially from the Evangelical\nAlliance, inasmuch as its unit is not an individual, private Christian,\nbut a definitely organized and visible Church. The essential doctrine of\nthe movement is a particular doctrine of churchmanship which, as\nexplained in the catechism, regards the Lord Jesus Christ as the sole\nand Divine Head of every branch of the Holy Catholic Church throughout\nthe world. For this reason those who do not accept the deity of Christ\nare necessarily excluded from the national council and its local\nconstituent councils.\n\n\n\n\nFREE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, a Protestant episcopal church \"essentially one\nwith the established church of England, but free to go into any parish,\nto use a revised edition of the Book of Common Prayer, to associate the\nlaity with the clergy in the government and work of the church, and to\nhold communion with Christians of other denominations.\" It was founded\nin 1844 in opposition to the Tractarian movement, and embodies the\ndistinctively evangelical elements of the Reformation. It preserves and\nmaintains to the letter all that is Protestant and evangelical in the\nliturgy and services of the Anglican church, while its free constitution\nand revised formularies meet the needs of members of that communion who\nresent sacerdotal and ritualistic tendencies. There are two dioceses\n(northern and southern) each with a bishop, about 30 churches and\nministers, and about 1300 members.\n\n\n\n\nFREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. In one sense the Free Church of Scotland dated\nits existence from the Disruption of 1843, in another it claimed to be\nthe rightful representative of the National Church of Scotland (see\nSCOTLAND, CHURCH OF) as it was reformed in 1560.[1] In the\necclesiastical history of Scotland the Free Churchman sees three great\nreforming periods. In his view these deserve to be called reforming on\nmany accounts, but most especially because in them the independence of\nthe church, her inherent scriptural right to exercise a spiritual\njurisdiction in which she is responsible to her Divine Head alone, was\nboth earnestly asserted and practically maintained. The first\nreformation extended from 1560, when the church freely held her first\nGeneral Assembly, and of her own authority acted on the First Book of\nDiscipline, to 1592, when her Presbyterian order was finally and fully\nratified by the parliament. The second period began in 1638, when, after\n20 years of suspended animation, the Assembly once more shook off\nEpiscopacy, and terminated in 1649, when the parliament of Scotland\nconfirmed the church in her liberties in a larger and ampler sense than\nbefore. The third period began in 1834, when the Assembly made use of\nwhat the church believed to be her rights in passing the Veto and Chapel\nActs. It culminated in the Disruption of 1843.\n\nThe fact that the Church, as led first by John Knox and afterwards by\nAndrew Melville, claimed an inherent right to exercise a spiritual\njurisdiction is notorious. More apt to be overlooked is the comparative\nfreedom with which that right was actually used by the church\nirrespective of state recognition. That recognition was not given until\nafter the queen's resignation in 1567;[2] but, for several years before\nit came, the church had been holding her Assemblies and settling all\nquestions of discipline, worship, and administration as they arose, in\naccordance with the first book of polity or discipline which had been\ndrawn up in 1560. Further, in 1581 she, of her own motion, adopted a\nsecond book of a similar character, in which she expressly claimed an\nindependent and exclusive jurisdiction or power in all matters\necclesiastical, \"which flows directly from God and the Mediator Jesus\nChrist, and is spiritual, not having a temporal head on earth, but only\nChrist, the only king and governor of his church\"; and this claim,\nthough directly negatived in 1584 by the \"Black Acts,\" which included an\nAct of Supremacy over estates spiritual and temporal, continued to be\nasserted by the Assemblies, until at last it also was practically\nallowed in the act of 1592.[3] This legislation of 1592, however, did\nnot long remain in force. An act of parliament in 1606, which \"reponed,\nrestored and reintegrated\" the estate of bishops to their ancient\ndignities, prerogatives and privileges, was followed by several acts of\nvarious subservient assemblies, which, culminating in that of 1618,\npractically amounted to a complete surrender of jurisdiction by the\nchurch itself. For twenty years no Assemblies whatever were held. This\ninterval must necessarily be regarded from the Presbyterian point of\nview as having been one of very deep depression. But a second\nreformation, characterized by great energy and vigour, began in 1638.\nThe proceedings of the Assembly of that year, afterwards tardily and\nreluctantly acquiesced in by the state, finally issued in the acts of\nparliament of 1649, by which the Westminster standards were ratified,\nlay-patronage was abolished, and the coronation oath itself framed in\naccordance with the principles of Presbyterian church government.\nAnother period of intense reaction soon set in. No Assemblies were\npermitted by Cromwell after 1653; and, soon after the Restoration,\nPresbytery was temporarily overthrown by a series of rescissory acts.\nNor was the Revolution Settlement of 1690 so entirely favourable to the\nfreedom of the church as the legislation of 1649 had been. Prelacy was\nabolished, and various obnoxious statutes were repealed, but the acts\nrescissory were not cancelled; presbyterianism was re-established, but\nthe statutory recognition of the Confession of Faith took no notice of\ncertain qualifications under which that document had originally been\napproved by the Assembly of 1647;[4] the old rights of patrons were\nagain discontinued, but the large powers which had been conferred on\ncongregations by the act of 1649 were not wholly restored. Nevertheless\nthe great principle of a distinct ecclesiastical jurisdiction, embodied\nin the Confession of Faith, was accepted without reservation, and a\nPresbyterian polity effectively confirmed both then and at the\nratification of the treaty of Union. This settlement, however, did not\nlong subsist unimpaired. In 1712 the act of Queen Anne, restoring\npatronage to its ancient footing, was passed in spite of the earnest\nremonstrances of the Scottish people. For many years afterwards (until\n1784) the Assembly continued to instruct each succeeding commission to\nmake application to the king and the parliament for redress of the\ngrievance. But meanwhile a new phase of Scottish ecclesiastical politics\ncommonly known as Moderatism had been inaugurated, during the prevalence\nof which the church became even more indifferent than the lay patrons\nthemselves to the rights of her congregations with regard to the\n\"calling\" of ministers. From the Free Church point of view, the period\nfrom which the secessions under Ebenezer Erskine and Thomas Gillespie\nare dated was also characterized by numerous other abuses on the\nChurch's part which amounted to a practical surrender of the most\nimportant and distinctive principles of her ancient Presbyterian\npolity.[5] Towards the beginning of the present century there were many\ncircumstances, both within and without the church, which conspired to\nbring about an evangelical and popular reaction against this reign of\n\"Moderatism.\" The result was a protracted struggle, which is commonly\nreferred to as the Ten Years' Conflict, and which has been aptly\ndescribed as the last battle in the long war which for nearly 300 years\nhad been waged within the church itself, between the friends and the\nfoes of the doctrine of an exclusive ecclesiastical jurisdiction. That\nfinal struggle may be said to have begun with the passing in 1834 of the\n\"Veto\" Act, by which it was declared to be a fundamental law of the\nchurch that no pastor should be intruded on a congregation contrary to\nthe will of the people,[6] and by which it was provided that the simple\ndissent of a majority of heads of families in a parish should be enough\nto warrant a presbytery in rejecting a presentee. The question of the\nlegality of this measure soon came to be tried in the civil courts; and\nit was ultimately answered in a sense unfavourable to the church by the\ndecision (1838) of the court of session in the Auchterarder case, to the\neffect that a presbytery had no right to reject a presentee simply\nbecause the parishioners protested against his settlement, but was bound\nto disregard the veto (see CHALMERS, THOMAS). This decision elicited\nfrom the Assembly of that year a new declaration of the doctrine of the\nspiritual independence of the church. The \"exclusive jurisdiction of the\ncivil courts in regard to the civil rights and emoluments secured by law\nto the church and the ministers thereof\" was acknowledged without\nqualification; and continued implicit obedience to their decisions with\nreference to these rights and emoluments was pledged. At the same time\nit was insisted on \"that, as is declared in the Confession of Faith of\nthis National Established Church, 'the Lord Jesus Christ, as King and\nHead of the church, hath therein appointed a government in the hand of\nchurch officers distinct from the civil magistrate'; and that in all\nmatters touching the doctrine, discipline and government of the church\nher judicatories possess an exclusive jurisdiction, founded on the Word\nof God, which power ecclesiastical\" (in the words of the Second Book of\nDiscipline) \"flows immediately from God and the Mediator the Lord Jesus\nChrist, and is spiritual, not having a temporal head on earth, but only\nChrist, the only spiritual King and Governor of His Kirk.\" And it was\nresolved to assert, and at all hazards defend, this spiritual\njurisdiction, and firmly to enforce obedience to the same upon the\noffice-bearers and members of the church. The decision of the court of\nsession having been confirmed by the House of Lords early in 1839, it\nwas decided in the Assembly of that year that the church, while\nacquiescing in the loss of the temporalities at Auchterarder, should\nreaffirm the principle of non-intrusion as an integral part of the\nconstitution of the Reformed Church of Scotland, and that a committee\nshould be appointed to confer with the government with a view to the\nprevention, if possible, of any further collision between the civil and\necclesiastical authorities. While the conference with the government had\nno better result than an unsuccessful attempt at compromise by means of\nLord Aberdeen's Bill, which embodied the principle of a dissent with\nreasons, still graver complications were arising out of the Marnoch and\nother cases.[7] In the circumstances it was resolved by the Assembly of\n1842 to transmit to the queen, by the hands of the lord high\ncommissioner, a \"claim, declaration, and protest,\" complaining of the\nencroachments of the court of session,[8] and also an address praying\nfor the abolition of patronage. The home secretary's answer (received in\nJanuary 1843) gave no hope of redress. Meanwhile the position of the\nevangelical party had been further hampered by the decision of the\ncourt of session declaring the ministers of chapels of ease to be\nunqualified to sit in any church court. A final appeal to parliament by\npetition was made in March 1843, when, by a majority of 135 (211 against\n76), the House of Commons declined to attempt any redress of the\ngrievances of the Scottish Church.[9] At the first session of the\nfollowing General Assembly (18th May 1843) the reply of the\nnon-intrusion party was made in a protest, signed by upwards of 200\ncommissioners, to the effect that since, in their opinion, the recent\ndecisions of the civil courts, and the still more recent sanction of\nthese decisions by the legislature, had made it impossible at that time\nto hold a free Assembly of the church as by law established, they\ntherefore \"protest that it shall be lawful for us, and such other\ncommissioners as may concur with us, to withdraw to a separate place of\nmeeting, for the purpose of taking steps for ourselves and all who\nadhere to us--maintaining with us the Confession of Faith and standards\nof the Church of Scotland as heretofore understood--for separating in an\norderly way from the Establishment, and thereupon adopting such measures\nas may be competent to us, in humble dependence on God's grace and the\naid of His Holy Spirit, for the advancement of His glory, the extension\nof the gospel of our Lord and Saviour, and the administration of the\naffairs of Christ's house according to His holy word.\" The reading of\nthis document was followed by the withdrawal of the entire non-intrusion\nparty to another place of meeting, where the first Assembly of the Free\nChurch was constituted, with Dr Thomas Chalmers as moderator. This\nAssembly sat from the 18th to the 30th of May, and transacted a large\namount of important business. On Tuesday the 23rd, 396[10] ministers and\nprofessors publicly adhibited their names to the Act of Separation and\ndeed of demission by which they renounced all claim to the benefices\nthey had held in connexion with the Establishment, declaring them to be\nvacant, and consenting to their being dealt with as such. By this\nimpressive proceeding the signatories voluntarily surrendered an annual\nincome amounting to fully L100,000.\n\nThe first care of the voluntarily disestablished church was to provide\nincomes for her clergy and places of worship for her people. As early as\n1841 indeed the leading principle of a \"sustentation fund\" for the\nsupport of the ministry had been announced by Dr Robert Smith Candlish;\nand at \"Convocation,\" a private unofficial meeting of the members of the\nevangelical or non-intrusion party held in November 1842, Dr Chalmers\nwas prepared with a carefully matured scheme according to which \"each\ncongregation should do its part in sustaining the whole, and the whole\nshould sustain each congregation.\" Between November 1842 and May 1843,\n647 associations had been formed; and at the first Assembly it was\nannounced that upwards of L17,000 had already been contributed. At the\nclose of the first financial year (1843-1844) it was reported that the\nfund had exceeded L61,000. It was participated in by 583 ministers; and\n470 drew the full equal dividend of L105. Each successive year showed a\nsteady increase in the gross amount of the fund; but owing to an almost\nequally rapid increase of the number of new ministerial charges\nparticipating in its benefits, the stipend payable to each minister did\nnot for many years reach the sum of L150 which had been aimed at as a\nminimum. Thus in 1844-1845 the fund had risen to L76,180, but the\nministers had also increased to 627, and the equal dividend therefore\nwas only L122. During the first ten years the annual income averaged\nL84,057; during the next decade L108,643; and during the third L130,246.\nThe minimum of L150 was reached at last in 1868; and subsequently the\nbalance remaining after that minimum had been provided was treated as a\nsurplus fund, and distributed among those ministers whose congregations\nhave contributed at certain specified rates per member. In 1878 the\ntotal amount received for this fund was upwards of L177,000; in this\n1075 ministers participated. The full equal dividend of L157 was paid to\n766 ministers; and additional grants of L36 and L18 were paid out of\nthe surplus fund to 632 and 129 ministers respectively.\n\nTo provide for the erection of the buildings which, it was foreseen,\nwould be necessary, a general building fund, in which all should share\nalike, was also organized, and local building funds were as far as\npossible established in each parish, with the result that at the first\nAssembly a sum of L104,776 was reported as already available. By May\n1844 a further sum of L123,060 had been collected, and 470 churches were\nreported as completed or nearly so. In the following year L131,737 was\nraised and 60 additional churches were built. At the end of four years\nconsiderably more than 700 churches had been provided.\n\nDuring the winter session 1843-1844 the divinity students who had joined\nthe Free Church continued their studies under Dr Chalmers and Dr David\nWelsh (1793-1845); and at the Assembly of 1844 arrangements were made\nfor the erection of suitable collegiate buildings. The New College,\nEdinburgh, was built in 1847 at a cost of L46,506; and divinity halls\nwere subsequently set up also in Glasgow and Aberdeen. In 1878 there\nwere 13 professors of theology, with an aggregate of 230 students,--the\nnumbers at Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen respectively being 129, 69\nand 32.\n\nA somewhat unforeseen result of the Disruption was the necessity for a\nduplicate system of elementary schools. At the 1843 Assembly it was for\nthe first time announced by Dr Welsh that \"schools to a certain extent\nmust be opened to afford a suitable sphere of occupation for parochial\nand still more for private teachers of schools, who are threatened with\ndeprivation of their present office on account of their opinions upon\nthe church question.\" The suggestion was taken up with very great\nenergy, with the result that in May 1845, 280 schools had been set up,\nwhile in May 1847 this number had risen to 513, with an attendance of\nupwards of 44,000 scholars. In 1869 it was stated in an authoritative\ndocument laid before members of parliament that at that time there were\nconnected with and supported by the Free Church 598 schools (including\ntwo normal schools), with 633 teachers and 64,115 scholars. The school\nbuildings had been erected at a cost of L220,000, of which the committee\nof privy council had contributed L35,000, while the remainder had been\nraised by voluntary effort. Annual payments made to teachers, &c., as at\n1869, amounted to L16,000. In accordance with certain provisions of the\nEducation Act of 1872 most of the schools of the Free Church were\nvoluntarily transferred, without compensation, to the local school\nboards. The normal schools are now transferred to the state.\n\nIt has been seen already that during the period of the Ten Years'\nConflict the non-intrusion party strenuously denied that in any one\nrespect it was departing from acknowledged principles of the National\nChurch. It continued to do so after the Disruption. In 1846, however, it\nwas found to have become necessary, \"in consequence of the late change\nin the outward condition of the church,\" to amend the \"questions and\nformula\" to be used at the licensing of probationers and the ordination\nof office-bearers. These were amended accordingly; and at the same time\nit was declared that, \"while the church firmly maintains the same\nscriptural principles as to the duties of nations and their rulers in\nreference to true religion and the Church of Christ for which she has\nhitherto contended, she disclaims intolerant or persecuting principles,\nand does not regard her Confession of Faith, or any portion thereof when\nfairly interpreted, as favouring intolerance or persecution, or consider\nthat her office-bearers by subscribing it profess any principles\ninconsistent with liberty of conscience and the right of private\njudgment.\" The main difference between the \"formula\" of the Free Church\nand that of the Established Church (as at the year 1900) was that the\nformer referred to the Confession of Faith simply as \"approven by\nGeneral Assemblies of this Church,\" while the latter described it as\n\"approven by the General Assemblies of this National Church, and\nratified by law in the year 1690, and frequently confirmed by divers\nActs of Parliament since that time.\" The former inserted an additional\nclause,--\"I also approve of the general principles respecting the\njurisdiction of the church, and her subjection to Christ as her only\nHead, which are contained in the Claim of Right and in the Protest\nreferred to in the questions already put to me\"; and also added the\nwords which are here distinguished by italics,--\"And I promise that\nthrough the grace of God I shall firmly and constantly adhere to the\nsame, and to the utmost of my power shall in my station assert,\nmaintain, and defend the said doctrine, worship, discipline and\ngovernment of this church by kirk-sessions, presbyteries, provincial\nsynods, and general assemblies, _together with the liberty and exclusive\njurisdiction thereof_; and that I shall, in my practice, conform myself\nto the said worship and submit to the said discipline [and] government,\n_and exclusive jurisdiction_, and not endeavour directly or indirectly\nthe prejudice or subversion of the same.\" In the year 1851 an act and\ndeclaration anent the publication of the subordinate standards and other\nauthoritative documents of the Free Church of Scotland was passed, in\nwhich the historical fact is recalled that the Church of Scotland had\nformally consented to adopt the Confession of Faith, catechisms,\ndirectory of public worship, and form of church government agreed upon\nby the Westminster Assembly; and it is declared that \"these several\nformularies, as ratified, with certain explanations, by divers Acts of\nAssembly in the years 1645, 1646, and particularly in 1647, this church\ncontinues till this day to acknowledge as her subordinate standards of\ndoctrine, worship and government.\"[11]\n\nIn 1858 circumstances arose which, in the opinion of many, seemed fitted\nto demonstrate to the Free Church that her freedom was an illusion, and\nthat all her sacrifices had been made in vain. John Macmillan, minister\nof Cardross, accused of immorality, had been tried and found guilty by\nthe Free Presbytery of Dumbarton. Appeal having been taken to the synod,\nan attempt was there made to revive one particular charge, of which he\nhad been finally acquitted by the presbytery; and this attempt was\nsuccessful in the General Assembly. That ultimate court of review did\nnot confine itself to the points appealed, but went into the merits of\nthe whole case as it had originally come before the presbytery. The\nresult was a sentence of suspension. Macmillan, believing that the\nAssembly had acted with some irregularity, applied to the court of\nsession for an interdict against the execution of that sentence; and for\nthis act he was summoned to the bar of the Assembly to say whether or\nnot it was the case that he had thus appealed. Having answered in the\naffirmative, he was deposed on the spot. Forthwith he raised a new\naction (his previous application for an interdict had been refused)\nconcluding for reduction of the spiritual sentence of deposition and for\nsubstantial damages. The defences lodged by the Free Church were to the\neffect that the civil courts had no right to review and reduce spiritual\nsentences, or to decide whether the General Assembly of the Free Church\nhad acted irregularly or not. Judgments adverse to the defenders were\ndelivered on these points; and appeals were taken to the House of Lords.\nBut before the case could be heard there, the lord president took an\nopportunity in the court of session to point out to the pursuer that,\ninasmuch as the particular General Assembly against which the action was\nbrought had ceased to exist, it could not therefore be made in any\ncircumstances to pay damages, and that the action of reduction of the\nspiritual sentence, being only auxiliary to the claim of damages, ought\ntherefore to be dismissed. He further pointed out that Macmillan might\nobtain redress in another way, should he be able to prove malice against\nindividuals. Very soon after this deliverance of the lord president, the\ncase as it had stood against the Free Church was withdrawn, and\nMacmillan gave notice of an action of a wholly different kind. But this\nlast was not persevered in. The appeals which had been taken to the\nHouse of Lords were, in these circumstances, also departed from by the\nFree Church. The case did not advance sufficiently to show how far the\ncourts of law would be prepared to go in the direction of recognizing\nvoluntary tribunals and a kind of secondary exclusive jurisdiction\nfounded on contract.[12] But, whether recognized or not, the church for\nher part continued to believe that she had an inherent spiritual\njurisdiction, and remained unmoved in her determination to act in\naccordance with that resolution \"notwithstanding of whatsoever trouble\nor persecution may arise.\"[13]\n\nIn 1863 a motion was made and unanimously carried in the Free Church\nAssembly for the appointment of a committee to confer with a\ncorresponding committee of the United Presbyterian Synod, and with the\nrepresentatives of such other disestablished churches as might be\nwilling to meet and deliberate with a view to an incorporating union.\nFormal negotiations between the representatives of these two churches\nwere begun shortly afterwards, which resulted in a report laid before\nthe following Assembly. From this document it appeared that the\ncommittees of the two churches were not at one on the question as to the\nrelation of the civil magistrate to the church. While on the part of the\nFree Church it was maintained that he \"may lawfully acknowledge, as\nbeing in accordance with the Word of God, the creed and jurisdiction of\nthe church,\" and that \"it is his duty, when necessary and expedient, to\nemploy the national resources in aid of the church, provided always that\nin doing so, while reserving to himself full control over the\ntemporalities which are his own gift, he abstain from all authoritative\ninterference in the internal government of the church,\" it was declared\nby the committee of the United Presbyterian Church that, \"inasmuch as\nthe civil magistrate has no authority in spiritual things, and as the\nemployment of force in such matters is opposed to the spirit and\nprecepts of Christianity, it is not within his province to legislate as\nto what is true in religion, to prescribe a creed or form of worship to\nhis subjects, or to endow the church from national resources.\" In other\nwords, while the Free Church maintained that in certain circumstances it\nwas lawful and even incumbent on the magistrate to endow the church and\non the church to accept his endowment, the United Presbyterians\nmaintained that in no case was this lawful either for the one party or\nfor the other. Thus in a very short time it had been made perfectly\nevident that a union between the two bodies, if accomplished at all,\ncould only be brought about on the understanding that the question as to\nthe lawfulness of state endowments should be an open one. The Free\nChurch Assembly, by increasing majorities, manifested a readiness for\nunion, even although unanimity had not been attained on that theoretical\npoint. But there was a minority which did not sympathize in this\nreadiness, and after ten years of fruitless effort it was in 1873 found\nto be expedient that the idea of union with the United Presbyterians\nshould for the time be abandoned. Other negotiations, however, which had\nbeen entered upon with the Reformed Presbyterian Church at a somewhat\nlater date proved more successful; and a majority of the ministers of\nthat church with their congregations were united with the Free Church in\n1876.     (J. S. Bl.)\n\nIn the last quarter of the 19th century the Free Church continued to be\nthe most active, theologically, of the Scottish Churches. The College\nchairs were almost uniformly filled by advanced critics or theologians,\ninspired more or less by Professor A. B. Davidson. Dr A. B. Bruce,\nauthor of _The Training of the Twelve_, &c., was appointed to the chair\nof apologetics and New Testament exegesis in the Glasgow College in\n1875; Henry Drummond (author of _Natural Law in the Spiritual World_,\n&c.) was made lecturer in natural science in the same college in 1877\nand became professor in 1884; and Dr George Adam Smith (author of _The\nTwelve Prophets_, &c.) was called to the Hebrew chair in 1892. Attempts\nwere made between 1890 and 1895 to bring all these professors except\nDavidson (similar attacks were also made on Dr Marcus Dods, afterwards\nprincipal of the New College, Edinburgh) to the bar of the Assembly for\nunsound teaching or writing; but in every case these were abortive, the\nAssembly never taking any step beyond warning the accused that their\nprimary duty was to teach and defend the church's faith as embodied in\nthe confession. In 1892 the Free Church, following the example of the\nUnited Presbyterian Church and the Church of Scotland (1889), passed a\nDeclaratory Act relaxing the stringency of subscription to the\nconfession, with the result that a small number of ministers and\ncongregations, mostly in the Highlands, severed their connexion with the\nchurch and formed the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, on strictly\nand straitly orthodox lines. In 1907 this body had twenty congregations\nand twelve ministers.\n\nThe Free Church always regarded herself as a National Church, and during\nthis period she sought actively to be true to that character by\nproviding church ordinances for the increasing population of Scotland\nand applying herself to the new problems of non-church-going, and of the\nchanging habits of the people. Her Assembly's committee on religion and\nmorals worked toward the same ends as the similar organization of the\nEstablished Church, and in her, as in the other churches, the standard\nof parochial and congregational activity was raised and new methods of\noperation devised. She passed legislation on the difficult problem of\nridding the church of inefficient ministers. The use of instrumental\nmusic was sanctioned in Free Churches during this period. An association\nwas formed in 1891 to promote the ends of edification, order and\nreverence in the public services of the church, and published in 1898 _A\nNew Directory for Public Worship_ which does not provide set forms of\nprayer, but directions as to the matter of prayer in the various\nservices. The Free Church took a large share in the study of hymnology\nand church music, which led to the production of _The Church Hymnary_.\nFrom 1885 to 1895 much of the energy of all the Presbyterian churches\nwas absorbed by the disestablishment agitation. In the former year the\nFree Church, having almost entirely shed the establishment principle on\nwhich it was founded, began to rival the United Presbyterian Church in\nits resolutions calling for the disestablishment of the Church of\nScotland. In spite of the offers of the Establishment Assembly to confer\nwith the dissenting churches about union, the assaults upon its status\nwaxed in vigour, till in 1893 the Free Church hailed the result of the\ngeneral election as a verdict of the constituencies in favour of\ndisestablishment, and insisted upon the government of the day taking up\nSir Charles Cameron's bill.\n\nDuring the last four or five years of the century the Free and United\nPresbyterian churches, which after the failure of their union\nnegotiations in 1873 had been connected together by a Mutual Eligibility\nAct enabling a congregation of one church to call a minister from the\nother, devoted their energy to the arrangement of an incorporating\nunion. The Synod of the United Presbyterian Church resolved in 1896 to\n\"take steps towards union,\" and in the following year the Free Assembly\nresponded by appointing a committee to confer with a committee of the\nother church. The joint committee discovered a \"remarkable and happy\nagreement\" between the doctrinal standards, rules and methods of the two\nbodies, and with very little concessions on either side a common\nconstitution and common \"questions and formula\" for the admission of\nministers and office-bearers were arranged. A minority, always growing\nsmaller, of the Free Church Assembly, protested against the proposed\nunion, and threatened if it were carried through to test its legality in\nthe courts. To meet this opposition, the suggestion is understood to\nhave been made that an act of parliament should be applied for to\nlegalize the union; but this was not done, and the union was carried\nthrough on the understanding that the question of the lawfulness of\nchurch establishments should be an open one.\n\nThe supreme courts of the churches met for the last time in their\nrespective places of meeting on the 30th of October 1900, and on the\nfollowing day the joint meeting took place at which the union was\ncompleted, and the United Free Church of Scotland (q.v.) entered on its\ncareer. The protesting and dissenting minority at once claimed to be\nthe Free Church. They met outside the Free Assembly Hall on the 31st of\nOctober, and, failing to gain admission to it, withdrew to another hall,\nwhere they elected Mr Colin Bannatyne their moderator and held the\nremaining sittings of the Assembly. It was reported that between 16,000\nand 17,000 names had been received of persons adhering to the\nanti-unionist principle. At the Assembly of 1901 it was stated that the\nFree Church had twenty-five ministers and at least sixty-three\ncongregations. The character of the church is indicated by the fact that\nits office-bearers were the faithful survivors of the decreasing\nminority of the Old Free Church, which had protested against the\ndisestablishment resolutions, against the relaxation of subscription,\nagainst toleration of the teaching of the Glasgow professors, and\nagainst the use in worship of organs or of human hymns. Her\ncongregations were mostly in the Gaelic-speaking districts of Scotland.\nShe was confronted with a very arduous undertaking; her congregations\ngrew in number, but were far from each other and there were not nearly\nenough ministers. The Highlands were filled, by the Union, with\nexasperation and dispeace which could not soon subside. The church met\nwith no sympathy or assistance at the hands of the United Free Church,\nand her work was conducted at first under considerable hardships, nor\nwas her position one to appeal to the general popular sentiment of\nScotland. But the little church continued her course with indomitable\ncourage and without any compromise of principle. The Declaratory Act of\n1892 was repealed after a consultation of presbyteries, and the old\nprinciples as to worship were declared. A professor was obliged to\nwithdraw a book he had written, in which the results of criticism, with\nregard to the Synoptic Gospels, had been accepted and applied. The\ndesire of the Church of Scotland to obtain relaxation of her formula was\ndeclared to make union with her impossible. Along with this unbending\nattitude, signs of material growth were not wanting. The revenue of the\nchurch increased; the grant from the sustentation fund was in 1901 only\nL75, but from 1903 onwards it was L167.\n\nThe decision of the House of Lords in 1904 did not bring the trials of\nthe Free Church to an end. In the absence of any arrangement with the\nUnited Free Church, she could only gain possession of the property\ndeclared to belong to her by an application in each particular case to\nthe Court of Session, and a series of law-suits began which were trying\nto all parties. In the year 1905 the Free Church Assembly met in the\nhistoric Free Church Assembly Hall, but it did not meet there again.\nHaving been left by the awards of the commission without any station in\nthe foreign mission field, the Free Church resolved to start a foreign\nmission of her own. The urgent task confronting the church was that of\nsupplying ordinances to her congregations. The latter numbered 200 in\n1907, and the church had as yet only 74 ordained ministers, so that many\nof the manses allocated to her by the commissioners were not yet\noccupied, and catechists and elders were called to conduct services\nwhere possible. The gallant stand this little church had made for\nprinciples which were no longer represented by any Presbyterian church\noutside the establishment attracted to her much interest and many hopes\nthat she might be successful in her endeavours to do something for the\nreligious life of Scotland.\n\n  See SCOTLAND, CHURCH OF, for bibliography and statistics.     (A. M.*)\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n  [1] \"It is her being free, not her being established, that\n    constitutes the real historical and hereditary identity of the\n    Reformed National Church of Scotland.\" See _Act and Declaration,\n    &c._, of Free Assembly, 1851.\n\n  [2] In the act _Anent the true and holy Kirk, and of those that are\n    declared not to be of the same_. This act was supplemented by that of\n    1579, _Anent the Jurisdiction of the Kirk_.\n\n  [3] The Second Book of Discipline was not formally recognized in that\n    act; but all former acts against \"the jurisdiction and discipline of\n    the true Kirk as the same is used and exercised within the realm\"\n    were abolished; and all \"liberties, privileges, immunities and\n    freedoms whatsoever\" previously granted were ratified and approved.\n\n  [4] The most important of these had reference to the full right of a\n    constituted church to the enjoyment of an absolutely unrestricted\n    freedom in convening Assemblies. This very point on one occasion at\n    least threatened to be the cause of serious misunderstandings between\n    William and the people of Scotland. The difficulties were happily\n    smoothed, however, by the wisdom and tact of William Carstares.\n\n  [5] See _Act and Declaration_ of Free Assembly, 1851.\n\n  [6] This principle had been asserted even by an Assembly so late as\n    that of 1736, and had been invariably presupposed in the \"call,\"\n    which had never ceased to be regarded as an indispensable\n    prerequisite for the settlement of a minister.\n\n  [7] According to the Free Church \"Protest\" of 1843 it was in these\n    cases decided (1) that the courts of the church were liable to be\n    compelled to intrude ministers on reclaiming congregations; (2) that\n    the civil courts had power to interfere with and interdict the\n    preaching of the gospel and administration of ordinances as\n    authorized and enjoined by the church; (3) that the civil courts had\n    power to suspend spiritual censures pronounced by the courts of the\n    church, and to interdict their execution as to spiritual effects,\n    functions and privileges; (4) that deposed ministers, and\n    probationers deprived of their licence, could be restored by the\n    mandate of the civil courts to the spiritual office and status of\n    which the church courts had deprived them; (5) that the right of\n    membership in ecclesiastical courts could be determined by the civil\n    courts; (6) that the civil courts had power to supersede the majority\n    of a church court of the Establishment in regard to the exercise of\n    its spiritual functions as a church court, and to authorize the\n    minority to exercise the said functions in opposition to the court\n    itself and to the superior judicatories of the church; (7) that\n    processes of ecclesiastical discipline could be arrested by the civil\n    courts; and (8) that without the sanction of the civil courts no\n    increased provision could be made for the spiritual care of a parish,\n    although such provision left all civil rights and patrimonial\n    interests untouched.\n\n  [8] The narrative and argument of this elaborate and able document\n    cannot be reproduced here. In substance it is a claim \"as of right\"\n    on behalf of the church and of the nation and people of Scotland that\n    the church shall freely possess and enjoy her liberties, government,\n    discipline, rights and privileges according to law, and that she\n    shall be protected therein from the foresaid unconstitutional and\n    illegal encroachments of the said court of session, and her people\n    secured in their Christian and constitutional rights and liberties.\n    This claim is followed by the \"declaration\" that the Assembly cannot\n    intrude ministers on reclaiming congregations, or carry on the\n    government of Christ's church subject to the coercion of the court of\n    session; and by the \"protest\" that all acts of the parliament of\n    Great Britain passed without the consent of the Scottish church and\n    nation, in alteration or derogation of the government, discipline,\n    rights and privileges of the church, as also all sentences of courts\n    in contravention of said government, discipline, rights and\n    privileges, \"are and shall be in themselves void and null, and of no\n    legal force or effect.\"\n\n  [9] The Scottish members voted with the minority in the proportion of\n    25 to 12.\n\n  [10] The number ultimately rose to 474.\n\n  [11] By this formal recognition of the qualifications to the\n    Confession of Faith made in 1647 the scruples of the majority of the\n    Associate Synod of Original Seceders were removed, and 27 ministers,\n    along with a considerable number of their people, joined the Free\n    Church in the following year.\n\n  [12] See Taylor Innes, _Law of Creeds in Scotland_, p. 258 seq.\n\n  [13] The language of Dr Buchanan, for example, in 1860 was (_mutatis\n    mutandis_) the same as that which he had employed in 1838 in moving\n    the Independence resolution already referred to.\n\n\n\n\nFREEDMEN'S BUREAU (officially the BUREAU OF FREEDMEN, REFUGEES AND\nABANDONED LANDS), a bureau created in the United States war department\nby an act of Congress, 3rd of March 1865, to last one year, but\ncontinued until 1872 by later acts passed over the president's veto. Its\nestablishment was due partly to the fear entertained by the North that\nthe Southerners if left to deal with the blacks would attempt to\nre-establish some form of slavery, partly to the necessity for extending\nrelief to needy negroes and whites in the lately conquered South, and\npartly to the need of creating some commission or bureau to take charge\nof lands confiscated in the South. During the Civil War a million\nnegroes fell into the hands of the Federals and had to be cared for.\nAble-bodied blacks were enlisted in the army, and the women, children\nand old men were settled in large camps on confiscated Southern\nproperty, where they were cared for alternately by the war department\nand by the treasury department until the organization of the Freedmen's\nBureau. At the head of the bureau was a commissioner, General O. O.\nHoward, and under him in each Southern state was an assistant\ncommissioner with a corps of local superintendents, agents and\ninspectors. The officials had the broadest possible authority in all\nmatters that concerned the blacks. The work of the bureau may be\nclassified as follows: (1) distributing rations and medical supplies\namong the blacks; (2) establishing schools for them and aiding\nbenevolent societies to establish schools and churches; (3) regulating\nlabour and contracts; (4) taking charge of confiscated lands; and (5)\nadministering justice in cases in which blacks were concerned. For\nseveral years the ex-slaves were under the almost absolute control of\nthe bureau. Whether this control had a good or bad effect is still\ndisputed, the Southern whites and many Northerners holding that the\nresults of the bureau's work were distinctly bad, while others hold that\nmuch good resulted from its work. There is now no doubt, however, that\nwhile most of the higher officials of the bureau were good men, the\nsubordinate agents were generally without character or judgment and that\ntheir interference between the races caused permanent discord. Much\nnecessary relief work was done, but demoralization was also caused by\nit, and later the institution was used by its officials as a means of\nsecuring negro votes. In educating the blacks the bureau made some\nprogress, but the instruction imparted by the missionary teachers\nresulted in giving the ex-slaves notions of liberty and racial equality\nthat led to much trouble, finally resulting in the hostility of the\nwhites to negro education. The secession of the blacks from the white\nchurches was aided and encouraged by the bureau. The whole field of\nlabour and contracts was covered by minute regulations, which, good in\ntheory, were absurd in practice, and which failed altogether, but not\nuntil labour had been disorganized for several years. The administration\nof justice by the bureau agents amounted simply to a ceaseless\npersecution of the whites who had dealings with the blacks, and bloody\nconflicts sometimes resulted. The law creating the bureau provided for\nthe division of the confiscated property among the negroes, and though\ncarried out only in parts of South Carolina, Florida and Georgia, it\ncaused the negroes to believe that they were to be cared for at the\nexpense of their former masters. This belief made them subject to\nswindling schemes perpetrated by certain bureau agents and others who\npromised to secure lands for them. When negro suffrage was imposed by\nCongress upon the Southern States, the bureau aided the Union League\n(q.v.) in organizing the blacks into a political party opposed to the\nwhites. A large majority of the bureau officials secured office through\ntheir control of the blacks. The failure of the bureau system and its\ndiscontinuance in the midst of reconstruction without harm to the\nblacks, and the intense hostility of the Southern whites to the\ninstitution caused by the irritating conduct of bureau officials, are\nindications that the institution was not well conceived nor wisely\nadministered.\n\n  See P. S. Pierce, _The Freedmen's Bureau_ (Iowa City, 1904); _Report\n  of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction_ (Washington, 1866); W. L.\n  Fleming (ed.), _Documents relating to Reconstruction_ (Cleveland, O.,\n  1906); W. L. Fleming, _Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabama_ (New\n  York, 1905); and James W. Garner, _Reconstruction in Mississippi_ (New\n  York, 1901).     (W. L. F.)\n\n\n\n\nFREEHOLD, a town and the county-seat of Monmouth county, New Jersey,\nU.S.A., in the township of Freehold, about 25 m. E. by N. of Trenton.\nPop. (1890) 2932; (1900) 2934, of whom 215 were foreign-born and 126\nwere negroes; (1905) 3064; (1910) 3233. Freehold is served by the\nPennsylvania and the Central of New Jersey railways. It is the trade\ncentre of one of the most productive agricultural districts of the state\nand has various manufactures, including carriages, carpets and rugs,\nfiles, shirts, underwear, and canned beans and peas. The town is the\nseat of two boarding schools for boys: the Freehold Military School and\nthe New Jersey Military Academy (chartered, 1900; founded in 1844 as the\nFreehold Institute). One of the residences in the town dates from 1755.\nA settlement was made in the township about 1650, and the township was\nincorporated in 1693. In 1715 the town was founded and was made the\ncounty-seat; it was long commonly known (from the county) as Monmouth\nCourt-House, but afterwards took (from the township) the name Freehold,\nand in 1869 it was incorporated as the Town of Freehold. An important\nbattle of the War of Independence, known as the battle of Monmouth, was\nfought near the court-house on the 28th of June 1778. A short distance\nN.W. of the court-house is a park in which there is a monument, unveiled\non the 13th of November 1884 in commemoration of the battle; the base is\nof Quincy granite and the shaft is of Concord granite. Surmounting the\nshaft is a statue representing \"Liberty Triumphant\" (the height to the\ntop of which is about 100 ft.). The monument is adorned with five bronze\nreliefs, designed and modelled by James E. Kelly (b. 1855); one of these\nreliefs represents \"Molly Pitcher\" (d. 1832), a national heroine, who,\nwhen her husband (John C. Hays), an artillerist, was rendered insensible\nduring the battle, served the gun in his place and prevented its capture\nby the British.[1] Joel Parker (1816-1888), governor of New Jersey in\n1863-1866 and 1872-1875, was long a resident of Freehold, and the\nerection of the monument was largely due to his efforts. A bronze tablet\non a boulder in front of the present court-house, commemorating the old\ncourt-house, used as a hospital in the battle of Monmouth, was unveiled\nin 1907. Freehold was the birthplace and home of Dr Thomas Henderson\n(1743-1824), a Whig or Patriot leader in New Jersey, an officer in the\nWar of Independence, and a member of the Continental Congress in\n1779-1780 and of the national House of Representatives in 1795-1797.\n\nThe name Freehold was first used of a Presbyterian church established\nabout 1692 by Scottish exiles who came to East Jersey in 1682-1685 and\nbuilt what was called the \"Old Scots' Church\" near the present railway\nstation of Wickatunk in Marlboro' township, Monmouth county. In this\nchurch, in December 1706, John Boyd (d. 1709) was ordained--the first\nrecorded Presbyterian ordination in America. The church was the first\nregularly constituted Presbyterian church. No trace of the building now\nremains in the burying-ground where Boyd was interred, and where the\nPresbyterian Synod of New Jersey in 1900 raised a granite monument to\nhis memory; his tombstone is preserved by the Presbyterian Historical\nSociety in Philadelphia. John Tennent (1706-1732) became pastor of the\nFreehold church in 1730, when a new church was built by the Old Scots\ncongregation on White Hill in the present township of Manalapan (then a\npart of Freehold township), near the railway station and village called\nTennent; his brother William (1705-1777), whose trance, in which he\nthought he saw the glories of heaven, was a matter of much discussion in\nhis time, was pastor in 1733-1777. In 1751-1753 the present \"Old Tennent\nChurch,\" then called the Freehold Church, was erected on (or near) the\nsame site as the building of 1730; in it Whitefield preached and in the\nolder building David Brainerd and his Indian converts met. In 1859 this\nchurch (whose corporate name is \"The First Presbyterian Church of the\nCounty of Monmouth\") adopted the name of Tennent, partly to distinguish\nit from the Presbyterian church organized at Monmouth Court-House (now\nFreehold) in 1838.\n\n  See Frank R. Symmes, _History of the Old Tennent Church_ (2nd ed.,\n  Cranbury, New Jersey, 1904).\n\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n  [1] Her maiden name was Mary Ludwig. \"Molly Pitcher\" was a nickname\n    given to her by the soldiers in reference to her carrying water to\n    soldiers overcome by heat in the battle of Monmouth. She married Hays\n    in 1769; Hays died soon after the war, and later she married one\n    George McCauley. She lived for more than forty years at Carlisle,\n    Penn., where a monument was erected to her memory in 1876.\n\n\n\n\nFREEHOLD, in the English law of real property, an estate in land, not\nbeing less than an estate for life. An estate for a term of years, no\nmatter how long, was considered inferior in dignity to an estate for\nlife, and unworthy of a freeman (see ESTATE). \"Some time before the\nreign of Henry II., but apparently not so early as Domesday, the\nexpression _liberum tenementum_ was introduced to designate land held by\na freeman by a free tenure. Thus freehold tenure is the sum of the\nrights and duties which constitute the relation of a free tenant to his\nlord.\"[1] In this sense freehold is distinguished from copyhold, which\nis a tenure having its origin in the relation of lord and villein (see\nCOPYHOLD). Freehold is also distinguished from leasehold, which is an\nestate for a fixed number of years only. By analogy the interest of a\nperson who holds an office for life is sometimes said to be a freehold\ninterest. The term _customary freeholds_ is applied to a kind of\ncopyhold tenure in the north of England, viz. tenure by copy of\ncourt-roll, but not, as in other cases, expressed to be at the will of\nthe lord.\n\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n  [1] Digby's _History of the Law of Real Property_.\n\n\n\n\nFREELAND, a borough of Luzerne county, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., about 20 m.\nS. of Wilkes-Barre, in the E. part of the state. Pop. (1890) 1730;\n(1900) 5254 (1339 foreign-born, many being Slavs); (1910) 6197. Freeland\nis served by the Lehigh Valley railway and by electric railway to Upper\nLehigh (1 m. distant, served by the Central Railroad of New Jersey) and\nto other neighbouring places. The borough is built on Broad Mountain,\nnearly 2000 ft. above sea-level, and the chief industry is the mining of\ncoal at the numerous surrounding collieries. Freeland is the seat of the\nMining and Mechanical Institute of the Anthracite Region, chartered in\n1894, modelled after the German _Steigerschulen_, with elementary and\nsecondary departments and a night school for workmen. The borough has\nfoundries and machine shops of considerable importance, and manufactures\nsilk, overalls, beer and hames. Freeland was first settled about 1842,\nwas laid out in 1870, and was incorporated in 1876.\n\n\n\n\nFREEMAN, EDWARD AUGUSTUS (1823-1892), English historian, was born at\nHarborne, Staffordshire, on the 2nd of August 1823. He lost both his\nparents in infancy, was brought up by a grandmother, and was educated at\nprivate schools and by a private tutor. He was a studious and precocious\nboy, more interested in religious matters, history and foreign politics\nthan in boyish things. He obtained a scholarship at Trinity College,\nOxford, and a second class in the degree examination, and was elected\nfellow of his college (1845). While at Oxford he was much influenced by\nthe High Church movement, and thought seriously of taking orders, but\nabandoned the idea. He married a daughter of his former tutor, the Rev.\nR. Gutch, in 1847, and entered on a life of study. Ecclesiastical\narchitecture attracted him strongly. He visited many churches and began\na practice, which he pursued throughout his life, of making drawings of\nbuildings on the spot and afterwards tracing them over in ink. His first\nbook, save for his share in a volume of English verse, was a _History of\nArchitecture_ (1849). Though he had not then seen any buildings outside\nEngland, it contains a good sketch of the development of the art. It is\nfull of youthful enthusiasm and is written in florid language. After\nsome changes of residence he bought a house called Somerleaze, near\nWells, Somerset, and settled there in 1860.\n\nFreeman's life was one of strenuous literary work. He wrote many books,\nand countless articles for reviews, newspapers and other publications,\nand was a constant contributor to the _Saturday Review_ until 1878, when\nhe ceased to write for it for political reasons. His _Saturday Review_\narticles corrected many errors and raised the level of historical\nknowledge among the educated classes, but as a reviewer he was apt to\nforget that a book may have blemishes and yet be praiseworthy. For some\nyears he was an active county magistrate. He was deeply interested in\npolitics, was a follower of Mr Gladstone, and approved the Home Rule\nBill of 1886, but objected to the later proposal to retain the Irish\nmembers at Westminster. To be returned to Parliament was one of his few\nambitions, and in 1868 he unsuccessfully contested Mid-Somerset. Foreign\nrather than domestic politics had the first place with him. Historical\nand religious sentiment combined with his detestation of all that was\ntyrannical to inspire him with hatred of the Turk and sympathy with the\nsmaller and subject nationalities of eastern Europe. He took a prominent\npart in the agitation which followed \"the Bulgarian atrocities\"; his\nspeeches were intemperate, and he was accused of uttering the words\n\"Perish India!\" at a public meeting in 1876. This, however, was a\nmisrepresentation of his words. He was made a knight commander of the\norder of the Saviour by the king of Greece, and also received an order\nfrom the prince of Montenegro.\n\nFreeman advanced the study of history in England in two special\ndirections, by insistence on the unity of history, and by teaching the\nimportance and right use of original authorities. History is not, he\nurges, to be divided \"by a middle wall of partition\" into ancient and\nmodern, nor broken into fragments as though the history of each nation\nstood apart. It is more than a collection of narratives; it is a\nscience, \"the science of man in his political character.\" The historical\nstudent, then, cannot afford to be indifferent to any part of the record\nof man's political being; but as his abilities for study are limited, he\nwill, while reckoning all history to be within his range, have his own\nspecial range within which he will master every detail (_Rede Lecture_).\nFreeman's range included Greek, Roman and the earlier part of English\nhistory, together with some portions of foreign medieval history, and he\nhad a scholarly though general knowledge of the rest of the history of\nthe European world. He regarded the abiding life of Rome as \"the central\ntruth of European history,\" the bond of its unity, and he undertook his\n_History of Sicily_ (1891-1894) partly because it illustrated this\nunity. Further, he urges that all historical study is valueless which\ndoes not take in a knowledge of original authorities, and he teaches\nboth by example and precept what authorities should be thus described,\nand how they are to be weighed and used. He did not use manuscript\nauthorities, and for most of his work he had no need to do so. The\nauthorities which he needed were already in print, and his books would\nnot have been better if he had disinterred a few more facts from\nunprinted sources.\n\nHis reputation as a historian will chiefly rest on his _History of the\nNorman Conquest_ (1867-1876), his longest completed book. In common with\nhis works generally, it is distinguished by exhaustiveness of treatment\nand research, critical ability, a remarkable degree of accuracy, and a\ncertain insight into the past which he gained from his practical\nexperience of men and institutions. He is almost exclusively a political\nhistorian. His saying that \"history is past politics and politics are\npresent history\" is significant of this limitation of his work, which\nleft on one side subjects of the deepest interest in a nation's life. In\ndealing with constitutional matters he sometimes attaches too much\nweight to words and formal aspects. This gives certain of his arguments\nan air of pedantry, and seems to lead him to find evidences of\ncontinuity in institutions which in reality and spirit were different\nfrom what they once had been. As a rule his estimates of character are\nremarkably able. It is true that he is sometimes swayed by prejudice,\nbut this is the common lot of great historians; they cannot altogether\navoid sharing in the feelings of the past, for they live in it, and\nFreeman did so to an extraordinary degree. Yet if he judges too\nfavourably the leaders of the national party in England on the eve of\nthe Norman Conquest, that is a small matter to set against the insight\nwhich he exhibits in writing of Aratus, Sulla, Nicias, William the\nConqueror, Thomas of Canterbury, Frederick the Second and many more. In\nwidth of view, thoroughness of investigation and honesty of purpose he\nis unsurpassed by any historian. He never conceals nor wilfully\nmisrepresents anything, and he reckoned no labour too great which might\nhelp him to draw a truthful picture of the past. When a place had any\nimportant connexion with his work he invariably visited it. He travelled\nmuch, always to gain knowledge, and generally to complete his historical\nequipment. His collected articles and essays on places of historical\ninterest are perhaps the most pleasing of his writings, but they deal\nexclusively with historical associations and architectural features. The\nquantity of work which he turned out is enormous, for the fifteen large\nvolumes which contain his _Norman Conquest_, his unfinished _History of\nSicily_, his _William Rufus_ (1882), and his _Essays_ (1872-1879), and\nthe crowd of his smaller books, are matched in amount by his uncollected\ncontributions to periodicals. In respect of matter his historical work\nis uniformly excellent. In respect of form and style the case is\ndifferent. Though his sentences themselves are not wordy, he is\nextremely diffuse in treatment, habitually repeating an idea in\nsuccessive sentences of much the same import. While this habit was\ndoubtless aggravated by the amount of his journalistic work, it seems\noriginally to have sprung from what may be called a professorial spirit,\nwhich occasionally appears in the tone of his remarks. He was anxious to\nmake sure that his readers would understand his exact meaning, and to\nguard them against all possible misconceptions. His lengthy explanations\nare the more grievous because he insists on the same points in several\nof his books. His prolixity was increased by his unwillingness, when\nwriting without prescribed limits, to leave out any detail, however\nunimportant. His passion for details not only swelled his volumes to a\nportentous size, but was fatal to artistic construction. The length of\nhis books has hindered their usefulness. They were written for the\npublic at large, but few save professed students, who can admire and\nvalue his exhaustiveness, will read the many hundreds of pages which he\ndevotes to a short period of history. In some of his smaller books,\nhowever, he shows great powers of condensation and arrangement, and\nwrites tersely enough. His style is correct, lucid and virile, but\ngenerally nothing more, and his endeavour to use as far as possible only\nwords of Teutonic origin limited his vocabulary and makes his sentences\nsomewhat monotonous. While Froude often strayed away from his\nauthorities, Freeman kept his authorities always before his eyes, and\nhis narrative is here and there little more than a translation of their\nwords. Accordingly, while it has nothing of Froude's carelessness and\ninaccuracy, it has nothing of his charm of style. Yet now and again he\nrises to the level of some heroic event, and parts of his chapter on the\n\"Campaign of Hastings\" and of his record of the wars of Syracuse and\nAthens, his reflections on the visit of Basil the Second to the church\nof the Virgin on the Acropolis, and some other passages in his books,\nare fine pieces of eloquent writing.\n\nThe high quality of Freeman's work was acknowledged by all competent\njudges. He was made D.C.L. of Oxford and LL.D. of Cambridge _honoris\ncausa_, and when he visited the United States on a lecturing tour was\nwarmly received at various places of learning. He served on the royal\ncommission on ecclesiastical courts appointed in 1881. In 1884 he was\nappointed regius professor of modern history at Oxford. His lectures\nwere thinly attended, for he did not care to adapt them to the\nrequirements of the university examinations, and he was not perhaps well\nfitted to teach young men. But he exercised a wholesome influence over\nthe more earnest students of history among the resident graduates. From\n1886 he was forced by ill-health to spend much of his time abroad, and\nhe died of smallpox at Alicante on the 16th of March 1892, while on a\ntour in Spain. Freeman had a strongly marked personality. Though\nimpatient in temper and occasionally rude, he was tender-hearted and\ngenerous. His rudeness to strangers was partly caused by shyness and\npartly by a childlike inability to conceal his feelings. Eminently\ntruthful, he could not understand that some verbal insincerities are\nnecessary to social life. He had a peculiar faculty for friendship, and\nhis friends always found him sympathetic and affectionate. In their\nsociety he would talk well and showed a keen sense of humour. He\nconsidered it his duty to expose careless and ignorant writers, and\ncertainly enjoyed doing so. He worked hard and methodically, often had\nseveral pieces of work in hand, and kept a daily record of the time\nwhich he devoted to each of them. His tastes were curiously limited. No\nart interested him except architecture, which he studied throughout his\nlife; and he cared little for literature which was not either historical\nor political. In later life he ceased to hold the theological opinions\nof his youth, but remained a devout churchman.\n\n  See W. R. W. Stephens, _Life and Letters of E. A. Freeman_ (London,\n  1895); Frederic Harrison, _Tennyson, Ruskin, Mill and other Literary\n  Estimates_ (London, 1899); James Bryce, \"E. A. Freeman,\" _Eng. Hist.\n  Rev._, July 1892.     (W. Hu.)\n\n\n\n\nFREEMAN, primarily one who is free, as opposed to a slave or serf (see\nFEUDALISM; SLAVERY). The term is more specifically applied to one who\npossesses the freedom of a city, borough or company. Before the passing\nof the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, each English borough admitted\nfreemen according to its own peculiar custom and by-laws. The rights and\nprivileges of a freeman, though varying in different boroughs, generally\nincluded the right to vote at a parliamentary election of the borough,\nand exemption from all tolls and dues. The act of 1835 respected\nexisting usages, and every person who was then an admitted freeman\nremained one, retaining at the same time all his former rights and\nprivileges. The admission of freemen is now regulated by the Municipal\nCorporations Act 1882. By section 201 of that act the term \"freeman\"\nincludes any person of the class whose rights and interests were\nreserved by the act of 1835 under the name either of freemen or of\nburgesses. By section 202 no person can be admitted a freeman by gift or\nby purchase; that is, only birth, servitude or marriage are\nqualifications. The Honorary Freedom of Boroughs Act 1885, however,\nmakes an exception, as by that act the council of every borough may from\ntime to time admit persons of distinction to be honorary freemen of the\nborough. The town clerk of every borough keeps a list, which is called\n\"the freeman's roll,\" and when any person claims to be admitted a\nfreeman in respect of birth, servitude or marriage, the mayor examines\nthe claim, and if it is established the claimant's name is enrolled by\nthe town clerk.\n\nA person may become a freeman or freewoman of one of the London livery\ncompanies by (1) apprenticeship or servitude; (2) patrimony; (3)\nredemption; (4) gift. This last is purely honorary. The most usual form\nof acquiring freedom was by serving apprenticeship to a freeman, free\nboth of a company and of the city of London. By an act of common council\nof 1836 apprenticeship was permitted to freemen of the city who had not\ntaken up the freedom of a company. By an act of common council of 1889\nthe term of service was reduced from seven years to four years. Freedom\nby patrimony is always granted to children of a person who has been duly\nadmitted to the freedom. Freedom by redemption or purchase requires the\npayment of certain entrance fees, which vary with the standing of the\ncompany. In the Grocers' Company freedom by redemption does not exist,\nand in such companies as still have a trade, e.g. the Apothecaries and\nStationers, it is limited to members of the trade.\n\n  See W. C. Hazlitt, _The Livery Companies of the City of London_\n  (1892).\n\n\n\n\nFREEMASONRY. According to an old \"Charge\" delivered to initiates,\nFreemasonry is declared to be an \"ancient and honourable institution:\nancient no doubt it is, as having subsisted from time immemorial; and\nhonourable it must be acknowledged to be, as by a natural tendency it\nconduces to make those so who are obedient to its precepts ... to so\nhigh an eminence has its credit been advanced that in every age Monarchs\nthemselves have been promoters of the art, have not thought it\nderogatory from their dignity to exchange the sceptre for the trowel,\nhave patronised our mysteries and joined in our Assemblies.\" For many\nyears the craft has been conducted without respect to clime, colour,\ncaste or creed.\n\n_History._--The precise origin of the society has yet to be ascertained,\nbut is not likely to be, as the early records are lost; there is,\nhowever, ample evidence remaining to justify the claim for its antiquity\nand its honourable character. Much has been written as to its eventful\npast, based upon actual records, but still more which has served only to\namuse or repel inquirers, and led not a few to believe that the\nfraternity has no trustworthy history. An unfavourable opinion of the\nhistorians of the craft generally may fairly have been held during the\n18th and early in the 19th centuries, but happily since the middle of\nthe latter century quite a different principle has animated those\nbrethren who have sought to make the facts of masonic history known to\nthe brotherhood, as well as worth the study of students in general. The\nidea that it would require an investigator to be a member of the \"mystic\ntie\" in order to qualify as a reader of masonic history has been\nexploded. The evidences collected concerning the institution during the\nlast five hundred years, or more, may now be examined and tested in the\nmost severe manner by literary and critical experts (whether opposed or\nfavourable to the body), who cannot fail to accept the claims made as\nto its great antiquity and continuity, as the lineal descendant of those\ncraftsmen who raised the cathedrals and other great English buildings\nduring the middle ages.\n\n  It is only needful to refer to the old works on freemasonry, and to\n  compare them with the accepted histories of the present time, to be\n  assured that such strictures as above are more than justified. The\n  premier work on the subject was published in London in 1723, the Rev.\n  James Anderson being the author of the historical portion,\n  introductory to the first \"Book of Constitutions\" of the original\n  Grand Lodge of England. Dr Anderson gravely states that \"Grand Master\n  Moses often marshalled the Israelites into a regular and general\n  lodge, whilst in the wilderness.... King Solomon was Grand Master of\n  the lodge at Jerusalem.[1]... Nebuchadnezzar became the Grand Master\n  Mason,\" &c., devoting many more pages to similar absurdities, but\n  dismisses the important modern innovation (1716-1717) of a Grand Lodge\n  with a few lines noteworthy for their brief and indefinite character.\n\n  In 1738 a second edition was issued, dedicated to the prince of Wales\n  (\"a Master Mason and master of a lodge\"), and was the work of the same\n  brother (as respects the historical part), the additions being mainly\n  on the same lines as the former volume, only, if possible, still more\n  ridiculous and extravagant; e.g. Cyrus constituted Jerubbabel\n  \"provincial grand master in Judah\"; Charles Martel was \"the Right\n  Worshipful Grand Master of France, and Edward I. being deeply engaged\n  in wars left the craft to the care of several successive grand\n  masters\" (duly enumerated). Such loose statements may now pass\n  unheeded, but unfortunately they do not exhaust the objections to Dr\n  Anderson's method of writing history. The excerpt concerning St Alban\n  (apparently made from Coles's _Ancient Constitutions_, 1728-1729) has\n  the unwarranted additional title of Grand Master conferred on that\n  saint, and the extract concerning King AEthelstan and Prince Edwin from\n  the \"Old MS. Charges\" (given in the first edition) contains still more\n  unauthorized modern terms, with the year added of 926; thus misleading\n  most seriously those who accept the volume as trustworthy, because\n  written by the accredited historian of the Grand Lodge, Junior Grand\n  Warden in 1723. These examples hardly increase our confidence in the\n  author's accuracy when Dr Anderson comes to treat of the origin of the\n  premier Grand Lodge; but he is our only informant as to that important\n  event, and if his version of the occurrence is declined, we are\n  absolutely without any information.\n\nIn considering the early history of Freemasonry, from a purely\nmatter-of-fact standpoint, it will be well to settle as a necessary\npreliminary what the term did and does now include or mean, and how far\nback the inquiry should be conducted, as well as on what lines. If the\nview of the subject herein taken be correct, it will be useless to load\nthe investigation by devoting considerable space to a consideration of\nthe laws and customs of still older societies which may have been\nutilized and imitated by the fraternity, but which in no sense can be\naccepted as the actual forbears of the present society of Free and\nAccepted Masons. They were predecessors, or possibly prototypes, but not\nnear relatives or progenitors of the Freemasons.[2]\n\nThe Mother Grand Lodge of the world is that of England, which was\ninaugurated in the metropolis on St John Baptist's day 1717 by four or\nmore old lodges, three of which still flourish. There were other lodges\nalso in London and the country at the time, but whether they were\ninvited to the meeting is not now known. Probably not, as existing\nrecords of the period preserve a sphinx-like silence thereon. Likewise\nthere were many scores of lodges at work in Scotland, and undoubtedly in\nIreland the craft was widely patronized. Whatever the ceremonies may\nhave been which were then known as Freemasonry in Great Britain and\nIreland, they were practically alike, and the venerable _Old Charges_ or\nMS. constitutions, dating back several centuries, were rightly held by\nthem as the title-deeds of their masonic inheritance.\n\nIt was a bold thing to do, thus to start a governing body for the\nfraternity quite different in many respects to all preceding\norganizations, and to brand as irregular all lodges which declined to\naccept such authority; but the very originality and audacity of its\npromoters appears to have led to its success, and it was not long before\nmost of the lodges of the pre-Grand-Lodge era joined and accepted\n\"constitution\" by warrant of the Grand Master. Not only so, but Ireland\nquickly followed the lead, so early as 1725 there being a Grand Lodge\nfor that country which must have been formed even still earlier, and\nprobably by lodges started before any were authorized in the English\ncounties. In Scotland the change was not made until 1736, many lodges\neven then holding aloof from such an organization. Indeed, out of some\nhundred lodges known to have been active then, only thirty-three\nresponded and agreed to fall into line, though several joined later;\nsome, however, kept separate down to the end of the 19th century, while\nothers never united. Many of these lodges have records of the 17th\ncentury though not then newly formed; one in particular, the oldest (the\nLodge of Edinburgh, No. 1), possesses minutes so far back as the year\n1599.\n\nIt is important to bear in mind that all the regular lodges throughout\nthe world, and likewise all the Grand Lodges, directly or indirectly,\nhave sprung from one or other of the three governing bodies named;\nIreland and Scotland following the example set by their masonic mother\nof England in having Grand Lodges of their own. It is not proved how the\nlatter two became acquainted with Freemasonry as a secret society,\nguided more or less by the operative MS. _Constitutions_ or _Charges_\ncommon to the three bodies, not met with elsewhere; but the credit of a\nGrand Lodge being established to control the lodges belongs to England.\n\nIt may be a startling declaration, but it is well authenticated, that\nthere is no other Freemasonry, as the term is now understood, than what\nwhich has been so derived. In other words, the lodges and Grand Lodges\nin both hemispheres trace their origin and authority back to England for\nworking what are known as the Three Degrees, controlled by regular Grand\nLodges. That being so, a history of modern Freemasonry, the direct\noffspring of the British parents aforesaid, should first of all\nestablish the descent of the three Grand Lodges from the Freemasonry of\nearlier days; such continuity, of five centuries or more, being a _sine\nqua non_ of antiquity and regularity.\n\nIt will be found that from the early part of the 18th century back to\nthe 16th century existing records testify to the assemblies of lodges,\nmainly operative, but partly speculative, in Great Britain, whose\nguiding stars and common heritage were the _Old Charges_, and that when\ntheir actual minutes and transactions cease to be traced by reason of\ntheir loss, these same MS. _Constitutions_ furnish testimony of the\nstill older working of such combinations of freemasons or masons,\nwithout the assistance, countenance or authority of any other masonic\nbody; consequently such documents still preserved, of the 14th and later\ncenturies (numbering about seventy, mostly in form of rolls), with the\nexisting lodge minutes referred to of the 16th century, down to the\nestablishment of the premier Grand Lodge in 1717, prove the continuity\nof the society. Indeed so universally has this claim been admitted, that\nin popular usage the term Freemason is only now applied to those who\nbelong to this particular fraternity, that of _mason_ being applicable\nto one who follows that trade, or honourable calling, as a builder.\n\nThere is no evidence that during this long period any other organization\nof any kind, religious, philosophical, mystical or otherwise, materially\nor even slightly influenced the customs of the fraternity, though they\nmay have done so; but so far as is known the lodges were of much the\nsame character throughout, and consisted really of operatives (who\nenjoyed practically a monopoly for some time of the trade as masons or\nfreemasons), and, in part, of \"speculatives,\" i.e. noblemen, gentlemen\nand men of other trades, who were admitted as honorary members.\n\nAssuming then that the freemasons of the present day are the sole\ninheritors of the system arranged at the so-called \"Revival of 1717,\"\nwhich was a development from an operative body to one partly\nspeculative, and that, so far back as the MS. Records extend and furnish\nany light, they must have worked in Lodges in secret throughout the\nperiod noted, a history of Freemasonry should be mainly devoted to\ngiving particulars, as far as possible, of the lodges, their traditions,\ncustoms and laws, based upon actual documents which can be tested and\nverified by members and non-members alike.\n\nIt has been the rule to treat, more or less fully, of the influence\nexerted on the fraternity by the Ancient Mysteries, the Essenes, Roman\nColleges, Culdees, Hermeticism, Fehm-Gerichte _et hoc genus omne_,\nespecially the _Steinmetzen_, the Craft Gilds and the Companionage of\nFrance, &c.; but in view of the separate and independent character of\nthe freemasons, it appears to be quite unnecessary, and the time so\nemployed would be better devoted to a more thorough search after\nadditional evidences of the activity of the craft, especially during the\ncrucial period overlapping the second decade of the 18th century, so as\nto discover information as to the transmitted secrets of the medieval\nmasons, which, after all, may simply have been what Gaspard Monge\nfelicitously entitles \"Descriptive Geometry, or the Art and Science of\nMasonic Symbolism.\"\n\nThe rules and regulations of the masons were embodied in what are known\nas the _Old Charges_; the senior known copy being the _Regius MS._\n(British Museum Bibl. Reg. 17 A, i.), which, however, is not so\nexclusively devoted to masonry as the later copies. David Casley, in his\ncatalogue of the MSS. in the King's Library (1734), unfortunately styled\nthe little gem _A Poem of Moral Duties_; and owing to this\nmisdescription its true character was not recognized until the year\n1839, and then by a non-mason (Mr Halliwell-Phillipps), who had it\nreproduced in 1840 and brought out an improved edition in 1844. Its date\nhas been approximately fixed at 1390 by Casley and other authorities.\n\nThe curious legend of the craft, therein made known, deals first of all\nwith the number of unemployed in early days and the necessity of finding\nwork, \"that they myght gete here lyvynge therby.\" Euclid was consulted,\nand recommended the \"onest craft of good masonry,\" and the genesis of\nthe society is found \"yn Egypte lande.\" By a rapid transition, but \"mony\nerys afterwarde,\" we are told that the \"Craft com ynto England yn tyme\nof good kynge Adelstonus (AEthelstan) day,\" who called an assembly of the\nmasons, when fifteen articles and as many more points were agreed to for\nthe government of the craft, each being duly described. Each brother was\ninstructed that--\n\n  \"He must love wel God, and holy Churche algate\n   And hys mayster also, that he ys wythe.\"\n\n  \"The thrydde poynt must be severle.\n   With the prentes knowe hyt wele,\n   Hys mayster cownsel he kepe and close,\n   And hys felows by hys goode purpose;\n   The prevetyse of the chamber telle he no mon,\n   Ny yn the logge whatsever they done,\n   Whatsever thou heryst, or syste hem do,\n   Telle hyt no mon, whersever thou go.\"\n\nThe rules generally, besides referring to trade regulations, are as a\nwhole suggestive of the Ten Commandments in an extended form, winding up\nwith the legend of the _Ars quatuor coronatorum_, as an incentive to a\nfaithful discharge of the numerous obligations. A second part introduces\na more lengthy account of the origin of masonry, in which Noah's flood\nand the Tower of Babylon are mentioned as well as the great skill of\nEuclid, who--\n\n  \"Through hye grace of Crist yn heven,\n   He commensed yn the syens seven\";\n\nThe \"seven sciences\" are duly named and explained. The compiler\napparently was a priest, line 629 reading \"And, when ye gospel _me rede\nschal_,\" thus also accounting for the many religious injunctions in the\nMS.; the last hundred lines are evidently based upon _Urbanitatis_\n(Cott. MS. Caligula A 11, fol. 88) and _Instructions for a Parish\nPriest_ (Cott. MS. Claudius A 11, fol. 27), instructions such as lads\nand even men would need who were ignorant of the customs of polite\nsociety, correct deportment at church and in the presence of their\nsocial superiors.\n\nThe recital of the legend of the _Quatuor Coronati_ has been held by\nHerr Findel in his _History of Freemasonry_ (_Allgemeine Geschichte der\nFreimaurerei_, 1862; English editions, 1866-1869) to prove that British\nFreemasonry was derived from Germany, but without any justification,\nthe legend being met with in England centuries prior to the date of the\n_Regius MS._, and long prior to its incorporation in masonic legends on\nthe Continent.\n\nThe next MS., in order, is known as the \"Cooke\" (Ad. MS. 23,198, British\nMuseum), because Matthew Cooke published a fair reproduction of the\ndocument in 1861; and it is deemed by competent paleographers to date\nfrom the first part of the 15th century. There are two versions of the\n_Old Charges_ in this little book, purchased for the British Museum in\n1859. The compiler was probably a mason and familiar with several copies\nof these MS. _Constitutions_, two of which he utilizes and comments\nupon; he quotes from a MS. copy of the _Policronicon_ the manner in\nwhich a written account of the sciences was preserved in the two\nhistoric stones at the time of the Flood, and generally makes known the\ntraditions of the society as well as the laws which were to govern the\nmembers.\n\nIts introduction into England through Egypt is noted (where the Children\nof Israel \"lernyd ye craft of Masonry\"), also the \"lande of behest\"\n(Jerusalem) and the Temple of Solomon (who \"confirmed ye chargys yt\nDavid his Fadir\" had made). Then masonry in France is interestingly\ndescribed; and St Alban and \"AEthelstane with his yongest sone\" (the\nEdwin of the later MSS.) became the chosen mediums subsequently, as with\nthe other _Charges_, portions of the Old Testament are often cited in\norder to convey a correct idea to the neophyte, who is to hear the\ndocument read, as to these sciences which are declared to be free in\nthemselves (_fre in hem selfe_). Of all crafts followed by man in this\nworld \"Masonry hathe the moste notabilite,\" as confirmed by \"Elders that\nwere bi for us of masons [who] had these chargys wryten,\" and \"as is\nwrite and taught in ye boke of our charges.\"\n\nUntil quite recently no representative or survival of this particular\nversion had been traced, but in 1890 one was discovered of 1687 (since\nknown as the _William Watson MS._). Of some seventy copies of these old\nscrolls which have been unearthed, by far the greater proportion have\nbeen made public since 1860. They have all much in common, though often\ncurious differences are to be detected; are of English origin, no matter\nwhere used; and when complete, as they mostly are, whether of the 16th\nor subsequent centuries, are noteworthy for an invocation or prayer\nwhich begins the recital:--\n\n  \"The mighte of the ffather of heaven\n   And the wysedome of the glorious Sonne\n   through the grace and the goodnes of the holly\n   ghoste yt been three p'sons and one God\n   be with us at or beginning and give us grace\n   so to gou'ne us here in or lyving that wee maye\n   come to his blisse that nevr shall have ending.--Amen.\"\n\n     (_Grand Lodge MS. No. 1_, A.D. 1583.)\n\nThey are chiefly of the 17th century and nearly all located in England;\nparticulars may be found in Hughan's _Old Charges of the British\nFreemasons_ (1872, 1895 and supplement 1906).[3] The chief scrolls, with\nsome others, have been reproduced in facsimile in six volumes of the\n_Quatuor Coronatorum Antigrapha_; and the collection in Yorkshire has\nbeen published separately, either in the _West Yorkshire Reprints_ or\nthe _Ancient York Masonic Rolls_. Several have been transcribed and\nissued in other works.\n\nThese scrolls give considerable information as to the traditions and\ncustoms of the craft, together with the regulations for its government,\nand were required to be read to apprentices long after the peculiar\nrules ceased to be acted upon, each lodge apparently having one or more\ncopies kept for the purpose. The old Lodge of Aberdeen ordered in 1670\nthat the Charge was to be \"read at ye entering of everie entered\nprenteise\"; another at Alnwick in 1701 provided--\n\n  \"Noe Mason shall take any apprentice [but he must]\n   Enter him and give him his Charge, within one whole year after\";\n\nand still another at Swallwell (now No. 48 Gateshead) demanded that\n\"the Apprentices shall have their Charge given at the time of\nRegistering, or within thirty days after\"; the minutes inserting such\nentries accordingly even so late as 1754, nearly twenty years after the\nlodge had cast in its lot with the Grand Lodge of England.\n\nTheir Christian character is further emphasized by the \"First Charge\nthat you shall be true men to God and the holy Church\"; the _York MS.\nNo. 6_ beseeches the brethren \"at every meeting and assembly they pray\nheartily for all Christians\"; the _Melrose MS. No. 2_ (1674) mentions\n\"Merchants and all other Christian men,\" and the _Aberdeen MS._ (1670)\nterms the invocation \"A Prayer before the Meeting.\" Until the Grand\nLodge era, Freemasonry was thus wholly Christian. The _York MS. No. 4_\nof 1693 contains a singular error in the admonitory lines:--\n\n  \"The [n] one of the elders takeing the Booke and that\n   hee or shee that is to be made mason, shall lay their\n   hands thereon and the charge shall be given.\"\n\nThis particular reading was cited by Hughan in 1871, but was considered\ndoubtful; Findel,[4] however, confirmed it, on his visit to York under\nthe guidance of the celebrated masonic student the late Rev. A. F. A.\nWoodford. The mistake was due possibly to the transcriber, who had an\nolder roll before him, confusing \"they,\" sometimes written \"the,\" with\n\"she,\" or reading that portion, which is often in Latin, as _ille vel\nilla_, instead of _ille vel illi_.\n\nIn some of the _Codices_, about the middle of the 17th century and\nlater, New Articles are inserted, such as would be suitable for an\norganization similar to the Masons' Company of London, which had one, at\nleast, of the _Old Charges_ in its possession according to inventories\nof 1665 and 1676; and likewise in 1722, termed _The Book of the\nConstitutions of the Accepted Masons_. Save its mention (\"Book wrote on\nparchment\") by Sir Francis Palgrave in the _Edinburgh Review_ (April\n1839) as being in existence \"not long since,\" this valuable document has\nbeen lost sight of for many years.\n\nThat there were signs and other secrets preserved and used by the\nbrethren throughout this mainly operative period may be gathered from\ndiscreet references in these old MSS. The _Institutions in parchment_\n(22nd of November 1696) of the Dumfries Kilwinning Lodge (No. 53,\nScotland) contain a copy of the oath taken \"when any man should be\nmade\":--\n\n  \"These Charges which we now reherse to you and all others ye secrets\n  and misterys belonging to free masons you shall faithfully and truly\n  keep, together with ye Counsell of ye assembly or lodge, or any other\n  lodge, or brother, or fellow.\"\n\n\"Then after ye oath taken and the book kissed\" (i.e. the Bible) the\n\"precepts\" are read, the first being:--\n\n  \"You shall be true men to God and his holy Church, and that you do not\n  countenance or maintaine any eror, faction, schism or herisey, in ye\n  church to ye best of your understanding.\" (_History of No. 53_, by\n  James Smith.)\n\nThe _Grand Lodge MS. No. 2_ provides that \"You shall keepe secret ye\nobscure and intricate pts. of ye science, not disclosinge them to any\nbut such as study and use ye same.\"\n\nThe _Harleian MS. No. 2054_ (Brit. Mus.) is still more explicit, termed\n_The ffree Masons Orders and Constitutions_, and is in the handwriting\nof Randle Holme (author of the _Academie of Armory_, 1688), who was a\nmember of a lodge in Cheshire. Following the MS. _Constitutions_, in the\nsame handwriting, about 1650, is a scrap of paper with the obligation:--\n\n  \"There is sevrall words and signes of a free Mason to be revailed to\n  yu wch as yu will answr. before God at the Great and terrible day of\n  judgmt. yu keep secret and not to revaile the same to any in the\n  heares of any p'son, but to the Mrs and fellows of the Society of Free\n  Masons, so helpe me God, &c.\" (W. H. Rylands, _Mas. Mag._, 1882.)\n\nIt is not yet settled who were the actual designers or architects of the\ngrand old English cathedrals. Credit has been claimed for church\ndignitaries, to the exclusion more or less of the master masons, to whom\npresumably of right the distinction belonged. In early days the title\n\"architect\" is not met with, unless the term \"Ingenator\" had that\nmeaning, which is doubtful. As to this interesting question, and as to\nthe subject of building generally, an historical account of Master and\nFree Masons (_Discourses upon Architecture in England_, by the Rev.\nJames Dallaway, 1833), and _Notes on the Superintendents of English\nBuildings in the Middle Ages_ (by Wyatt Papworth, 1887), should be\nconsulted. Both writers were non-masons. The former observes: \"The\nhonour due to the original founders of these edifices is almost\ninvariably transferred to the ecclesiastics under whose patronage they\nrose, rather than to the skill and design of the master mason, or\nprofessional architect, because the only historians were monks.... They\nwere probably not so well versed in geometrical science as the master\nmasons, for mathematics formed a part of monastic learning in a very\nlimited degree.\" In the _Journal of Proceedings R.I.B.A._ vol. iv.\n(1887), a skilful critic (W. H. White) declares that Papworth, in that\nvaluable collection of facts, has contrived to annihilate all the\nprofessional idols of the century, setting up in their place nothing\nexcept the master mason. The brotherhood of Bridge-builders,[5] that\ntravelled far and wide to build bridges, and the travelling bodies of\nFreemasons,[6] he believes never existed; nor was William of Wykeham the\ndesigner of the colleges attributed to him. It seems well-nigh\nimpossible to disprove the statements made by Papworth, because they are\nall so well grounded on attested facts; and the attempt to connect the\nAbbey of Cluny, or men trained at Cluny, with the original or\npreliminary designs of the great buildings erected during the middle\nages, at least during the 12th and 13th centuries, is also a failure.\nThe whole question is ably and fully treated in the _History of\nFreemasonry_ by Robert Freke Gould (1886-1887), particularly in chapter\nvi. on \"Medieval Operative Masonry,\" and in his _Concise History_\n(1903).\n\nThe lodge is often met with, either as the _tabulatum domicialem_ (1200,\nat St Alban's Abbey) or actually so named in the _Fabric Rolls_ of York\nMinster (1370), _ye loge_ being situated close to the fane in course of\nerection; it was used as a place in which the stones were prepared in\nprivate for the structure, as well as occupied at meal-time, &c. Each\nmason was required to \"swere upon ye boke yt he sall trewly ande bysyli\nat his power hold and kepe holy all ye poyntes of yis forsayde\nordinance\" (_Ordinacio Cementanorum_).\n\nAs to the term _free_-mason, from the 14th century, it is held by some\nauthorities that it described simply those men who worked \"freestone,\"\nbut there is abundant evidence to prove that, whatever may have been\nintended at first, _free_-mason soon had a much wider signification, the\nprefix _free_ being also employed by carpenters (1666), sewers (15th\ncentury, tailors at Exeter) and others, presumably to indicate they were\nfree to follow their trades in certain localities. On this point Mr\nGould well observes: \"The class of persons from whom the Freemasons of\nWarrington (1646), Staffordshire (1686), Chester, York, London and their\ncongeners in the 17th century derived the descriptive title, which\nbecame the inheritance of the Grand Lodge of England, were _free men_,\nand masons of Gilds or Companies\" (_History_, vol. ii. p. 160). Dr\nBrentano may also be cited: \"Wherever the Craft Guilds were legally\nacknowledged, we find foremost, that the right to exercise their craft,\nand sell their manufactures, depended upon the freedom of their city\"\n(_Development of Guilds_, &c., p. 65). In like manner, the privilege of\nworking as a mason was not conferred before candidates had been \"made\nfree.\" The regular free-masons would not work with men, even if they had\na knowledge of their trade, \"if _un_free,\" but styled them \"Cowans,\" a\ncourse justified by the king's \"Maister of Work,\" William Schaw, whose\n_Statutis and Ordinanceis_ (28th December 1598) required that \"Na\nmaister or fellow of craft ressaue any _cowanis_ to wirk in his societie\nor companye, nor send nane of his servants to wirk wt. cowanis, under\nthe pane of twentie pounds.\" Gradually, however, the rule was relaxed,\nin time such monopoly practically ceased, and the word \"cowan\" is only\nknown in connexion with speculative Freemasonry. Sir Walter Scott, as a\nmember of Lodge St David (No. 36), was familiar with the word and used\nit in _Rob Roy_. In 1707 a cowan was described in the minutes of Mother\nLodge Kilwinning, as a mason \"without the word,\" thus one who was not a\n_free_ mason (_History of the Lodge of Edinburgh No. 1_, by D. Murray\nLyon, 1900).\n\nIn the _New English Dictionary_ (Oxford, vol. iv., 1897) under\n\"Freemason\" it is noted that three views have been propounded:--(1) \"The\nsuggestion that _free-mason_ stands for free-stone-mason would appear\nunworthy of attention, but for the curious fact that the earliest known\ninstances of any similar appellation are _mestre mason de franche peer_\n(Act 25 Edw. III., 1350), and _sculptores lapidum liberorum_, alleged to\noccur in a document of 1217; the coincidence, however, seems to be\nmerely accidental. (2) The view most generally held is that freemasons\nwere those who were free of the masons' guild. Against this explanation\nmany forcible objections have been brought by Mr G. W. Speth, who\nsuggests (3) that the itinerant masons were called free because they\nclaimed exemption from the control of the local guilds of the towns in\nwhich they temporarily settled. (4) Perhaps the best hypothesis is that\nthe term refers to the medieval practice of emancipating skilled\nartisans, in order that they might be able to travel and render their\nservices wherever any great building was in process of construction.\"\nThe late secretary of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge (No. 2076, London) has\nthus had his view sanctioned by \"the highest tribunal in the Republic of\nLetters so far as Philology is concerned\" (Dr W. J. Chetwode Crawley in\n_Ars Quatuor Coronatorum_, 1898). Still it cannot be denied that members\nof lodges in the 16th and following centuries exercised the privilege of\nmaking _free_ masons and denied the freedom of working to cowans (also\ncalled _un_-freemen) who had not been so made free; \"the Masownys of the\nluge\" being the only ones recognized as _free_masons. As to the prefix\nbeing derived from the word _frere_, a sufficient answer is the fact\nthat frequent reference is made to \"Brother _free_masons,\" so that no\nground for that supposition exists (cf. articles by Mr Gould in the\n_Freemason_ for September 1898 on \"Free and Freemasonry\").\n\nThere are numerous indications of masonic activity in the British lodges\nof the 17th century, especially in Scotland; the existing records,\nhowever, of the southern part of the United Kingdom, though few, are of\nimportance, some only having been made known in recent years. These\nconcern the Masons' Company of London, whose valuable minutes and other\ndocuments are ably described and commented upon by Edward Conder, jr.,\nin his _Hole Crafte and Fellowship of Masons_ (1894), the author then\nbeing the Master of that ancient company. It was incorporated in 1677 by\nCharles II., who graciously met the wishes of the members, but as a\ncompany the information \"that is to be found in the Corporation Records\nat Guildhall proves very clearly that in 1376 the Masons' Company\nexisted and was represented in the court of common council.\" The title\nthen favoured was \"Masons,\" the entry of the term \"Freemasons\" being\ncrossed out. Herbert erroneously overlooked the correction, and stated\nin his _History of the Twelve Great Livery Companies_ (vol. i.) that the\nFreemasons returned two, and the Masons four members, but subsequently\namalgamated; whereas the revised entry was for the \"Masons\" only. The\nCompany obtained a grant of arms in 1472 (12th year Hen. VIII.), one of\nthe first of the kind, being thus described:--\"A feld of Sablys A\nCheveron silver grailed thre Castellis of the same garnysshed wt. dores\nand wyndows of the feld in the Cheveron or Cumpas of Black of Blak\"; it\nis the authority (if any) for all later armorial bearings having a\nchevron and castles, assumed by other masonic organizations. This\nprecious document was only discovered in 1871, having been missing for a\nlong time, thus doubtless accounting for the erroneous representations\nmet with, not having the correct blazon to follow. The oldest masonic\nmotto known is \"God is our Guide\" on Kerwin's tomb in St Helen's church,\nBishopgate, of 1594; that of \"In the Lord is all our trust\" not being\ntraced until the next century. Supporters consisting of two doric\ncolumns are mentioned in 1688 by Randle Holme, but the Grand Lodge of\nEngland in the following century used Beavers as operative builders. Its\nfirst motto was \"In the beginning was the Word\" (in Greek), exchanged a\nfew years onward for \"Relief and Truth,\" the rival Grand Lodge (Atholl\nMasons) selecting \"Holiness to the Lord\" (in Hebrew), and the final\nselection at the \"Union of December 1813\" being _Audi Vide Tace_.\n\nMr Conder's discovery of a lodge of \"Accepted Masons\" being held under\nthe wing of the Company was a great surprise, dating as the records do\nfrom 1620 to 1621 (the earliest of the kind yet traced in England), when\nseven were made masons, all of whom were free of the Company _before_,\nthree being of the Livery; the entry commencing \"Att the making masons.\"\nThe meetings were entitled the \"Acception,\" and the members of the lodge\nwere called _Accepted_ Masons, being those so _accepted_ and initiated,\nthe term never otherwise being met with in the Records. An additional\nfee had to be paid by a member of the Company to join the \"Acception,\"\nand any not belonging thereto were mulct in twice the sum; though even\nthen such \"acceptance\" did not qualify for membership of the superior\nbody; the fees for the \"Acception\" being L1 and L2 respectively. In\n1638-1639, when Nicholas Stone entered the lodge (he was Master of the\nCompany 1632-1633) the banquet cost a considerable sum, showing that the\nnumber of brethren present must have been large.\n\nElias Ashmole (who according to his diary was \"made a Free Mason of\nWarrington with Colonel Henry Mainwaring,\" seven brethern being named as\nin attendance at the lodge, 16th of October 1646) states that he\n\"received a summons to appear at a Lodge to be held next day at Masons'\nHall, London.\" Accordingly on the 11th of March 1682 he attended and saw\nsix gentlemen \"admitted into the Fellowship of Free Masons,\" of whom\nthree only belonged to the Company; the Master, however, Mr Thomas Wise,\nthe two wardens and six others being present on the occasion as members\nin their _dual_ capacity. Ashmole adds: \"We all dyned at the Halfe Moone\nTavern in Cheapside at a noble dinner prepaired at the charge of the\nnew-accepted Masons.\"\n\nIt is almost certain that there was not an operative mason present at\nthe Lodge held in 1646, and at the one which met in 1682 there was a\nstrong representation of the speculative branch. Before the year 1654\nthe Company was known as that of the Freemasons for some time, but after\nthen the old title of Masons was reverted to, the terms \"Acception\" and\n\"Accepted\" belonging to the speculative Lodge, which, however, in all\nprobability either became independent or ceased to work soon after 1682.\nIt is very interesting to note that subsequently (but never before) the\nlonger designation is met with of \"Free and Accepted Masons,\" and is\nthus a combination of operative and speculative usage.\n\nMr Conder is of opinion that in the Records \"there is no evidence of any\nparticular ceremony attending the position of Master Mason, possibly it\nconsisted of administering a different oath from the one taken by the\napprentices on being entered.\" There is much to favour this supposition,\nand it may provide the key to the _vexata quaestio_ as to the plurality\nof degrees prior to the Grand Lodge era. The fellow-crafts were\nrecruited from those apprentices who had served their time and had their\nessay (or sufficient trial of their skill) duly passed; they and the\nMasters, by the _Schaw Statutes_ of 1598, being only admitted in the\npresence of \"sex Maisteris and _twa enterit prenteissis_.\" As a rule a\nmaster mason meant one who was master of his trade, i.e. duly qualified;\nbut it sometimes described employers as distinct from journeymen\nFreemasons; being also a compliment conferred on honorary members\nduring the 17th century in particular.\n\nIn Dr Plot's _History of Staffordshire_ (1686) is a remarkable account\nof the \"Society of Freemasons,\" which, being by an unfriendly critic, is\nall the more valuable. He states that the custom had spread \"more or\nless all over the nation\"; persons of the most eminent quality did not\ndisdain to enter the Fellowship; they had \"a large _parchment volum_\ncontaining the History and Rules of the Craft of Masonry\"; St Amphibal,\nSt Alban, King Athelstan and Edwin are mentioned, and these \"charges and\nmanners\" were \"after perusal approved by King Hen. 6 and his council,\nboth as to Masters and Fellows of this right Worshipfull craft.\" It is\nbut fair to add that notwithstanding the service he rendered the Society\nby his lengthy description, that credulous historian remarks of its\nhistory that there is nothing he ever \"met with more false or\nincoherent.\"\n\nThe author of the _Academie of Armory_, previously noted, knew better\nwhat he was writing about in that work of 1688 in which he declares: \"I\ncannot but Honor the Fellowship of the Masons because of its Antiquity;\nand the more, _as being a member of that Society, called Free Masons_\"\nMr Rylands states that in _Harl. MS. 5955_ is a collection of the\nengraved plates for a second volume of this important work, one being\ndevoted to the Arms of the Society, the columns, as supporters, having\nglobes thereon, from which possibly are derived the two pillars, with\nsuch ornaments or additions seen in lodge rooms at a later period.\n\nIn the same year \"A Tripos or Speech delivered at a commencement in the\nUniversity of Dublin held there July 11, 1688, by John Jones, then A.B.,\nafterwards D.D.,\" contained \"notable evidence concerning Freemasonry in\nDublin.\" The Tripos was included in Sir Walter Scott's edition of Dean\nSwift's works (1814), but as Dr Chetwode Crawley points out, though\nnoticed by the Rev. Dr George Oliver (the voluminous Masonic author), he\nfailed to realize its historical importance. The satirical and withal\namusing speech was partly translated from the Latin by Dr Crawley for\nhis scholarly introduction to the _Masonic Reprints_, &c., by Henry\nSadler. \"The point seems to be that Ridley (reputed to have been an\ninformer against priests under the barbarous penal laws) was, or ought\nto have been, hanged; that his carcase, anatomized and stuffed, stood in\nthe library; and that _frath scoundrellus_ discovered on his remains the\nFreemasons' Mark.\" The importance of the references to the craft in\nIreland is simply owing to the year in which they were made, as\nillustrative of the influence of the Society at that time, of which\nrecords are lacking.\n\nIt is primarily to Scotland, however, that we have to look for such\nnumerous particulars of the activity of the fraternity from 1599 to the\nestablishment of its Grand Lodge in 1736, for an excellent account of\nwhich we are indebted to Lyon, the Scottish masonic historian. As early\nas 1600 (8th of June) the attendance of John Boswell, Esq., the laird of\nAuchinleck, is entered in the minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh; he\nattested the record and added his mark, as did the other members; so it\nwas not his first appearance. Many noblemen and other gentlemen joined\nthis ancient _atelier_, notably Lord Alexander, Sir Anthony Alexander\nand Sir Alexander Strachan in 1634, the king's Master of Work (Herrie\nAlexander) in 1638, General Alexander Hamilton in 1640, Dr Hamilton in\n1647, and many other prominent and distinguished men later; \"James\nNeilsone, Master Sklaitter to His Majestie,\" who was \"entered and past\nin the Lodge of Linlithgow, being elected a joining member,\" 2nd March\n1654. Quarter-Master General Robert Moray (or Murray) was initiated by\nmembers of the Lodge of Edinburgh, at Newcastle on the 20th of May 1641,\nwhile the Scottish army was in occupation. On due report to their Alma\nMater such reception was allowed, the occurrence having been considered\nthe first of its kind in England until the ancient Records of the\nMasons' Company were published.\n\nThe minute-books of a number of Scottish Lodges, which are still on the\nregister, go back to the 17th century, and abundantly confirm the\nfrequent admission of speculatives as members and officers, especially\nthose of the venerable \"Mother Lodge Kilwinning,\" of which the earl of\nCassillis was the deacon in 1672, who was succeeded by Sir Alexander\nCunningham, and the earl of Eglinton, who like the first of the trio was\nbut an apprentice. There were three Head Lodges according to the\nScottish Code of 1599, Edinburgh being \"the first and principall,\"\nKilwinning \"the secund,\" and Stirling \"the third ludge.\"\n\nThe Aberdeen Lodge (No. 1 _tris_) has records preserved from 1670, in\nwhich year what is known as the _Mark Book_ begins, containing the\noldest existing roll of members, numbering 49, all of whom have their\nmarks registered, save two, though only ten were operatives. The names\nof the earls of Finlater, Erroll and Dunfermline, Lord Forbes, several\nministers and professional men are on the list, which was written by a\nglazier, all of whom had been enlightened as to the \"benefit of the\nmeasson word,\" and inserted in order as they \"were made fellow craft.\"\nThe Charter (_Old Charges_) had to be read at the \"entering of everie\nprenteise,\" and the officers included a master and two wardens.\n\nThe lodge at Melrose (No. 1 _bis_) with records back to 1674 did not\njoin the Grand Lodge until 1891, and was the last of those working\n(possibly centuries before that body was formed) to accept the modern\nsystem of government. Of the many noteworthy lodges mention should be\nmade of that of \"Canongate Kilwinning No. 2,\" Edinburgh, the first of\nthe numerous pendicles of \"Mother Lodge Kilwinning, No. 0,\" Ayrshire,\nstarted in 1677; and of the Journeymen No 8, formed in 1707, which was a\nsecession from the Lodge of Edinburgh; the Fellow Crafts or Journeymen\nnot being satisfied with their treatment by the Freemen Masters of the\nIncorporation of Masons, &c. This action led to a trial before the Lords\nof Council and Session, when finally a \"Decreet Arbitral\" was subscribed\nto by both parties, and the junior organization was permitted \"to give\nthe mason word as it is called\" in a separate lodge. The presbytery of\nKelso[7] in 1652 sustained the action of the Rev. James Ainslie in\nbecoming a Freemason, declaring that \"there is neither sinne nor\nscandale in that word\" (i.e. the \"Mason Word\"), which is often alluded\nto but never revealed in the old records already referred to.[8] One\nScottish family may be cited in illustration of the continuous working\nof Freemasonry, whose membership is enshrined in the records of the\nancient Lodge of \"Scoon and Perth No. 3\" and others. A venerable\ndocument, lovingly cared for by No. 3, bears date 1658, and recites how\nJohn Mylne came to Perth from the \"North Countrie,\" and was the king's\nMaster Mason and W.M. of the Lodge, his successor being his son, who\nentered \"King James the sixt as ffreman measone and fellow craft\"; his\nthird son John was a member of Lodge No. 1 and Master Mason to Charles\nI., 1631-1636, and his eldest son was a deacon of No. 1 eleven times\nduring thirty years. To him was apprenticed his nephew, who was warden\nin 1663-1664 and deacon several times. William Mylne was a warden in\n1695, Thomas (eldest son) was Master in 1735, and took part in the\nformation of the Grand Lodge of Scotland. Others of the family continued\nto join the Lodge No. 1, until Robert, the last of the Mylnes as\nFreemasons, was initiated in 1754, died in 1811, and \"was buried in St\nPaul's cathedral, having been Surveyor to that Edifice for fifty years,\"\nand the last of the masonic Mylnes for five generations. The \"St John's\nLodge,\" Glasgow (No. 3 _bis_), has some valuable old records and a\n\"Charter Chest\" with the words carved thereon \"God save the King and\nMasons Craft, 1684.\" _Loyalty and Charity_ are the watchwords of the\nSociety.\n\nThe Craft Gilds (_Corps d'Etat_) of France, and their progeny the\n_Companionage_, have been fully described by Mr Gould, and the\n_Steinmetzen_ of Germany would require too detailed notice if we were to\nparticularize its rules, customs and general character, from about the\n12th century onward. Much as there was in common between the Stonemasons\nof Germany and the Freemasons of Great Britain and Ireland, it must be\nconceded that the two societies never united and were all through this\nlong period wholly separate and independent; a knowledge of Freemasonry\nand authority to hold lodges in Germany being derived from the Grand\nLodge of England during the first half of the 18th century. The theory\nof the derivation of the Freemasons from the _Steinmetzen_ was first\npropounded in 1779 by the abbe Grandidier, and has been maintained by\nmore modern writers, such as Fallou, Heideloff and Schneider, but a\nthorough examination of their statements has resulted in such an origin\nbeing generally discredited. Whether the _Steinmetzen_ had secret signs\nof recognition or not, is not quite clear, but that the Freemasons had,\nfor centuries, cannot be doubted, though precisely what they were may be\nopen to question, and also what portions of the existing ceremonies are\nreminiscent of the craft anterior to the Revival of 1717. Messrs Speth\nand Gould favour the notion that there were two distinct and separate\ndegrees prior to the third decade of the 18th century (_Ars_ Q.C., 1898\nand 1903), while other authorities have either supported the _One\ndegree_ theory, or consider there is not sufficient evidence to warrant\na decision. Recent discoveries, however, tend in favour of the first\nview noted, such as the _Trinity College MS._, Dublin (\"Free Masonry,\nFeb. 1711\"), and the invaluable[9] _Chetwode Crawley MS._ (Grand Lodge\nLibrary, Dublin); the second being read in connexion with the Haughfoot\nLodge Records, beginning 1702 (_Hist, of Freemasonry_, by W. F. Vernon,\n1893).\n\nTwo of the most remarkable lodges at work during the period of\ntransition (1717-1723), out of the many then existing in England,\nassembled at Alnwick and at York. The origin of the first noted is not\nknown, but there are minutes of the meetings from 1703, the Rules are of\n1701, signed by quite a number of members, and a transcript of the _Old\nCharges_ begins the volume. In 1708-1709 a minute provided for a masonic\nprocession, at which the brethren were to walk \"with their aprons on and\nComon Square.\" The Lodge consisted mainly of operative \"free Brothers,\"\nand continued for many years, a code of by-laws being published in 1763,\nbut it never united with the Grand Lodge, giving up the struggle for\nexistence a few years further on.\n\nThe other lodge, the most noteworthy of all the English predecessors of\nthe Grand Lodge of England, was long held at York, the Mecca of English\nFreemasons.[10] Its origin is unknown, but there are traces of its\nexistence at an early date, and possibly it was a survival of the\nMinster Lodge of the 14th century. Assuming that the _York MS. No. 4_ of\n1693 was the property of the lodge in that year (which Roll was\npresented by George Walker of Wetherby in 1777), the entry which\nconcludes that Scroll is most suggestive, as it gives \"The names of the\nLodge\" (members) and the \"Lodge Ward(en).\" Its influence most probably\nmay be also noted at Scarborough, where \"A private Lodge\" was held on\nthe 10th of July 1705, at which the president \"William Thompson, Esq.,\nand severall others brethren ffree Masons\" were present, and six\ngentlemen (named) \"were then admitted into the said ffraternity.\" These\nparticulars are endorsed on the _Scarborough MS._ of the Old Charges,\nnow owned by the Grand Lodge of Canada at Toronto. \"A narrow folio\nmanuscript Book beginning 7th March 1705-1706,\" which was quoted from in\n1778, has long been missing, which is much to be regretted, as possibly\nit gave particulars of the lodge which assembled at Bradford, Yorkshire,\n\"when 18 Gentlemen of the first families in that neighbourhood were made\nMasons.\" There is, however, another roll of records from 1712 to 1730\nhappily preserved of this \"Ancient Honble. Society and Fraternity of\nFree Masons,\" sometimes styled \"Company\" or \"Society of Free and\nAccepted Masons.\"\n\nNot to be behind the London fratres, the York brethren formed a Grand\nLodge on the 27th of December 1725 (the \"Grand Lodge of _all_ England\"\nwas its modest title), and was flourishing for years, receiving into\ntheir company many county men of great influence. Some twenty years\nlater there was a brief period of somnolence, but in 1761 a revival took\nplace, with Francis Drake, the historian, as Grand Master, ten lodges\nbeing chartered in Yorkshire, Cheshire and Lancashire, 1762-1790, and a\nGrand Lodge of England, south of the Trent, in 1779, at London, which\nwarranted two lodges. Before the century ended all these collapsed or\njoined the Grand Lodge of England, so there was not a single\nrepresentative of \"York Masonry\" left on the advent of the next century.\n\nThe premier Grand Lodge of England soon began to constitute new Lodges\nin the metropolis, and to reconstitute old ones that applied for\nrecognition, one of the earliest of 1720-1721 being still on the Roll as\nNo. 6, thus having kept company ever since with the three \"time\nimmemorial Lodges,\" Nos. 2, 4 and 12. Applications for constitution kept\ncoming in, the provinces being represented from 1723 to 1724, before\nwhich time it is likely the Grand Lodge of Ireland[11] had been started,\nabout which the most valuable _Caementaria Hibernica_ by Dr Chetwode\nCrawley may be consulted with absolute confidence. Provincial Grand\nLodges were formed to ease the authorities at headquarters, and, as the\nsociety spread, also for the Continent, and gradually throughout the\ncivilized globe. Owing to the custom prevailing before the 18th century,\na few brethren were competent to form lodges on their own initiative\nanywhere, and hence the registers of the British Grand Lodges are not\nalways indicative of the first appearance of the craft abroad. In North\nAmerica[12] lodges were held before what is known as the first \"regular\"\nlodge was formed at Boston, Mass., in 1733, and probably in Canada[13]\nlikewise. The same remark applies to Denmark, France, Germany, Holland,\nItaly, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden and other countries. Of the many\nscores of military lodges, the first warrant was granted by Ireland in\n1732. To no other body of Freemasons has the craft been so indebted for\nits prosperity in early days as to their military brethren. There were\nrivals to the Grand Lodge of England during the 18th century, one of\nconsiderable magnitude being known as the Ancients or Atholl Masons,\nformed in 1751, but in December 1813 a junction was effected, and from\nthat time the prosperity of the United Grand Lodge of England, with few\nexceptions, has been extraordinary.\n\nNothing but a volume to itself could possibly describe the main features\nof the English Craft from 1717, when Anthony Sayer was elected the first\nGrand Master of a brilliant galaxy of rulers. The first nobleman to\nundertake that office was the duke of Montagu in 1721, the natural\nphilosopher J. T. Desaguliers being his immediate predecessor, who has\nbeen credited (and also the Rev. James Anderson) with the honour of\nstarting the premier Grand Lodge; but like the fable of Sir Christopher\nWren having been Grand Master, evidence is entirely lacking. Irish and\nScottish peers share with those of England the distinction of presiding\nover the Grand Lodge, and from 1782 to 1813 their Royal Highnesses the\nduke of Cumberland, the prince of Wales, or the duke of Sussex occupied\nthe masonic throne. From 1753 to 1813 the rival Grand Lodge had been\nbusy, but ultimately a desire for a _united_ body prevailed, and under\nthe \"ancient\" Grand Master, H.R.H. the duke of Kent, it was decided to\namalgamate with the original ruling organization, H.R.H. the duke of\nSussex becoming the Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge. On the\ndecease of the prince in 1843 the earl of Zetland succeeded, followed by\nthe marquess of Ripon in 1874, on whose resignation H.R.H. the prince of\nWales became the Grand Master. Soon after succeeding to the throne,\nKing Edward VII. ceased to govern the English craft, and was succeeded\nby H.R.H. the duke of Connaught. From 1737 to 1907 some sixteen English\nprinces of the royal blood joined the brotherhood.\n\nFrom 1723 to 1813 the number of lodges enrolled in England amounted to\n1626, and from 1814 to the end of December 1909 as many as 3352 were\nwarranted, making a grand total of 4978, of which the last then granted\nwas numbered 3185. There were in 1909 still 2876 on the register,\nnotwithstanding the many vacancies created by the foundation of new\nGrand Lodges in the colonies and elsewhere.[14]\n\n_Distribution and Organization._--The advantage of the cosmopolitan\nbasis of the fraternity generally (though some Grand Lodges still\npreserve the original Christian foundation) has been conspicuously\nmanifested and appreciated in India and other countries where the\nvotaries of numerous religious systems congregate; but the unalterable\nbasis of a belief in the Great Architect of the Universe remains, for\nwithout such a recognition there can be no Freemasonry, and it is now,\nas it always has been, entirely free from party politics. The charities\nof the Society in England, Ireland and Scotland are extensive and well\norganized, their united cost per day not being less than L500, and with\nthose of other Grand Lodges throughout the world must amount to a very\nlarge sum, there being over two millions of Freemasons. The vast\nincrease of late years, both of lodges and members, however, calls for\nrenewed vigilance and extra care in selecting candidates, that numbers\nmay not be a source of weakness instead of strength.\n\nIn its internal organization, the working of Freemasonry involves an\nelaborate system of symbolic ritual,[15] as carried out at meetings of\nthe various lodges, uniformity as to essentials being the rule. The\nmembers are classified in numerous degrees, of which the first three are\n\"Entered Apprentice,\" \"Fellow Craft\" and \"Master Mason,\" each class of\nwhich, after initiation, can only be attained after passing a prescribed\nordeal or examination, as a test of proficiency, corresponding to the\n\"essays\" of the operative period.\n\nThe lodges have their own by-laws for guidance, subject to the _Book of\nConstitutions_ of their Grand Lodge, and the regulations of the\nprovincial or district Grand Lodge if located in counties or held\nabroad.\n\nIt is to be regretted that on the continent of Europe Freemasonry has\nsometimes developed on different lines from that of the \"Mother Grand\nLodge\" and Anglo-Saxon Grand Lodges generally, and through its political\nand anti-religious tendencies has come into contact or conflict with the\nstate authorities[16] or the Roman Catholic church. The \"Grand Orient of\nFrance\" (but not the Supreme Council 33^o, and its Grand Lodge) is an\nexample of this retrograde movement, by its elimination of the paragraph\nreferring to a belief in the \"Great Architect of the Universe\" from its\n_Statuts et reglements generaux_. This deplorable action has led to the\nwithdrawal of all regular Grand Lodges from association with that body,\nand such separation must continue until a return is made to the ancient\nand inviolable landmark of the society, which makes it impossible for an\natheist either to join or continue a member of the fraternity.\n\nThe Grand Lodge of England constituted its first lodge in Paris in the\nyear 1732, but one was formed still earlier on the continent at\nGibraltar 1728-1729. Others were also opened in Germany 1733, Portugal\n1735, Holland 1735, Switzerland 1740, Denmark 1745, Italy 1763, Belgium\n1765, Russia 1771, and Sweden 1773. In most of these countries Grand\nLodges were subsequently created and continue to this date, save that in\nAustria (not Hungary) and Russia no masonic lodges have for some time\nbeen permitted to assemble. There is a union of Grand Lodges of Germany,\nand an annual Diet is held for the transaction of business affecting the\nseveral masonic organizations in that country, which works well. H.R.H.\nPrince Frederick Leopold was in 1909 Protector, or the \"Wisest Master\"\n(Vicarius Salomonis). King Gustav V. was the Grand Master [cross] of the\nfreemasons in Sweden, and the sovereign of the \"Order of Charles XIII.,\"\nthe only one of the kind confined to members of the fraternity.\n\nLodges were constituted in India from 1730 (Calcutta), 1752 (Madras),\nand 1758 (Bombay); in Jamaica 1742, Antigua 1738, and St Christopher\n1739; soon after which period the Grand Lodges of England, Ireland and\nScotland had representatives at work throughout the civilized world.\n\nIn no part, however, outside Great Britain has the craft flourished so\nmuch as in the United States of America, where the first \"regular\" lodge\n(i.e. according to the _new_ regime) was opened in 1733 at Boston, Mass.\nUndoubtedly lodges had been meeting still earlier, one of which was held\nat Philadelphia, Penna., with records from 1731, which blossomed into a\nGrand Lodge, but no authority has yet been traced for its proceedings,\nsave that which may be termed \"time immemorial right,\" which was enjoyed\nby all lodges and brethren who were at work prior to the Grand Lodge era\n(1716-1717) or who declined to recognize the autocratic proceedings of\nthe premier Grand Lodge of England, just as the brethren did in the city\nof York. A \"deputation\" was granted to Daniel Coxe, Esq. of New Jersey,\nby the duke of Norfolk, Grand Master, 5th of June 1730, as Prov. Grand\nMaster of the \"Provinces of New York, New Jersey and Pensilvania,\" but\nthere is no evidence that he ever constituted any lodges or exercised\nany masonic authority in virtue thereof. Henry Price as Prov. Grand\nMaster of New England, and his lodge, which was opened on the 31st of\nAugust 1733, in the city of Boston, so far as is known, began \"regular\"\nFreemasonry in the United States, and the older and independent\norganization was soon afterwards \"regularized.\" Benjamin Franklin (an\nInitiate of the lodge of Philadelphia) printed and published the _Book\nof Constitutions_, 1723 (of London, England), in the \"City of Brotherly\nLove\" in 1734, being the oldest masonic work in America. English and\nScottish Grand Lodges were soon after petitioned to grant warrants to\nhold lodges, and by the end of the 18th century several Grand Lodges\nwere formed, the Craft becoming very popular, partly no doubt by reason\nof so many prominent men joining the fraternity, of whom the chief was\nGeorge Washington, initiated in a Scottish lodge at Fredericksburg,\nVirginia, in 1752-1753. In 1907 there were fifty Grand Lodges assembling\nin the United States, with considerably over a million members.\n\nIn Canada in 1909 there were eight Grand Lodges, having about 64,000\nmembers. Freemasonry in the Dominion is believed to date from 1740. The\nGrand Lodges are all of comparatively recent organization, the oldest\nand largest, with 40,000 members, being for Ontario; those of Manitoba,\nNova Scotia and Quebec numbering about 5000 each. There are some seven\nGrand Lodges in Australia; South Australia coming first as a \"sovereign\nbody,\" followed closely by New South Wales and Victoria (of 1884-1889\nconstitution), the whole of the lodges in the Commonwealth probably\nhaving fully 50,000 members on the registers.\n\nThere are many additional degrees which may be taken or not (being quite\noptional), and dependent on a favourable ballot; the difficulty,\nhowever, of obtaining admission increases as progress is made, the\nnumbers accepted decreasing rapidly with each advancement. The chief of\nthese are arranged in separate classes and are governed either by the\n\"Grand Chapter of the Royal Arch,\" the \"Mark Grand Lodge,\" the \"Great\nPriory of Knights Templars\" or the \"Ancient and Accepted Rite,\" these\nbeing mutually complementary and intimately connected as respects\nEngland, and more or less so in Ireland, Scotland, North America and\nwherever worked on a similar basis; the countries of the continent of\nEurope have also their own _Hautes Grades_.     (W. J. H.*).\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n  [1]\n\n      If history be no ancient Fable\n      Free Masons came from Tower of Babel.\n\n        (\"The Freemasons; an Hudibrastic poem,\" London, 1723.)\n\n  [2] _The Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry and Medieval\n    Builders_, by Mr G. F. Fort (U.S.A.), and the _Cathedral Builders:\n    The Magestri Comacini_, by \"Leader Scott\" (the late Mrs Baxter), take\n    rather a different view on this point and ably present their\n    arguments. The Rev. C. Kingsley in _Roman and Teuton_ writes of the\n    _Comacini_, \"Perhaps the original germ of the great society of\n    Freemasons.\"\n\n  [3] The service rendered by Dr W. Begemann (Germany) in his \"Attempt\n    to Classify the Old Charges of the British Masons\" (vol. 1 Trans. of\n    the _Quatuor Coronati_ Lodge, London) has been very great, and the\n    researches of the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford and G. W. Speth have also\n    been of the utmost consequence.\n\n  [4] Findel claims that his _Treatise_ on the society was the cause\n    which \"first impelled England to the study of masonic history and\n    ushered in the intellectual movement which resulted in the writings\n    of Bros. Hughan, Lyon, Gould and others.\" Great credit was due to the\n    late German author for his important work, but before its advent the\n    Rev. A. F. A. Woodford, D. Murray Lyon and others in Great Britain\n    were diligent masonic students on similar lines.\n\n  [5] It is not considered necessary to refer at length to the _Fratres\n    Pontis_, or other imaginary bodies of freemasons, as such questions\n    may well be left to the curious and interested student.\n\n  [6] \"No distinct trace of the general employment of large migratory\n    bands of masons, going from place to place as a guild, or company, or\n    brotherhood\" (Prof. T. Hayter-Lewis, Brit. Arch. Assoc., 1889).\n\n  [7] The Associate Synod which met at Edinburgh, March 1755, just a\n    century later, took quite an opposite view, deciding to depose from\n    office any of their brethren who would not give up their masonic\n    membership (_Scots Mag._, 1755, p. 158). Papal Bulls have also been\n    issued against the craft, the first being in 1738; but neither\n    interdicts nor anathemata have any influence with the fraternity, and\n    fall quite harmless.\n\n  [8]\n\n      \"We have the _Mason Word_ and second sight,\n       Things for to come we can fortell aright.\"\n\n        (_The Muses Threnodie_, by H. Adamson, Edin., 1638.)\n\n  [9] The _Chetwode Crawley MS._, by W. J. Hughan (_Ars._ Q.C., 1904).\n\n  [10] The _York Grand Lodge_, by Messrs. Hughan and Whytehead (Ars\n    Q.C., 1900), and _Masonic Sketches and Reprints_ (1871), by the\n    former.\n\n  [11] The celebrated \"Lady Freemason,\" the Hon. Mrs Aldworth (_nee_\n    Miss St Leger, daughter of Lord Doneraile), was initiated in Ireland,\n    but at a much earlier date than popularly supposed; certainly not\n    later than 1713, when the venturesome lady was twenty. All early\n    accounts of the occurrence must be received with caution, as there\n    are no contemporary records of the event.\n\n  [12] _History of Freemasonry_, by Dr A. G. Mackey (New York, 1898),\n    and the _History_ of the Fraternity Publishing Company, Boston,\n    Mass., give very full particulars as to the United States.\n\n  [13] See _History of Freemasonry in Canada_ (Toronto, 1899), by J.\n    Ross Robertson.\n\n  [14] _The Masonic Records 1717-1894_, by John Lane, and the excellent\n    _Masonic Yearbook_, published annually by the Grand Lodge of England,\n    are the two standard works on Lodge enumeration, localization and\n    nomenclature. For particulars of the Grand Lodges, and especially\n    that of England, Gould's History is most useful and trustworthy; and\n    for an original contribution to the history of the rival Grand Lodge\n    or Atholl Masons, Sadler's _Masonic Facts and Fictions_.\n\n  [15] \"A peculiar system of Morality, veiled in Allegory and\n    illustrated by Symbols\" (old definition of Freemasonry).\n\n  [16] The British House of Commons in 1799 and 1817, in acts of\n    parliament, specifically recognized the laudable character of the\n    society and provided for its continuance on definite lines.\n\n\n\n\nFREEPORT, a city and the county-seat of Stephenson county, Illinois, in\nthe N.W. part of the state, on the Pecatonica river, 30 m. from its\nmouth and about 100 m. N.W. of Chicago. Pop. (1890) 10,189; (1900)\n13,258, of whom 2264 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 17,567. The city\nis served by the Chicago & North-Western, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St\nPaul, and the Illinois Central railways, and by the Rockford &\nInterurban electric railway. The Illinois Central connects at South\nFreeport, about 3 m. S. of Freeport, with the Chicago Great Western\nrailway. Among Freeport's manufactures are foundry and machine shop\nproducts, carriages, hardware specialties, patent medicines, windmills,\nengines, incubators, organs, beer and shoes. The Illinois Central has\nlarge railway repair shops here. The total value of the city's factory\nproduct in 1905 was $3,109,302, an increase of 14.8% since 1900. In the\nsurrounding country cereals are grown, and swine and poultry are raised.\nDairying is an important industry also. The city has a Carnegie library\n(1901). In the Court House Square is a monument, 80 ft. high, in memory\nof the soldiers who died in the Civil War. At the corner of Douglas\nAvenue and Mechanic Street a granite boulder commemorates the famous\ndebate between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, held in Freeport\non the 27th of August 1858. In that debate Lincoln emphasized the\ndifferences between himself and the radical anti-slavery men, and in\nanswer to one of Lincoln's questions Douglas declared that the people of\na territory, through \"unfriendly\" laws or denial of legislative\nprotection, could exclude slavery, and that \"it matters not what way the\nSupreme Court may hereafter decide on the abstract question whether\nslavery may or may not go into a territory under the Constitution.\"\nThis, the so-called \"Freeport doctrine,\" greatly weakened Douglas in the\npresidential election of 1860. Freeport was settled in 1835, was laid\nout and named Winneshiek in 1836, and in 1837 under its present name was\nmade the county-seat of Stephenson county. It was incorporated as a town\nin 1850 and chartered as a city in 1855.\n\n\n\n\nFREE PORTS, a term, strictly speaking, given to localities where no\ncustoms duties are levied, and where no customs supervision exists. In\nthese ports (subject to payment for specific services rendered,\nwharfage, storage, &c., and to the observance of local police and\nsanitary regulations) ships load and unload, cargoes are deposited and\nhandled, industries are exercised, manufactures are carried on, goods\nare bought and sold, without any action on the part of fiscal\nauthorities. Ports are likewise designated \"free\" where a space or zone\nexists within which commercial operations are conducted without payment\nof import or export duty, and without active interference on the part of\ncustoms authorities. The French and German designations for these two\ndescriptions of ports are--for the former _La Ville franche, Freihafen_;\nfor the latter _Le Port franc, Freibezirk_ or _Freilager_. The English\nphrase free port applies to both.[1] The leading conditions under which\nfree ports in Europe derived their origin were as follows:--(1) When\npublic order became re-established during the middle ages, trading\ncentres were gradually formed. Marts for the exchange and purchase of\ngoods arose in different localities. Many Italian settlements,\nconstituting free zones, were established in the Levant. The Hanseatic\ntowns arose in the 12th century. Great fairs became recognized--the\nLeipzig charter was granted in 1268. These localities were free as\nregards customs duties, although dues of the nature of octroi charges\nwere often levied. (2) Until the 19th century European states were\nnumerous, and often of small size. Accordingly uniform customs tariffs\nof wide application did not exist. Uniform rates of duty were fixed In\nEngland by the Subsidy Act of 1660. In France, before the Revolution\n(besides the free ports), Alsace and the Lorraine Bishoprics were in\ntrade matters treated as foreign countries. The unification of the\nGerman customs tariff began in 1834 with the Steuerverein and the\nZollverein. The Spanish fiscal system did not include the Basque\nprovinces until about 1850. The uniform Italian tariff dates from 1861.\nThus until very recent times on the Continent free ports were compatible\nwith the fiscal policy and practice of different countries. (3) Along\nthe Mediterranean coast, up to the 19th century, convenient shelter was\nneeded from corsairs. In other continental countries the prevalent\ncolonial and mercantile policy sought to create trans-oceanic trade.\nFree ports were advantageous from all these points of view.\n\n  In following the history of these harbours in Europe, it is to be\n  observed that in Great Britain free ports have never existed. In 1552\n  it was contemplated to place Hull and Southampton on this footing, but\n  the design was abandoned. Subsequently the bonding and not the free\n  port system was adopted in the United Kingdom.\n\n  _Austria-Hungary._--Fiume and Trieste were respectively free ports\n  during the periods 1722-1893 and 1719-1893.\n\n  _Belgium._--The emperor Joseph II. during his visit to the Austrian\n  Netherlands in June 1781 endeavoured to create a direct trade between\n  that country and India. Ostend was made a free port, and large bonding\n  facilities were afforded at Bruges, Brussels, Ghent and Louvain. In\n  1796, however, the revolutionary government abolished the Ostend\n  privileges.\n\n  _Denmark._--In November 1894 an area of about 150 acres at Copenhagen\n  was opened as a free port, and great facilities are afforded for\n  shipping and commercial operations in order that the Baltic trade may\n  centre there.\n\n  _France._--Marseilles was a free port in the middle ages, and so was\n  Dunkirk when it formed part of Flanders. In 1669 these privileges were\n  confirmed, and extended to Bayonne. In 1784 there was a fresh\n  confirmation, and Lorient and St Jean de Luz were included in the\n  _ordonnance_. The National Assembly in 1790 maintained this policy,\n  and created free ports in the French West Indies. In 1795, however,\n  all such privileges were abolished, but large bonding facilities were\n  allowed at Marseilles to favour the Levant trade. The government of\n  Louis XVIII. in 1814 restored, and in 1871 again revoked, the free\n  port privileges of Marseilles. There are now no free ports in France\n  or in French possessions; the bonding system is in force.\n\n  _Germany._--Bremen, Hamburg and Luebeck were reconstituted free towns\n  and ports under the treaties of 1814-1815. Certain minor ports, and\n  several landing-stages on the Rhine and the Neckar, were also\n  designated free. As the Zollverein policy became accepted throughout\n  Germany, previous privileges were gradually lessened, and since 1888\n  only Hamburg remains a free port. There an area of about 2500 acres is\n  exempt from customs duties and control, and is largely used for\n  shipping and commercial purposes. Bremerhaven has a similar area of\n  nearly 700 acres. Brake, Bremen, Cuxhaven, Emden, Geestemuende,\n  Neufahrwasser and Stettin possess Freibezirke areas, portions of the\n  larger port. Heligoland is outside the Zollverein--practically a\n  foreign country.\n\n  In _Italy_ free ports were numerous and important, and possessed\n  privileges which varied at different dates. They were--Ancona, during\n  the period 1696-1868; Brindisi, 1845-1862; Leghorn (in the 17th and\n  18th centuries a very important Mediterranean harbour), 1675-1867;\n  Messina, 1695-1879; Senigallia, 1821-1868, during the month of the\n  local fair. Venice possessed warehouses, equivalent to bonded stores,\n  for German and Turkish trade during the Republic, and was a free port\n  1851-1873. Genoa was a free port in the time of the Republic and under\n  the French Empire, and was continued as such by the treaties of\n  1814-1815. The free port was, however, changed into a \"deposito\n  franco\" by a law passed in 1865, and only storing privileges now\n  remain.\n\n  _Rumania._--Braila, Galatz and Kustenji were free ports (for a period\n  of about forty years) up to 1883, when bonded warehouses were\n  established by the Rumanian government. Sulina remains free.\n\n  _Russia._--Archangel was a free port, at least for English goods, from\n  1553 to 1648. During this period English products were admitted into\n  Russia via Archangel without any customs payment for internal\n  consumption, and also in transit to Persia. The tsar Alexis revoked\n  this grant on the execution of Charles I. Free ports were opened in\n  1895 at Kola, in Russian Lapland. Dalny, adjoining Port Arthur, was a\n  free port during the Russian occupation; and Japan after the war\n  decided to renew this privilege as soon as practicable.\n\n  The number of free ports outside Europe has also lessened. The\n  administrative policy of European countries has been gradually adopted\n  in other parts of the world, and customs duties have become almost\n  universal, conjoined with bonding and transhipment facilities. In\n  British colonies and possessions, under an act of parliament passed in\n  1766, and repealed in 1867, two ports in Dominica and four in Jamaica\n  were free, Malacca, Penang and Singapore have been free ports since\n  1824, Hong-Kong since 1842, and Weihaiwei since it was leased to Great\n  Britain in 1898. Zanzibar was a free port during 1892-1899. Aden,\n  Gibraltar, St Helena and St Thomas (West Indies) are sometimes\n  designated free ports. A few duties are, however, levied, which are\n  really octroi rather than customs charges. These places are mainly\n  stations for coaling and awaiting orders.\n\n  Some harbours in the Netherlands East Indies were free ports between\n  1829 and 1899; but these privileges were withdrawn by laws passed in\n  1898-1899, in order to establish uniformity of customs administration.\n  Harbours where custom houses are not maintained will be practically\n  closed to foreign trade, though the governor-general may in special\n  circumstances vary the application of the new regulations.\n\n  Macao has been a free port since 1845. Portugal has no other harbour\n  of this character.\n\n  The American Republics have adopted the bonding system. In 1896 a free\n  wharf was opened at New Orleans in imitation of the recent European\n  plan. Livingstone (Guatemala) was a free port during the period\n  1882-1888.\n\nThe privileges enjoyed under the old free port system benefited the\ntowns and districts where they existed; and their abolition has been,\nlocally, injurious. These places were, however, \"foreign\" to their own\ncountry, and their inland intercourse was restricted by the duties\nlevied on their products, and by the precautions adopted to prevent\nevasion of these charges. With fiscal usages involving preferential and\ndeferential treatment of goods and places, the drawbacks thus arising\ndid not attract serious attention. Under the limited means of\ncommunication within and beyond the country, in former times, these\nconveniences were not much felt. But when finance departments became\nmore completely organized, the free port system fell out of favour with\nfiscal authorities: it afforded opportunities for smuggling, and impeded\nuniformity of action and practice. It became, in fact, out of harmony\nwith the administrative and financial policy of later times. Bonding and\nentrepot facilities, on a scale commensurate with local needs, now\nsatisfy trade requirements. In countries where high customs duties are\nlevied, and where fiscal regulations are minute and rigid, if an\nextension of foreign trade is desired, and the competition which it\ninvolves is a national aim, special facilities must be granted for this\npurpose. In these circumstances a free zone sufficiently large to admit\nof commercial operations and transhipments on a scale which will fulfil\nthese conditions (watched but not interfered with by the customs)\nbecomes indispensable. The German government have, as we have seen,\nmaintained a free zone of this nature at Hamburg. And when the free port\nat Copenhagen was opened, counter measures were adopted at Danzig and\nStettin. An agitation has arisen in France to provide at certain ports\nfree zones similar to those at Copenhagen and Hamburg, and to open free\nports in French possessions. A bill to this effect was submitted to the\nchamber of deputies on the 12th of April 1905. Colonial free ports, such\nas Hong-Kong and Singapore, do not interfere with the uniformity of the\nhome customs and excise policy. These two harbours in particular have\nbecome great shipping resorts and distributing centres. The policy which\nled to their establishment as free ports has certainly promoted British\ncommercial interests.\n\n  See the Parliamentary Paper on \"Continental Free Ports,\" 1904.\n       (C. M. K.)\n\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n  [1] In China at the present time (1902) certain ports are designated\n    \"free and open.\" This phrase means that the ports in question are (1)\n    open to foreign trade, and (2) that vessels engaged in oversea\n    voyages may freely resort there. Exemption from payment of customs\n    duties is not implied, which is a matter distinct from the permission\n    granted under treaty engagements to foreign vessels to carry cargoes\n    to and from the \"treaty ports.\"\n\n\n\n\nFREE REED VIBRATOR (Fr. _anche libre_, Ger. _durchschlagende Zunge_,\nItal. _ancia_ or _lingua libera_), in musical instruments, a thin metal\ntongue fixed at one end and vibrating freely either in surrounding\nspace, as in the accordion and concertina, or enclosed in a pipe or\nchannel, as in certain reed stops of the organ or in the harmonium. The\nenclosed reed, in its typical and theoretical form, is fixed over an\naperture of the same shape but just large enough to allow it to swing\nfreely backwards and forwards, alternately opening and closing the\naperture, when driven by a current of compressed air. We have to deal\nwith air under three different conditions in considering the phenomenon\nof the sound produced by free reeds. (1) The stationary column or\nstratum in pipe or channel containing the reed, which is normally at\nrest. (2) The wind or current of air fed from the bellows with a\nvariable velocity and pressure, which is broken up into periodic air\npuffs as its entrance into pipe or channel is alternately checked or\nallowed by the vibrator. (3) The disturbed condition of No. 1 when acted\nupon by the metal vibrator and by No 2, whereby the air within the pipe\nis forced into alternate pulses of condensation and rarefaction. The\nfree reed is therefore not the tone-producer but only the exciting\nagent, that is to say, the sound is not produced by the communication of\nthe free reed's vibrations to the surrounding air,[1] as in the case of\na vibrating string, but by the series of air puffs punctuated by\ninfinitesimal pauses, which it produces by alternately opening and\nalmost closing the aperture.[2] A musical sound is thus produced the\npitch of which depends on the length and thickness of the metal tongue;\nthe greater the length, the slower the vibrations and the lower the\npitch, while on the contrary, the thicker the reed near the shoulder at\nthe fixed end, the higher the pitch. It must be borne in mind that the\nperiodic vibrations of the reed determine the pitch of the sound solely\nby the frequency per second they impose upon the pulses of rarefaction\nand condensation within the pipe.\n\n[Illustration: From J. B. Biot, _Traite de physique experimentale_.\n\nFIG. 1.--Grenie's organ pipe fitted with free-reed vibrator.\n\n  A, Tuning wire.\n  D, Free reed.\n  R, Reed-box.\n  B, C, Feed pipe with conical foot.\n  T, Part of resonating pipe, the upper end with cap and vent hole being shown\n    separately at the side.]\n\nThe most valuable characteristic of the free reed is its power of\nproducing all the delicate gradations of tone between forte and piano by\nvirtue of a law of acoustics governing the vibration of free reeds,\nwhereby increased pressure of wind produces a proportional increase in\nthe volume of tone. The pitch of any sound depends upon the frequency of\nthe sound-waves, that is, the number per second which reach the ear; the\nfullness of sound depends upon the amplitude of the waves, or, more\nstrictly speaking, of the swing of the transmitting particles of the\nmedium--greater pressure in the air current (No. 2 above) which sets the\nvibrator in motion producing amplitude of vibration in the air within\nthe receptacle (No. 3 above) serving as resonating medium. The sound\nproduced by the free reed itself is weak and requires to be reinforced\nby means of an additional stationary column or stratum of air. Free reed\ninstruments are therefore classified according to the nature of the\nresonant medium provided:--(1) Free reeds vibrating in pipes, such as\nthe reed stops of church organs on the continent of Europe (in England\nthe reed pipes are generally provided with beating reeds, see REED\nINSTRUMENTS and CLARINET). (2) Free reeds vibrating in reed compartments\nand reinforced by air chambers of various shapes and sizes as in the\nharmonium (q.v.). (3) Instruments like the accordion and concertina\nhaving the free reed set in vibration through a valve, but having no\nreinforcing medium.\n\nThe arrangement of the free reed in an organ pipe is simple, and does\nnot differ greatly from that of the beating reed shown in fig. 2 for the\npurpose of comparison. The reed-box, a rectangular wooden pipe, is\nclosed at the bottom and covered on one face with a thin plate of copper\nhaving a rectangular slit over which is fixed the thin metal vibrating\ntongue or reed as described above. The reed-box, itself open at the top,\nis enclosed in a feed pipe having a conical foot pierced with a small\nhole through which the air current is forced by the action of the\nbellows. The impact of the incoming compressed air against the reed\ntongue sets it swinging through the slit, thus causing a disturbance or\nseries of pulsations within the reed-box. The air then finds an escape\nthrough the resonating medium of a pipe fitting over the reed-box and\nterminating in an inverted cone covered with a cap in the top of which\nis pierced a small hole or vent. The quality of tone of free reeds is\ndue to the tendency of air set in periodic pulsations to divide into\naliquot vibrations or loops, producing the phenomenon known as harmonic\novertones or upper partials, which may, in the highly composite clang of\nfree reeds, be discerned as far as the 16th or 20th of the series. The\nmore intermittent and interrupted the air current becomes, the greater\nthe number of the upper partials produced.[3] The power of the overtones\nand their relation to the fundamental note depend greatly upon the form\nof the tongue, its position and the amount of the clearance left as it\nswings through the aperture.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 2.--Organ pipe fitted with beating reed.\n\n  AL, Beating reed.\n  R,  Reed box.\n  Ff, Tuning wire.\n  TV, Feed pipe.\n  VV, Conical foot.\n  S,  Hole through which compressed air is fed.]\n\nFree reeds not associated with resonating media as in the concertina are\npeculiarly rich in harmonics, but as the higher harmonics lie very close\ntogether, disagreeable dissonances and a harsh tone result. The\nresonating pipe or chamber when suitably accommodated to the reed\ngreatly modifies the tone by reinforcing the harmonics proper to itself,\nthe others sinking into comparative insignificance. In order to produce\na full rich tone, a resonator should be chosen whose deepest note\ncoincides with the fundamental tone of the reed. The other upper\npartials will also be reinforced thereby, but to a less degree the\nhigher the harmonics.[4]\n\n  For the history of the application of the free reed to keyboard\n  instruments see HARMONIUM.     (K. S.)\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n  [1] See H. Helmholtz, _Die Lehre von den Tonempfindungen_ (Brunswick,\n    1877), p. 166.\n\n  [2] See also Ernst Heinrich and Wilhelm Weber, _Wellenlehre_\n    (Leipzig, 1825), where a particularly lucid explanation of the\n    phenomenon is given, pp. 526-530.\n\n  [3] See Helmholtz, _op. cit._ p. 167.\n\n  [4] These phenomena are clearly explained at greater length by Sedley\n    Taylor in _Sound and Music_ (London, 1896), pp. 134-153 and pp.\n    74-86. See also Friedrich Zamminer, _Die Musik und die musikalischen\n    Instrumente_, &c. (Giessen, 1855), p. 261.\n\n\n\n\nFREESIA, in botany, a genus of plants belonging to the Iris family\n(Iridaceae), and containing a single species, _F. refracta_, native at\nthe Cape of Good Hope. The plants grow from a corm (a solid bulb, as in\n_Gladiolus_) which sends up a tuft of long narrow leaves and a slightly\nbranched stem bearing a few leaves and loose one-sided spikes of\nfragrant narrowly funnel-shaped flowers. Several varieties are known in\ncultivation, differing in the colour of the flower, which is white,\ncream or yellow. They form pretty greenhouse plants which are readily\nincreased from seed. They are extensively grown for the market in\nGuernsey, England and America. By potting successively throughout the\nautumn a supply of flowers is obtained through winter and spring. Some\nvery fine large-flowered varieties, including rose-coloured ones, are\nnow being raised by various growers in England, and are a great\nimprovement on the older forms.\n\n\n\n\nFREE SOIL PARTY, a political party in the United States, which was\norganized in 1847-1848 to oppose the extension of slavery into the\nTerritories. It was a combination of the political abolitionists--many\nof whom had formerly been identified with the more radical Liberty\nparty--the anti-slavery Whigs, and the faction of the Democratic party\nin the state of New York, called \"Barnburners,\" who favoured the\nprohibition of slavery, in accordance with the \"Wilmot Proviso\" (see\nWILMOT, DAVID), in the territory acquired from Mexico. The party was\nprominent in the presidential campaigns of 1848 and 1852. At the\nnational convention held in Buffalo, N.Y., on the 9th and 10th of August\n1848, they secured the nomination to the presidency of ex-President\nMartin Van Buren, who had failed to secure nomination by the Democrats\nin 1844 because of his opposition to the annexation of Texas, and of\nCharles Francis Adams, of Massachusetts, for the vice-presidency, taking\nas their \"platform\" a Declaration that Congress, having \"no more power\nto make a slave than to make a king,\" was bound to restrict slavery to\nthe slave states, and concluding, \"we inscribe on our banner 'Free Soil,\nFree Speech, Free Labor and Free Man,' and under it we will fight on and\nfight ever, until a triumphant victory shall reward our exertions.\" The\nLiberty party had previously, in November 1847, nominated John P. Hale\nand Leicester King as president and vice-president respectively, but in\nthe spring of 1848 it withdrew its candidates and joined the \"free soil\"\nmovement. Representatives of eighteen states, including Delaware,\nMaryland and Virginia, attended the Buffalo convention. In the ensuing\npresidential election Van Buren and Adams received a popular vote of\n291,263, of which 120,510 were cast in New York. They received no\nelectoral votes, all these being divided between the Whig candidate,\nZachary Taylor, who was elected, and the Democratic candidate, Lewis\nCass. The \"free soilers,\" however, succeeded in sending to the\nthirty-first Congress two senators and fourteen representatives, who by\ntheir ability exercised an influence out of proportion to their number.\n\nBetween 1848 and 1852 the \"Barnburners\" and the \"Hunkers,\" their\nopponents, became partially reunited, the former returning to the\nDemocratic ranks, and thus greatly weakening the Free Soilers. The party\nheld its national convention at Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, on the 11th of\nAugust 1852, delegates being present from all the free states, and from\nDelaware, Maryland, Virginia and Kentucky; and John P. Hale, of New\nHampshire, and George W. Julian of Indiana, were nominated for the\npresidency and the vice-presidency respectively, on a platform which\ndeclared slavery \"a sin against God and a crime against man,\" denounced\nthe Compromise Measures of 1850, the fugitive slave law in particular,\nand again opposed the extension of slavery in the Territories. These\ncandidates, however, received no electoral votes and a popular vote of\nonly 156,149, of which but 25,329 were polled in New York. By 1856 they\nabandoned their separate organization and joined the movement which\nresulted in the formation of the powerful Republican party (q.v.), of\nwhich the Free Soil party was the legitimate precursor.\n\n\n\n\nFREE-STONE (a translation of the O. Fr. _franche pere_ or _pierre_, i.e.\nstone of good quality; the modern French equivalent is _pierre de\ntaille_, and Ital. _pietra molle_), stone used in architecture for\nmouldings, tracery and other work required to be worked with the chisel.\nThe oolitic stones are generally so called, although in some countries\nsoft sandstones are used; in some churches an indurated chalk called\n\"clunch\" is employed for internal lining and for carving.\n\n\n\n\nFREETOWN, capital of the British colony of Sierra Leone, West Africa, on\nthe south side of the Sierra Leone estuary, about 5 m. from the cape of\nthat name, in 8 deg. 29' N., 13 deg. 10' W. Pop. (1901) 34,463. About 500 of the\ninhabitants are Europeans. Freetown is picturesquely situated on a\nplain, closed in behind by a succession of wooded hills, the Sierra\nLeone, rising to a height of 1700 ft. As nearly every house is\nsurrounded by a courtyard or garden, the town covers an unusually large\narea for the number of its inhabitants. It possesses few buildings of\narchitectural merit. The principal are the governor's residence and\ngovernment offices, the barracks, the cathedral, the missionary\ninstitutions, the fruit market, Wilberforce Hall, courts of justice, the\nrailway station and the grammar school. Several of these institutions\nare built on the slopes of the hills, and on the highest point, Sugar\nLoaf Mountain, is a sanatorium. The botanic gardens form a pleasant and\nfavourite place of resort. The roads are wide but badly kept. Horses do\nnot live, and all wheeled traffic is done by manual labour--hammocks and\nsedan-chairs are the customary means of locomotion. Notwithstanding that\nFreetown possesses an abundant and pure water-supply, drawn from the\nadjacent hills, it is enervating and unhealthy, and it was particularly\nto the capital, often spoken of as Sierra Leone, that the designation\n\"White Man's Grave\" applied. Since the beginning of the 20th century\nstrenuous efforts have been made to improve the sanitary condition by a\nnew system of drainage, a better water service, the filling up of\nmarshes wherein the malarial mosquito breeds, and in other directions. A\nlight railway 6 m. long, opened in 1904, has been built to Hill Station\n(900 ft. high), where, on a healthy site, are the residences of the\ngovernment officials and of other Europeans. As a consequence the public\nhealth has improved, the highest death-rate in the years 1901-1907 being\n29.6 per 1000. The town is governed by a municipality (created in 1893)\nwith a mayor and councillors, the large majority being elective.\nFreetown was the first place in British West Africa granted local\nself-government.\n\nBoth commercially and strategically Freetown is a place of importance.\nIts harbour affords ample accommodation for the largest fleets, it is a\ncoaling station for the British navy, the headquarters of the British\nmilitary forces in West Africa, the sea terminus of the railway to the\nrich oil-palm regions of Mendiland, and a port of call for all steamers\nserving West Africa. Its inhabitants are noted for their skill as\ntraders; the town itself produces nothing in the way of exports.\n\nIn consequence of the character of the original settlement (see SIERRA\nLEONE), 75% of the inhabitants are descended from non-indigenous Negro\nraces. As many as 150 different tribes are represented in the Sierra\nLeonis of to-day. Their semi-Europeanization is largely the result of\nmissionary endeavour. The only language of the lower class is\npidgin-English--quite incomprehensible to the newcomer from Great\nBritain,--but a large proportion of the inhabitants are highly educated\nmen who excel as lawyers, clergymen, clerks and traders. Many members of\nthe upper, that is, the best-educated, class have filled official\npositions of great responsibility. The most noted citizens are Bishop\nCrowther and Sir Samuel Lewis, chief justice of Sierra Leone 1882-1894.\nBoth were full-blooded Africans. The Kru-men form a distinct section of\nthe community, living in a separate quarter and preserving their tribal\ncustoms.\n\nSince 1861-1862 there has been an independent Episcopal Native Church;\nbut the Church Missionary Society, which in 1804 sent out the first\nmissionaries to Sierra Leone, still maintains various agencies. Furah\nBay College, built by the society on the site of General Charles\nTurner's estate (11/2 m. E. of Freetown), and opened in 1828 with six\npupils, one of whom was Bishop Crowther, was affiliated in 1876 to\nDurham University and has a high-class curriculum. The Wesleyans have a\nhigh school, a theological college, and other educative agencies. The\nMoslems, who are among the most law-abiding and intelligent citizens of\nFreetown, have several state-aided primary schools.\n\n\n\n\nFREE TRADE, an expression which has now come to be appropriated to the\neconomic policy of encouraging the greatest possible commercial\nintercourse, unrestricted by \"protective\" duties (see PROTECTION),\nbetween any one country and its neighbours. This policy was originally\nadvocated in France, and it has had its adherents in many countries, but\nGreat Britain stands alone among the great commercial nations of the\nworld in having adopted it systematically from 1846 onwards as the\nfundamental principle of her economic policy.\n\nIn the economic literature of earlier periods, it may be noted that the\nterm \"free trade\" is employed in senses which have no relation to modern\nusage. The term conveyed no suggestion of unrestricted trade or national\nliberty when it first appeared in controversial pamphlets;[1] it stood\nfor a freedom conferred and maintained by authority--like that of a free\ntown. The merchants desired to have good regulations for trade so that\nthey might be free from the disabilities imposed upon them by foreign\nprinces or unscrupulous fellow-subjects. After 1640 the term seems to\nhave been commonly current in a different sense. When the practice which\nhad been handed down from the middle ages--of organizing the trade with\nparticular countries by means of privileged companies, which professed\nto regulate the trade according to the state of the market so as to\nsecure its steady development in the interest of producers and\ntraders--was seriously called in question under the Stuarts and at the\nRevolution, the interlopers and opponents of the companies insisted on\nthe advantages of a \"Free Trade\"; they meant by this that the various\nbranches of commerce should not be confined to particular persons or\nlimited in amount, but should be thrown open to be pursued by any\nEnglishman in the way he thought most profitable himself.[2] Again, in\nthe latter half of the 18th century, till Pitt's financial reforms[3]\nwere brought into operation, the English customs duties on wine and\nbrandy were excessive; and those who carried on a remunerative business\nby evading these duties were known as Fair Traders or Free Traders.[4]\nSince 1846 the term free trade has been popularly used, in England, to\ndesignate the policy of Cobden (q.v.) and others who advocated the\nabolition of the tax on imported corn (see CORN LAWS); this is the only\none of the specialized senses of the term which is at all likely to be\nconfused with the economic doctrine. The Anti-Corn Law movement was, as\na matter of fact, a special application of the economic principle; but\nserious mistakes have arisen from the blunder of confusing the part with\nthe whole, and treating the remission of one particular duty as if it\nwere the essential element of a policy in which it was only an incident.\nW. E. Gladstone, in discussing the effect of improvements in locomotion\non British trade, showed what a large proportion of the stimulus to\ncommerce during the 19th century was to be credited to what he called\nthe \"liberalizing legislation\" of the free-trade movement in the wide\nsense in which he used the term. \"I rank the introduction of cheap\npostage for letters, documents, patterns and printed matter, and the\nabolition of all taxes on printed matter, in the category of Free Trade\nLegislation. Not only thought in general, but every communication, and\nevery publication, relating to matters of business, was thus set free.\nThese great measures, then, may well take their place beside the\nabolition of prohibitions and protective duties, the simplifying of\nrevenue laws, and the repeal of the Navigation Act, as forming together\nthe great code of industrial emancipation. Under this code, our race,\nrestored to freedom in mind and hand, and braced by the powerful\nstimulus of open competition with the world, has upon the whole\nsurpassed itself and every other, and has won for itself a commercial\nprimacy more evident, more comprehensive, and more solid than it had at\nany previous time possessed.\"[5] In this large sense free trade may be\nalmost interpreted as the combination of the doctrines of the division\nof labour and of _laissez-faire_ in regard to the world as a whole. The\ndivision of labour between different countries of the world--so that\neach concentrates its energies in supplying that for the production of\nwhich it is best fitted--appears to offer the greatest possibility of\nproduction; but this result cannot be secured unless trade and industry\nare treated as the primary elements in the welfare of each community,\nand political considerations are not allowed to hamper them.\n\nStated in its simplest form, the principle which underlies the doctrine\nof free trade is almost a truism; it is directly deducible from the very\nnotion of exchange (q.v.). Adam Smith and his successors have\ndemonstrated that in every case of voluntary exchange each party gains\nsomething that is of greater value-in-use to him than that with which he\nparts, and that consequently in every exchange, either between\nindividuals or between nations, both parties are the gainers. Hence it\nnecessarily follows that, since both parties gain through exchanging,\nthe more facilities there are for exchange the greater will be the\nadvantage to every individual all round.[6] There is no difficulty in\ntranslating this principle into the terms of actual life, and stating\nthe conditions in which it holds good absolutely. If, at any given\nmoment, the mass of goods in the world were distributed among the\nconsumers with the minimum of restriction on interchange, each\ncompetitor would obtain the largest possible share of the things he\nprocures in the world's market. But the argument is less conclusive when\nthe element of time is taken into account; what is true of each moment\nseparately is not necessarily true of any period in which the conditions\nof production, or the requirements of communities, may possibly change.\nEach individual is likely to act with reference to his own future, but\nit may often be wise for the statesman to look far ahead, beyond the\nexisting generation.[7] Owing to the neglect of this element of time,\nand the allowance which must be made for it, the reasoning as to the\nadvantages of free trade, which is perfectly sound in regard to the\ndistribution of goods already in existence, may become sophistical,[8]\nif it is put forward as affording a complete demonstration of the\nbenefits of free trade as a regular policy. After all, human society is\nvery complex, and any attempt to deal with its problems off-hand by\nappealing to a simple principle raises the suspicion that some important\nfactor may have been left out of account. When there is such mistaken\nsimplification, the reasoning may seem to have complete certainty, and\nyet it fails to produce conviction, because it does not profess to deal\nwith the problem in all its aspects. When we concentrate attention on\nthe phenomena of exchange, we are viewing society as a mechanism in\nwhich each acts under known laws and is impelled by one particular\nforce--that of self-interest; now, society is, no doubt, in this sense a\nmechanism, but it is also an organism,[9] and it is only for very short\nperiods, and in a very limited way, that we can venture to neglect its\norganic character without running the risk of falling into serious\nmistakes.\n\nThe doctrine of free trade maintains that in order to secure the\ngreatest possible mass of goods in the world as a whole, and the\ngreatest possibility of immediate comfort for the consumer, it is\nexpedient that there should be no restriction on the exchange of goods\nand services either between individuals or communities. The\ncontroversies in regard to this doctrine have not turned on its\ncertainty as a hypothetical principle, but on the legitimacy of the\narguments based upon it. It certainly supplies a principle in the light\nof which all proposed trade regulations should be criticized. It gives\nus a basis for examining and estimating the expense at which any\nparticular piece of trade restriction is carried out; but thus used, the\nprinciple does not necessarily condemn the expenditure; the game may be\nworth the candle or it may not, but at least it is well that we should\nknow how fast the candle is being burnt. It was in this critical spirit\nthat Adam Smith examined the various restrictions and encouragements to\ntrade which were in vogue in his day; he proved of each in turn that it\nwas expensive, but he showed that he was conscious that the final\ndecision could not be taken from this standpoint, since he recognized in\nregard to the Navigation Acts that \"defence is more than opulence.\"[10]\nIn more recent times, the same sort of attitude was taken by Henry\nSidgwick,[11] who criticizes various protective expedients in turn, in\nthe light of free trade, but does not treat it as conveying an\nauthoritative decision on their merits.\n\nBut other exponents of the doctrine have not been content to employ it\nin this fashion. They urge it in a more positive manner, and insist that\nfree trade pure and simple is _the_ foundation on which the economic\nlife of the community ought to be based. By men who advocate it in this\nway, free trade is set forward as an ideal which it is a duty to\nrealize, and those who hold aloof from it or oppose it have been held up\nto scorn as if they were almost guilty of a crime.[12] The development\nof the material resources of the world is undoubtedly an important\nelement in the welfare of mankind; it is an aim which is common to the\nwhole race, and may be looked upon as contributing to the greatest\nhappiness of the greatest number. Competition in the open market seems\nto secure that each consumer shall obtain the best possible terms; and\nagain, since all men are consumers whether they produce or not, or\nwhatever they produce, the greatest measure of comforts for each seems\nlikely to be attainable on these lines. For those who are frankly\ncosmopolitan, and who regard material prosperity as at all events the\nprime object at which public policy should aim, the free-trade doctrine\nis readily transformed, from a mere principle of criticism, till it\ncomes to be regarded as the harbinger of a possible Utopia. It was in\nthis fashion that it was put forward by French economists and proved\nattractive to some leading American statesmen in the 18th century.\nTurgot regarded the colonial systems of the European countries as at\nonce unfair to their dependencies and dangerous to the peace of the\nworld. \"It will be a wise and happy thing for the nation which shall be\nthe first to modify its policy according to the new conditions, and be\ncontent to regard its colonies as if they were allied provinces and not\nsubjects of the mother country.\" It will be a wise and happy thing for\nthe nation which is the first to be convinced that the secret of\n\"success, so far as commercial policy is concerned, consists in\nemploying all its land in the manner most profitable for the\nproprietary, all the hands in the manner most advantageous to the\nworkman personally, that is to say, in the manner in which each would\nemploy them, if we could let him be simply directed by his own interest,\nand that all the rest of the mercantile policy is vanity and vexation of\nspirit. When the entire separation of America shall have forced the\nwhole world to recognize this truth and purged the European nations of\ncommercial jealousy there will be one great cause of war less in the\nworld.\"[13] Pitt, under the influence of Adam Smith, was prepared to\nadmit the United States to the benefit of trade with the West Indian\nColonies; and Jefferson, accepting the principles of his French\nteachers, would (in contradistinction to Alexander Hamilton) have been\nwilling to see his country renounce the attempt to develop manufactures\nof her own.[14] It seemed as if a long step might be taken towards\nrealizing the free-trade ideal for the Anglo-Saxon race; but British\nshipowners insisted on the retention of their privileges, and the\npropitious moment passed away with the failure of the negotiations of\n1783.[15] Free trade ceased to be regarded as a gospel, even in France,\ntill the ideal was revived in the writings of Bastiat, and helped to\nmould the enthusiasm of Richard Cobden.[16] Through his zealous\nadvocacy, the doctrine secured converts in almost every part of the\nworld; though it was only in Great Britain that a great majority of the\ncitizens became so far satisfied with it that they adopted it as the\nfoundation of the economic policy of the country.\n\nIt is not difficult to account for the conversion of Great Britain to\nthis doctrine; in the special circumstances of the first half of the\n19th century it was to the interest of the most vigorous factors in the\neconomic life of the country to secure the greatest possible freedom for\ncommercial intercourse. Great Britain had, through her shipping, access\nto all the markets of the world; she had obtained such a lead in the\napplication of machinery to manufactures that she had a practical\nmonopoly in textile manufactures and in the hardware trades; by removing\nevery restriction, she could push her advantage to its farthest extent,\nand not only undersell native manufactures in other lands, but secure\nfood, and the raw materials for her manufactures, on the cheapest\npossible terms. Free trade thus seemed to offer the means of placing an\nincreasing distance between Britain and her rivals, and of rendering the\nindustrial monopoly which she had attained impregnable. The capitalist\nemployer had superseded the landowner as the mainstay of the resources\nand revenue of the realm, and insisted that the prosperity of\nmanufactures was the primary interest of the community as a whole. The\nexpectation, that a thoroughgoing policy of free trade would not only\nfavour an increase of employment, but also the cheapening of food, could\nonly have been roused in a country which was obliged to import a\nconsiderable amount of corn. The exceptional weakness, as well as the\nexceptional strength, of Great Britain, among European countries, made\nit seem desirable to adopt the principle of unrestricted commercial\nintercourse, not merely in the tentative fashion in which it had been\nput in operation by Huskisson, but in the thoroughgoing fashion in which\nit at last commended itself to the minds of Peel and Gladstone. The\n\"Manchester men\" saw clearly where their interest lay; and the\nfashionable political economy was ready to demonstrate that in pursuing\ntheir own interest they were conferring the benefit of cheap clothing on\nall the most poverty-stricken races of mankind. It seemed probable, in\nthe 'forties and early 'fifties, that other countries would take a\nsimilar view of their own interests and would follow the example which\nGreat Britain had set.[17] That they have not done so, is partly due to\nthe fact that none of them had such a direct, or such a widely diffused,\ninterest in increased commercial intercourse as existed in Great\nBritain; but their reluctance has been partly the result of the\ncriticism to which the free-trade doctrine has been subjected. The\nprinciples expressed in the writings of Friedrich List have taken such\nfirm hold, both in America and in Germany, that these countries have\npreferred to follow on the lines by which Great Britain successfully\nbuilt up her industrial prosperity in the 17th and 18th century, rather\nthan on those by which they have seen her striving to maintain it since\n1846.\n\nFree trade was attractive as an ideal, because it appeared to offer the\ngreatest production of goods to the world as a whole, and the largest\nshare of material goods to each consumer; it is cosmopolitan, and it\ntreats consumption, and the interest of the consumer, as such, as the\nend to be considered. Hence it lies open to objections which are partly\npolitical and partly economic.\n\nAs cosmopolitan, free-trade doctrine is apt to be indifferent to\nnational tradition and aspiration. In so far indeed as patriotism is a\nmere aesthetic sentiment, it may be tolerated, but in so far as it\nimplies a genuine wish and intention to preserve and defend the national\nhabits and character to the exclusion of alien elements, the\ncosmopolitan mind will condemn it as narrow and mischievous. In the\nfirst half of the 19th century there were many men who believed that\nnational ambitions and jealousies of every kind were essentially\ndynastic, and that if monarchies were abolished there would be fewer\noccasions of war, so that the expenses of the business of government\nwould be enormously curtailed. For Cobden and his contemporaries it was\nnatural to regard the national administrative institutions as maintained\nfor the benefit of the \"classes\" and without much advantage to the\n\"masses.\" But in point of fact, modern times have shown the existence in\ndemocracies of a patriotic sentiment which is both exclusive and\naggressive; and the burden of armaments has steadily increased. It was\nby means of a civil war that the United States attained to a\nconsciousness of national life; while such later symptoms as the recent\ninterpretations of the Monroe doctrine, or the war with Spain, have\nproved that the citizens of that democratic country cannot be regarded\nas destitute of self-aggrandizing national ambition.\n\nIn Germany the growth of militarism and nationalism have gone on side by\nside under constitutional government, and certainly in harmony with\npredominant public opinion. Neither of these communities is willing to\nsink its individual conception of progress in those of the world at\nlarge; each is jealous of the intrusion of alien elements which cannot\nbe reconciled with its own political and social system. And a similar\nrecrudescence of patriotic feeling has been observable in other\ncountries, such as Norway and Hungary: the growth of national sentiment\nis shown, not only in the attempts to revive and popularize the use of a\nnational language, but still more decidedly in the determination to have\na real control over the economic life of the country. It is here that\nthe new patriotism comes into direct conflict with the political\nprinciples of free trade as advocated by Bastiat and Cobden; for them\nthe important point was that countries, by becoming dependent on one\nanother, would be prevented from engaging in hostilities. The new\nnations are determined that they will not allow other countries to have\nsuch control over their economic condition, as to be able to exercise a\npowerful influence on their political life. Each is determined to be the\nmaster in his own house, and each has rejected free trade because of the\ncosmopolitanism which it involves.\n\nEconomically, free trade lays stress on consumption as the chief\ncriterion of prosperity. It is, of course, true that goods are produced\nwith the object of being consumed, and it is plausible to insist on\ntaking this test; but it is also true that consumption and production\nare mutually interdependent, and that in some ways production is the\nmore important of the two. Consumption looks to the present, and the\ndisposal of actual goods; production looks to the future, and the\nconditions under which goods can continue to be regularly provided and\nthus become available for consumption in the long run. As regards the\nprosperity of the community in the future it is important that goods\nshould be consumed in such a fashion as to secure that they shall be\nreplaced or increased before they are used up; it is the amount of\nproduction rather than the amount of consumption that demands\nconsideration, and gives indication of growth or of decadence. In these\ncircumstances there is much to be said for looking at the economic life\nof a country from the point of view which free-traders have abandoned or\nignore. It is not on the possibilities of consumption in the present,\nbut on the prospects of production _in the future_, that the continued\nwealth of the community depends; and this principle is the only one\nwhich conforms to the modern conception of the essential requirements of\nsociological science in its wider aspect (see SOCIOLOGY). This is most\nobviously true in regard to countries of which the resources are very\nimperfectly developed. If their policy is directed to securing the\ngreatest possible comfort for each consumer in the present, it is\ncertain that progress will be slow; the planting of industries for which\nthe country has an advantage may be a tedious process; and in order to\nstimulate national efficiency temporary protection--involving what is\notherwise unnecessary immediate cost to the consumer--may seem to be\nabundantly justified. Such a free trader as John Stuart Mill himself\nadmits that a case may be made out for treating \"infant industries\" as\nexceptions;[18] and if this exception be admitted it is likely to\nestablish a precedent. After all, the various countries of the world are\nall in different stages of development; some are old and some are new;\nand even the old countries differ greatly in the progress they have made\nin distinct arts. The introduction of machinery has everywhere changed\nthe conditions of production, so that some countries have lost and\nothers have gained a special advantage. Most of the countries of the\nworld are convinced that the wisest economy is to attend to the\nhusbanding of their resources of every kind, and to direct their policy\nnot merely with a view to consumption in the present, but rather with\nregard to the possibilities of increased production in the future.\n\nThis deliberate rejection of the doctrine of free trade between nations,\nboth in its political and economic aspects, has not interfered, however,\nwith the steady progress of free commercial intercourse within the\nboundaries of a single though composite political community. \"Internal\nfree trade,\" though the name was not then current in this sense, was one\nof the burning questions in England in the 17th century; it was perhaps\nas important a factor as puritanism in the fall of Charles I. Internal\nfree trade was secured in France in the 18th century; thanks to\nHamilton,[19] it was embodied in the constitution of the United States;\nit was introduced into Germany by Bismarck; and was firmly established\nin the Dominion of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia. It became\nin consequence, where practicable, a part of the modern federal idea as\nusually interpreted. There are thus great areas, externally\nself-protecting, where free trade, as between internal divisions, has\nbeen introduced with little, if any, political difficulty, and with\nconsiderable economic advantage. These cases are sometimes quoted as\njustifying the expectation that the same principle is likely to be\nadopted sooner or later in regard to external trading relations. There\nis some reason, however, for raising the question whether free trade has\nbeen equally successful, not only in its economic, but in its social\nresults, in all the large political communities where it has been\nintroduced. In a region like the United States of America, it is\nprobably seen at its best; there is an immense variety of different\nproducts throughout that great zone of the continent, so that the mutual\nco-operation of the various parts is most beneficial, while the standard\nof habit and comfort is so far uniform[20] throughout the whole region,\nand the facilities for the change of employment are so many, that there\nis little injurious competition between different districts. In the\nBritish empire the conditions are reversed; but though the great\nself-governing colonies have withdrawn from the circle, in the hope of\nbuilding up their own economic life in their own way, free trade is\nstill maintained over a very large part of the British empire.\nThroughout this area, there are very varied physical conditions; there\nis also an extraordinary variety of races, each with its own habits, and\nown standard of comfort; and in these circumstances it may be doubted\nwhether the free competition, involved in free trade, is really\naltogether wholesome. Within this sphere the ideal of Bastiat and his\nfollowers is being realized. England, as a great manufacturing country,\nhas more than held her own; India and Ireland are supplied with\nmanufactured goods by England, and in each case the population is forced\nto look to the soil for its means of support, and for purchasing power.\nIn each case the preference for tillage, as an occupation, has rendered\nit comparatively easy to keep the people on the land; but there is some\nreason to believe that the law of diminishing returns is already making\nitself felt, at all events in India, and is forcing the people into\ndeeper poverty.[21] It may be doubtful in the case of Ireland how far\nthe superiority of England in industrial pursuits has prevented the\ndevelopment of manufactures; the progress in the last decades of the\n18th century was too short-lived to be conclusive; but there is at least\na strong impression in many quarters that the industries of Ireland\nmight have flourished if they had had better opportunities allowed\nthem.[22] In the case of India we know that the hereditary artistic\nskill, which had been built up in bygone generations, has been stamped\nout. It seems possible that the modern unrest in India, and the\ndiscontent in Ireland, may be connected with the economic conditions in\nthese countries, on which free trade has been imposed without their\nconsent. So far the population which subsists on the cheaper food, and\nhas the lower standard of life, has been the sufferer; but the mischief\nmight operate in another fashion. The self-governing colonies at all\nevents feel that competition in the same market between races with\ndifferent standards of comfort has infinite possibilities of mischief.\nIt is easy to conjure up conditions under which the standard of comfort\nof wage-earners in England would be seriously threatened.\n\nSince the 9th edition of the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ was published it\nhas become clear that the free-trade doctrines of Bastiat and Cobden\nhave not been gaining ground in the world at large, and at the opening\nof the 20th century it could hardly be said with confidence that the\nquestion was \"finally settled\" so far as England was concerned. As to\nwhether the interests of Great Britain still demanded that she should\ncontinue on the line she adopted in the exceptional conditions of the\nmiddle of the 19th century, expert opinion was conspicuously\ndivided;[23] but there remained no longer the old enthusiasm for free\ntrade as the harbinger of an Utopia. The old principles of the bourgeois\nmanufacturers had been taken up by the proletariat and shaped to suit\nthemselves. Socialism, like free trade, is cosmopolitan in its aims, and\nis indifferent to patriotism and hostile to militarism. Socialism, like\nfree trade, insists on material welfare as the primary object to be\naimed at in any policy, and, like free trade, socialism tests welfare by\nreference to possibilities of consumption. In one respect there is a\ndifference; throughout Cobden's attack on the governing classes there\nare signs of his jealousy of the superior status of the landed gentry,\nbut socialism has a somewhat wider range of view and demands \"equality\nof opportunity\" with the capitalist as well.\n\n  BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Reference has already been made to the principal works\n  which deal critically with the free-trade policy. Professor Fawcett's\n  _Free Trade_ is a good exposition of free-trade principles; so also is\n  Professor Bastable's _Commerce of Nations_. Among authors who have\n  restated the principles with special reference to the revived\n  controversy on the subject may be mentioned Professor W. Smart, _The\n  Return to Protection, being a Restatement of the Case for Free Trade_\n  (2nd ed., 1906), and A. C. Pigou, _Protective and Preferential Import\n  Duties_ (1906).     (W. Cu.)\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n  [1] E. Misselden, _Free Trade or the Meanes to make Trade Flourish_\n    (1622), p. 68; G. Malynes, _The Maintenance of Free Trade_ (1622), p.\n    105.\n\n  [2] H. Parker, _Of a Free Trade_ (1648), p. 8.\n\n  [3] (1787), 27 Geo. III. c. 13.\n\n  [4] Sir Walter Scott, _Guy Mannering_, chapter v.\n\n  [5] Gladstone, \"Free Trade, Railways and Commerce,\" in _Nineteenth\n    Century_ (Feb. 1880), vol. vii. p. 370.\n\n  [6] Parker states a similar argument in the form in which it suited\n    the special problem of his day. \"If merchandise be good for the\n    commonweal, then the more common it is made, the more open it is\n    laid, the more good it will convey to us.\" _Op. cit._ 20.\n\n  [7] Schmoller, _Grundriss der allgemeinen Volkswirtschaftslehre_\n    (1904), ii. 607.\n\n  [8] Byles, _Sophisms of Free Trade_; L. S. Amery, _Fundamental\n    Fallacies of Free Trade_, 13.\n\n  [9] W. Cunningham, _Rise and Decline of the Free Trade Movement_, PP.\n    5-11.\n\n  [10] _Wealth of Nations_, book iv. chap. ii.\n\n  [11] _Principles of Political Economy_, 485.\n\n  [12] J. Morley, _Life of Cobden_, i. 230.\n\n  [13] \"Memoire,\" 6 April 1776, in _Oeuvres_, viii. 460.\n\n  [14] Jefferson, _Notes on Virginia_, 275. See also the articles on\n    JEFFERSON and HAMILTON, ALEXANDER.\n\n  [15] One incidental effect of the failure to secure free trade was\n    that the African slave trade, with West Indies as a depot for\n    supplying the American market, ceased to be remunerative, and the\n    opposition to the abolition of the trade was very much weaker than it\n    would otherwise have been; see Hochstetter, \"Die wirtschaftlichen und\n    politischen Motive fuer die Abschaffung des britischen\n    Sklavenhandels,\" in Schmoller, _Staats und Sozialwissenschaftliche\n    Forschungen_, xxv. i. 37.\n\n  [16] J. Welsford, \"Cobden's Foreign Teacher,\" in _National Review_\n    (December 1905).\n\n  [17] _Compatriot Club Lectures_ (1905), p. 306.\n\n    [18] J. S. Mill, _Principles of Political Economy_, book v. chapter\n    x. Sec. 1.\n\n  [19] F. S. Oliver, _Alexander Hamilton_, 142.\n\n  [20] The standard is, of course, lower among the negroes and mean\n    whites in the South than in the North and West.\n\n  [21] F. Beauclerk, \"Free Trade in India,\" in _Economic Review_ (July\n    1907), xvii. 284.\n\n  [22] A. E. Murray, _History of the Commercial and Financial Relations\n    between England and Ireland_, 294.\n\n  [23] For the tariff reform movement in English politics see the\n    article on CHAMBERLAIN, J. Among continental writers G. Schmoller\n    (_Grundriss der allgemeinen Volkswirtschaftslehre_, ii. 641) and A.\n    Wagner (Preface to M. Schwab's _Chamberlains Handelspolitik_)\n    pronounce in favour of a change, as Fuchs did by anticipation.\n    Schulze-Gaevernitz (_Britischer Imperialismus und englischer\n    Freihandel_), Aubry (_Etude critique de la politique commerciale de\n    l'Angleterre a l'egard de ses colonies_), and Blondel (_La politique\n    Protectionniste en Angleterre un nouveau danger pour la France_) are\n    against it.\n\n\n\n\nFREGELLAE, an ancient town of Latium adiectum, situated on the Via\nLatina, 11 m. W.N.W. of Aquinum, near the left branch of the Liris. It\nis said to have belonged in early times to the Opici or Oscans, and\nlater to the Volscians. It was apparently destroyed by the Samnites a\nlittle before 330 B.C., in which year the people of Fabrateria Vetus\n(mod. Ceccano) besought the help of Rome against them, and in 328 B.C. a\nLatin colony was established there. The place was taken in 320 B.C. by\nthe Samnites, but re-established by the Romans in 313 B.C. It continued\nhenceforward to be faithful to Rome; by breaking the bridges over the\nLiris it interposed an obstacle to the advance of Hannibal on Rome in\n212 B.C., and it was a native of Fregellae who headed the deputation of\nthe non-revolting colonies in 209 B.C. It appears to have been a very\nimportant and flourishing place owing to its command of the crossing of\nthe Liris, and to its position in a fertile territory, and it was here\nthat, after the rejection of the proposals of M. Fulvius Flaccus for the\nextension of Roman burgess-rights in 125 B.C., a revolt against Rome\nbroke out. It was captured by treachery in the same year and destroyed;\nbut its place was taken in the following year by the colony of\nFabrateria Nova, 3 m. to the S.E. on the opposite bank of the Liris,\nwhile a post station Fregellanum (mod. Ceprano) is mentioned in the\nitineraries; Fregellae itself, however, continued to exist as a village\neven under the empire. The site is clearly traceable about 1/2 m. E. of\nCeprano, but the remains of the city are scanty.\n\n  See G. Colasanti, _Fregellae, storia e topografia_ (1906).     (T. As.)\n\n\n\n\nFREIBERG, or FREYBERG, a town of Germany in the kingdom of Saxony, on\nthe Muenzbach, near its confluence with the Mulde, 19 m. S.W. of Dresden\non the railway to Chemnitz, with a branch to Nossen. Pop. (1905) 30,896.\nIts situation, on the rugged northern slope of the Erzgebirge, is\nsomewhat bleak and uninviting, but the town is generally well built and\nmakes a prosperous impression. A part of its ancient walls still\nremains; the other portions have been converted into public walks and\ngardens. Freiberg is the seat of the general administration of the mines\nthroughout the kingdom, and its celebrated mining academy\n(_Bergakademie_), founded in 1765, is frequented by students from all\nparts of the world. Connected with it are extensive collections of\nminerals and models, a library of 50,000 volumes, and laboratories for\nchemistry, metallurgy and assaying. Among its distinguished scholars it\nreckons Abraham Gottlob Werner (1750-1817), who was also a professor\nthere, and Alexander von Humboldt. Freiberg has extensive manufactures\nof gold and silver lace, woollen cloths, linen and cotton goods, iron,\ncopper and brass wares, gunpowder and white-lead. It has also several\nlarge breweries. In the immediate vicinity are its famous silver and\nlead mines, thirty in number, and of which the principal ones passed\ninto the property of the state in 1886. The castle of Freudenstein or\nFreistein, as rebuilt by the elector Augustus in 1572, is situated in\none of the suburbs and is now used as a military magazine. In its\ngrounds a monument was erected to Werner in 1851. The cathedral, rebuilt\nin late Gothic style after its destruction by fire in 1484 and restored\nin 1893, was founded in the 12th century. Of the original church a\nmagnificent German Romanesque doorway, known as the Golden Gate\n(_Goldene Pforte_), survives. The church contains numerous monuments,\namong others one to Prince Maurice of Saxony. Adjoining the cathedral is\nthe mausoleum (_Begraebniskapelle_), built in 1594 in the Italian\nRenaissance style, in which are buried the remains of Henry the Pious\nand his successors down to John George IV., who died in 1694. Of the\nother four Protestant churches the most noteworthy is the Peterskirche\nwhich, with its three towers, is a conspicuous object on the highest\npoint of the town. Among the other public buildings are the old\ntown-hall, dating from the 15th century, the antiquarian museum, and the\nnatural history museum. There are a classical and modern, a commercial\nand an agricultural school, and numerous charitable institutions.\n\nFreiberg owes its origin to the discovery of its silver mines (c. 1163).\nThe town, with the castle of Freudenstein, was built by Otto the Rich,\nmargrave of Meissen, in 1175, and its name, which first appears in 1221,\nis derived from the extensive mining franchises granted to it about that\ntime. In all the partitions of the territories of the Saxon house of\nWettin, from the latter part of the 13th century onward, Freiberg always\nremained common property, and it was not till 1485 (the mines not till\n1537) that it was definitively assigned to the Albertine line. The\nReformation was introduced into Freiberg in 1536 by Henry the Pious, who\nresided here. The town suffered severely during the Thirty Years' War,\nand again during the French occupation from 1806 to 1814, during which\ntime it had to support an army of 700,000 men and find forage for\n200,000 horses.\n\n  See H. Gerlach, _Kleine Chronik von Freiberg_ (2nd ed., Freiberg,\n  1898); H. Ermisch, _Das Freiberger Stadtrecht_ (Leipzig, 1889);\n  Ermisch and O. Posse, _Urkundenbuch der Stadt Freiberg_, in _Codex\n  diplom. Sax. reg._ (3 vols., Leipzig, 1883-1891); _Freibergs Berg- und\n  Huettenwesen_, published by the Bergmaennischer Verein (Freiberg, 1883);\n  Ledebur, _Ueber die Bedeutung der Freiberger Bergakademie_ (_ib._\n  1903); Steche, _Bau- und Kunstdenkmaeler der Amtshauptmannschaft\n  Freiberg_ (Dresden, 1884).\n\n\n\n\nFREIBURG, a town of Germany in Prussian Silesia, on the Polsnitz, 35 m.\nS.W. of Breslau, on the railway to Halbstadt. Pop. (1905) 9917. It has\nan Evangelical and Roman Catholic church, and its industries include\nwatch-making, linen-weaving and distilling. In the neighbourhood are the\nold and modern castles of the Fuerstenstein family, whence the town is\nsometimes distinguished as Freiburg unter dem Fuerstenstein. At Freiburg,\non the 22nd of July 1762, the Prussians defended themselves successfully\nagainst the superior forces of the Austrians.\n\n\n\n\nFREIBURG IM BREISGAU, an archiepiscopal see and city of Germany in the\ngrand duchy of Baden, 12 m. E. of the Rhine, beautifully situated on the\nDreisam at the foot of the Schlossberg, one of the heights of the Black\nForest range, on the railway between Basel and Mannheim, 40 m. N. of the\nformer city. Pop. (1905) 76,285. The town is for the most part well\nbuilt, having several wide and handsome streets and a number of spacious\nsquares. It is kept clean and cool by the waters of the river, which\nflow through the streets in open channels; and its old fortifications\nhave been replaced by public walks, and, what is more unusual, by\nvineyards. It possesses a famous university, the Ludovica Albertina,\nfounded by Albert VI., archduke of Austria, in 1457, and attended by\nabout 2000 students. The library contains upwards of 250,000 volumes and\n600 MSS., and among the other auxiliary establishments are an anatomical\nhall and museum and botanical gardens. The Freiburg minster is\nconsidered one of the finest of all the Gothic churches of Germany,\nbeing remarkable alike for the symmetry of its proportions, for the\ntaste of its decorations, and for the fact that it may more correctly be\nsaid to be finished than almost any other building of the kind. The\nperiod of its erection probably lies for the most part between 1122 and\n1252; but the choir was not built till 1513. The tower, which rises\nabove the western entrance, is 386 ft. in height, and it presents a\nskilful transition from a square base into an octagonal superstructure,\nwhich in its turn is surmounted by a pyramidal spire of the most\nexquisite open work in stone. In the interior of the church are some\nbeautiful stained glass windows, both ancient and modern, the tombstones\nof several of the dukes of Zaehringen, statues of archbishops of\nFreiburg, and paintings by Holbein and by Hans Baldung (c. 1470-1545),\ncommonly called Gruen. Among the other noteworthy buildings of Freiburg\nare the palaces of the grand duke and the archbishop, the old town-hall,\nthe theatre, the _Kaufhaus_ or merchants' hall, a 16th-century building\nwith a handsome facade, the church of St Martin, with a graceful spire\nrestored 1880-1881, the new town-hall, completed 1901, in Renaissance\nstyle, and the Protestant church, formerly the church of the abbey of\nThennenbach, removed hither in 1839. In the centre of the fish-market\nsquare is a fountain surmounted by a statue of Duke Berthold III. of\nZaehringen; in the Franziskaner Platz there is a monument to Berthold\nSchwarz, the traditional discoverer here, in 1259, of gunpowder; the\nRotteck Platz takes its name from the monument of Karl Wenzeslaus von\nRotteck (1775-1840), the historian, which formerly stood on the site of\nthe Schwarz statue; and in Kaiser Wilhelm Strasse a bronze statue was\nerected in 1876 to the memory of Herder, who in the early part of the\n19th century founded in Freiburg an institute for draughtsmen, engravers\nand lithographers, and carried on a famous bookselling business. On the\nSchlossberg above the town there are massive ruins of two castles\ndestroyed by the French in 1744; and about 2 m. to the N.E. stands the\ncastle of Zaehringen, the original seat of the famous family of the\ncounts of that name. Situated on the ancient road which runs by the\nHoellenpass between the valleys of the Danube and the Rhine, Freiburg\nearly acquired commercial importance, and it is still the principal\ncentre of the trade of the Black Forest. It manufactures buttons,\nchemicals, starch, leather, tobacco, silk thread, paper, and hempen\ngoods, as well as beer and wine.\n\nFreiburg is of uncertain foundation. In 1120 it became a free town, with\nprivileges similar to those of Cologne; but in 1219 it fell into the\nhands of a branch of the family of Urach. After it had vainly attempted\nto throw off the yoke by force of arms, it purchased its freedom in\n1366; but, unable to reimburse the creditors who had advanced the money,\nit was, in 1368, obliged to recognize the supremacy of the house of\nHapsburg. In the 17th and 18th centuries it played a considerable part\nas a fortified town. It was captured by the Swedes in 1632, 1634 and\n1638; and in 1644 it was seized by the Bavarians, who shortly after,\nunder General Mercy, defeated in the neighbourhood the French forces\nunder Enghien and Turenne. The French were in possession from 1677 to\n1697, and again in 1713-1714 and 1744; and when they left the place in\n1748, at the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, they dismantled the\nfortifications. The Baden insurgents gained a victory at Freiburg in\n1848, and the revolutionary government took refuge in the town in June\n1849, but in the following July the Prussian forces took possession and\noccupied it until 1851. Since 1821 Freiburg has been the seat of an\narchbishop with jurisdiction over the sees of Mainz, Rottenberg and\nLimburg.\n\n  See Schreiber, _Geschichte und Beschreibung des Muensters zu Freiburg_\n  (1820 and 1825); _Geschichte der Stadt und Universitaet Freiburgs_\n  (1857-1859); _Der Schlossberg bei Freiburg_ (1860); and Albert, _Die\n  Geschichtsschreibung der Stadt Freiburg_ (1902).\n\n_Battles of Freiburg, 3rd, 5th and 10th of August 1644._--During the\nThirty Years' War the neighbourhood of Freiburg was the scene of a\nseries of engagements between the French under Louis de Bourbon, due\nd'Enghien (afterwards called the great Conde), and Henri de la Tour\nd'Auvergne, vicomte de Turenne, and the Bavarians and Austrians\ncommanded by Franz, Freiherr von Mercy.\n\nAt the close of the campaign of 1643 the French \"Army of Weimar,\" having\nbeen defeated and driven into Alsace by the Bavarians, had there been\nreorganized under the command of Turenne, then a young general of\nthirty-two and newly promoted to the marshalate. In May 1644 he opened\nthe campaign by recrossing the Rhine and raiding the enemy's posts as\nfar as Ueberlingen on the lake of Constance and Donaueschingen on the\nDanube. The French then fell back with their booty and prisoners to\nBreisach, a strong garrison being left in Freiburg. The Bavarian\ncommander, however, revenged himself by besieging Freiburg (June 27th),\nand Turenne's first attempt to relieve the place failed. During July, as\nthe siege progressed, the French government sent the duc d'Enghien, who\nwas ten years younger still than Turenne, but had just gained his great\nvictory of Rocroy, to take over the command. Enghien brought with him a\nveteran army, called the \"Army of France,\" Turenne remaining in command\nof the Army of Weimar. The armies met at Breisach on the 2nd of August,\nby which date Freiburg had surrendered. At this point most commanders of\nthe time would have decided not to fight, but to manoeuvre Mercy away\nfrom Freiburg; Enghien, however, was a fighting general, and Mercy's\nentrenched lines at Freiburg seemed to him a target rather than an\nobstacle. A few hours after his arrival, therefore, without waiting for\nthe rearmost troops of his columns, he set the combining armies in\nmotion for Krozingen, a village on what was then the main road between\nBreisach and Freiburg. The total force immediately available numbered\nonly 16,000 combatants. Enghien and Turenne had arranged that the Army\nof France was to move direct upon Freiburg by Wolfenweiter, while the\nArmy of Weimar was to make its way by hillside tracks to Wittnau and\nthence to attack the rear of Mercy's lines while Enghien assaulted them\nin front. Turenne's march (August 3rd, 1644) was slow and painful, as\nhad been anticipated, and late in the afternoon, on passing Wittnau, he\nencountered the enemy. The Weimarians carried the outer lines of defence\nwithout much difficulty, but as they pressed on towards Merzhausen the\nresistance became more and more serious. Turenne's force was little more\nthan 6000, and these were wearied with a long day of marching and\nfighting on the steep and wooded hillsides of the Black Forest. Thus the\nturning movement came to a standstill far short of Uffingen, the village\non Mercy's line of retreat that Turenne was to have seized, nor was a\nflank attack possible against Mercy's main line, from which he was\nseparated by the crest of the Schoenberg. Meanwhile, Enghien's army had\nat the prearranged hour (4 P.M.) attacked Mercy's position on the\nEbringen spur. A steep slope, vineyards, low stone walls and abatis had\nall to be surmounted, under a galling fire from the Bavarian musketeers,\nbefore the Army of France found itself, breathless and in disorder, in\nfront of the actual entrenchments of the crest. A first attack failed,\nas did an attempt to find an unguarded path round the shoulder of the\nSchoenberg. The situation was grave in the extreme, but Enghien resolved\non Turenne's account to renew the attack, although only a quarter of his\noriginal force was still capable of making an effort. He himself and all\nthe young nobles of his staff dismounted and led the infantry forward\nagain, the prince threw his baton into the enemy's lines for the\nsoldiers to retrieve, and in the end, after a bitter struggle, the\nBavarians, whose reserves had been taken away to oppose Turenne in the\nMerzhausen defile, abandoned the entrenchments and disappeared into the\nwoods of the adjoining spur. Enghien hurriedly re-formed his troops,\nfearing at every moment to be hurled down the hill by a counter-stroke;\nbut none came. The French bivouacked in the rain, Turenne making his way\nacross the mountain to confer with the prince, and meanwhile Mercy\nquietly drew off his army in the dark to a new set of entrenchments on\nthe ridge on which stood the Loretto Chapel. On the 4th of August the\nArmy of France and the Army of Weimar met at Merzhausen, the rearmost\ntroops of the Army of France came in, and the whole was arranged by the\nmajor-generals in the plain facing the Loretto ridge. This position was\nattacked on the 5th. Enghien had designed his battle even more carefully\nthan before, but as the result of a series of accidents the two French\narmies attacked prematurely and straight to their front, one brigade\nafter another, and though at one moment Enghien, sword in hand, broke\nthe line of defence with his last intact reserve, a brilliant\ncounterstroke, led by Mercy's brother Kaspar (who was killed), drove out\nthe assailants. It is said that Enghien lost half his men on this day\nand Mercy one-third of his, so severe was the battle. But the result\ncould not be gainsaid; it was for the French a complete and costly\nfailure.\n\nFor three days after this the armies lay in position without fighting,\nthe French well supplied with provisions and comforts from Breisach, the\nBavarians suffering somewhat severely from want of food, and especially\nforage, as all their supplies had to be hauled from Villingen over the\nrough roads of the Black Forest. Enghien then decided to make use of the\nGlotter Tal to interrupt altogether this already unsatisfactory line of\nsupply, and thus to force the Bavarians either to attack him at a\nserious disadvantage, or to retreat across the hills with the loss of\ntheir artillery and baggage and the disintegration of their army by\nfamine and desertion. With this object, the Army of Weimar was drawn off\non the morning of the 9th of August and marched round by Betzenhausen\nand Lehen to Langen Denzling. The infantry of the Army of France, then\nthe trains, followed, while Enghien with his own cavalry faced Freiburg\nand the Loretto position.\n\n[Illustration: Map-Battle of Freiburg.]\n\nBefore dawn on the 10th the advance guard of Turenne's army was\nascending the Glotter Tal. But Mercy had divined his adversary's plan,\nand leaving a garrison to hold Freiburg, the Bavarian army had made a\nnight march on the 9/10th to the Abbey of St Peter, whence on the\nmorning of the 10th Mercy fell back to Graben, his nearest magazine in\nthe mountains. Turenne's advanced guard appeared from the Glotter Tal\nonly to find a stubborn rearguard of cavalry in front of the abbey. A\nsharp action began, but Mercy hearing the drums and fifes of the French\ninfantry in the Glotter Tal broke it off and continued his retreat in\ngood order. Enghien thus obtained little material result from his\nmanoeuvre. Only two guns and such of Mercy's wagons that were unable to\nkeep up fell into the hands of the French. Enghien and Turenne did not\ncontinue the chase farther than Graben, and Mercy fell back unmolested\nto Rothenburg on the Tauber.\n\nThe moral results of this sanguinary fighting were, however, important\nand perhaps justified the sacrifice of so many valuable soldiers.\nEnghien's pertinacity had not achieved a decision with the sword, but\nMercy had been so severely punished that he was unable to interfere with\nhis opponent's new plan of campaign. This, which was carried out by the\nunited armies and by reinforcements from France, while Turenne's cavalry\nscreened them by bold demonstrations on the Tauber, led to nothing less\nthan the conquest of the Rhine Valley from Basel to Coblenz, a task\nwhich was achieved so rapidly that the Army of France and its victorious\nyoung leader were free to return to France in two months from the time\nof their appearance in Turenne's quarters at Breisach.\n\n\n\n\nFREIDANK (VRIDANC), the name by which a Middle High German didactic poet\nof the early 13th century is known. It has been disputed whether the\nword, which is equivalent to \"free-thought,\" is to be regarded as the\npoet's real name or only as a pseudonym; the latter is probably the\ncase. Little is known of Freidank's life. He accompanied Frederick II.\non his crusade to the Holy Land, where, in the years 1228-1229, a\nportion at least of his work was composed; and it is said that on his\ntomb (if indeed it was not the tomb of another Freidank) at Treviso\nthere was inscribed, with allusion to the character of his style, \"he\nalways spoke and never sang.\" Wilhelm Grimm originated the hypothesis\nthat Freidank was to be identified with Walther von der Vogelweide; but\nthis is no longer tenable. Freidank's work bears the name of\n_Bescheidenheit_, i.e. \"practical wisdom,\" \"correct judgment,\" and\nconsists of a collection of proverbs, pithy sayings, and moral and\nsatirical reflections, arranged under general heads. Its popularity till\nthe end of the 16th century is shown by the great number of MSS. extant.\n\n  Sebastian Brant published the _Bescheidenheit_ in a modified form in\n  1508. Wilhelm Grimm's edition appeared in 1834 (2nd ed. 1860), H. F.\n  Bezzenberger's in 1872. A later edition is by F. Sandvoss (1877). The\n  old Latin translation, _Fridangi Discretio_, was printed by C. Lemcke\n  in 1868; and there are two translations into modern German, A.\n  Bacmeister's (1861) and K. Simrock's (1867). See also F. Pfeiffer,\n  _Ueber Freidank_ (_Zur deutschen Literaturgeschichte_, 1855), and H.\n  Paul, _Ueber die urspruengliche Anordnung von Freidanks Bescheidenheit_\n  (1870).\n\n\n\n\nFREIENWALDE, a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Prussia, on the Oder,\n28 m. N.E. of Berlin, on the Frankfort-Angermuende railway. Pop. (1905)\n7995. It has a small palace, built by the Great Elector, an Evangelical\nand a Roman Catholic church, and manufactures of furniture, machinery,\n&c. The neighbouring forests and its medicinal springs make it a\nfavourite summer resort of the inhabitants of Berlin. A new tower\ncommands a fine view of the Oderbruch (see ODER). Freienwalde, which\nmust be distinguished from the smaller town of the same name in\nPomerania, first appears as a town in 1364.\n\n\n\n\nFREIESLEBENITE, a rare mineral consisting of sulphantimonite of silver\nand lead, (Pb, Ag2)5Sb4S11. The monoclinic crystals are prismatic in\nhabit, with deeply striated prism and dome faces. The colour is\nsteel-grey, and the lustre metallic; hardness 21/2, specific gravity 6.2.\nIt occurs with argentite, chalybite and galena in the silver veins of\nthe Himmelsfuerst mine at Freiberg, Saxony, where it has been known since\n1720. The species was named after J. K. Freiesleben, who had earlier\ncalled it _Schilf-Glaserz_. Other localities are Hiendelaencina near\nGuadalajara in Spain, Kapnik-Banya in Hungary, and Guanajuato in Mexico.\nA species separated from freieslebenite by V. von Zepharovich in 1871,\nbecause of differences in crystalline form, is known as diaphorite (from\n[Greek: diaphora], \"difference\"); it is very similar to freieslebenite\nin appearance and has perhaps the same chemical composition (or possibly\nAg2PbSb2S5), but is orthorhombic in crystallization. A third mineral\nalso very similar to freieslebenite in appearance is the orthorhombic\nandorite, AgPbSb3S6, which is mined as a silver ore at Oruro in Bolivia.\n\n\n\n\nFREIGHT, (pronounced like \"weight\"; derived from the Dutch _vracht_ or\n_vrecht_, in Fr. _fret_, the Eng. \"fraught\" being the same word, and\nformerly used for the same thing, but now only as an adjective =\n\"laden\"), the lading or cargo of a ship, and the hire paid for their\ntransport (see AFFREIGHTMENT); from the original sense of\nwater-transport of goods the word has also come to be used for\nland-transit (particularly in America, by railroad), and by analogy for\nany load or burden.\n\n\n\n\nFREILIGRATH, FERDINAND (1810-1876), German poet, was born at Detmold on\nthe 17th of June 1810. He was educated at the gymnasium of his native\ntown, and in his sixteenth year was sent to Soest, with a view to\npreparing him for a commercial career. Here he had also time and\nopportunity to acquire a taste for French and English literature. The\nyears from 1831 to 1836 he spent in a bank at Amsterdam, and 1837 to\n1839 in a business house at Barmen. In 1838 his _Gedichte_ appeared and\nmet with such extraordinary success that he gave up the idea of a\ncommercial life and resolved to devote himself entirely to literature.\nHis repudiation of the political poetry of 1841 and its revolutionary\nideals attracted the attention of the king of Prussia, Frederick William\nIV., who, in 1842, granted him a pension of 300 talers a year. He\nmarried, and, to be near his friend Emanuel Geibel, settled at St Goar.\nBefore long, however, Freiligrath was himself carried away by the rising\ntide of liberalism. In the poem _Ein Glaubensbekenntnis_ (1844) he\nopenly avowed his sympathy with the political movement led by his old\nadversary, Georg Herwegh; the day, he declared, of his own poetic\ntrifling with Romantic themes was over; Romanticism itself was dead. He\nlaid down his pension, and, to avoid the inevitable political\npersecution, took refuge in Switzerland. As a sequel to the\n_Glaubensbekenntnis_ he published _Ca ira!_ (1846), which strained still\nfurther his relations with the German authorities. He fled to London,\nwhere he resumed the commercial life he had broken off seven years\nbefore. When the Revolution of 1848 broke out, it seemed to Freiligrath,\nas to all the liberal thinkers of the time, the dawn of an era of\npolitical freedom; and, as may be seen from the poems in his collection\nof _Politische und soziale Gedichte_ (1849-1851), he welcomed it with\nunbounded enthusiasm. He returned to Germany and settled in Duesseldorf;\nbut it was not long before he had again called down upon himself the\nill-will of the ruling powers by a poem, _Die Toten an die Lebenden_\n(1848). He was arrested on a charge of _lese-majeste_, but the\nprosecution ended in his acquittal. New difficulties arose; his\nassociation with the democratic movement rendered him an object of\nconstant suspicion, and in 1851 he judged it more prudent to go back to\nLondon, where he remained until 1868. In that year he returned to\nGermany, settling first in Stuttgart and in 1875 in the neighbouring\ntown of Cannstatt, where he died on the 18th of March 1876.\n\nAs a poet, Freiligrath was the most gifted member of the German\nrevolutionary group. Coming at the very close of the Romantic age, his\nown purely lyric poetry re-echoes for the most part the familiar\nthoughts and imagery of his Romantic predecessors; but at an early age\nhe had been attracted by the work of French contemporary poets, and he\nreinvigorated the German lyric by grafting upon it the orientalism of\nVictor Hugo. In this reconciliation of French and German romanticism lay\nFreiligrath's significance for the development of the lyric in Germany.\nHis remarkable power of assimilating foreign literatures is also to be\nseen in his translations of English and Scottish ballads, of the poetry\nof Burns, Mrs Hemans, Longfellow and Tennyson (_Englische Gedichte aus\nneuerer Zeit_, 1846; _The Rose, Thistle and Shamrock_, 1853, 6th ed.\n1887); he also translated Shakespeare's _Cymbeline_, _Winter's Tale_ and\n_Venus and Adonis_, as well as Longfellow's _Hiawatha_ (1857).\nFreiligrath is most original in his revolutionary poetry. His poems of\nthis class suffer, it is true, under the disadvantage of all political\npoetry--purely temporary interest and the unavoidable admixture of much\nthat has no claim to be called poetry at all--but the agitator\nFreiligrath, when he is at his best, displays a vigour and strength, a\npower of direct and cogent poetic expression, not to be found in any\nother political singer of the age.\n\n  Freiligrath's _Gedichte_ have passed through some fifty editions, and\n  his _Gesammelte Dichtungen_, first published in 1870, have reached a\n  sixth edition (1898). _Nachgelassenes_ (including a translation of\n  Byron's _Mazeppa_) was published in 1883. A selection of Freiligrath's\n  best-known poems in English translation was edited by his daughter,\n  Mrs Freiligrath-Kroeker, in 1869; also _Songs of a Revolutionary\n  Epoch_ were translated by J. L. Joynes in 1888. Cp. E.\n  Schmidt-Weissenfels, _F. Freiligrath, eine Biographie_ (1876); W.\n  Buchner, _F. Freiligrath, ein Dichterleben in Briefen_ (2 vols.,\n  1881); G. Freiligrath, _Erinnerungen an F. Freiligrath_ (1889); P.\n  Besson, _Freiligrath_ (Paris, 1899); K. Richter, _Freiligrath als\n  Uebersetzer_ (1899).     (J. G. R.)\n\n\n\n\nFREIND, JOHN (1675-1728), English physician, younger brother of Robert\nFreind (1667-1751), headmaster of Westminster school, was born in 1675\nat Croton in Northamptonshire. He made great progress in classical\nknowledge under Richard Busby at Westminster, and at Christ Church,\nOxford, under Dean Aldrich, and while still very young, produced, along\nwith Peter Foulkes, an excellent edition of the speeches of Aeschines\nand Demosthenes on the affair of Ctesiphon. After this he began the\nstudy of medicine, and having proved his scientific attainments by\nvarious treatises was appointed a lecturer on chemistry at Oxford in\n1704. In the following year he accompanied the English army, under the\nearl of Peterborough, into Spain, and on returning home in 1707, wrote\nan account of the expedition, which attained great popularity. Two years\nlater he published his _Prelectiones chimicae_, which he dedicated to\nSir Isaac Newton. Shortly after his return in 1713 from Flanders,\nwhither he had accompanied the British troops, he took up his residence\nin London, where he soon obtained a great reputation as a physician. In\n1716 he became fellow of the college of physicians, of which he was\nchosen one of the censors in 1718, and Harveian orator in 1720. In 1722\nhe entered parliament as member for Launceston in Cornwall, but, being\nsuspected of favouring the cause of the exiled Stuarts, he spent half of\nthat year in the Tower. During his imprisonment he conceived the plan of\nhis most important work, _The History of Physic_, of which the first\npart appeared in 1725, and the second in the following year. In the\nlatter year he was appointed physician to Queen Caroline, an office\nwhich he held till his death on the 26th of July 1728.\n\n  A complete edition of his Latin works, with a Latin translation of the\n  _History of Physic_, edited by Dr John Wigan, was published in London\n  in 1732.\n\n\n\n\nFREINSHEIM [FREINSHEMIUS], JOHANN (1608-1660), German classical scholar\nand critic, was born at Ulm on the 16th of November 1608. After studying\nat the universities of Marburg, Giessen and Strassburg, he visited\nFrance, where he remained for three years. He returned to Strassburg in\n1637, and in 1642 was appointed professor of eloquence at Upsala. In\n1647 he was summoned by Queen Christina to Stockholm as court librarian\nand historiographer. In 1650 he resumed his professorship at Upsala, but\nearly in the following year he was obliged to resign on account of\nill-health. In 1656 he became honorary professor at Heidelberg, and died\non the 31st of August 1660. Freinsheim's literary activity was chiefly\ndevoted to the Roman historians. He first introduced the division into\nchapters and paragraphs, and by means of carefully compiled indexes\nillustrated the lexical peculiarities of each author. He is best known\nfor his famous supplements to Quintus Curtius and Livy, containing the\nmissing books written by himself. He also published critical editions of\nCurtius and Florus.\n\n\n\n\nFREIRE, FRANCISCO JOSE (1719-1773), Portuguese historian and\nphilologist, was born at Lisbon on the 3rd of January 1719. He belonged\nto the monastic society of St Philip Neri, and was a zealous member of\nthe literary association known as the Academy of Arcadians, in connexion\nwith which he adopted the pseudonym of Candido Lusitano. He contributed\nmuch to the improvement of the style of Portuguese prose literature, but\nhis endeavour to effect a reformation in the national poetry by a\ntranslation of Horace's _Ars poetica_ was less successful. The work in\nwhich he set forth his opinions regarding the vicious taste pervading\nthe current Portuguese prose literature is entitled _Maximas sobre a\nArte Oratoria_ (1745) and is preceded by a chronological table forming\nalmost a social and physical history of Portugal. His best known work,\nhowever, is his _Vida do Infante D. Henrique_ (1758), which has given\nhim a place in the first rank of Portuguese historians, and has been\ntranslated into French (Paris, 1781). He also wrote a poetical\ndictionary (_Diccionario poetico_) and a translation of Racine's\n_Athalie_ (1762), and his _Reflexions sur la langue portugaise_ was\npublished in 1842 by the Lisbon society for the promotion of useful\nknowledge. He died at Mafra on the 5th of July 1773.\n\n\n\n\nFREISCHUeTZ, in German folklore, a marksman who by a compact with the\ndevil has obtained a certain number of bullets destined to hit without\nfail whatever object he wishes. As the legend is usually told, six of\nthe _Freikugeln_ or \"free bullets\" are thus subservient to the\nmarksman's will, but the seventh is at the absolute disposal of the\ndevil himself. Various methods were adopted in order to procure\npossession of the marvellous missiles. According to one the marksman,\ninstead of swallowing the sacramental host, kept it and fixed it on a\ntree, shot at it and caused it to bleed great drops of blood, gathered\nthe drops on a piece of cloth and reduced the whole to ashes, and then\nwith these ashes added the requisite virtue to the lead of which his\nbullets were made. Various vegetable or animal substances had the\nreputation of serving the same purpose. Stories about the Freischuetz\nwere especially common in Germany during the 14th, 15th and 16th\ncenturies; but the first time that the legend was turned to literary\nprofit is said to have been by Apel in the _Gespensterbuch_ or \"Book of\nGhosts.\" It formed the subject of Weber's opera _Der Freischuetz_ (1821),\nthe libretto of which was written by Friedrich Kind, who had suggested\nApel's story as an excellent theme for the composer. The name by which\nthe Freischuetz is known in French is Robin des Bois.\n\n  See Kind, _Freyschuetzbuch_ (Leipzig, 1843); _Revue des deux mondes_\n  (February 1855); Graesse, _Die Quelle des Freischuetz_ (Dresden, 1875).\n\n\n\n\nFREISING, a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Bavaria, on the Isar, 16\nm. by rail N.N.E. of Munich. Pop. (1905) 13,538. Among its eight Roman\nCatholic churches the most remarkable is the cathedral, which dates from\nabout 1160 and is famous for its curious crypt. Noteworthy also are the\nold palace of the bishops, now a clerical seminary, the theological\nlyceum and the town-hall. There are several schools in the town, and\nthere is a statue to the chronicler, Otto of Freising, who was bishop\nhere from 1138 to 1158. Freising has manufactures of agricultural\nmachinery and of porcelain, while printing and brewing are carried on.\nNear the town is the site of the Benedictine abbey of Weihenstephan,\nwhich existed from 725 to 1803. This is now a model farm and brewery.\nFreising is a very ancient town and is said to have been founded by the\nRomans. After being destroyed by the Hungarians in 955 it was fortified\nby the emperor Otto II. in 976 and by Duke Welf of Bavaria in 1082. A\nbishopric was established here in 724 by St Corbinianus, whose brother\nErimbert was consecrated second bishop by St Boniface in 739. Later on\nthe bishops acquired considerable territorial power and in the 17th\ncentury became princes of the Empire. In 1802 the see was secularized,\nthe bulk of its territories being assigned to Bavaria and the rest to\nSalzburg, of which Freising had been a suffragan bishopric. In 1817 an\narchbishopric was established at Freising, but in the following year it\nwas transferred to Munich. The occupant of the see is now called\narchbishop of Munich and Freising.\n\n  See C. Meichelbeck, _Historiae Frisingensis_ (Augsburg, 1724-1729, new\n  and enlarged edition 1854).\n\n\n\n\nFREJUS, a town in the department of the Var in S.E. France. Pop. (1906)\n3430. It is 281/2 m. S.E. of Draguignan (the chief town of the\ndepartment), and 221/2 m. S.W. of Cannes by rail. It is only important on\naccount of the fine Roman remains that it contains, for it is now a mile\nfrom the sea, its harbour having been silted up by the deposits of the\nArgens river. Since the 4th century it has been a bishop's see, which is\nin the ecclesiastical province of Aix en Provence. In modern times the\nneighbouring fishing village at St Raphael (21/2 m. by rail S.E., and on\nthe seashore) has become a town of 4865 inhabitants (in 1901); in 1799\nNapoleon disembarked there, on his return from Egypt, and reembarked for\nElba in 1814, while nowadays it is much frequented as a health resort,\nas is also Valescure (2 m. N.W. on the heights above). The cathedral\nchurch in part dates from the 12th century, but only small portions of\nthe old medieval episcopal palace are now visible, as it was rebuilt\nabout 1823. The ramparts of the old town can still be traced for a long\ndistance, and there are fragments of two moles, of the theatre and of a\ngate. The amphitheatre, which seated 12,000 spectators, is in a better\nstate of preservation. The ruins of the great aqueduct which brought the\nwaters of the Siagnole, an affluent of the Siagne, to the town, can\nstill be traced for a distance of nearly 19 m. The original hamlet was\nthe capital of the tribe of the Oxybii, while the town of Forum Julii\nwas founded on its site by Julius Caesar in order to secure to the\nRomans a harbour independent of that of Marseilles. The buildings of\nwhich ruins exist were mostly built by Caesar or by Augustus, and show\nthat it was an important naval station and arsenal. But the town\nsuffered much at the hands of the Arabs, of Barbary pirates, and of its\ninhabitants, who constructed many of their dwellings out of the ruined\nRoman buildings. The ancient harbour (really but a portion of the\nlagoons, which had been deepened) is now completely silted up. Even in\nearly times a canal had to be kept open by perpetual digging, while\nabout 1700 this was closed, and now a sandy and partly cultivated waste\nextends between the town and the seashore.\n\n  See J. A. Aubenas, _Histoire de Frejus_ (Frejus, 1881); Ch. Lentheric,\n  _La Provence Maritime ancienne et moderne_ (Paris, 1880), chap. vii.\n       (W. A. B. C.)\n\n\n\n\nFRELINGHUYSEN, FREDERICK THEODORE (1817-1885), American lawyer and\nstatesman, of Dutch descent, was born at Millstone, New Jersey, on the\n4th of August 1817. His grandfather, Frederick Frelinghuysen\n(1753-1804), was an eminent lawyer, one of the framers of the first New\nJersey constitution, a soldier in the War of Independence, and a member\n(1778-1779 and 1782-1783) of the Continental Congress from New Jersey,\nand in 1793-1796 of the United States senate; and his uncle, Theodore\n(1787-1862), was attorney-general of New Jersey from 1817 to 1829, was a\nUnited States senator from New Jersey in 1829-1835, was the Whig\ncandidate for vice-president on the Clay ticket in 1844, and was\nchancellor of the university of New York in 1839-1850 and president of\nRutgers College in 1850-1862. Frederick Theodore, left an orphan at the\nage of three, was adopted by his uncle, graduated at Rutgers in 1836,\nand studied law in Newark with his uncle, to whose practice he succeeded\nin 1839, soon after his admission to the bar. He became attorney for the\nCentral Railroad of New Jersey, the Morris Canal and Banking Company,\nand other corporations, and from 1861 to 1867 was attorney-general of\nNew Jersey. In 1861 he was a delegate to the peace congress at\nWashington, and in 1866 was appointed by the governor of New Jersey, as\na Republican, to fill a vacancy in the United States senate. In the\nwinter of 1867 he was elected to fill the unexpired term, but a\nDemocratic majority in the legislature prevented his re-election in\n1869. In 1870 he was nominated by President Grant, and confirmed by the\nsenate, as United States minister to England to succeed John Lothrop\nMotley, but declined the mission. From 1871 to 1877 he was again a\nmember of the United States senate, in which he was prominent in debate\nand in committee work, and was chairman of the committee on foreign\naffairs during the Alabama Claims negotiations. He was a strong opponent\nof the reconstruction measures of President Johnson, for whose\nconviction he voted (on most of the specific charges) in the impeachment\ntrial. He was a member of the joint committee which drew up and reported\n(1877) the Electoral Commission Bill, and subsequently served as a\nmember of the commission. On the 12th of December 1881 he was appointed\nsecretary of state by President Arthur to succeed James G. Blaine, and\nserved until the inauguration of President Cleveland in 1885. Retiring,\nwith his health impaired by overwork, to his home in Newark, he died\nthere on the 20th of May, less than three months after relinquishing the\ncares of office.\n\n\n\n\nFREMANTLE, a seaport of Swan county, Western Australia, at the mouth of\nthe Swan river, 12 m. by rail S.W. of Perth. It is the terminus of the\nEastern railway, and is a town of some industrial activity,\nshipbuilding, soap-boiling, saw-milling, smelting, iron-founding,\nfurniture-making, flour-milling, brewing and tanning being its chief\nindustries. The harbour, by the construction of two long moles and the\nblasting away of the rocks at the bar, has been rendered secure. The\nEnglish, French and German mail steamers call at the port. Fremantle\nbecame a municipality in 1871; but there are now three separate\nmunicipalities--Fremantle, with a population in 1901 of 14,704;\nFremantle East (2494); and Fremantle North (3246). At Rottnest Island,\noff the harbour, there are government salt-works and a residence of the\ngovernor, also penal and reformatory establishments.\n\n\n\n\nFREMIET, EMMANUEL (1824-   ), French sculptor, born in Paris, was a\nnephew and pupil of Rude; he chiefly devoted himself to animal sculpture\nand to equestrian statues in armour. His earliest work was in scientific\nlithography (osteology), and for a while he served in times of adversity\nin the gruesome office of \"painter to the Morgue.\" In 1843 he sent to\nthe Salon a study of a \"Gazelle,\" and after that date was very prolific\nin his works. His \"Wounded Bear\" and \"Wounded Dog\" were produced in\n1850, and the Luxembourg Museum at once secured this striking example of\nhis work. From 1855 to 1859 Fremiet was engaged on a series of military\nstatuettes for Napoleon III. He produced his equestrian statue of\n\"Napoleon I.\" in 1868, and of \"Louis d'Orleans\" in 1869 (at the Chateau\nde Pierrefonds) and in 1874 the first equestrian statue of \"Joan of\nArc,\" erected in the Place des Pyramides, Paris; this he afterwards\n(1889) replaced with another and still finer version. In the meanwhile\nhe had exhibited his masterly \"Gorilla and Woman\" which won him a medal\nof honour at the Salon of 1887. Of the same character, and even more\nremarkable, is his \"Ourang-Outangs and Borneo Savage\" of 1895, a\ncommission from the Paris Museum of Natural History. Fremiet also\nexecuted the statue of \"St Michael\" for the summit of the spire of the\nEglise St Michel, and the equestrian statue of Velasquez for the Jardin\nde l'Infante at the Louvre. He became a member of the Academie des\nBeaux-Arts in 1892, and succeeded Barye as professor of animal drawing\nat the Natural History Museum of Paris.\n\n\n\n\nFREMONT, JOHN CHARLES (1813-1890), American explorer, soldier and\npolitical leader, was born in Savannah, Georgia, on the 21st of January\n1813. His father, a native of France, died when the boy was in his sixth\nyear, and his mother, a member of an aristocratic Virginia family, then\nremoved to Charleston, South Carolina. In 1828, after a year's special\npreparation, young Fremont entered the junior class of the college of\nCharleston, and here displayed marked ability, especially in\nmathematics; but his irregular attendance and disregard of college\ndiscipline led to his expulsion from the institution, which, however,\nconferred upon him a degree in 1836. In 1833 he was appointed teacher of\nmathematics on board the sloop of war \"Natchez,\" and was so engaged\nduring a cruise along the South American coast which was continued for\nabout two and a half years. Soon after returning to Charleston he was\nappointed professor of mathematics in the United States navy, but he\nchose instead to serve as assistant engineer of a survey undertaken\nchiefly for the purpose of finding a pass through the mountains for a\nproposed railway from Charleston to Cincinnati. In July 1838 he was\nappointed second lieutenant of Topographical Engineers in the United\nStates army, and for the next three years he was assistant to the French\nexplorer, Jean Nicholas Nicollet (1786-1843), employed by the war\ndepartment to survey and map a large part of the country lying between\nthe upper waters of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. In 1841 Fremont\nsurveyed, for the government, the lower course of the Des Moines river.\nIn the same year he married Jessie, the daughter of Senator Thomas H.\nBenton of Missouri, and it was in no small measure through Benton's\ninfluence with the government that Fremont was enabled to accomplish\nwithin the next few years the exploration of much of the territory\nbetween the Mississippi Valley and the Pacific Ocean.\n\nWhen the claim of the United States to the Oregon territory was being\nstrengthened by occupation, Fremont was sent, at his urgent request, to\nexplore the frontier beyond the Missouri river, and especially the Rocky\nMountains in the vicinity of the South Pass, through which the American\nimmigrants travelled. Within four months (1842) he surveyed the Pass and\nascended to the summit of the highest of the Wind River Mountains, since\nknown as Fremont's Peak, and the interest aroused by his descriptions\nwas such that in the next year he was sent on a second expedition to\ncomplete the survey across the continent along the line of travel from\nMissouri to the mouth of the Columbia river. This time he not only\ncarried out his instructions but, by further explorations together with\ninteresting descriptions, dispelled general ignorance with respect to\nthe main features of the country W. of the Rocky Mountains: the Great\nSalt Lake, the Great Basin, the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and the fertile\nriver basins of the Mexican province of California.\n\nHis report of this expedition upon his return to Washington, D.C., in\n1844, aroused much solicitude for California, which, it was feared,\nmight, in the event of war then threatening between the United States\nand Mexico, be seized by Great Britain. In the spring of 1845 Fremont\nwas despatched on a third expedition for the professed purposes of\nfurther exploring the Great Basin and the Pacific Coast, and of\ndiscovering the easiest lines of communication between them, as well as\nfor the secret purpose of assisting the United States, in case of war\nwith Mexico, to gain possession of California. He and his party of\nsixty-two arrived there in January 1846. Owing to the number of American\nimmigrants who had settled in California, the Mexican authorities there\nbecame suspicious and hostile, and ordered Fremont out of the province.\nInstead of obeying he pitched his camp near the summit of a mountain\noverlooking Monterey, fortified his position, and raised the United\nStates flag. A few days later he was proceeding toward the Oregon border\nwhen new instructions from Washington caused him to retrace his steps\nand, perhaps, to consider plans for provoking war. The extent of his\nresponsibility for the events that ensued is not wholly clear, and has\nbeen the subject of much controversy; his defenders have asserted that\nhe was not responsible for the seizure of Sonoma or for the so-called\n\"Bear-Flag War\"; and that he played a creditable part throughout. (For\nan opposite view see CALIFORNIA.) Commodore John D. Sloat, after seizing\nMonterey, transferred his command to Commodore Robert Field Stockton\n(1795-1866), who made Fremont major of a battalion; and by January 1847\nStockton and Fremont completed the conquest of California. In the\nmeantime General Stephen Watts Kearny (1794-1848) had been sent by the\nGovernment to conquer it and to establish a government. This created a\nconflict of authority between Stockton and Kearny, both of whom were\nFremont's superior officers. Stockton, ignoring Kearny, commissioned\nFremont military commandant and governor. But Kearny's authority being\nconfirmed about the 1st of April, Fremont, for repeated acts of\ndisobedience, was sent under arrest to Washington, where he was tried by\ncourt-martial, found guilty (January 1847) of mutiny, disobedience and\nconduct prejudicial to military discipline, and sentenced to dismissal\nfrom the service. President Polk approved of the verdict except as to\nmutiny, but remitted the penalty, whereupon Fremont resigned.\n\nWith the mountain-traversed region he had been exploring acquired by the\nUnited States, Fremont was eager for a railway from the Atlantic to the\nPacific, and in October 1848 he set out at his own and Senator Benton's\nexpense to find passes for such a railway along a line westward from the\nheadwaters of the Rio Grande. But he had not gone far when he was led\nastray by a guide, and after the loss of his entire outfit and several\nof his men, and intense suffering of the survivors from cold and hunger,\nhe turned southward through the valley of the Rio Grande and then\nwestward through the valley of the Gila into southern California. Late\nin the year 1853, however, he returned to the place where the guide had\nled him astray, found passes through the mountains to the westward\nbetween latitudes 37 deg. and 38 deg. N., and arrived in San Francisco early in\nMay 1854. From the conclusion of his fourth expedition until March 1855,\nwhen he removed to New York city, he lived in California, and in\nDecember 1849 was elected one of the first two United States senators\nfrom the new state. But as he drew the short term, he served only from\nthe 10th of September 1850 to the 3rd of March 1851. Although a\ncandidate for re-election, he was defeated by the pro-slavery party. His\nopposition to slavery, however, together with his popularity--won by the\nsuccesses, hardships and dangers of his exploring expeditions, and by\nhis part in the conquest of California--led to his nomination, largely\non the ground of \"availability,\" for the presidency in 1856 by the\nRepublicans (this being their first presidential campaign), and by the\nNational Americans or \"Know-Nothings.\" In the ensuing election he was\ndefeated by James Buchanan by 174 to 114 electoral votes.\n\nSoon after the Civil War began, Fremont was appointed major-general and\nplaced in command of the western department with headquarters at St\nLouis, but his lack of judgment and of administrative ability soon became\napparent, the affairs of his department fell into disorder, and Fremont\nseems to have been easily duped by dishonest contractors whom he trusted.\nOn the 30th of August 1861 he issued a proclamation in which he declared\nthe property of Missourians in rebellion confiscated and their slaves\nemancipated. For this he was applauded by the radical Republicans, but\nhis action was contrary to an act of congress of the 6th of August and to\nthe policy of the Administration. On the 11th of September President\nLincoln, who regarded the action as premature and who saw that it might\nalienate Kentucky and other border states, whose adherence he was trying\nto secure, annulled these declarations. Impelled by serious charges\nagainst Fremont, the president sent Montgomery Blair, the\npostmaster-general, and Montgomery C. Meigs, the quartermaster-general,\nto investigate the department; they reported that Fremont's management\nwas extravagant and inefficient; and in November he was removed. Out of\nconsideration for the \"Radicals,\" however, Fremont was placed in command\nof the Mountain Department of Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee. In the\nspring and summer of 1862 he co-operated with General N. P. Banks against\n\"Stonewall\" Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley, but showed little ability\nas a commander, was defeated by General Ewell at Cross Keys, and when his\ntroops were united with those of Generals Banks and McDowell to form the\nArmy of Virginia, of which General John Pope was placed in command,\nFremont declined to serve under Pope, whom he outranked, and retired from\nactive service. On the 31st of May 1864 he was nominated for the\npresidency by a radical faction of the Republican party, opposed to\nPresident Lincoln, but his following was so small that on the 21st of\nSeptember he withdrew from the contest. From 1878 to 1881 he was governor\nof the territory of Arizona, and in the last year of his life he was\nappointed by act of congress a major-general and placed on the retired\nlist. He died in New York on the 13th of July 1890.\n\n  See J. C. Fremont, _Report of the Exploring Expedition to the Rocky\n  Mountains, 1842, and to Oregon and North California, 1843-1844_\n  (Washington, 1845); Fremont's _Memoirs of my Life_ (New York, 1887);\n  and J. Bigelow, _Memoirs of the Life and Public Services of John C.\n  Fremont_ (New York, 1856).\n\n\n\n\nFREMONT, a city and the county-seat of Dodge county, Nebraska, U.S.A.,\nabout 37 m. N.W. of Omaha, on the N. bank of the Platte river, which\nhere abounds in picturesque bluffs and wooded islands. Pop. (1890) 6747;\n(1900) 7241 (1303 foreign-born); (1910) 8718. It is on the main line of\nthe Union Pacific railway, on a branch of the Chicago, Burlington &\nQuincy system, and on the main western line of the Chicago &\nNorth-Western railway, several branches of which (including the formerly\nindependent Fremont, Elkhorn & Missouri Valley and the Sioux City &\nPacific) converge here. The city has an attractive situation and is\nbeautifully shaded. It has a public library and is the seat of the\nFremont College, Commercial Institute and School of Pharmacy (1875), a\nprivate institution. There is considerable local trade with the rich\nfarming country of the Platte and Elkhorn valleys; and the wholesale\ngrain interests are especially important. Among the manufactures are\nflour, carriages, saddlery, canned vegetables, furniture, incubators and\nbeer. The city owns and operates its electric-lighting plant and\nwater-works. Fremont was founded in 1856, and became the county-seat in\n1860. It was chartered as a city (second-class) in 1871, and became a\ncity of the first class in 1901.\n\n\n\n\nFREMONT, a city and the county-seat of Sandusky county, Ohio, U.S.A., on\nthe Sandusky river, 30 m. S.E. of Toledo. Pop. (1890) 7141; (1900) 8439,\nof whom 1074 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 9939. Fremont is served by\nthe Lake Shore & Michigan Southern, the Lake Shore Electric, the Lake\nErie & Western, and the Wheeling & Lake Erie railways. The river is\nnavigable to this point. Spiegel Grove, the former residence of\nRutherford B. Hayes, is of interest, and the city has a public library\n(1873) and parks, in large measure the gifts of his uncle, Sardis\nBirchard. Fremont is situated in a good agricultural region; oil and\nnatural gas abound in the vicinity; and the city has various\nmanufactures, including boilers, electro-carbons, cutlery, bricks,\nagricultural implements, stoves and ranges, safety razors, carriage\nirons, sash, doors, blinds, furniture, beet sugar, canned vegetables,\nmalt extract, garters and suspenders. The total factory product was\nvalued at $2,833,385 in 1905, an increase of 23.4% over that of 1900.\nFremont is on the site of a favourite abode of the Indians, and a\ntrading post was at times maintained here; but the place is best known\nin history as the site of Fort Stephenson, erected during the War of\n1812, and on the 2nd of August 1813 gallantly and successfully defended\nby Major George Croghan (1791-1849), with 160 men, against about 1000\nBritish and Indians under Brigadier-General Henry A. Proctor. In 1906\nCroghan's remains were re-interred on the site of the old fort. Until\n1849, when the present name was adopted in honour of J. C. Fremont, the\nplace was known as Lower Sandusky; it was incorporated as a village in\n1829 and was first chartered as a city in 1867.\n\n\n\n\nFREMY, EDMOND (1814-1894), French chemist, was born at Versailles on the\n29th of February 1814. Entering Gay-Lussac's laboratory in 1831, he\nbecame _preparateur_ at the Ecole Polytechnique in 1834 and at the\nCollege de France in 1837. His next post was that of _repetiteur_ at the\nEcole Polytechnique, where in 1846 he was appointed professor, and in\n1850 he succeeded Gay-Lussac in the chair of chemistry at the Museum\nd'Histoire Naturelle, of which he was director, in succession to M. E.\nChevreul, from 1879 to 1891. He died at Paris on the 3rd of February\n1894. His work included investigations of osmic acid, of the ferrates,\nstannates, plumbates, &c., and of ozone, attempts to obtain free\nfluorine by the electrolysis of fused fluorides, and the discovery of\nanhydrous hydrofluoric acid and of a series of _acides sulphazotes_, the\nprecise nature of which long remained a matter of discussion. He also\nstudied the colouring matters of leaves and flowers, the composition of\nbone, cerebral matter and other animal substances, and the processes of\nfermentation, in regard to the nature of which he was an opponent of\nPasteur's views. Keenly alive to the importance of the technical\napplications of chemistry, he devoted special attention as a teacher to\nthe training of industrial chemists. In this field he contributed to our\nknowledge of the manufacture of iron and steel, sulphuric acid, glass\nand paper, and in particular worked at the saponification of fats with\nsulphuric acid and the utilization of palmitic acid for candle-making.\nIn the later years of his life he applied himself to the problem of\nobtaining alumina in the crystalline form, and succeeded in making\nrubies identical with the natural gem not merely in chemical composition\nbut also in physical properties.\n\n\n\n\nFRENCH, DANIEL CHESTER (1850-   ), American sculptor, was born at\nExeter, New Hampshire, on the 20th of April 1850, the son of Henry Flagg\nFrench, a lawyer, who for a time was assistant-secretary of the United\nStates treasury. After a year at the Massachusetts Institute of\nTechnology, French spent a month in the studio of John Q. A. Ward, then\nbegan to work on commissions, and at the age of twenty-three received\nfrom the town of Concord, Massachusetts, an order for his well-known\nstatue \"The Minute Man,\" which was unveiled (April 19, 1875) on the\ncentenary of the battle of Concord. Previously French had gone to\nFlorence, Italy, where he spent a year with Thomas Ball. French's\nbest-known work is \"Death Staying the Hand of the Sculptor,\" a memorial\nfor the tomb of the sculptor Martin Milmore, in the Forest Hills\ncemetery, Boston; this received a medal of honour at Paris, in 1900.\nAmong his other works are: a monument to John Boyle O'Reilly, Boston;\n\"Gen. Cass,\" National Hall of Statuary, Washington; \"Dr Gallaudet and\nhis First Deaf-Mute Pupil,\" Washington; the colossal \"Statue of the\nRepublic,\" for the Columbian Exposition at Chicago; statues of Rufus\nChoate (Boston), John Harvard (Cambridge, Mass.), and Thomas Starr King\n(San Francisco, California), a memorial to the architect Richard M.\nHunt, in Fifth Avenue, opposite the Lenox library, New York, and a large\n\"Alma Mater,\" near the approach to Columbia University, New York. In\ncollaboration with Edward C. Potter he modelled the \"Washington,\"\npresented to France by the Daughters of the American Revolution; the\n\"General Grant\" in Fairmount Park, Philadelphia, and the \"General Joseph\nHooker\" in Boston. French became a member of the National Academy of\nDesign (1901), the National Sculpture Society, the Architectural League,\nand the Accademia di San Luca, of Rome.\n\n\n\n\nFRENCH, NICHOLAS (1604-1678), bishop of Ferns, was an Irish political\npamphleteer, who was born at Wexford. He was educated at Louvain, and\nreturning to Ireland became a priest at Wexford, and before 1646 was\nappointed bishop of Ferns. Having taken a prominent part in the\npolitical disturbances of this period, French deemed it prudent to leave\nIreland in 1651, and the remainder of his life was passed on the\ncontinent of Europe. He acted as coadjutor to the archbishops of\nSantiago de Compostella and Paris, and to the bishop of Ghent, and died\nat Ghent on the 23rd of August 1678. In 1676 he published his attack on\nJames Butler, marquess of Ormonde, entitled \"The Unkinde Desertor of\nLoyall Men and True Frinds,\" and shortly afterwards \"The Bleeding\nIphigenia.\" The most important of his other pamphlets is the \"Narrative\nof the Earl of Clarendon's Settlement and Sale of Ireland\" (Louvain,\n1668).\n\n  The _Historical Works_ of Bishop French, comprising the three\n  pamphlets already mentioned and some letters, were published by S. H.\n  Bindon at Dublin in 1846. See T. D. McGee, _Irish Writers of the 17th\n  Century_ (Dublin, 1846); Sir J. T. Gilbert, _Contemporary History of\n  Affairs in Ireland_, 1641-1652 (Dublin, 1879-1880); and T. Carte,\n  _Life of James, Duke of Ormond_ (new ed., Oxford, 1851).\n\n\n\n\nFRENCH CONGO, the general name of the French possessions in equatorial\nAfrica. They have an area estimated at 700,000 sq. m., with a\npopulation, also estimated, of 6,000,000 to 10,000,000. The whites\nnumbered (1906) 1278, of whom 502 were officials. French Congo,\nofficially renamed FRENCH EQUATORIAL AFRICA in 1910, comprises--(1) the\nGabun Colony, (2) the Middle Congo Colony, (3) the Ubangi-Shari\nCircumscription, (4) the Chad Circumscription. The two last-named\ndivisions form the Ubangi-Shari-Chad Colony.\n\nThe present article treats of French Congo as a unit. It is of highly\nirregular shape. It is bounded W. by the Atlantic, N. by the (Spanish)\nMuni River Settlements, the German colony of Cameroon and the Sahara, E.\nby the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, and S. by Belgian Congo and the Portuguese\nterritory of Kabinda. In the greater part of its length the southern\nfrontier is the middle course of the Congo and the Ubangi and Mbomu, the\nchief northern affluents of that stream, but in the south-west the\nfrontier keeps north of the Congo river, whose navigable lower course is\npartitioned between Belgium and Portugal. The coast line, some 600 m.\nlong, extends from 5 deg. S. to 1 deg. N. The northern frontier, starting inland\nfrom the Muni estuary, after skirting the Spanish settlements follows a\nline drawn a little north of 2 deg. N. and extending east to 16 deg. E. North of\nthis line the country is part of Cameroon, German territory extending so\nfar inland from the Gulf of Guinea as to approach within 130 m. of the\nUbangi. From the intersection of the lines named, at which point French\nCongo is at its narrowest, the frontier runs north and then east until\nthe Shari is reached in 10 deg. 40' N. The Shari then forms the frontier up\nto Lake Chad, where French Congo joins the Saharan regions of French\nWest Africa. The eastern frontier, separating the colony from the\nAnglo-Egyptian Sudan, is the water-parting between the Nile and the\nCongo. The Mahommedan sultanates of Wadai and Bagirmi occupy much of the\nnorthern part of French Congo (see WADAI and BAGIRMI).\n\n  _Physical Features._--The coast line, beginning in the north at\n  Corisco Bay, is shortly afterwards somewhat deeply indented by the\n  estuary of the Gabun, south of which the shore runs in a nearly\n  straight line until the delta of the Ogowe is reached, where Cape\n  Lopez projects N.W. From this point the coast trends uniformly S.E.\n  without presenting any striking features, though the Bay of Mayumba,\n  the roadstead of Loango, and the Pointe Noire may be mentioned. A\n  large proportion of the coast region is occupied by primeval forest,\n  with trees rising to a height of 150 and 200 ft., but there is a\n  considerable variety of scenery--open lagoons, mangrove swamps,\n  scattered clusters of trees, park-like reaches, dense walls of tangled\n  underwood along the rivers, prairies of tall grass and patches of\n  cultivation. Behind the coast region is a ridge which rises from 3000\n  to 4500 ft., called the Crystal Mountains, then a plateau with an\n  elevation varying from 1500 to 2800 ft., cleft with deep\n  river-valleys, the walls of which are friable, almost vertical, and in\n  some places 760 ft. high.\n\n  [Illustration: Map of French Congo.]\n\n  The coast rivers flowing into the Atlantic cross four terraces. On the\n  higher portion of the plateau their course is over bare sand; on the\n  second terrace, from 1200 to 2000 ft. high, it is over wide grassy\n  tracts; then, for some 100 m., the rivers pass through virgin forest,\n  and, lastly, they cross the shore region, which is about 10 m. broad.\n  The rivers which fall directly into the Atlantic are generally\n  unnavigable. The most important, the Ogowe (q.v.), is, however,\n  navigable from its mouth to N'Jole, a distance of 235 m. Rivers to the\n  south of the Ogowe are the Nyanga, 120 m. long, and the Kwilu. The\n  latter, 320 m. in length, is formed by the Kiasi and the Luete; it has\n  a very winding course, flowing by turns from north to south, from east\n  to west, from south to north-west and from north to south-west. It is\n  encumbered with rocks and eddies, and is navigable only over 38 m.,\n  and for five months in the year. The mouth is 1100 ft. wide. The Muni\n  river, the northernmost in the colony, is obstructed by cataracts in\n  its passage through the escarpment to the coast.\n\n  Nearly all the upper basin of the Shari (q.v.) as well as the right\n  bank of the lower river is within French Congo. The greater part of\n  the country belongs, however, to the drainage area of the Congo river.\n  In addition to the northern banks of the Mbomu and Ubangi, 330 m. of\n  the north shore of the Congo itself are in the French protectorate as\n  well as numerous subsidiary streams. For some 100 m. however, the\n  right bank of the Sanga, the most important of these subsidiary\n  streams, is in German territory (see CONGO).\n\n  _Geology._--Three main divisions are recognized in the French\n  Congo:--(1) the littoral zone, covered with alluvium and superficial\n  deposits and underlain by Tertiary and Cretaceous rocks; (2) the\n  mountain zone of the Crystal Mountains, composed of granite,\n  metamorphic and ancient sediments; (3) the plateau of the northern\n  portion of the Congo basin, occupied by Karroo sandstones. The core of\n  the Crystal Mountains consists of granite and schists. Infolded with\n  them, and on the flanks, are three rock systems ascribed to the\n  Silurian, Devonian and Carboniferous. These are unfossiliferous, but\n  fossils of Devonian age occur on the Congo (see CONGO FREE STATE).\n  Granite covers wide areas north-west of the Crystal Mountains. The\n  plateau sandstones lie horizontally and consist of a lower red\n  sandstone group and an upper white sandstone group. They have not\n  yielded fossils. Limestones of Lower Cretaceous age, with\n  _Schloenbachia inflata_, occur north of the Gabun and in the Ogowe\n  basin. Marls and limestones with fossils of an Eocene facies overlie\n  the Cretaceous rocks on the Gabun. A superficial iron-cemented sand,\n  erroneously termed laterite, covers large areas in the littoral zone,\n  on the flanks of the mountains and on the high plateau.\n\n  _Climate._--The whole of the country being in the equatorial region,\n  the climate is everywhere very hot and dangerous for Europeans. On the\n  coast four seasons are distinguished: the dry season (15th of May to\n  15th of September), the rainy season (15th of September to 15th of\n  January), then a second dry season (15th of January to 1st of March),\n  and a second rainy season (1st of March to 15th of May). The rainfall\n  at Libreville is about 96 in. a year.\n\n  _Flora and Fauna._--The elephant, the hippopotamus, the crocodile and\n  several kinds of apes--including the chimpanzee and the rare\n  gorilla--are the most noteworthy larger animals; the birds are various\n  and beautiful--grey parrots, shrikes, fly-catchers, rhinoceros birds,\n  weaver birds (often in large colonies on the palm-trees), ice-birds,\n  from the _Cecyle Sharpii_ to the dwarfish _Alcedo cristata_, butterfly\n  finches, and helmet-birds (_Turacus giganteus_), as well as more\n  familiar types. Snakes are extremely common. The curious\n  climbing-fish, which frequents the mangroves, the _Protopterus_ or\n  lung-fish, which lies in the mud in a state of lethargy during the dry\n  season, the strange and poisonous _Tetrodon guttifer_, and the\n  herring-like _Pellona africana_, often caught in great shoals--are the\n  more remarkable of the fishes. Oysters are got in abundance from the\n  lagoons, and the huge _Cardisoma armatum_ or heart-crab is fattened\n  for table. Fireflies, mosquitoes and sandflies are among the most\n  familiar forms of insect life. A kind of ant builds very striking\n  bent-house or umbrella-shaped nests rising on the tree trunks one\n  above the other.\n\n  Among the more characteristic forms of vegetation are baobabs,\n  silk-cotton trees, screw-pines and palms--especially _Hyphaene\n  guineensis_ (a fan-palm), _Raphia_ (the wine-palm), and _Elaeis\n  guineensis_ (the oil-palm). Anonaceous plants (notably _Anona\n  senegalensis_), and the _pallabanda_, an olive-myrtle-like tree, are\n  common in the prairies; the papyrus shoots up to a height of 20 ft.\n  along the rivers; the banks are fringed by the cottony _Hibiscus\n  tiliaceus_, ipomaeas and fragrant jasmines; and the thickets are bound\n  together in one inextricable mass by lianas of many kinds. In the\n  upper Shari region, and that of the Kotto tributary of the Ubangi, are\n  species of the coffee tree, one species attaining a height of over 60\n  ft. Its bean resembles that of Abyssinian coffee of medium quality.\n  Among the fruit trees are the mango and the papaw, the orange and the\n  lemon. Negro-pepper (a variety of capsicum) and ginger grow wild.\n\n  _Inhabitants and Chief Towns._--A census, necessarily imperfect, taken\n  in 1906 showed a total population, exclusive of Wadai, of 3,652,000,\n  divided in districts as follows:--Gabun, 376,000; Middle Congo,\n  259,000; Ubangi-Shari, 2,130,000; Chad, 885,000. The country is\n  peopled by diverse negro races, and, in the regions bordering Lake\n  Chad and in Wadai, by Fula, Hausa, Arabs and semi-Arab tribes. Among\n  the best-known tribes living in French Congo are the Fang (Fans), the\n  Bakalai, the Batekes and the Zandeh or Niam-Niam. Several of the\n  tribes are cannibals and among many of them the fetish worship\n  characteristic of the West African negroes prevails. Their\n  civilization is of a low order. In the northern regions the majority\n  of the inhabitants are Mahommedans, and it is only in those districts\n  that organized and powerful states exist. Elsewhere the authority of a\n  chief or \"king\" extends, ordinarily, little beyond the village in\n  which he lives. (An account of the chief tribes is given under their\n  names.) The European inhabitants are chiefly of French nationality,\n  and are for the most part traders, officials and missionaries.\n\n  The chief towns are Libreville (capital of the Gabun colony) with 3000\n  inhabitants; Brazzaville, on the Congo on the north side of Stanley\n  Pool (opposite the Belgian capital of Leopoldville), the seat of the\n  governor-general; Franceville, on the upper Ogowe; Loango, an\n  important seaport in 4 deg. 39' S.; N'Jole, a busy trading centre on the\n  lower Ogowe; Chekna, capital of Bagirmi, which forms part of the Chad\n  territory; Abeshr, the capital of Wadai, Bangi on the Ubangi river,\n  the administrative capital of the Ubangi-Shari-Chad colony. Kunde,\n  Lame and Binder are native trading centres near the Cameroon frontier.\n\n  _Communications._--The rivers are the chief means of internal\n  communication. Access to the greater part of the colony is obtained by\n  ocean steamers to Matadi on the lower Congo, and thence round the\n  falls by the Congo railway to Stanley Pool. From Brazzaville on\n  Stanley Pool there is 680 m. of uninterrupted steam navigation N.E.\n  into the heart of Africa, 330 m. being on the Congo and 350 m. on the\n  Ubangi. The farthest point reached is Zongo, where rapids block the\n  river, but beyond that port there are several navigable stretches of\n  the Ubangi, and for small vessels access to the Nile is possible by\n  means of the Bahr-el-Ghazal tributaries. The Sanga, which joins the\n  Congo, 270 m. above Brazzaville, can be navigated by steamers for 350\n  m., i.e. up to and beyond the S.E. frontier of the German colony of\n  Cameroon. The Shari is also navigable for a considerable distance and\n  by means of its affluent, the Logone, connects with the Benue and\n  Niger, affording a waterway between the Gulf of Guinea and Lake Chad.\n  Stores for government posts in the Chad territory are forwarded by\n  this route. There is, however, no connecting link between the coast\n  rivers--Gabun, Ogowe and Kwilu and the Congo system. A railway, about\n  500 m. long, from the Gabun to the Sanga is projected and the surveys\n  for the purpose made. Another route surveyed for a railway is that\n  from Loango to Brazzaville. A narrow-gauge line, 75 m. long, from\n  Brazzaville to Mindule in the cataracts region was begun in November\n  1908, the first railway to be built in French Congo. The district\n  served by the line is rich in copper and other minerals. From Wadai a\n  caravan route across the Sahara leads to Bengazi on the shores of the\n  Mediterranean. Telegraph lines connect Loango with Brazzaville and\n  Libreville, there is telegraphic communication with Europe by\n  submarine cable, and steamship communication between Loango and\n  Libreville and Marseilles, Bordeaux, Liverpool and Hamburg.\n\n  _Trade and Agriculture._--The chief wealth of the colony consists in\n  the products of its forests and in ivory. The natives, in addition to\n  manioc, their principal food, cultivate bananas, ground nuts and\n  tobacco. On plantations owned by Europeans coffee, cocoa and vanilla\n  are grown. European vegetables are raised easily. Gold, iron and\n  copper are found. Copper ores have been exported from Mindule since\n  1905. The chief exports are rubber and ivory, next in importance\n  coming palm nuts and palm oil, ebony and other woods, coffee, cocoa\n  and copal. The imports are mainly cotton and metal goods, spirits and\n  foodstuffs. In the Gabun and in the basin of the Ogowe the French\n  customs tariff, with some modifications, prevails, but in the Congo\n  basin, that is, in the greater part of the country, by virtue of\n  international agreements, no discrimination can be made between French\n  and other merchandise, whilst customs duties must not exceed 10% _ad\n  valorem_.[1] In the Shari basin and in Wadai the Anglo-French\n  declaration of March 1899 accorded for thirty years equal treatment to\n  British and French goods. The value of the trade rose in the ten years\n  1896-1905 from L360,000 to L850,000, imports and exports being nearly\n  equal. The bulk of the export trade is with Great Britain, which takes\n  most of the rubber, France coming second and Germany third. The\n  imports are in about equal proportions from France and foreign\n  countries.\n\n  _Land Tenure. The Concessions Regime._--Land held by the natives is\n  governed by tribal law, but the state only recognizes native ownership\n  in land actually occupied by the aborigines. The greater part of the\n  country is considered a state domain. Land held by Europeans is\n  subject to the Civil Code of France except such estates as have been\n  registered under the terms of a decree of the 28th of March 1899,\n  when, registration having been effected, the title to the land is\n  guaranteed by the state. Nearly the whole of the colony has been\n  divided since 1899 into large estates held by limited liability\n  companies to whom has been granted the sole right of exploiting the\n  land leased to them. The companies holding concessions numbered in\n  1904 about forty, with a combined capital of over L2,000,000, whilst\n  the concessions varied in size from 425 sq. m. to 54,000 sq. m. One\n  effect of the granting of concessions was the rapid decline in the\n  business of non-concessionaire traders, of whom the most important\n  were Liverpool merchants established in the Gabun before the advent of\n  the French. As by the Act of Berlin of 1885, to which all the European\n  powers were signatories, equality of treatment in commercial affairs\n  was guaranteed to all nations in the Congo basin, protests were raised\n  against the terms of the concessions. The reply was that the critics\n  confused the exercise of the right of proprietorship with the act of\n  commerce, and that in no country was the landowner who farmed his land\n  and sold the produce regarded as a merchant. Various decisions by the\n  judges of the colony during 1902 and 1903 and by the French _cour de\n  cassation_ in 1905 confirmed that contention. The action of the\n  companies was, however, in most cases, neither beneficial to the\n  country nor financially successful, whilst the native cultivators\n  resented the prohibition of their trading direct with their former\n  customers. The case of the Liverpool traders was taken up by the\n  British government and it was agreed that the dispute should be\n  settled by arbitration. In September 1908 the French government issued\n  a decree reorganizing and rendering more stringent the control\n  exercised by the local authorities over the concession companies,\n  especially in matters concerning the rights of natives and the liberty\n  of commerce.\n\n\n  De Brazza's treaties.\n\n_History._--The Gabun was visited in the 15th century by the Portuguese\nexplorers, and it became one of the chief seats of the slave trade. It\nwas not, however, till well on in the 19th century that Europeans made\nany more permanent settlement than was absolutely necessary for the\nmaintenance of their commerce. In 1839 Captain (afterwards Admiral)\nBouet-Willaumez obtained for France the right of residence on the left\nbank, and in 1842 he secured better positions on the right bank. The\nprimary object of the French settlement was to secure a port wherein\nmen-of-war could revictual. The chief establishment, Libreville, was\nfounded in 1849, with negroes taken from a slave ship. The settlement in\ntime acquired importance as a trading port. In 1867 the troops numbered\nabout 1000, and the civil population about 5000, while the official\nreports about the same date claimed for the whole colony an area of 8000\nsq. m. and a population of 186,000. Cape Lopez had been ceded to France\nin 1862, and the colony's coast-line extended, nominally, to a length of\n200 m. In consequence of the war with Germany the colony was practically\nabandoned in 1871, the establishment at Libreville being maintained as a\ncoaling depot merely. In 1875, however, France again turned her\nattention to the Gabun estuary, the hinterland of which had already been\npartly explored. Paul du Chaillu penetrated (1855-1859 and 1863-1865) to\nthe south of the Ogowe; Walker, an English merchant, explored the\nNgunye, an affluent of the Ogowe, in 1866. In 1872-1873 Alfred Marche, a\nFrench naturalist, and the marquis de Compiegne[2] explored a portion of\nthe Ogowe basin, but it was not until the expedition of 1875-1878 that\nthe country east of the Ogowe was reached. This expedition was led by\nSavorgnan de Brazza (q.v.), who was accompanied by Dr Noel Eugene\nBallay, and, for part of the time, by Marche. De Brazza's expedition,\nwhich was compelled to remain for many months at several places,\nascended the Ogowe over 400 m., and beyond the basin of that stream\ndiscovered the Alima, which was, though the explorers were ignorant of\nthe fact, a tributary of the Congo. From the Alima, de Brazza and Ballay\nturned north and finally reached the Gabun in November 1878, the journey\nbeing less fruitful in results than the time it occupied would indicate.\nReturning to Europe, de Brazza learned that H. M. Stanley had revealed\nthe mystery of the Congo, and in his next journey, begun December 1879,\nthe French traveller undertook to find a way to the Congo above the\nrapids via the Ogowe. In this he was successful, and in September 1880\nreached Stanley Pool, on the north side of which Brazzaville was\nsubsequently founded. Returning to the Gabun by the lower Congo, de\nBrazza met Stanley. Both explorers were nominally in the service of the\nInternational African Association (see CONGO FREE STATE), but de Brazza\nin reality acted solely in the interests of France and concluded\ntreaties with Makoko, \"king of the Batekes,\" and other chieftains,\nplacing very large areas under the protection of that country. The\nconflicting claims of the Association (which became the Congo Free\nState) and France were adjusted by a convention signed in February\n1885.[3] In the meantime de Brazza and Ballay had more fully explored\nthe country behind the coast regions of Gabun and Loango, the last-named\nseaport being occupied by France in 1883. The conclusion of agreements\nwith Germany (December 1885 and February-March 1894) and with Portugal\n(May 1886) secured France in the possession of the western portion of\nthe colony as it now exists, whilst an arrangement with the Congo Free\nState in 1887 settled difficulties which had arisen in the Ubangi\ndistrict.\n\n\n  The advance towards the Nile: Fashoda.\n\nThe extension of French influence northward towards Lake Chad and\neastward to the verge of the basin of the Nile followed, though not\nwithout involving the country in serious disputes with the other\nEuropean powers possessing rights in those regions. By creating the\nposts of Bangi (1890), Wesso and Abiras (1891), France strengthened her\nhold over the Ubangi and the Sanga. But at the same time the Congo Free\nState passed the parallel of 4 deg. N.--which, after the compromise of 1887,\nFrance had regarded as the southern boundary of her possessions--and,\noccupying the sultanate of Bangasso (north of the Ubangi river), pushed\non as far as 9 deg. N. The dispute which ensued was only settled in 1894 and\nafter the signature of the convention between Great Britain and the\nCongo State of the 12th of May of that year, against which both the\nGerman and the French governments protested, the last named because it\nerected a barrier against the extension of French territory to the Nile\nvalley. By a compromise of the 14th of August the boundary was\ndefinitely drawn and, in accordance with this pact, which put the\nfrontier back to about 4 deg. N., France from 1895 to 1897 took possession\nof the upper Ubangi, with Bangasso, Rafai and Zemio. Then began the\nFrench encroachment on the Bahr-el-Ghazal; the Marchand expedition,\ndespatched to the support of Victor Liotard, the lieutenant-governor of\nthe upper Ubangi, reached Tambura in July 1897 and Fashoda in July 1898.\nA dispute with Great Britain arose, and it was decided that the\nexpedition should evacuate Fashoda. The declaration of the 21st of March\n1899 finally terminated the dispute, fixing the eastern frontier of the\nFrench colony as already stated. Thus, after the Franco-Spanish treaty\nof June 1900 settling the limits of the Spanish territory on the coast,\nthe boundaries of the French Congo on all its frontiers were determined\nin broad outline. The Congo-Cameroon frontier was precisely defined by\nanother Franco-German agreement in April 1908, following a detailed\nsurvey made by joint commissioners in 1905 and 1906. For a comprehensive\ndescription of these international rivalries see AFRICA, Sec. 5, and for\nthe conquest of the Chad regions see BAGIRMI and RABAH ZOBEIR. In the\nother portions of the colony French rule was accepted by the natives,\nfor the most part, peaceably. For the relations of France with Wadai see\nthat article.\n\nFollowing the acquisitions for France of de Brazza, the ancient Gabun\ncolony was joined to the Congo territories. From 1886 to 1889 Gabun was,\nhowever, separately administered. By decree of the 11th of December 1888\nthe whole of the French possessions were created one \"colony\" under the\nstyle of Congo francais, with various subdivisions; they were placed\nunder a commissioner-general (de Brazza) having his residence at\nBrazzaville. This arrangement proved detrimental to the economic\ndevelopment of the Gabun settlements, which being outside the limits of\nthe free trade conventional basin of the Congo (see AFRICA, Sec. 5) enjoyed\na separate tariff. By decree of the 29th of December 1903 (which became\noperative in July 1904) Congo francais was divided into four parts as\nnamed in the opening paragraph. The first commissioner-general under the\nnew scheme was Emile Gentil, the explorer of the Shari and Chad. In 1905\nde Brazza was sent out from France to investigate charges of cruelty and\nmaladministration brought against officials of the colony, several of\nwhich proved well founded. De Brazza died at Dakar when on his way home.\nThe French government, after considering the report he had drawn up,\ndecided to retain Gentil as commissioner-general, making however (decree\nof 15th of February 1906) various changes in administration with a view\nto protect the natives and control the concession companies. Gentil, who\ndevoted the next two years to the reorganization of the finances of the\ncountry and the development of its commerce, resigned his post in\nFebruary 1908. He was succeeded by M. Merlin, whose title was changed\n(June 1908) to that of governor-general.\n\n  _Administration and Revenue._--The governor-general has control over\n  the whole of French Congo, but does not directly administer any part\n  of it, the separate colonies being under lieutenant-governors. The\n  Gabun colony includes the Gabun estuary and the whole of the\n  coast-line of French Congo, together with the basin of the Ogowe\n  river. The inland frontier is so drawn as to include all the\n  hinterland not within the Congo free-trade zone (the Chad district\n  excepted). The Middle Congo has for its western frontier the Gabun\n  colony and Cameroon, and extends inland to the easterly bend of the\n  Ubangi river; the two circumscriptions extend east and north of the\n  Middle Congo. There is a general budget for the whole of French Congo;\n  each colony has also a separate budget and administrative autonomy. As\n  in other French colonies the legislative power is in the French\n  chambers only, but in the absence of specific legislation presidential\n  decrees have the force of law. A judicial service independent of the\n  executive exists, but the district administrators also exercise\n  judicial functions. Education is in the hands of the missionaries,\n  upwards of 50 schools being established by 1909. The military force\n  maintained consists of natives officered by Europeans.\n\n  Revenue is derived from taxes on land, rent paid by concession\n  companies, a capitation or hut tax on natives, and customs receipts,\n  supplemented by a subvention from France. In addition to defraying the\n  military expenses, about L100,000 a year, a grant of L28,000 yearly\n  was made up to 1906 by the French chambers towards the civil expenses.\n  In 1907 the budget of the Congo balanced at about L250,000 without the\n  aid of this subvention. In 1909 the chambers sanctioned a loan for the\n  colony of L840,000, guaranteed by France and to be applied to the\n  establishment of administrative stations and public works.\n\n  BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Fernand Rouget, _L'Expansion coloniale au Congo\n  francais_ (Paris, 1906), a valuable monograph, with bibliography and\n  maps; A. Chevalier, _L'Afrique centrale francaise_ (Paris, 1907). For\n  special studies see Lacroix, _Resultats mineralogiques et zoologiques\n  des recentes explorations de l'Afrique occidentale francaise et de la\n  region du Tchad_ (Paris, 1905); M. Barrat, _Sur la geologie du Congo\n  francais_ (Paris, 1895), and _Ann. des mines_, ser. q. t. vii. (1895);\n  J. Cornet, \"Les Formations post-primaires du bassin du Congo,\" _Ann.\n  soc, geol. belg._ vol. xxi. (1895). The Paris _Bulletin du Museum_ for\n  1903 and 1904 contains papers on the zoology of the country. For flora\n  see numerous papers by A. Chevalier in _Comptes rendus de l'academie\n  des sciences_ (1902-1904), and the _Journal d'agriculture pratique des\n  pays chauds_ (1901, &c.). For history, besides Rouget's book, see J.\n  Ancel, \"Etude historique. La formation de la colonie du Congo\n  francais, 1843-1882,\" containing an annotated bibliography, in _Bull.\n  Com. l'Afrique francaise_, vol. xii. (1902); the works cited under\n  BRAZZA; and E. Gentil, _La Chute de l'empire de Rabah_ (Paris, 1902).\n  Of earlier books of travels the most valuable are:--Paul du Chaillu,\n  _Explorations and Adventures in Equatorial Africa_ (London, 1861); _A\n  Journey to Ashonga Land_ (London, 1867); and Sir R. Burton, _Two Trips\n  to Gorilla Land_ (London, 1876). Of later works see Mary H. Kingsley,\n  _Travels in West Africa_ (London, 1897); A. B. de Mezieres, _Rapport\n  de mission sur le Haut Oubangui, le M'Bomou et le Bahr-el-Ghazal_\n  (Paris, 1903); and C. Maistre, _A travers l'Afrique centrale du Congo\n  au Niger_, 1892-1893 (Paris, 1895). For the story of the concession\n  companies see E. D. Morel, _The British Case in French Congo_ (London,\n  1903).     (F. R. C.)\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n  [1] Berlin Act of 1885; Brussels conference of 1890 (see AFRICA:\n    _History_).\n\n  [2] Louis Eugene Henri Dupont, marquis de Compiegne (1846-1877), on\n    his return from the West coast replaced Georg Schweinfurth at Cairo\n    as president of the geographical commission. Arising out of this\n    circumstance de Compiegne was killed in a duel by a German named\n    Mayer.\n\n  [3] A Franco-Belgian agreement of the 23rd of Dec. 1908 defined\n    precisely the frontier in the lower Congo. Bamu Island in Stanley\n    Pool was recognized as French.\n\n\n\n\nFRENCH GUINEA, a French colony in West Africa, formerly known as\nRivieres du Sud. It is bounded W. by the Atlantic, N. by Portuguese\nGuinea and Senegal, E. by Upper Senegal and the Ivory Coast, and S. by\nLiberia and Sierra Leone. With a sea-board running N.N.W. and S.S.E.\nfrom 10 deg. 50' N. to 9 deg. 2' N., a distance, without reckoning the\nindentations, of 170 m., the colony extends eastward 450 m. in a\nstraight line and attains a maximum width N. to S. of nearly 300 m.,\ncovering fully 100,000 sq. m., and containing a population estimated at\n2,000,000 to 2,500,000.\n\n  _Physical Features._--Though in one or two places rocky headlands jut\n  into the sea, the coast is in general sandy, low, and much broken by\n  rivers and deep estuaries, dotted with swampy islands, giving it the\n  appearance of a vast delta. In about 9 deg. 30' N., off the promontory of\n  Konakry, lie the Los Islands (q.v.), forming part of the colony. The\n  coast plain, formed of alluvial deposits, is succeeded about 30 m.\n  inland by a line of cliffs, the Susu Hills, which form the first step\n  in the terrace-like formation of the interior, culminating in the\n  massif of Futa Jallon, composed chiefly of Archean and granite rocks.\n  While the coast lands are either densely forested or covered with\n  savannas or park-like country, the Futa Jallon tableland is mainly\n  covered with short herbage. This tableland, the hydrographic centre of\n  West Africa, is most elevated in its southern parts, where heights of\n  5000 ft. are found. Near the Sierra Leone frontier this high land is\n  continued westward to within 20 m. of the sea, where Mount Kakulima\n  rises over 3300 ft. East and south of Futa Jallon the country slopes\n  to the basin of the upper Niger, the greater part of which is included\n  in French Guinea. The southern frontier is formed by the escarpments\n  which separate the Niger basin from those of the coast rivers of\n  Liberia. Besides the Niger, Gambia and Senegal, all separately\n  noticed, a large number of streams running direct to the Atlantic rise\n  in Futa Jallon. Among them are the Great and Little Scarcies, whose\n  lower courses are in Sierra Leone, and the Rio Grande which enters the\n  sea in Portuguese Guinea. Those whose courses are entirely in French\n  Guinea include the Cogon (or Componi), the Rio Nunez, the Fatalla\n  (which reaches the sea through an estuary named Rio Pongo), the\n  Konkure, whose estuary is named Rio Bramaya, the Forekaria and the\n  Melakori. The Cogon, Fatallah and Konkure are all large rivers which\n  descend from the plateaus through deep, narrow valleys in rapids and\n  cataracts, and are only navigable for a few miles from their mouth.\n\n  _Climate._--The climate of the coast district is hot, moist and\n  unhealthy, with a season of heavy rain lasting from May to November,\n  during which time variable winds, calms and tornadoes succeed one\n  another. The mean temperature in the dry season, when the \"harmattan\"\n  is frequent, is 62 deg. Fahr., in the wet season 86 deg.. Throughout the year\n  the humidity of the air is very great. There is much rain in the Futa\n  Jallon highlands, but the Niger basin is somewhat drier. In that\n  region and in the highlands the climate is fairly healthy for\n  Europeans and the heat somewhat less than on the coast.\n\n  _Flora and Fauna._--The seashore and the river banks are lined with\n  mangroves, but the most important tree of the coast belt is the\n  oil-palm. The dense forests also contain many varieties of lianas or\n  rubber vines, huge bombax and bamboos. Gum-producing and kola trees\n  are abundant, and there are many fruit trees, the orange and citron\n  growing well in the Susu and Futa Jallon districts. The cotton and\n  coffee plants are indigenous; banana plantations surround the\n  villages. The baobab and the karite (shea butter tree) are found only\n  in the Niger districts. The fauna is not so varied as was formerly the\n  case, large game having been to a great extent driven out of the coast\n  regions. The elephant is rare save in the Niger regions. The lion is\n  now only found in the northern parts of Futa Jallon; panthers,\n  leopards, hyenas and wild cats are more common and the civet is found.\n  Hippopotamus, otter and the wild boar are numerous; a species of wild\n  ox of small size with black horns and very agile is also found. The\n  forests contain many kinds of monkeys, including huge chimpanzees;\n  antelope are widespread but rather rare. Serpents are very common,\n  both venomous and non-venomous; the pythons attain a great size.\n  Fights between these huge serpents and the crocodiles which infest all\n  the rivers are said to be not uncommon. Turtles are abundant along the\n  coasts and in the Los Islands. Oysters are found in large numbers in\n  the estuaries and fixed to the submerged parts of the mangroves.\n  Freshwater oysters, which attain a large size, are also found in the\n  rivers, particularly in the Niger. Fish are abundant, one large-headed\n  species, in the Susu tongue called _khokon_, is so numerous as to have\n  given its name to a province, Kokunia. Birds are very numerous; they\n  include various eagles, several kinds of heron, the egret, the\n  marabout, the crane and the pelican; turacos or plantain-eaters, are\n  common, as are other brilliantly plumaged birds. Green and grey\n  parrots, ravens, swallows and magpies are also common.\n\n  _Inhabitants._--On the banks of the Cogon dwell the Tendas and Iolas,\n  primitive Negro tribes allied to those of Portuguese Guinea (q.v.).\n  All other inhabitants of French Guinea are regarded as comparatively\n  late arrivals from the interior who have displaced the aborigines.[1]\n  Among the earliest of the new comers are the Baga, the Nalu, the\n  Landuman and the Timni, regarded as typical Negroes (q.v.). This\n  migration southward appears to have taken place before the 17th\n  century. To-day the Baga occupy the coast land between the Cogon and\n  the Rio Pongo, and the Landuman the country immediately behind that of\n  the Baga. The other tribes named are but sparsely represented in\n  French Guinea, the coast region south of the Nunez and all the\n  interior up to Futa Jallon being occupied by the Susu, a tribe\n  belonging to the great Mandingan race, which forced its way seaward\n  about the beginning of the 18th century and pressed back the Timni\n  into Sierra Leone. Futa Jallon is peopled principally by Fula (q.v.),\n  and the rest of the country by Malinke and other tribes of Mandingo\n  (q.v.). The Mandingo, the Fula and the Susu are Mahommedans, though\n  the Susu retain many of their ancient rites and beliefs--those\n  associated with spirit worship and fetish, still the religion of the\n  Baga and other tribes. In the north-west part of Futa Jallon are found\n  remnants of the aborigines, such as the Tiapi, Koniagui and the\n  Bassari, all typical Negro tribes. The white inhabitants number a few\n  hundreds only and are mainly French. Many of the coast peoples show,\n  however, distinct traces of white blood, the result chiefly of the\n  former presence of European slave traders. Thus at the Rio Pongo there\n  are numerous mulattos. South of that river the coast tribes speak\n  largely pidgin English.\n\n  _Towns._--The principal towns are Konakry the capital, Boke, on the\n  Rio Nunez, Dubreka, on the coast, a little north of Konakry, Benty, on\n  the Melakori, Timbo and Labe, the chief towns of Futa Jallon,\n  Heremakono and Kindia, on the main road to the Niger, Kurussa and\n  Siguiri, on a navigable stretch of that river, and Bissandugu,\n  formerly Samory's capital, an important military station east of the\n  Niger. Konakry, in 9 deg. 30' N., 13 deg. 46' W., population about 20,000, is\n  the one port of entry on the coast. It is built on the little island\n  of Tombo which lies off the promontory of Konakry, the town being\n  joined to the mainland by an iron bridge. During the administration of\n  Noel Ballay (1848-1902), governor of the colony 1890-1900, Konakry was\n  transformed from a place of small importance to one of the chief ports\n  on the west coast of Africa and a serious rival to Freetown, Sierra\n  Leone. It has since grown considerably, and is provided with wharves\n  and docks and a jetty 1066 ft. long. There is an ample supply of good\n  water, and a large public garden in the centre of the town. In front\n  of Government House is a statue of M. Ballay. Konakry is a port of\n  call for French, British and German steamship companies, and is in\n  telegraphic communication with Europe. It is the starting-point of a\n  railway to the Niger (see below). The retail trade is in the hands of\n  Syrians. The town is governed by a municipality.\n\n  _Products and Industry._--French Guinea possesses a fertile soil, and\n  is rich in tropical produce. The chief products are rubber, brought\n  from the interior, and palm oil and palm kernels, obtained in the\n  coast regions. Cotton is cultivated in the Niger basin. Gum copal,\n  ground-nuts and sesame are largely cultivated, partly for export.\n  Among minor products are coffee, wax and ivory. Large herds of cattle\n  and flocks of sheep are raised in Futa Jallon; these are sent in\n  considerable numbers to Sierra Leone, Liberia and French Congo. The\n  trade in hides is also of considerable value. The chief grain raised\n  is millet, the staple food of the people. The rubber is mainly\n  exported to England, the palm products to Germany, and the ground-nuts\n  to France.\n\n  The principal imports are cotton goods, of which 80% come from Great\n  Britain, rice, kola nuts, chiefly from Liberia, spirits, tobacco,\n  building material, and arms and ammunition, chiefly \"trade guns.\" The\n  average annual value of the trade for the period 1900-1907 was about\n  L1,250,000, the annual export of rubber alone being worth L400,000 or\n  more. The great bulk of the trade of the colony is with France and\n  Great Britain, the last-named country taking about 45% of the total;\n  Germany comes third. Since April 1905 a surtax of 7% has been imposed\n  on all goods of other than French origin.\n\n  _Communications._--The railway from Konakry to the Niger at Kurussa,\n  by the route chosen a distance of 342 m., was begun in 1900, and from\n  1902 has been built directly by the colony. The first section to\n  Kindia, 93 m., was opened in 1904. The second section, to near Timbo\n  in Futa Jallon, was completed in 1907, and the rails reached Kurussa\n  in 1910. From Kurussa the Niger is navigable at high water all the way\n  to Bamako in Upper Senegal, whence there is communication by rail and\n  river with St Louis and Timbuktu. Besides the railway there is an\n  excellent road, about 390 m. long, from Konakry to Kurussa, the road\n  in its lower part being close to the Sierra Leone frontier, with the\n  object of diverting trade from that British colony. Several other main\n  roads have been built by the French, and there is a very complete\n  telegraphic system, the lines having been connected with those of\n  Senegal in 1899.\n\n_History._--This part of the Guinea coast was made known by the\nPortuguese voyagers of the 15th century. In consequence, largely, of the\ndangers attending its navigation, it was not visited by the European\ntraders of the 16th-18th centuries so frequently as other regions north\nand east, but in the Rio Pongo, at Matakong (a diminutive island near\nthe mouth of the Forekaria), and elsewhere, slave traders established\nthemselves, and ruins of the strongholds they built, and defended with\ncannon, still exist. When driven from other parts of Guinea the slavers\nmade this difficult and little known coast one of their last resorts,\nand many barracoons were built in the late years of the 18th century. It\nwas not until after the restoration of Goree to her at the close of the\nNapoleonic wars that France evinced any marked interest in this region.\nAt that time the British, from their bases at the Gambia and Sierra\nLeone, were devoting considerable attention to these Rivieres du Sud\n(i.e. south of Senegal) and also to Futa Jallon. Rene Caillie, who\nstarted his journey to Timbuktu from Boke in 1827, did much to quicken\nFrench interest in the district, and from 1838 onward French naval\nofficers, Bouet-Willaumez and his successors, made detailed studies of\nthe coast. About the time that the British government became wearied of\nits efforts to open up the interior of West Africa, General Faidherbe\nwas appointed governor of Senegal (1854), and under his direction\nvigorous efforts were made to consolidate French influence. Already in\n1848 treaty relations had been entered into with the Nalu, and between\nthat date and 1865 treaties of protectorate were signed with several of\nthe coast tribes. During 1876-1880 new treaties were concluded with the\nchief tribes, and in 1881 the almany (or emir) of Futa Jallon placed his\ncountry under French protection, the French thus effectually preventing\nthe junction, behind the coast lands, of the British colonies of the\nGambia and Sierra Leone. The right of France to the littoral as far\nsouth as the basin of the Melakori was recognized by Great Britain in\n1882; Germany (which had made some attempt to acquire a protectorate at\nKonakry) abandoned its claims in 1885, while in 1886 the northern\nfrontier was settled in agreement with Portugal, which had ancient\nsettlements in the same region (see PORTUGUESE GUINEA). In 1899 the\nlimits of the colony were extended, on the dismemberment of the French\nSudan, to include the upper Niger districts. In 1904 the Los Islands\nwere ceded by Great Britain to France, in part return for the\nabandonment of French fishing rights in Newfoundland waters. (See also\nSENEGAL: _History_.)\n\nFrench Guinea was made a colony independent of Senegal in 1891, but in\n1895 came under the supreme authority of the newly constituted\ngovernor-generalship of French West Africa. Guinea has a considerable\nmeasure of autonomy and a separate budget. It is administered by a\nlieutenant-governor, assisted by a nominated council. Revenue is raised\nprincipally from customs and a capitation tax, which has replaced a hut\ntax. The local budget for 1907 balanced at L205,000. Over the greater\npart of the country the native princes retain their sovereignty under\nthe superintendence of French officials. The development of agriculture\nand education are objects of special solicitude to the French\nauthorities. In general the natives are friendly towards their white\nmasters.\n\n  See M. Famechon, _Notice sur la Guinee francaise_ (Paris, 1900); J.\n  Chautard, _Etude geophysique et geologique sur le Fouta-Djallon_\n  (Paris, 1905); Andre Arcin, _La Guinee francaise_ (Paris, 1906), a\n  valuable monograph; J. Machat, _Les Rivieres du Sud et la\n  Fouta-Diallon_ (Paris, 1906), another valuable work, containing\n  exhaustive bibliographies. Consult also F. Rouget, _La Guinee_ (Paris,\n  1908), an official publication, the annual _Reports_ on French West\n  Africa, published by the British Foreign Office, and the Carte de la\n  Guinee francaise by A. Meunier in 4 sheets on the scale 1:500,000\n  (Paris, 1902).\n\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n  [1] Numerous remains of a stone age have been discovered, both on the\n    coast and in the hinterland. See L. Desplagnes, \"L'Archeologie\n    prehistorique en Guinee francaise,\" in _Bull. Soc. Geog. Comm. de\n    Bordeaux_, March 1907, and the authorities there cited.\n\n\n\n\nFRENCH LANGUAGE. I. _Geography._--French is the general name of the\nnorth-north-western group of Romanic dialects, the modern Latin of\nnorthern Gaul (carried by emigration to some places--as lower\nCanada--out of France). In a restricted sense it is that variety of the\nParisian dialect which is spoken by the educated, and is the general\nliterary language of France. The region in which the native language is\ntermed French consists of the northern half of France (including\nLorraine) and parts of Belgium and Switzerland; its boundaries on the\nwest are the Atlantic Ocean and the Celtic dialects of Brittany; on the\nnorth-west and north, the English Channel; on the north-east and east\nthe Teutonic dialects of Belgium, Germany and Switzerland. In the\nsouth-east and south the boundary is to a great extent conventional and\nill-defined, there being originally no linguistic break between the\nsouthern French dialects and the northern Provencal dialects of southern\nFrance, north-western Italy and south-western Switzerland. It is formed\npartly by spaces of intermediate dialects (some of whose features are\nFrench, others Provencal), partly by spaces of mixed dialects resulting\nfrom the invasion of the space by more northern and more southern\nsettlers, partly by lines where the intermediate dialects have been\nsuppressed by more northern (French) and more southern (Provencal)\ndialects without these having mixed. Starting in the west at the mouth\nof the Gironde, the boundary runs nearly north soon after passing\nBordeaux; a little north of Angouleme it turns to the east, and runs in\nthis direction into Switzerland to the north of Geneva.\n\nII. _External History._--(a) _Political._--By the Roman conquests the\nlanguage of Rome was spread over the greater part of southern and\nwestern Europe, and gradually supplanted the native tongues. The\nlanguage introduced was at first nearly uniform over the whole empire,\nLatin provincialisms and many more or less general features of the older\nvulgar language being suppressed by the preponderating influence of the\neducated speech of the capital. As legions became stationary, as\ncolonies were formed, and as the natives adopted the language of their\nconquerors, this language split up into local dialects, the\ndistinguishing features of which are due, as far as can be ascertained\n(except, to some extent, as to the vocabulary), not to speakers of\ndifferent nationalities misspeaking Latin, each with the peculiarities\nof his native language, but to the fact that linguistic changes, which\nare ever occurring, are not perfectly uniform over a large area, however\nhomogeneous the speakers. As Gaul was not conquered by Caesar till the\nmiddle of the first century before our era, its Latin cannot have begun\nto differ from that of Rome till after that date; but the artificial\nretention of classical Latin as the literary and official language after\nthe popular spoken language had diverged from it, often renders the\nchronology of the earlier periods of the Romanic languages obscure. It\nis, however, certain that the popular Latin of Gaul had become\ndifferentiated from that of central Italy before the Teutonic conquest\nof Gaul, which was not completed till the latter half of the 5th\ncentury; the invaders gradually adopted the language of their more\ncivilized subjects, which remained unaffected, except in its vocabulary.\nProbably by this time it had diverged so widely from the artificially\npreserved literary language that it could no longer be regarded merely\nas mispronounced Latin; the Latin documents of the next following\ncenturies contain many clearly popular words and forms, and the literary\nand popular languages are distinguished as _latina_ and _romana_. The\nterm _gallica_, at first denoting the native Celtic language of Gaul, is\nfound applied to its supplanter before the end of the 9th century, and\nsurvives in the Breton _gallek_, the regular term for \"French.\" After\nthe Franks in Gaul had abandoned their native Teutonic language, the\nterm _francisca_, by which this was denoted, came to be applied to the\nRomanic one they adopted, and, under the form _francaise_, remains its\nnative name to this day; but this name was confined to the Romanic of\nnorthern Gaul, which makes it probable that this, at the time of the\nadoption of the name _francisca_, had become distinct from the Romanic\nof southern Gaul. _Francisca_ is the Teutonic adjective _frankisk_,\nwhich occurs in Old English in the form _frencise_; this word, with its\numlauted _e_ from _a_ with following _i_, survives under the form\n_French_, which, though purely Teutonic in origin and form, has long\nbeen exclusively applied to the Romanic language and inhabitants of\nGaul. The German name _franzose_, with its accent on, and _o_ in, the\nsecond syllable, comes from _francois_, a native French form older than\n_francais_, but later than the Early Old French _franceis_. The\nScandinavian settlers on the north-west coast of France early in the\n10th century quickly lost their native speech, which left no trace\nexcept in some contributions to the vocabulary of the language they\nadopted. The main feature since is the growth of the political supremacy\nof Paris, carrying with it that of its dialect; in 1539 Francis I.\nordered that all public documents should be in French (of Paris), which\nthen became the official language of the whole kingdom, though it is\nstill foreign to nearly half its population.\n\nThe conquest of England in 1066 by William, duke of Normandy, introduced\ninto England, as the language of the rulers and (for a time) most of the\nwriters, the dialects spoken in Normandy (see also ANGLO-NORMAN\nLITERATURE). Confined in their native country to definite areas, these\ndialects, following their speakers, became mixed in England, so that\ntheir forms were used to some extent indifferently; and the constant\ncommunication with Normandy maintained during several reigns introduced\nalso later forms of continental Norman. As the conquerors learned the\nlanguage of the conquered, and as the more cultured of the latter\nlearned that of the former, the Norman of England (including that of the\nEnglish-speaking Lowlands of Scotland) became anglicized; instead of\nfollowing the changes of the Norman of France, it followed those of\nEnglish. The accession in 1154 of Henry II. of Anjou disturbed the\nNorman character of Anglo-French, and the loss of Normandy under John in\n1204 gave full play to the literary importance of the French of Paris,\nmany of whose forms afterwards penetrated to England. At the same time\nEnglish, with a large French addition to its vocabulary, was steadily\nrecovering its supremacy, and is officially employed (for the first time\nsince the Conquest) in the Proclamation of Henry III., 1258. The\nsemi-artificial result of this mixture of French of different dialects\nand of different periods, more or less anglicized according to the date\nor education of the speaker or writer, is generally termed \"the\nAnglo-Norman dialect\"; but the term is misleading for a great part of\nits existence, because while the French of Normandy was not a single\ndialect, the later French of England came from other French provinces\nbesides Normandy, and being to a considerable extent in artificial\nconditions, was checked in the natural development implied by the term\n\"dialect.\" The disuse of Anglo-French as a natural language is evidenced\nby English being substituted for it in legal proceedings in 1362, and in\nschools in 1387; but law reports were written in it up to about 1600,\nand, converted into modern literary French, it remains in official use\nfor giving the royal assent to bills of parliament.\n\n(b) _Literary._--Doubtless because the popular Latin of northern Gaul\nchanged more rapidly than that of any other part of the empire, French\nwas, of all the Romanic dialects, the first to be recognized as a\ndistinct language, and the first to be used in literature; and though\nthe oldest specimen now extant is probably not the first, it is\nconsiderably earlier than any existing documents of the allied\nlanguages. In 813 the council of Tours ordered certain homilies to be\ntranslated into Rustic Roman or into German; and in 842 Louis the\nGerman, Charles the Bald, and their armies confirmed their engagements\nby taking oaths in both languages at Strassburg. These have been\npreserved to us by the historian Nithard (who died in 853); and though,\nin consequence of the only existing manuscript (at Paris) being more\nthan a century later than the time of the author, certain alterations\nhave occurred in the text of the French oaths, they present more archaic\nforms (probably of North-Eastern French) than any other document. The\nnext memorials are a short poem, probably North-Eastern, on St Eulalia,\npreserved in a manuscript of the 10th century at Valenciennes, and some\nautograph fragments (also at Valenciennes) of a homily on the prophet\nJonah, in mixed Latin and Eastern French, of the same period. To the\nsame century belong a poem on Christ's Passion, apparently in a mixed\n(not intermediate) language of French and Provencal, and one, probably\nin South-Eastern French, on St Leger; both are preserved, in different\nhandwritings, in a MS. at Clermont-Ferrand, whose scribes have\nintroduced many Provencal forms. After the middle of the 11th century\nliterary remains are comparatively numerous; the chief early\nrepresentative of the main dialects are the following, some of them\npreserved in several MSS., the earliest of which, however (the only ones\nhere mentioned), are in several cases a generation or two later than the\nworks themselves. In Western French are a verse life of St Alexius\n(Alexis), probably Norman, in an Anglo-Norman MS. at Hildesheim; the\nepic poem of Roland, possibly also Norman, in an A.-N. MS. at Oxford; a\nNorman verbal translation of the Psalms, in an A.-N. MS. also at Oxford;\nanother later one, from a different Latin version, in an A.-N. MS. at\nCambridge; a Norman translation of the Four Books of Kings, in a\nprobably A.-N. MS. at Paris. The earliest work in the Parisian dialect\nis probably the Travels of Charlemagne, preserved in a late Anglo-Norman\nMS. with much altered forms. In Eastern French, of rather later date,\nthere are translations of the Dialogues of Pope Gregory, in a MS. at\nParis, containing also fragments of Gregory's Moralities, and (still\nlater) of some Sermons of St Bernard, in a MS. also in Paris. From the\nend of the 12th century literary and official documents, often including\nlocal charters, abound in almost every dialect, until the growing\ninfluence of Paris caused its language to supersede in writing the other\nlocal ones. This influence, occasionally apparent about the end of the\n12th century, was overpowering in the 15th, when authors, though often\ndisplaying provincialisms, almost all wrote in the dialect of the\ncapital; the last dialect to lose its literary independence was the\nNorth-Eastern, which, being the Romanic language of Flanders, had a\npolitical life of its own, and (modified by Parisian) was used in\nliterature after 1400.\n\nIII. _Internal History._--Though much has been done in recent years, in\nthe scientific investigation of the sounds, inflexions, and syntax of\nthe older stages and dialects of French, much still remains to be done,\nand it must suffice here to give a sketch, mainly of the dialects which\nwere imported into England by the Normans--in which English readers will\nprobably take most interest, and especially of the features which\nexplain the forms of English words of French origin. Dates and places\nare only approximations, and many statements are liable to be modified\nby further researches. The primitive Latin forms given are often not\nclassical Latin words, but derivatives from these; and reference is\ngenerally made to the Middle English (Chaucerian) pronunciation of\nEnglish words, not the modern.\n\n(a) _Vocabulary._--The fundamental part of the vocabulary of French is\nthe Latin imported into Gaul, the French words being simply the Latin\nwords themselves, with the natural changes undergone by all living\nspeech, or derivatives formed at various dates. Comparatively few words\nwere introduced from the Celtic language of the native inhabitants\n(_bec_, _lieue_ from the Celtic words given by Latin writers as\n_beccus_, _leuca_), but the number adopted from the language of the\nTeutonic conquerors of Gaul is large (_guerre_ = _werra_; _laid_ =\n_laidh_; _choisir_ = _kausjan_). The words were imported at different\nperiods of the Teutonic supremacy, and consequently show chronological\ndifferences in their sounds (_hair_ = _hatan_; _francais_ = _frankisk_;\n_ecrevisse_ = _krebiz_; _echine_ = _skina_). Small separate importations\nof Teutonic words resulted from the Scandinavian settlement in France,\nand the commercial intercourse with the Low German nations on the North\nSea (_friper_ = Norse _hripa_; _chaloupe_ = Dutch _sloop_; _est_ = Old\nEnglish _east_). In the meantime, as Latin (with considerable\nalterations in pronunciation, vocabulary, &c.) continued in literary,\nofficial and ecclesiastical use, the popular language borrowed from time\nto time various more or less altered classical Latin words; and when the\npopular language came to be used in literature, especially in that of\nthe church, these importations largely increased (_virginitet_ Eulalia =\n_virginitatem_; _imagena_ Alexis = _imaginem_--the popular forms would\nprobably have been _vergedet_, _emain_). At the Renaissance they became\nvery abundant, and have continued since, stifling to some extent the\ndevelopmental power of the language. Imported words, whether Teutonic,\nclassical Latin or other, often receive some modification at their\nimportation, and always take part in all subsequent natural phonetic\nchanges in the language (Early Old French _adversarie_, Modern French\n_adversaire_). Those French words which appear to contradict the\nphonetic laws were mostly introduced into the language after the taking\nplace (in words already existing in the language) of the changes\nformulated by the laws in question; compare the late imported _laique_\nwith the inherited _lai_, both from Latin _laicum_. In this and many\nother cases the language possesses two forms of the same Latin word, one\ndescended from it, the other borrowed (_meuble_ and _mobile_ from\n_mobilem_). Some Oriental and other foreign words were brought in by the\ncrusaders (_amiral_ from _amir_); in the 16th century, wars, royal\nmarriages and literature caused a large number of Italian words\n(_soldat_ = _soldato_; _brave_ = _bravo_; _caresser_ = _carezzare_) to\nbe introduced, and many Spanish ones (_alcove_ = _alcoba_; _habler_ =\n_hablar_). A few words have been furnished by Provencal (_abeille_,\n_cadenas_), and several have been adopted from other dialects into the\nFrench of Paris (_esquiver_ Norman or Picard for the Paris-French\n_eschiver_). German has contributed a few (_blocus_ = _blochus_;\n_choucroute_ = _surkrut_); and recently a considerable number have been\nimported from England (_drain_, _confortable_, _flirter_). In Old\nFrench, new words are freely formed by derivation, and to a less extent\nby composition; in Modern French, borrowing from Latin or other foreign\nlanguages is the more usual course. Of the French words now obsolete\nsome have disappeared because the things they express are obsolete;\nothers have been replaced by words of native formation, and many have\nbeen superseded by foreign words generally of literary origin; of those\nwhich survive, many have undergone considerable alterations in meaning.\nA large number of Old French words and meanings, now extinct in the\nlanguage of Paris, were introduced into English after the Norman\nConquest; and though some have perished, many have survived--_strife_\nfrom Old French _estrif_ (Teutonic _strit_); _quaint_ from _cointe_\n(_cognitum_); _remember_ from _remembrer_ (_rememorare_); _chaplet_\n(garland) from _chapelet_ (Modern French \"chaplet of beads\");\n_appointment_ (rendezvous) from _appointement_ (now \"salary\"). Many also\nsurvive in other French dialects.\n\n(b) _Dialects._--The history of the French language from the period of\nits earliest extant literary memorials is that of the dialects composing\nit. But as the popular notion of a dialect as the speech of a definite\narea, possessing certain peculiarities confined to and extending\nthroughout that area, is far from correct, it will be advisable to drop\nthe misleading divisions into \"Norman dialect,\" \"Picard dialect\" and the\nlike, and take instead each important feature in the chronological order\n(as far as can be ascertained) of its development, pointing out roughly\nthe area in which it exists, and its present state. The local terms used\nare intentionally vague, and it does not, for instance, at all follow\nthat because \"Eastern\" and \"Western\" are used to denote the localities\nof more than one dialectal feature, the boundary line between the two\ndivisions is the same in each case. It is, indeed, because dialectal\ndifferences as they arise do not follow the same boundary lines (much\nless the political divisions of provinces), but cross one another to any\nextent, that to speak of the dialect of a large area as an individual\nwhole, unless that area is cut off by physical or alien linguistic\nboundaries, creates only confusion. Thus the Central French of Paris,\nthe ancestor of classical Modern French, agrees with a more southern\nform of Romanic (Limousin, Auvergne, Forez, Lyonnais, Dauphine) in\nhaving _ts_, not _tsh_, for Latin _k_ (_c_) before _i_ and _e_; _tsh_,\nnot _k_, for _k_ (_c_) before _a_; and with the whole South in having\n_gu_, not _w_, for Teutonic _w_; while it belongs to the East in having\n_oi_ for earlier _ei_; and to the West in having _e_, not _ei_, for\nLatin _a_; and _i_, not _ei_, from Latin _e_ + _i_. It may be well to\ndenote that Southern _French_ does not correspond to southern _France_,\nwhose native language is Provencal. \"Modern French\" means ordinary\neducated Parisian French.\n\n(e) _Phonology._--The history of the sounds of a language is, to a\nconsiderable extent, that of its inflections, which, no less than the\nbody of a word, are composed of sounds. This fact, and the fact that\nunconscious changes are much more reducible to law than conscious ones,\nrender the phonology of a language by far the surest and widest\nfoundation for its dialectology, the importance of the sound-changes in\nthis respect depending, not on their prominence, but on the earliness of\ntheir date. For several centuries after the divergence between spoken\nand written Latin, the history of these changes has to be determined\nmainly by reasoning, aided by a little direct evidence in the\nmisspellings of inscriptions the semi-popular forms in glossaries, and\nthe warnings of Latin grammarians against vulgarities. With the rise of\nRomanic literature the materials for tracing the changes become\nabundant, though as they do not give us the sounds themselves, but only\ntheir written representations, much difficulty, and some uncertainty,\noften attach to deciphering the evidence. Fortunately, early Romanic\northography, that of Old French included (for which see next section),\nwas phonetic, as Italian orthography still is; the alphabet was\nimperfect, as many new sounds had to be represented which were not\nprovided for in the Roman alphabet from which it arose, but writers\naimed at representing the sounds they uttered, not at using a fixed\ncombination of letters for each word, however they pronounced it.\n\nThe characteristics of French as distinguished from the allied languages\nand from Latin, and the relations of its sounds, inflections and syntax\nto those of the last-named language, belong to the general subject of\nthe Romanic languages. It will be well, however, to mention here some of\nthe features in which it agrees with the closely related Provencal, and\nsome in which it differs. As to the latter, it has already been pointed\nout that the two languages glide insensibly into one another, there\nbeing a belt of dialects which possess some of the features of each.\nFrench and Provencal of the 10th century--the earliest date at which\ndocuments exist in both--agree to a great extent in the treatment of\nLatin final consonants and the vowels preceding them, a matter of great\nimportance for inflections (numerous French examples occur in this\nsection), (1) They reject all vowels, except _a_, of Latin final\n(unaccented) syllables, unless preceded by certain consonant\ncombinations or followed by _nt_ (here, as elsewhere, certain exceptions\ncannot be noticed); (2) they do not reject _a_ similarly situated; (3)\nthey reject final (unaccented) _m_; (4) they retain final s. French and\nNorthern Provencal also agree in changing Latin _ue_ from a\nlabio-guttural to a labio-palatal vowel; the modern sound (German _ue_)\nof the accented vowel of French _lune_, Provencal _luna_, contrasting\nwith that in Italian and Spanish _luna_, appears to have existed before\nthe earliest extant documents. The final vowel laws generally apply to\nthe unaccented vowel preceding the accented syllable, if it is preceded\nby another syllable, and followed by a single consonant--_matin_\n(_matutinum_), _dortoir_ (_dormitorium_), with vowel dropped; _canevas_\n(_cannabaceum_), _armedure_, later _armeure_, now _armure_\n(_armaturam_), with _e_ = _[schwa]_, as explained below.\n\nOn the other hand, French differs from Provencal: (1) in uniformly\npreserving (in Early Old French) Latin final _t_, which is generally\nrejected in Provencal--French _aimet_ (Latin _amat_), Provencal _ama_;\n_aiment_ (_amant_), Prov. _aman_; (2) in always rejecting, absorbing or\nconsonantizing the vowel of the last syllable but one, if unaccented; in\nsuch words as _angele_ (often spelt _angle_), the _e_ after the _g_ only\nserves to show its soft sound--French _veintre_ (now _vaincre_, Latin\n_vincere_), Prov. _vencer_, with accent on first syllable; French\n_esclandre_ (_scandalum_), Prov. _escandol_; French _olie_ (dissyllabic,\n_i_ = _y_ consonant, now _huile_), Prov. _oli_ (_oleum_); (3) in\nchanging accented _a_ not in position into _ai_ before nasals and\ngutturals and not after a palatal, and elsewhere into _e_ (West French)\nor _ei_ (East French), which develops an _i_ before it when preceded by\na palatal--French _main_ (Latin _manum_), Prov. _man_; _aigre_\n(_acrem_), _agre_; _ele_ (_alam_), East French _eile_, Prov. _ala_;\n_meitie_ (_medietatem_), East French _moitieit_, Prov. _meitat_; (4) in\nchanging _a_ in unaccented final syllables into the vowel _[schwa]_,\nintermediate to _a_ and _e_; this vowel is written _a_ in one or two of\nthe older documents, elsewhere _e_--French _aime_ (Latin _ama_), Prov.\n_ama_; _aimes_ (_amas_), Prov. _amas_; _aimet_ (_amat_), Prov. _ama_;\n(5) in changing original _au_ into _o_--French _or_ (_aurum_), Prov.\n_aur_; _rober_ (Teutonic _raubon_), Prov. _raubar_; (6) in changing\ngeneral Romanic _e_, from accented _e_ and _i_ not in position, into\n_ei_--French _veine_ (_venam_), Prov. _vena_; _peil_ (_pilum_), Prov.\n_pel_.\n\nAs some of the dialectal differences were in existence at the date of\nthe earliest extant documents, and as the existing materials, till the\nlatter half of the 11th century, are scanty and of uncertain locality,\nthe chronological order (here adopted) of the earlier sound-changes is\nonly tentative.\n\n  (1) Northern French has _tsh_ (written _c_ or _ch_) for Latin _k_\n  (_c_) and _t_ before palatal vowels, where Central and Southern French\n  have _ts_ (written _c_ or _z_)--North Norman and Picard _chire_\n  (_ceram_), _brach_ (_brachium_), _plache_ (_plateam_); Parisian, South\n  Norman, &c., _cire_, _braz_, _place_. Before the close of the Early\n  Old French period (12th century) _ts_ loses its initial consonant, and\n  the same happened to _tsh_ a century or two later; with this change\n  the old distinction is maintained--Modern Guernsey and Picard _chire_,\n  Modern Picard _plache_ (in ordinary Modern French spelling); usual\n  French _cire_, _place_. English, having borrowed from North and South\n  Norman (and later Parisian), has instances of both _tsh_ and _s_, the\n  former in comparatively small number--_chisel_ (Modern French _ciseau_\n  = (?) _caesellum_), _escutcheon_ (_ecusson_, _scutionem_); _city_\n  (_cite_, _civitatem_), _place_. (2) Initial Teutonic _w_ is retained\n  in the north-east and along the north coast; elsewhere, as in the\n  other Romance languages, _g_ was prefixed--Picard, &c., _warde_\n  (Teutonic _warda_), _werre_ (_werra_); Parisian, &c., _guarde_,\n  _guerre_. In the 12th century the _u_ or _w_ of _gu_ dropped, giving\n  the Modern French _garde_, _guerre_ (with _gu_ = _g_); _w_ remains in\n  Picard and Walloon, but in North Normandy it becomes _v_--Modern\n  Guernsey _vason_, Walloon _wazon_, Modern French _gazon_ (Teutonic\n  _wason_). English has both forms, sometimes in words originally the\n  same--_wage_ and _gage_ (Modern French _gage_, Teutonic _wadi_);\n  _warden_ and _guardian_ (_gardien_, _warding_). (3) Latin _b_ after\n  accented _a_ in the imperfect of the first conjugation, which becomes\n  _v_ in Eastern French, in Western French further changes to _w_, and\n  forms the diphthong _ou_ with the preceding vowel--Norman _amowe_\n  (_amabam_), _portout_ (_portabat_); Burgundian _ameve_, _portevet_.\n  _-eve_ is still retained in some places, but generally the imperfect\n  of the first conjugation is assimilated to that of the others--amoit,\n  like _avoit_ (_habebat_). (4) The palatalization of every then\n  existing _k_ and _g_ (hard) when followed by _a_, _i_ or _e_, after\n  having caused the development of _i_ before the _e_ (East French _ei_)\n  derived from _a_ not in position, is abandoned in the north, the\n  consonants returning to ordinary _k_ or _g_, while in the centre and\n  south they are assibilated to _tsh_ or _dzh_--North Norman and Picard\n  _cachier_ (_captiare_), _kier_ (_carum_), _cose_ (_causam_), _eskiver_\n  (Teutonic _skiuhan_), _wiket_ (Teutonic _wik_+_ittum_), _gal_\n  (_gallum_), _gardin_ (from Teutonic _gard_); South Norman and Parisian\n  _chacier_, _chier_, _chose_, _eschiver_, _guichet_, _jal_, _jardin_.\n  Probably in the 14th century the initial consonant of _tsh_, _dzh_\n  disappeared, giving the modern French _chasser_, _jardin_ with _ch_ =\n  _sh_ and _j_ = _zh_; but _tsh_ is retained in Walloon, and _dzh_ in\n  Lorraine. The Northern forms survive--Modern Guernsey _cachier_,\n  _gardin_; Picard _cacher_, _gardin_. English possesses numerous\n  examples of both forms, sometimes in related words--_catch_ and\n  _chase_; _wicket_, _eschew_; _garden_, _jaundice_ (_jaunisse_, from\n  _galbanum_). (5) For Latin accented _a_ not in position Western French\n  usually has _e_, Eastern French _ei_, both of which take an _i_ before\n  them when a palatal precedes--Norman and Parisian _per_ (_parem_),\n  _oiez_ (_audiatis_); Lorraine _peir_, _oieis_. In the 17th and 18th\n  centuries close _e_ changed to open _e_, except when final or before a\n  silent consonant--_amer_ (_amarum_) now having _e_, _aimer_ (_amare_)\n  retaining _e_. English shows the Western close _e_--_peer_ (Modern\n  French _pair_, Old French _per_), _chief_ (_chef_, _caput_); Middle\n  High German the Eastern _ei_--_lameir_ (Modern French _l'amer_,\n  _l'aimer_, _la mer_ = Latin _mare_). (6) Latin accented _e_ not in\n  position, when it came to be followed in Old French by _i_ unites with\n  this to form _i_ in the Western dialects, while the Eastern have the\n  diphthongs _ei_--Picard, Norman and Parisian _pire_ (_pejor_), _piz_\n  (_pectus_); Burgundian _peire_, _peiz_. The distinction is still\n  preserved--Modern French _pire_, _pis_; Modern Burgundian _peire_,\n  _pei_. English words show always _i_--_price_ (_prix_, _pretium_)\n  _spite_ (_depit_, _despectum_). (7) The nasalization of vowels\n  followed by a nasal consonant did not take place simultaneously with\n  all the vowels. _A_ and _e_ before _n_ (guttural _n_, as in _sing_),\n  _n_ (palatal _n_), _n_ and _m_ were nasal in the 11th century, such\n  words as _tant_ (_tantum_) and _gent_ (_gentem_) forming in the Alexis\n  assonances to themselves, distinct from the assonances with _a_ and\n  _e_ before non-nasal consonants. In the Roland _umbre_ (_ombre_,\n  _umbram_) and _culchet_ (_couche_, _collocat_), _fier_ (_ferum_) and\n  _chiens_ (_canes_), _dit_ (_dictum_) and _vint_ (_venit_), _ceinte_\n  (_cinctam_) and _veie_ (_voie_, _viam_), _brun_ (Teutonic _brun_) and\n  _fut_ (_fuit_) assonate freely, though _o_ (_u_) before nasals shows a\n  tendency to separation. The nasalization of _i_ and _u_ (= Modern\n  French _u_) did not take place till the 16th century; and in all cases\n  the loss of the following nasal consonant is quite modern, the older\n  pronunciation of _tant_, _ombre_ being _tant_, _ombr[schwa]_, not as\n  now _ta_, _obrh_. The nasalization took place whether the nasal\n  consonant was or was not followed by a vowel, _femme_ (_feminam_),\n  _honneur_ (_honorem_) being pronounced with nasal vowels m the first\n  syllable till after the 16th century, as indicated by the doubling of\n  the nasal consonant in the spelling and by the phonetic change (in\n  _femme_ and other words) next to be mentioned. English generally has\n  _au_ (now often reduced to _a_) for Old French _a_--_vaunt_ (_vanter_,\n  _vanitare_), _tawny_ (_tanne_ (?) Celtic). (8) The assimilation of\n  _[~e]_ (nasal _e_) to _a_ (nasal _a_) did not begin till the middle of\n  the 11th century, and is not yet universal, in France, though\n  generally a century later. In the Alexis nasal _a_ (as in _tant_) is\n  never confounded with nasal _e_ (as in _gent_) in the assonances,\n  though the copyist (a century later) often writes _a_ for nasal _e_ in\n  unaccented syllables, as in _amfant_ (_enfant_, _infantem_); in the\n  Roland there are several cases of mixture in the assonances, _gent_,\n  for instance, occurring in _ant_ stanzas, _tant_ in _ent_ ones.\n  English has several words with _a_ for _e_ before nasals--_rank_\n  (_rang_, Old French _renc_, Teutonic _hringa_), _pansy_ (_pensee_,\n  _pensatam_); but the majority show _e_--_enter_ (_entrer_, _intrare_),\n  _fleam_ (_flamme_, Old French _fleme_, _phlebotomum_). The distinction\n  is still preserved in the Norman of Guernsey, where _an_ and _en_,\n  though both nasal, have different sounds--_lanchier_ (_lancer_,\n  _lanceare_), but _mentrie_ (Old French _menterie_, from _mentiri_).\n  (9) The loss of _s_, or rather _z_, before voiced consonants began\n  early, _s_ being often omitted or wrongly inserted in 12th century\n  MSS.--Earliest Old French _masle_ (_masculum_), _sisdre_ (_siceram_);\n  Modern French _male_, _cidre_. In English it has everywhere\n  disappeared--_male_, _cider_; except in two words, where it appears,\n  as occasionally in Old French, as _d_--_meddle_ (_meler_,\n  _misculare_), _medlar_ (_neflier_, Old French also _meslier_,\n  _mespilarium_). The loss of _s_ before voiceless consonants (except\n  _f_) is about two centuries later, and it is not universal even in\n  Parisian--Early Old French _feste_ (_festam_), _escuier_\n  (_scutarium_); Modern French _fete_, _ecuyer_, but _esperer_\n  (_sperare_). In the north-east _s_ before _t_ is still\n  retained--Walloon _chestai_ (_chateau_, _castellum_), _fiess_\n  (_fete_). English shows _s_ regularly--_feast_, _esquire_. (10) Medial\n  _dh_ (soft _th_, as in _then_), and final _th_ from Latin _t_ or _d_\n  between vowels, do not begin to disappear till the latter half of the\n  11th century. In native French MSS. _dh_ is generally written _d_, and\n  _th_ written _t_; but the German scribe of the Oaths writes _adjudha_\n  (_adjutam_), _cadhuna_ (Greek _kata_ and _unam_); and the English one\n  of the Alexis _cuntretha_ (_contratam_), _lothet_ (_laudatum_), and\n  that of the Cambridge Psalter _heriteth_ (_hereditatem_). Medial _dh_\n  often drops even in the last-named MSS., and soon disappears; the same\n  is true for final _th_ in Western French--Modern French _contree_,\n  _loue_. But in Eastern French final _th_, to which Latin _t_ between\n  vowels had probably been reduced through _d_ and _dh_, appears in the\n  12th century and later as _t_, rhyming on ordinary French final\n  _t_--Picard and Burgundian _pechiet_ (_peccatum_) _apeleit_\n  (_appellatum_). In Western French some final _ths_ were saved by being\n  changed to _f_--Modern French _soif_ (_sitim_), _moeuf_ (obsolete,\n  _modum_). English has one or two instances of final _th_, none of\n  medial _dh_--_faith_ (_foi_, _fidem_); Middle English _carite\u021b_\n  (_charite_, _caritatem_), _druteth_ (Old French _dru_, Teutonic _drud_);\n  generally the consonant is lost--_country_, _charity_. Middle High\n  German shows the Eastern French final consonant--_moraliteit_\n  (_moralite_, _moralitatem_). (11) _T_ from Latin final _t_, if in an\n  Old French unaccented syllable, begins to disappear in the Roland,\n  where sometimes _aimet_ (_amat_), sometimes _aime_, is required by the\n  metre, and soon drops in all dialects. The Modern French _t_ of\n  _aime-t-il_ and similar forms is an analogical insertion from such\n  forms as _dort-il_ (_dormit_), where the _t_ has always existed. (12)\n  The change of the diphthong _ai_ to _ei_ and afterwards to _ee_ (the\n  doubling indicates length) had not taken place in the earliest French\n  documents, words with _ai_ assonating only on words with _a_; in the\n  Roland such assonances occur, but those of _ai_ on _e_ are more\n  frequent--_faire_ (_facere_) assonating on _parastre_ (_patraster_)\n  and on _estes_ (_estis_); and the MS. (half a century later than the\n  poem) occasionally has _ei_ and _e_ for _ai_--_recleimet_\n  (_reclamat_), _desfere_ (_disfacere_), the latter agreeing with the\n  Modern French sound. Before nasals (as in _laine_ = _lanam_) and _ie_\n  (as in _paye_ = _pacatum_), _ai_ remained a diphthong up to the 16th\n  century, being apparently _ei_, whose fate in this situation it has\n  followed. English shows _ai_ regularly before nasals and when final,\n  and in a few other words--_vain_ (_vain_, _vanum_), _pay_ (_payer_,\n  _pacare_), _wait_ (_guetter_, Teutonic _wahten_); but before most\n  consonants it has usually _ee_--_peace_ (_pais_, _pacum_), _feat_\n  (_fait_, _factum_). (13) The loss or transposition of _i_\n  (= y-consonant) following the consonant ending an accented syllable\n  begins in the 12th century--Early Old French _glorie_ (_gloriam_),\n  _estudie_ (_studium_), _olie_ (_oleum_); Modern French _gloire_,\n  _etude_, _huile_. English sometimes shows the earlier form--_glory_,\n  _study_; sometimes the later--_dower_ (_douaire_, Early Old French\n  _doarie_, _dotarium_), _oil_ (_huile_). (14) The vocalization of _l_\n  preceded by a vowel and followed by a consonant becomes frequent at\n  the end of the 12th century; when preceded by open _e_, an _a_\n  developed before the _l_ while this was a consonant--11th century\n  _salse_ (_salsa_), _beltet_ (_bellitatem_), _solder_ (_solidare_);\n  Modern French _sauce_, _beaute_, _souder_. In Parisian, final _el_\n  followed the fate of _el_ before a consonant, becoming the triphthong\n  _eau_, but in Norman the vocalization did not take place, and the _l_\n  was afterwards rejected--Modern French _ruisseau_, Modern Guernsey\n  _russe_ (_rivicellum_). English words of French origin sometimes show\n  _l_ before a consonant, but the general form is _u_--_scald_\n  (_echauder_, _excalidare_), _Walter_ (_Gautier_, Teutonic _Waldhari_);\n  _sauce_, _beauty_, _soder_. Final _el_ is kept--_veal_ (_veau_,\n  _vitellum_), _seal_ (_sceau_, _sigillum_). (15) In the east and centre\n  _ei_ changes to _oi_, while the older sound is retained in the\n  north-west and west--Norman _estreit_ (_etroit_, _strictum_), _preie_\n  (_proie_, _praedam_), 12th century Picard, Parisian, &c., _estroit_,\n  _proie_. But the earliest (10th century) specimens of the latter group\n  of dialects have _ei_--_pleier_ (_ployer_, _plicare_) Eulalia,\n  _mettreiet_ (_mettrait_, _mittere habebat_) Jonah. Parisian _oi_,\n  whether from _ei_ or from Old French _oi_, _oi_, became in the 15th\n  century _ue_ (spellings with _oue_ or _oe_ are not uncommon--_mirouer_\n  for _miroir_, _miratorium_), and in the following, in certain words,\n  _e_, now written _ai_--_francais_, _connaitre_, from _francois_\n  (_franceis_, _franciscum_), _conoistre_ (_conuistre_, _cognoscere_);\n  where it did not undergo the latter change it is now _ua_ or\n  _wa_--_roi_ (_rei_, _regem_), _croix_ (_cruis_, _crucem_). Before\n  nasals and palatal _l_, _ei_ (now = _e_) was kept--_veine_ (_vena_),\n  _veille_ (_vigila_), and it everywhere survives unlabialized in Modern\n  Norman--Guernsey _etelle_ (_etoile_, _stella_) with _e_, _ser_\n  (_soir_, _serum_) with _e_. English shows generally _ei_ (or _ai_) for\n  original _ei_--_strait_ (_estreit_), _prey_ (_preie_); but in several\n  words the later Parisian _oi_--_coy_ (_coi_, _qvietum_), _loyal_\n  (_loyal_, _legalem_). (16) The splitting of the vowel-sound from\n  accented Latin _o_ or _u_ not in position, represented in Old French\n  by _o_ and _u_ indifferently, into _u_, _o_ (before nasals), and _eu_\n  (the latter at first a diphthong, now = German _oe_), is unknown to\n  Western French till the 12th century, and is not general in the east.\n  The sound in 11th century Norman was much nearer to _u_ (Modern French\n  _ou_) than to _o_ (Modern French _o_), as the words borrowed by\n  English show _uu_ (at first written _u_, afterwards _ou_ or _ow_),\n  never _oo_; but was probably not quite _u_, as Modern Norman shows the\n  same splitting of the sound as Parisian. Examples are--Early Old\n  French _espose_ or _espuse_ (_sponsam_), _nom_ or _num_ (_nomen_),\n  _flor_ or _flur_ (_florem_); Modern French _epouse_, _nom_, _fleur_;\n  Modern Guernsey _goule_ (_gueule_, _gulam_), _nom_, _flleur_. Modern\n  Picard also shows _u_, which is the regular sound before _r_--_flour_;\n  but Modern Burgundian often keeps the original Old French _o_--_vo_\n  (_vous_, _vos_). English shows almost always _uu_--_spouse_, _noun_,\n  _flower_ (Early Middle English _spuse_, _nun_, _flur_); but _nephew_\n  with _eu_ (_neveu_, _nepotem_). (17) The loss of the _u_ (or _w_) of\n  _qu_ dates from the end of the 12th century--Old French _quart_\n  (_qvartum_), _quitier_ (_qvietare_) with _qu_ = _kw_, Modern French\n  _quart_, _quitter_ with _qu_ = _k_. In Walloon the _w_ is\n  preserved--_couar_ (_quart_), _cuitter_; as is the case in\n  English--_quart_, _quit_. The _w_ of _gw_ seems to have been lost\n  rather earlier, English having simple _g_--_gage_ (_gage_, older\n  _guage_, Teutonic _wadi_), _guise_ (_guise_, Teutonic _wisa_). (18)\n  The change of the diphthong _ou_ to _uu_ did not take place till after\n  the 12th century, such words as _Anjou_ (_Andegavum_) assonating in\n  the Roland on _fort_ (_fortem_); and did not occur in Picardy, where\n  _ou_ became _au caus_ from older _cous_, _cols_ (_cous_, _collos_)\n  coinciding with _caus_ from _calz_ (_chauds_, _calidos_). English\n  keeps _ou_ distinct from _uu_--_vault_ for _vaut_ (Modern French\n  _voute_, _volvitam_), _soder_ (_souder_, _solidare_). (19) The change\n  of the diphthong _ie_ to simple _e_ is specially Anglo-Norman, in Old\n  French of the Continent these sounds never rhyme, in that of England\n  they constantly do, and English words show, with rare exceptions, the\n  simple vowel--_fierce_ (Old French _fiers_, _ferus_), chief (_chief_,\n  _caput_), with _ie_ = _ee_; but _pannier_ (_panier_, _panarium_). At\n  the beginning of the modern period, Parisian dropped the _i_ of _ie_\n  when preceded by _ch_ or _j_--_chef_, _abreger_ (Old French\n  _abregier_, _abbreviare_); elsewhere (except in verbs) _ie_ is\n  retained--_fier_ (_ferum_), _pitie_ (_pietatem_). Modern Guernsey\n  retains _ie_ after _ch_--_ap'rchier_ (_approcher_, _adpropeare_).(20)\n  Some of the Modern French changes have found their places under older\n  ones; those remaining to be noticed are so recent that English\n  examples of the older forms are superfluous. In the 16th century the\n  diphthong _au_ changed to _ao_ and then to _o_, its present sound,\n  rendering, for instance, _maux_ (Old French _mals_, _malos_) identical\n  with _mots_ (_muttos_). The _au_ of _eau_ underwent the same change,\n  but its _e_ was still sounded as _[schwa]_ (the _e_ of _que_); in the\n  next century this was dropped, making _veaux_ (Old French _veels_,\n  _vitellos_) identical with _vaux_ (_vals_, _valles_). (21) A more\n  general and very important change began much earlier than the last;\n  this is the loss of many final consonants. In Early Old French every\n  consonant was pronounced as written; by degrees many of them\n  disappeared when followed by another consonant, whether in the same\n  word (in which case they were generally omitted in writing) or in a\n  following one. This was the state of things in the 16th century; those\n  final consonants which are usually silent in Modern French were still\n  sounded, if before a vowel or at the end of a sentence or a line of\n  poetry, but generally not elsewhere. Thus a large number of French\n  words had two forms; the Old French _fort_ appeared as _for_ (though\n  still written _fort_) before a consonant, fort elsewhere. At a later\n  period final consonants were lost (with certain exceptions) when the\n  word stood at the end of a sentence or of a line of poetry; but they\n  are generally kept when followed by a word beginning with a vowel.\n  (22) A still later change is the general loss of the vowel (written e)\n  of unaccented final syllables; this vowel preserved in the 16th\n  century the sound _[schwa]_, which it had in Early Old French. In\n  later Anglo-Norman final _[schwa]_ (like every other sound) was\n  treated exactly as the same sound in Middle English; that is, it came\n  to be omitted or retained at pleasure, and in the 15th century\n  disappeared. In Old French the loss of final _[schwa]_ is confined to\n  a few words and forms; the 10th century _saveiet_ (_sapebat_ for\n  _sapiebat_) became in the 11th _saveit_, and _ore_ (_ad horam_), _ele_\n  (_illam_) develop the abbreviated _or, el_. In the 15th century\n  _[schwa]_ before a vowel generally disappears--_mur_, Old French\n  _meur_ (_maturum_); and in the 16th, though still written, _[schwa]_\n  after an unaccented vowel, and in the syllable _ent_ after a vowel,\n  does the same--_vraiment_, Old French _vraiement_ (_veraca mente_);\n  _avoient_ two syllables, as now (_avaient_), in Old French three\n  syllables (as _habebant_). These phenomena occur much earlier in the\n  anglicized French of England--13th century _aveynt_ (Old French\n  _aveient_). But the universal loss of final _e_, which has clipped a\n  syllable from half the French vocabulary, did not take place till the\n  18th century, after the general loss of final consonants; _fort_ and\n  _forte_, distinguished at the end of a sentence or line in the 16th\n  century as _fort_ and _fort[schwa]_, remain distinguished, but as\n  _for_ and _fort_. The metre of poetry is still constructed on the\n  obsolete pronunciation, which is even revived in singing; \"dites, la\n  jeune belle,\" actually four syllables (_dit, la zhoen bel_), is\n  considered as seven, fitted with music accordingly, and sung to fit\n  the music (_dit[schwa], la zhoena bel[schwa]_). (23) In Old French, as\n  in the other Romanic languages, the stress (force, accent) is on the\n  syllable which was accented in Latin; compare the treatment of the\n  accented and unaccented vowels in _latro amas_, giving _lere, aime_,\n  and in _latronem, amatis_, giving _laron, amez_, the accented vowels\n  being those which rhyme or assonate. At present, stress in French is\n  much less marked than in English, German or Italian, and is to a\n  certain extent variable; which is partly the reason why most native\n  French scholars find no difficulty in maintaining that the stress in\n  living Modern French is on the same syllable as in Old French. The\n  fact that stress in the French of to-day is independent of length\n  (quantity) and pitch (tone) largely aids the confusion; for though the\n  final and originally accented syllable (not counting the silent e as a\n  syllable) is now generally pronounced with less force, it very often\n  has a long vowel with raised pitch. In actual pronunciation the chief\n  stress is usually on the first syllable (counting according to the\n  sounds, not the spelling), but in many polysyllables it is on the last\n  but one; thus in _caution_ the accented (strong) syllable cau, in\n  _occasion_ it is _ca_. Poetry is still written according to the\n  original place of the stress; the rhyme-syllables of _larron, aimez_\n  are still _ron_ and _mez_, which when set to music receive an accented\n  (strong) note, and are sung accordingly, though in speech the la and\n  ai generally have the principal stress. In reading poetry, as\n  distinguished from singing, the modern pronunciation is used, both as\n  to the loss of the final _[schwa]_ and the displacement of the stress,\n  the result being that the theoretical metre in which the poetry is\n  written disappears. (24) In certain cases accented vowels were\n  lengthened in Old French, as before a lost s; this was indicated in\n  the 16th century by a circumflex--_bete_, Old French _beste_\n  (_bestiam_), _ame_, Old French _anme_ (_anima_). The same occurred in\n  the plural of many nouns, where a consonant was lost before the _s_ of\n  the flection; thus singular _coc_ with short vowel, plural _cos_ with\n  long. The plural _cos_, though spelt _cogs_ instead of _co_ (= _koo_),\n  is still sometimes to be heard, but, like other similar ones, is\n  generally refashioned after the singular, becoming _kok_. In present\n  French, except where a difference of quality has resulted, as in\n  _cote_ (Old French _coste, costam_) with _o_ and _cotte_ (Old French\n  _cote_), with _o_, short and long vowels generally run together,\n  quantity being now variable and uncertain; but at the beginning of\n  this century the Early Modern distinctions appear to have been\n  generally preserved.\n\n(d) _Orthography._--The history of French spelling is based on that of\nFrench sounds; as already stated, the former (apart from a few Latinisms\nin the earliest documents) for several centuries faithfully followed the\nlatter. When the popular Latin of Gaul was first written, its sounds\nwere represented by the letters of the Roman alphabet; but these were\nemployed, not in the values they had in the time of Caesar, but in those\nthey had acquired in consequence of the phonetic changes that had\nmeantime taken place. Thus, as the Latin sound _u_ had become _o_ (close\n_o_) and _u_ had become _y_ (French _u_, German _ue_), the letter _u_ was\nused sometimes to denote the sound _o_, sometimes the sound _y_; as\nLatin _k_ (written _c_) had become _tsh_ or _ts_, according to dialect,\nbefore _e_ and _i_, _c_ was used to represent those sounds as well as\nthat of _k_. The chief features of early French orthography (apart from\nthe specialities of individual MSS., especially the earliest) are\ntherefore these:--_c_ stood for _k_ and _tsh_ or _ts_; _d_ for _d_ and\n_dh_ (soft _th_); _e_ for _e_, _e_, and _[schwa]_; _g_ for _g_ and _dzh_;\n_h_ was often written in words of Latin origin where not sounded; _i_\n(_j_) stood for _i_, _y_ consonant, and _dzh_; _o_ for _o_ (Anglo-Norman\n_u_) and _o_; _s_ for _s_ and _z_; _t_ for _t_ and _th_; _u_ (_v_) for\n_o_ (Anglo-Norman _u_), _y_ and _v_; _y_ (rare) for _i_; _z_ for _dz_\nand _ts_. Some new sounds had also to be provided for: where _tsh_ had\nto be distinguished from non-final _ts_, _ch_--at first, as in Italian,\ndenoting _k_ before _i_ and _e_ (_chi_ = _ki_ from _qvi_)--was used for\nit; palatal _l_ was represented by _ill_, which when final usually lost\none _l_, and after _i_ dropped its _i_; palatal _n_ by _gn_, _ng_ or\n_ngn_, to which _i_ was often prefixed; and the new letter _w_,\noriginally _uu_ (_vv_), and sometimes representing merely _uv_ or _vu_,\nwas employed for the consonant-sound still denoted by it in English. All\ncombinations of vowel-letters represented diphthongs; thus _ai_ denoted\n_a_ followed by _i_, _ou_ either _ou_ or _ou_, _ui_ either _oi_\n(Anglo-Norman _ui_) or _yi_, and similarly with the others--_ei_, _eu_,\n_oi_, _iu_, _ie_, _ue_ (and _oe_), and the triphthong _ieu_. Silent\nletters, except initial _h_ in Latin words, are very rare; though MSS.\ncopied from older ones often retain letters whose sounds, though\nexisting in the language of the author, had disappeared from that of the\nmore modern scribe. The subsequent changes in orthography are due mainly\nto changes of sound, and find their explanation in the phonology. Thus,\nas Old French progresses, _s_, having become silent before voiced\nconsonants, indicates only the length of the preceding vowel; _e_ before\nnasals, from the change of _[~e]_ (nasal _e_) to _a_ (nasal _a_),\nrepresents _a_; _c_, from the change of _ts_ to _s_, represents _s_;\n_qu_ and _gu_, from the loss of the _w_ of _kw_ and _gw_, represent _k_\nand _g_ (hard); _ai_, from the change of _ai_ to _e_, represents _e_;\n_ou_, from the change of _ou_ and _ou_ to _u_, represents _u_; _ch_ and\n_g_, from the change of _tsh_ and _dzh_ to _sh_ and _zh_, represent _sh_\nand _zh_; _eu_ and ue, originally representing diphthongs, represent oe\n(German _oe_); _z_, from the change of _ts_ and _dz_ to _s_ and _z_,\nrepresents _s_ and _z_. The new values of some of these letters were\napplied to words not originally spelt with them: Old French _k_ before\n_i_ and _e_ was replaced by _qu_ (_evesque_, _eveske_, Latin\n_episcopum_); Old French _u_ and _o_ for _o_, after this sound had split\ninto _eu_ and _u_, were replaced in the latter case by _ou_ (_rous_, for\n_ros_ or _rus_, Latin _russum_); _s_ was accidentally inserted to mark a\nlong vowel (_pasle_, _pale_, Latin _pallidum_); _eu_ replaced _ue_ and\n_oe_ (_neuf_, _nuef_, Latin _novum_ and _novem_); _z_ replaced _s_ after\n_e_ (_nez_, _nes_, _nasum_). The use of _x_ for final _s_ is due to an\northographical mistake; the MS. contraction of _us_ being something like\n_x_ was at last confused with it (_iex_ for _ieus_, _oculos_), and, its\nmeaning being forgotten, _u_ was inserted before the _x_ (_yeux_) which\nthus meant no more than _s_, and was used for it after other vowels\n(_voix_ for _vois_, _vocem_). As literature came to be extensively\ncultivated, traditional as distinct from phonetic spelling began to be\ninfluential; and in the 14th century, the close of the Old French\nperiod, this influence, though not overpowering, was strong--stronger\nthan in England at that time. About the same period there arose\netymological as distinct from traditional spelling. This practice, the\nalteration of traditional spelling by the insertion or substitution of\nletters which occurred (or were supposed to occur) in the Latin (or\nsupposed Latin) originals of the French words, became very prevalent in\nthe three following centuries, when such forms as _debvoir_ (_debere_)\nfor _devoir_, _faulx_ (_falsum_) for _faus_, _autheur_ (_auctorem_,\nsupposed to be _authorem_) for _auteur_, _poids_ (supposed to be from\n_pondus_, really from _pensum_) for _pois_, were the rule. But besides\nthe etymological, there was a phonetic school of spelling (Ramus, in\n1562, for instance, writes _eime_, _eimates_--with _e_ = _e_, _e_ = _e_,\nand _e_ = _[schwa]_--for _aimai_, _aimastes_), which, though\nunsuccessful on the whole, had some effect in correcting the excesses of\nthe other, so that in the 17th century most of these inserted letters\nbegan to drop; of those which remain, some (_flegme_ for _flemme_ or\n_fleume_, Latin _phlegma_) have corrupted the pronunciation. Some\nimportant reforms--as the dropping of silent _s_, and its replacement by\na circumflex over the vowel when this was long; the frequent distinction\nof close and open _e_ by acute and grave accents; the restriction of _i_\nand _u_ to the vowel sound, of _j_ and _v_ to the consonant; and the\nintroduction from Spain of the cedilla to distinguish _c_ = _s_ from _c_\n= _k_ before _a_, _u_ and _o_--are due to the 16th century. The\nreplacement of _oi_, where it had assumed the value _e_, by _ai_, did\nnot begin till the last century, and was not the rule till the present\none. Indeed, since the 16th century the changes in French spelling have\nbeen small, compared with the changes of the sounds; final consonants\nand final _e_ (unaccented) are still written, though the sounds they\nrepresent have disappeared.\n\nStill, a marked effort towards the simplification of French orthography\nwas made in the third edition of the _Dictionary_ of the French Academy\n(1740), practically the work of the Abbe d'Olivet. While in the first\n(1694) and second (1718) editions of this dictionary words were\noverburdened with silent letters, supposed to represent better the\netymology, in the third edition the spelling of about 5000 words (out of\nabout 18,000) was altered and made more in conformity with the\npronunciation. So, for instance, _c_ was dropped in _beinfaicteur_ and\n_object_, _c_ in _scavoir_, _d_ in _advocat_, _s_ in _accroistre_,\n_albastre_, _aspre_ and _bastard_, _e_ in the past part. _creu_, _deu_,\n_veu_, and in such words as _alleure_, _souilleure_; _y_ was replaced by\n_i_ in _cecy, celuy, gay, joye_, &c. But those changes were not made\nsystematically, and many pedantic spellings were left untouched, while\nmany inconsistencies still remain in the present orthography (_siffler_\nand _persifler_, _souffler_ and _boursoufler_, &c). The consequence of\nthose efforts in contrary directions is that French orthography is now\nquite as traditional and unphonetic as English, and gives an even falser\nnotion than this of the actual state of the language it is supposed to\nrepresent. Many of the features of Old French orthography, early and\nlate, are preserved in English orthography; to it we owe the use of _c_\nfor _s_ (Old English _c_ = _k_ only), of _j_ (_i_) for _dzh_, of _v_\n(_u_) for _v_ (in Old English written _f_), and probably of _ch_ for\n_tsh_. The English _w_ is purely French, the Old English letter being\nthe runic _\u021a_. When French was introduced into England, _kw_ had not\nlost its _w_, and the French _qu_, with that value, replaced the Old\nEnglish _c\u021a_ (_queen_ for _c\u021a_en). In Norman, Old French _o_ had become\nvery like _u_, and in England went entirely into it; _o_, which was one\nof its French signs, thus came to be often used for _u_ in English\n(_come_ for _cume_). _U_, having often in Old French its Modern French\nvalue, was so used in England, and replaced the Old English _y_ (_busy_\nfor _bysi_, Middle English _brud_ for _bryd_), and _y_ was often used\nfor _i_ (_day_ for _dai_). In the 13th century, when _ou_ had come to\nrepresent _u_ in France, it was borrowed by English, and used for the\nlong sound of that vowel (_sour_ for _sur_); and _gu_, which had come to\nmean simply _g_ (hard), was occasionally used to represent the sound _g_\nbefore _i_ and _e_ (_guess_ for _gesse_). Some of the Early Modern\netymological spellings were imitated in England; _fleam_ and _autour_\nwere replaced by _phlegm_ and _authour_, the latter spelling having\ncorrupted the pronunciation.\n\n(e) _Inflections._--In the earliest Old French extant, the influence\nof analogy, especially in verbal forms, is very marked when these are\ncompared with Latin (thus the present participles of all conjugations\ntake _ant_, the ending of the first, Latin _antem_), and becomes\nstronger as the language progresses. Such isolated inflectional changes\nas _saveit_ into _savoit_, which are cases of regular phonetic changes,\nare not noticed here.\n\n  (i.) _Verbs._--(1) In the oldest French texts the Latin pluperfect\n  (with the sense of the perfect) occasionally occurs--_avret_\n  (_habuerat_), _roveret_ (_rogaverat_); it disappears before the 12th\n  century. (2) The _u_ of the ending of the 1st pers. plur. _mus_ drops\n  in Old French, except in the perfect, where its presence (as\n  _[schwa]_) is not yet satisfactorily explained--_amoms_ (_amamus_,\n  influenced by _sumus_), but _amames_ (_amavimus_). In Picard the\n  atonic ending _mes_ is extended to all tenses, giving _amomes_, &c.\n  (3) In the present indicative, 2nd person plur., the ending _ez_ of\n  the first conjugation (Latin _atis_) extends, even in the earliest\n  documents, to all verbs--_avez, recevez, oez_ (_habetis_, _recipitis,\n  auditis_) like _amez_ (_amatis_); such forms as _dites_, _faites_\n  (_dicitis_, _facitis_) being exceptional archaisms. This levelling of\n  the conjugation does not appear at such an early time in the future\n  (formed from the infinitive and from _habetis_ reduced to _etis_); in\n  the Roland both forms occur, _portereiz_ (_portare habetis_)\n  assonating on _rei_ (_roi, regem_), and the younger _porterez_ on\n  _citet_ (_cite_, _civitatem_), but about the end of the 13th century\n  the older form _-eiz_, _-oiz_, is dropped, and _-ez_ becomes gradually\n  the uniform ending for this 2nd person of the plural in the future\n  tense. (4) In Eastern French the 1st plur., when preceded by _i_, has\n  _e_, not _o_, before the nasal, while Western French has _u_ (or _o_),\n  as in the present; _posciomes_ (_posseamus_) in the Jonah homily makes\n  it probable that the latter is the older form--Picard _aviemes_,\n  Burgundian _aviens_, Norman _aviums_ (_habebamus_). (5) The\n  subjunctive of the first conjugation has at first in the singular no\n  final _e_, in accordance with the final vowel laws--_plur_, _plurs_,\n  _plurt_ (_plorem_, _plores_, _ploret_). The forms are gradually\n  assimilated to those of the other conjugations, which, deriving from\n  Latin _am_, _as_, _at_, have _e_, _es_, _e_(_t_); Modern French\n  _pleure_, _pleures_, _pleure_, like _perde_, _perdes_, _perde_\n  (_perdam_, _perdas_, _perdat_). (6) In Old French the present\n  subjunctive and the 1st sing. pres. ind. generally show the influence\n  of the _i_ or _e_ of the Latin _iam_, _eam_, _io_, _eo_--Old French\n  _muire_ or _moerge_ (_moriat_ for _moriatur_), _tiegne_ or _tienge_\n  (_teneat_), _muir_ or _moerc_ (_morio_ for _morior_), _tieng_ or\n  _tienc_ (_teneo_). By degrees these forms are levelled under the other\n  present forms--Modern French _meure_ and _meurs_ following _meurt_\n  (_morit_ for _moritur_), _tienne_ and _tiens_ following _tient_\n  (_tenet_). A few of the older forms remain--the vowel of _aie_\n  (_habeam_) and _ai_ (_habeo_) contrasting with that of _a_ (_habet_).\n  (7) A levelling of which instances occur in the 11th century, but\n  which is not yet complete, is that of the accented and unaccented\n  stem-syllables of verbs. In Old French many verb-stems with shifting\n  accent vary in accordance with phonetic laws--_parler_ (_parabolare_),\n  _amer_ (_amare_) have in the present indicative _parol_ (_parabolo_),\n  _paroles_ (_parabolas_), _parolet_ (_parabolat_), _parlums_\n  (_parabolamus_), _parlez_ (_parabolatis_), _parolent_ (_parabolant_);\n  _aim_ (_amo_), _aimes_ (_amas_), _aimet_ (_amat_), _amums_ (_amamus_),\n  _amez_ (_amatis_), _aiment_ (_amant_). In the first case the\n  unaccented, in the second the accented form has prevailed--Modern\n  French _parle_, _parler_; _aime_, _aimer_. In several verbs, as\n  _tenir_ (_tenere_), the distinction is retained--_tiens_, _tiens_,\n  _tient_, _tenons_, _tenez_, _tiennent_. (8) In Old French, as stated\n  above, _ie_ instead of _e_ from _a_ occurs after a palatal (which, if\n  a consonant, often split into _i_ with a dental); the diphthong thus\n  appears in several forms of many verbs of the 1st\n  conjugation--_preier_ (= _prei-ier_, _precare_), _vengier_\n  (_vindicare_), _laissier_ (_laxare_), _aidier_ (_adjutare_). At the\n  close of the Old French period, those verbs in which the stem ends in\n  a dental replace _ie_ by the _e_ of other verbs--Old French\n  _laissier_, _aidier_, _laissiez_ (_laxatis_), _aidiez_ (adjutatis);\n  Modern French _laisser_, _aider_, _laissez_, _aidez_, by analogy of\n  _aimer_, _aimez_. The older forms generally remain in\n  Picard--_laissier_, _aidier_. (9) The addition of _e_ to the 1st sing.\n  pres. ind. of all verbs of the first conjugation is rare before the\n  13th century, but is usual in the 15th; it is probably due to the\n  analogy of the third person--Old French _chant_ (_canto_), _aim_\n  (_amo_); Modern French _chante_, _aime_. (10) In the 13th century _s_\n  is occasionally added to the 1st pers. sing., except those ending in\n  _e_ (= _[schwa]_) and _ai_, and to the 2nd sing. of imperatives; at the\n  close of the 16th century this becomes the rule, and extends to\n  imperfects and conditionals in _oie_ after the loss of their _e_. It\n  appears to be due to the influence of the 2nd pers. sing.--Old French\n  _vend_ (_vendo_ and _vende_), _vendoie_ (_vendebam_), _parti_\n  (_partivi_), _ting_ (_tenui_); Modern French _vends_, _vendais_,\n  _partis_, _tins_; and _donne_ (_dona_) in certain cases becomes\n  _donnes_. (11) The 1st and 2nd plur. of the pres. subj., which in Old\n  French were generally similar to those of the indicative, gradually\n  take an _i_ before them, which is the rule after the 16th century--Old\n  French _perdons_ (_perdamus_), _perdez_ (_perdatis_); Modern French\n  _perdions_, _perdiez_, apparently by analogy of the imp. ind. (12) The\n  loss in Late Old French of final _s_, _t_, &c., when preceding another\n  consonant, caused many words to have in reality (though often\n  concealed by orthography) double forms of inflection--one without\n  termination, the other with. Thus in the 16th century the 2nd sing.\n  pres. ind. _dors_ (_dormis_) and the 3rd _dort_ (_dormit_) were\n  distinguished as _dorz_ and _dort_ when before a vowel, as _dors_ and\n  _dort_ at the end of a sentence or line of poetry, but ran together as\n  _dor_ when followed by a consonant. Still later, the loss of the final\n  consonant when not followed by a vowel further reduced the cases in\n  which the forms were distinguished, so that the actual French\n  conjugation is considerably simpler than is shown by the customary\n  spellings, except when, in consequence of an immediately following\n  vowel, the old terminations occasionally appear. Even here the\n  antiquity is to a considerable extent artificial or delusive, some of\n  the insertions being due to analogy, and the popular language often\n  omitting the traditional consonant or inserting a different one. (13)\n  The subsequent general loss of _e_ = _[schwa]_ in unaccented final\n  syllables has still further reduced the inflections, but not the\n  distinctive forms--_perd_ (_perdit_) and _perde_ (_perdat_) being\n  generally distinguished as _per_ and _perd_, and before a vowel as\n  _pert_ and _perd_.\n\n  (ii.) _Substantives._--(1) In Early Old French (as in Provencal) there\n  are two main declensions, the masculine and the feminine; with a few\n  exceptions the former distinguishes nominative and accusative in both\n  numbers, the latter in neither. The nom. and acc. sing, and acc. plur.\n  mas. correspond to those of the Latin 2nd or 3rd declension, the nom.\n  plur. to that of the 2nd declension. The sing, fem. corresponds to the\n  nom. and acc. of the Latin 1st declension, or to the acc. of the 3rd;\n  the plur. fem. to the acc. of the 1st declension, or to the nom. and\n  acc. of the 3rd. Thus masc. _tors_ (_taurus_), _lere_ (_latro_); _tor_\n  (_taurum_), _laron_ (_latronem_); _tor_ (_tauri_), _laron_ (_latroni_\n  for _-nes_); _tors_ (_tauros_), _larons_ (_latrones_); but fem. only\n  _ele_ (_ala_ and _alam_), _flor_ (_florem_); _eles_ (_alas_), _flors_\n  (_flores_ nom. and acc.). About the end of the 11th century feminines\n  not ending in _e_ = _[schwa]_ take, by analogy of the masculines, _s_\n  in the nom. sing., thus distinguishing nom. _flors_ from acc. _flor_.\n  A century later, masculines without _s_ in the nom. sing. take this\n  consonant by analogy of the other masculines, giving _leres_ as nom.\n  similar to _tors_. In Anglo-Norman the accusative forms very early\n  begin to replace the nominative, and soon supersede them, the language\n  following the tendency of contemporaneous English. In continental\n  French the declension-system was preserved much longer, and did not\n  break up till the 14th century, though acc. forms are occasionally\n  substituted for nom. (rarely nom. for acc.) before that date. It must\n  be noticed, however, that in the current language the reduction of the\n  declension to one case (generally the accusative) per number appears\n  much earlier than in the language of literature proper and poetry;\n  Froissart, for instance, _c._ 1400, in his poetical works is much more\n  careful of the declension than in his Chronicles. In the 15th century\n  the modern system of one case is fully established; the form kept is\n  almost always the accusative (sing. without _s_, plural with _s_), but\n  in a few words, such as _fils_ (_filius_), _soeur_ (_soror_), _pastre_\n  (_pastor_), and in proper names such as _Georges_, _Gilles_, &c.,\n  often used as vocative (therefore with the form of nom.); the nom.\n  survives in the sing. Occasionally both forms exist, in different\n  senses--_sire_ (_senior_) and _seigneur_ (_seniorem_), _on_ (_homo_)\n  and _homme_ (_hominem_). (2) Latin neuters are generally masculine in\n  Old French, and inflected according to their analogy, as _ciels_\n  (_caelus_ for _caelum_ nom.), _ciel_ (_caelum_ acc.), _ciel_ (_caeli_\n  for _caela_ nom.), _ciels_ (_caelos_ for _caela_ acc.); but in some\n  cases the form of the Latin neuter is preserved, as in _cors_, now\n  _corps_, Lat. _corpus_; _tens_, now _temps_, Lat. _tempus_. Many\n  neuters lose their singular form and treat the plural as a feminine\n  singular, as in the related languages--_merveille_ (_mirabilia_),\n  _feuille_ (_folia_). But in a few words the neuter plural termination\n  is used, as in Italian, in its primitive sense--_carre_ (_carra_,\n  which exists as well as _carri_), _paire_ (_Lat. paria_); Modern\n  French _chars_, _paires_. (3) In Old French the inflectional _s_ often\n  causes phonetic changes in the stem; thus palatal _l_ before _s_ takes\n  _t_ after it, and becomes dental _l_, which afterwards changes to _u_\n  or drops--_fil_ (_filium_ and _filii_) with palatal _l_, _filz_\n  (_filius_ and _filios_), afterwards _fiz_, with _z_ = _ts_ (preserved\n  in English _Fitz_), and then _fis_, as now (spelt _fils_). Many\n  consonants before _s_, as the _t_ of _fiz_, disappear, and _l_ is\n  vocalized--_vif_ (_vivum_), _mal_ (_malum_), nominative sing. and acc.\n  plur. _vis_, _maus_ (earlier _mals_). These forms of the plural are\n  retained in the 16th century, though often etymologically spelt with\n  the consonant of the singular, as in _vifs_, pronounced _vis_; but in\n  Late Modern French many of them disappear, _vifs_, with _f_ sounded as\n  in the singular, being the plural of _vif_, _bals_ (formerly _baux_)\n  that of _bal_. In many words, as _chant_ (_cantus_) and _champs_\n  (_campos_) with silent _t_ and _p_ (Old French _chans_ in both cases),\n  _maux_ (Old French _mals_, sing. _mal_), _yeux_ (_oculos_, Old French\n  _oelz_, sing. _oeil_) the old change in the stem is kept. Sometimes,\n  as in _cieux_ (_caelos_) and _ciels_, the old traditional and the\n  modern analogical forms coexist, with different meanings. (4) The\n  modern loss of final _s_ (except when kept as _z_ before a vowel) has\n  seriously modified the French declension, the singulars _fort_ (_for_)\n  and _forte_ (_fort_) being generally undistinguishable from their\n  plurals _forts_ and _fortes_. The subsequent loss of _[schwa]_ in\n  finals has not affected the relation between sing. and plur. forms;\n  but with the frequent recoining of the plural forms on the singular\n  present Modern French has very often no distinction between sing. and\n  plur., except before a vowel. Such plurals as _maux_ have always been\n  distinct from their singular _mal_; in those whose singular ends in\n  _s_ there never was any distinction, Old French _laz_ (now spelt\n  _lacs_) corresponding to _laqveus_, _laqveum_, _laqvei_ and _laqveos_.\n\n  (iii.) _Adjectives._--(1) The terminations of the cases and numbers of\n  adjectives are the same as those of substantives, and are treated in\n  the preceding paragraph. The feminine generally takes no _e_ if the\n  masc. has none, and if there is no distinction in Latin--fem. sing.\n  _fort_ (_fortem_), _grant_ (_grandem_), fem. plur. _forz_ (_fortes_),\n  _granz_ (_grandes_), like the acc. masc. Certain adjectives of this\n  class, and among them all the adjectives formed with the Latin suffix\n  _-ensis_, take regularly, even in the oldest French, the feminine\n  ending _e_, in _Provencal_ a (_courtois_, fem. _courtoise_; _commun_,\n  fem. _commune_). To these must not be added _dous_ (Mod. Fr. _dolz_,\n  _dous_), fem. _douce_, which probably comes from a Low Latin\n  _dulcius_, _dulcia_. In the 11th century some other feminines,\n  originally without _e_, begin in Norman to take this\n  termination--_grande_ (in a feminine assonance in the Alexis), plur.\n  _grandes_; but other dialects generally preserve the original form\n  till the 14th century. In the 16th century the _e_ is general in the\n  feminine, and is now universal, except in a few\n  expressions--_grand'mere_ (with erroneous apostrophe, _grandem_,\n  _matrem_), _lettres royaux_ (_literas regales_), and most adverbs from\n  adjectives in _-ant_, _-ent_--_couramment_ (_currante_ for _-ente\n  mente_), _sciemment_ (_sciente mente_). (2) Several adjectives have in\n  Modern French replaced the masc. by the feminine--Old French masc.\n  _roit_ (_rigidum_), fem. _roide_ (_rigidam_); Modern French _roide_\n  for both genders. (3) In Old French several Latin simple comparatives\n  are preserved--_maiur_ (_majorem_), nom. _maire_ (_major_); _graignur_\n  (_grandiorem_), nom. _graindre_ (_grandior_); only a few of these now\n  survive--_pire_ (_pejor_), _meilleur_ (_meliorem_), with their\n  adverbial neuters _pis_ (_pejus_), _mieux_ (_melius_). The few simple\n  superlatives found in Old French, as _merme_ (_minimum_), _pesme_\n  (_pessimus_), _proisme_ (_proximum_), _haltisme_ (_altissimum_), this\n  last one being clearly a literary word, are now extinct, and, when\n  they existed, had hardly the meaning of a superlative. (4) The modern\n  loss of many final consonants when not before vowels, and the\n  subsequent loss of final _[schwa]_, have greatly affected the\n  distinction between the masc. and fem. of adjectives--_fort_ and\n  _forte_ are still distinguished as _for_ and _fort_, but _amer_\n  (_amarum_) and _amere_ (_amaram_), with their plurals _amers_ and\n  _ameres_, have run together.\n\n(f) _Derivation._--Most of the Old French prefixes and suffixes are\ndescendants of Latin ones, but a few are Teutonic (_ard = hard_), and\nsome are later borrowings from Latin (_arie_, afterwards _aire_, from\n_arium_). In Modern French many old affixes are hardly used for forming\nnew words; the inherited _ier_ (_arium_) is yielding to the borrowed\n_aire_, the popular _contre_ (_contra_) to the learned anti (Greek), and\nthe native _ee_ (_atam_) to the Italian _ade_. The suffixes of many\nwords have been assimilated to more common ones; thus _sengler_\n(_singularem_) is now _sanglier_.\n\n(g) _Syntax._--Old French syntax, gradually changing from the 10th to\nthe 14th century, has a character of its own, distinct from that of\nModern French; though when compared with Latin syntax it appears\ndecidedly modern.\n\n  (1) The general formal distinction between nominative and accusative\n  is the chief feature which causes French syntax to resemble that of\n  Latin and differ from that of the modern language; and as the\n  distinction had to be replaced by a comparatively fixed word-order, a\n  serious loss of freedom ensued. If the forms are modernized while the\n  word-order is kept, the Old French _l'archevesque ne puet flechir li\n  reis Henris_ (Latin _archiepiscopum non potest flectere rex Henricus_)\n  assumes a totally different meaning--_l'archeveque ne peut flechir le\n  roi Henri_. (2) The replacement of the nominative form of nouns by the\n  accusative is itself a syntactical feature, though treated above under\n  inflection. A more modern instance is exhibited by the personal\n  pronouns, which, when not immediately the subject of a verb,\n  occasionally take even in Old French, and regularly in the 16th\n  century, the accusative form; the Old French _je qui sui_ (_ego qvi\n  sum_) becomes _moi qui suis_, though the older usage survives in the\n  legal phrase _je soussigne_.... (3) The definite article is now\n  required in many cases where Old French dispenses with it--_jo cunquis\n  Engleterre, suffrir mort_ (as Modern French _avoir faim_); Modern\n  French _l'Angleterre, la mort_. (4) Old French had distinct pronouns\n  for \"this\" and \"that\"--_cest_ (_ecce istum_) and _cel_ (_ecce\n  illium_), with their cases. Both exist in the 16th century, but the\n  present language employs _cet_ as adjective, _cel_ as substantive, in\n  both meanings, marking the old distinction by affixing the adverbs\n  _ci_ and _la_--_cet homme-ci, cet homme-la_; _celui-ci, celui-la_. (5)\n  In Old French, the verbal terminations being clear, the subject\n  pronoun is usually not expressed--_si ferai_ (_sic facere habeo_),\n  _est durs_ (_durus est_), _que feras_ (_quid facere habes_)? In the\n  16th century the use of the pronoun is general, and is now universal,\n  except in one or two impersonal phrases, as _n'importe, peu s'en\n  faut_. (6) The present participle in Old French in its uninflected\n  form coincided with the gerund (_amant = amantem_ and _amando_), and\n  in the modern language has been replaced by the latter, except where\n  it has become adjectival; the Old French _complaingnans leur dolours_\n  (Latin _plangentes_) is now _plaignant leurs douleurs_ (Latin\n  _plangendo_). The now extinct use of _estre_ with the participle\n  present for the simple verb is not uncommon in Old French down to the\n  16th century--_sont disanz_ (_sunt dicentes_) = Modern French _ils\n  disent_ (as English _they are saying_). (7) In present Modern French\n  the preterite participle when used with _avoir_ to form verb-tenses is\n  invariable, except when the object precedes (an exception now\n  vanishing in the conversational language)--_j'ai ecrit les lettres,\n  les lettres que j'ai ecrites_. In Old French down to the 16th century,\n  formal concord was more common (though by no means necessary), partly\n  because the object preceded the participle much oftener than now--_ad\n  la culur muee_ (_habet colorem mutatam_), _ad faite sa venjance, les\n  turs ad rendues_. (8) The sentences just quoted will serve as\n  specimens of the freedom of Old French word-order--the object standing\n  either before verb and participle, between them, or after both. The\n  predicative adjective can stand before or after the verb--_halt sunt\n  li pui_ (Latin _podia_), _e tenebrus e grant_. (9) In Old French _ne_\n  (Early Old French _nen_, Latin _non_) suffices for the negation\n  without _pas_ (_passum_), _point_ (_punctum_) or _mie_ (_micam_, now\n  obsolete), though these are frequently used--_jo ne sui lis sire_ (_je\n  ne suis pas ton seigneur_), _autre feme nen ara_ (_il n'aura pas autre\n  femme_). In principal sentences Modern French uses _ne_ by itself only\n  in certain cases--_je ne puis marcher, je n'ai rien_. The slight\n  weight as a negation usually attached to ne has caused several\n  originally positive words to take a negative meaning--_rien_ (Latin\n  _rem_) now meaning \"nothing\" as well as \"something.\" (10) In Old\n  French interrogation was expressed with substantives as with pronouns\n  by putting them after the verb--_est Saul entre les prophetes?_ In\n  Modern French the pronominal inversion (the substantive being\n  prefixed) or a verbal periphrasis must be used--_Saul est-il?_ or\n  _est-ce que Saul est?_\n\n  (h) _Summary._--Looking at the internal history of the French language\n  as a whole, there is no such strongly marked division as exists\n  between Old and Middle English, or even between Middle and Modern\n  English. Some of the most important changes are quite modern, and are\n  concealed by the traditional orthography; but, even making allowance\n  for this, the difference between French of the 11th century and that\n  of the 20th is less than that between English of the same dates. The\n  most important change in itself and for its effects is probably that\n  which is usually made the division between Old and Modern French, the\n  loss of the formal distinction between nominative and accusative; next\n  to this are perhaps the gradual loss of many final consonants, the\n  still recent loss of the vowel of unaccented final syllables, and the\n  extension of analogy in conjugation and declension. In its\n  construction Old French is distinguished by a freedom strongly\n  contrasting with the strictness of the modern language, and bears, as\n  might be expected, a much stronger resemblance than the latter to the\n  other Romanic dialects. In many features, indeed, both positive and\n  negative, Modern French forms a class by itself, distinct in character\n  from the other modern representatives of Latin.\n\n  IV. BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The few works which treat of French philology as a\n  whole are now in many respects antiquated, and the important\n  discoveries of recent years, which have revolutionized our ideas of\n  Old French phonology and dialectology, are scattered in various\n  editions, periodicals, and separate treatises. For many things Diez's\n  _Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen_ (4th edition--a reprint of the\n  3rd--Bonn, 1876-1877; French translation, Paris, 1872-1875) is still\n  very valuable; Burguy's _Grammaire de la Langue d'Oil_ (2nd edition--a\n  reprint of the 1st--Berlin, 1869-1870) is useful only as a collection\n  of examples. Schwan's _Grammatik des Altfranzoesischen_, as revised by\n  Behrens in the 3rd edition (Leipzig, 1898; French translation, Leipzig\n  and Paris, 1900), is by far the best old French grammar we possess.\n  For the history of French language in general see F. Brunot, _Histoire\n  de la langue francaise des origines a 1900_ (Paris, 1905, 1906, &c.).\n  For the history of spelling, A. F. Didot, _Observations sur\n  l'orthographe ou ortografie francaise suivies d'une histoire de la\n  reforme orthographique depuis le XV^e siecle jusqu'a nos jours_ (2nd\n  ed., Paris, 1868). For the history of French sounds: Ch. Thurot, _De\n  la prononciation francaise depuis le commencement du XVI^e siecle,\n  d'apres les temoignages des grammairiens_ (2 vols., Paris, 1881-1883).\n  For the history of syntax, apart from various grammatical works of a\n  general character, much is to be gathered from Ad. Tobler's\n  _Vermischte Beitraege zur franzoesischen Grammatik_ (3 parts, 1886,\n  1894, 1899, parts i. and ii. in second editions, 1902, 1906). G.\n  Paris's edition of _La Vie de S. Alexis_ (Paris, 1872) was the pioneer\n  of, and retains an important place among, the recent original works on\n  Old French. Darmesteter and Hatzfeld's _Le Seizieme Siecle_ (Paris,\n  1878) contains the first good account of Early Modern French. Littre's\n  _Dictionnaire de la langue francaise_ (4 vols., Paris, 1863-1869, and\n  a Supplement, 1877); and Hatzfeld, Darmesteter and Thomas, _Dict.\n  general de la langue francaise_, more condensed (2 vols., Paris,\n  1888-1900), contain much useful and often original information about\n  the etymology and history of French words. For the etymology of many\n  French (and also Provencal) words, reference must be made to Ant.\n  Thomas's _Essais de philologie francaise_ (Paris, 1897) and _Nouveaux\n  essais de philologie francaise_ (Paris, 1904). But there is no French\n  dictionary properly historical. A _Dictionnaire historique de la\n  langue francaise_ was begun by the Academie francaise (4 vols.,\n  1859-1894), but it was, from the first, antiquated. It contains only\n  one letter (A) and has not been continued. The leading periodicals now\n  in existence are the _Romania_ (Paris), founded (in 1872) and edited\n  by P. Meyer and G. Paris (with Ant. Thomas since the death of G. Paris\n  in 1903), and the _Zeitschrift fuer romanische Philologie_ (Halle),\n  founded (in 1877) and edited by G. Groeber. To these reference should\n  be made for information as to the very numerous articles, treatises\n  and editions by the many and often distinguished scholars who,\n  especially in France and Germany, now prosecute the scientific study\n  of the language. It may be well to mention that, Old French phonology\n  especially being complicated, and as yet incompletely investigated,\n  these publications, the views in which are of various degrees of\n  value, require not mere acquiescent reading, but critical study. The\n  dialects of France in their present state (_patois_) are now being\n  scientifically investigated. The special works on the subject\n  (dictionaries, grammars, &c.) cannot be fully indicated here; we must\n  limit ourselves to the mention of Behren's _Bibliographie des patois\n  gallo-romans_ (2nd ed., revised Berlin, 1893), and of Gillieron and\n  Edmont's _Atlas linguistique de la France_ (1902 et seq.), a huge\n  publication planned to contain about 1800 maps.     (H. N.; P. M.)","title":"Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, \"Franciscans\" to \"French Language\": Volume 11, Slice 1","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":168139}