Articles in This Slice

259

FENTON, EDWARD (d. 1603), English navigator, son of Henry Fenton and brother of Sir Geoffrey Fenton (q.v.), was a native of Nottinghamshire. In 1577 he sailed, in command of the “Gabriel,” with Sir Martin Frobisher’s second expedition for the discovery of the north-west passage, and in the following year he took part as second in command in Frobisher’s third expedition, his ship being the “Judith.” He was then employed in Ireland for a time, but in 1582 he was put in charge of an expedition which was to sail round the Cape of Good Hope to the Moluccas and China, his instructions being to obtain any knowledge of the north-west passage that was possible without hindrance to his trade. On this unsuccessful voyage he got no farther than Brazil, and throughout he was engaged in quarrelling with his officers, and especially with his lieutenant, William Hawkins, the nephew of Sir John Hawkins, whom he had in irons when he arrived back in the Thames. In 1588 he had command of the “Mary Rose,” one of the ships of the fleet that was formed to oppose the Armada. He died fifteen years afterwards.

FENTON, ELIJAH (1683-1730), English poet, was born at Shelton near Newcastle-under-Lyme, of an old Staffordshire family, on the 25th of May 1683. He graduated from Jesus College, Cambridge, in 1704, but was prevented by religious scruples from taking orders. He accompanied the earl of Orrery to Flanders as private secretary, and on returning to England became assistant in a school at Headley, Surrey, being soon afterwards appointed master of the free grammar school at Sevenoaks in Kent. In 1710 he resigned his appointment in the expectation of a place from Lord Bolingbroke, but was disappointed. He then became tutor to Lord Broghill, son of his patron Orrery. Fenton is remembered as the coadjutor of Alexander Pope in his translation of the Odyssey. He was responsible for the first, fourth, nineteenth and twentieth books, for which he received £300. He died at East Hampstead, Berkshire, on the 16th of July 1730. He was buried in the parish church, and his epitaph was written by Pope.

260

FENTON, SIR GEOFFREY (c. 1539-1608), English writer and politician, was the son of Henry Fenton, of Nottinghamshire. He was brother of Edward Fenton the navigator. He is said to have visited Spain and Italy in his youth; possibly he went to Paris in Sir Thomas Hoby’s train in 1566, for he was living there in 1567, when he wrote Certaine tragicall discourses written oute of Frenche and Latin. This book is a free translation of François de Belleforest’s French rendering of Matteo Bandello’s Novelle. Till 1579 Fenton continued his literary labours, publishing Monophylo in 1572, Golden epistles gathered out of Guevarae’s workes as other authors ... 1575, and various religious tracts of strong protestant tendencies. In 1579 appeared the Historie of Guicciardini, translated out of French by G. F. and dedicated to Elizabeth. Through Lord Burghley he obtained, in 1580, the post of secretary to the new lord deputy of Ireland, Lord Grey de Wilton, and thus became a fellow worker with the poet, Edmund Spenser. From this time Fenton abandoned literature and became a faithful if somewhat unscrupulous servant of the crown. He was a bigoted protestant, longing to use the rack against “the diabolicall secte of Rome,” and even advocating the assassination of the queen’s most dangerous subjects. He won Elizabeth’s confidence, and the hatred of all his fellow-workers, by keeping her informed of every one’s doings in Ireland. In 1587 Sir John Perrot arrested Fenton, but the queen instantly ordered his release. Fenton was knighted in 1589, and in 1590-1591 he was in London as commissioner on the impeachment of Perrot. Full of dislike of the Scots and of James VI. (which he did not scruple to utter), on the latter’s accession Fenton’s post of secretary was in danger, but Burghley exerted himself in his favour, and in 1604 it was confirmed to him for life, though he had to share it with Sir Richard Coke. Fenton died in Dublin on the 19th of October 1608, and was buried in St Patrick’s cathedral. He married in June 1585, Alice, daughter of Dr Robert Weston, formerly lord chancellor of Ireland, and widow of Dr Hugh Brady, bishop of Meath, by whom he had two children, a son, Sir William Fenton, and a daughter, Catherine, who in 1603 married Richard Boyle, 1st earl of Cork.

FENTON, LAVINIA (1708-1760), English actress, was probably the daughter of a naval lieutenant named Beswick, but she bore the name of her mother’s husband. Her first appearance was as Monimia in Otway’s Orphans, in 1726 at the Haymarket. She then joined the company of players at the theatre in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, where her success and beauty made her the toast of the beaux. It was in Gay’s Beggar’s Opera, as Polly Peachum, that Miss Fenton made her greatest success. Her pictures were in great demand, verses were written to her and books published about her, and she was the most talked-of person in London. Hogarth’s picture shows her in one of the scenes, with the duke of Bolton in a box. After appearing in several comedies, and then in numerous repetitions of the Beggar’s Opera, she ran away with her lover Charles Paulet, 3rd duke of Bolton, a man much older than herself, who, after the death of his wife in 1751, married her. Their three children all died young. The duchess survived her husband and died on the 24th of January 1760.

FENTON, a town of Staffordshire, England, on the North Staffordshire railway, adjoining the east side of Stoke-on-Trent, in which parliamentary and municipal borough it is included. Pop. (1891) 16,998; (1901) 22,742. The manufacture of earthenware common to the district (the Potteries) employs the bulk of the large industrial population.

FENUGREEK, in botany, Trigonella Foenum-graecum (so called from the name given to it by the ancients, who used it as fodder for cattle), a member of a genus of leguminous herbs very similar in habit and in most of their characters to the species of the genus Medicago. The leaves are formed of three obovate leaflets, the middle one of which is stalked; the flowers are solitary, or in clusters of two or three, and have a campanulate, 5-cleft calyx; and the pods are many-seeded, cylindrical or flattened, and straight or only slightly curved. The genus is widely diffused over the south of Europe, West and Central Asia, and the north of Africa, and is represented by several species in Australia. Fenugreek is indigenous to south-eastern Europe and western Asia, and is cultivated in the Mediterranean region, parts of central Europe, and in Morocco, and largely in Egypt and in India. It bears a sickle-shaped pod, containing from 10 to 20 seeds, from which 6% of a fetid, fatty and bitter oil can be extracted by ether. In India the fresh plant is employed as an esculent. The seed is an ingredient in curry powders, and is used for flavouring cattle foods. It was formerly much esteemed as a medicine, and is still in repute in veterinary practice.

FENWICK, SIR JOHN (c. 1645-1697), English conspirator, was the eldest son of Sir William Fenwick, or Fenwicke, a member of an old Northumberland family. He entered the army, becoming major-general in 1688, but before this date he had been returned in succession to his father as one of the members of parliament for Northumberland, which county he represented from 1677 to 1687. He was a strong partisan of King James II., and in 1685 was one of the principal supporters of the act of attainder against the duke of Monmouth; but he remained in England when William III. ascended the throne three years later. He began at once to plot against the new king, for which he underwent a short imprisonment in 1689. Renewing his plots on his release, he publicly insulted Queen Mary in 1691, and it is practically certain that he was implicated in the schemes for assassinating William which came to light in 1695 and 1696. After the seizure of his fellow-conspirators, Robert Charnock and others, he remained in hiding until the imprudent conduct of his friends in attempting to induce one of the witnesses against him to leave the country led to his arrest in June in 1696. To save himself he offered to reveal all he knew about the Jacobite conspiracies; but his confession was a farce, being confined to charges against some of the leading Whig noblemen, which were damaging, but not conclusive. By this time his friends had succeeded in removing one of the two witnesses, and in these circumstances it was thought that the charge of treason must fail. The government, however, overcame this difficulty by introducing a bill of attainder, which after a long and acrimonious discussion passed through both Houses of Parliament. His wife persevered in her attempts to save his life, but her efforts were fruitless, and Fenwick was beheaded in London on the 28th of January 1697, with the same formalities as were usually observed at the execution of a peer. By his wife, Mary (d. 1708), daughter of Charles Howard, 1st earl of Carlisle, he had three sons and one daughter. Macaulay says that “of all the Jacobites, the most desperate characters not excepted, he (Fenwick) was the only one for whom William felt an intense personal aversion”; and it is interesting to note that Fenwick’s hatred of the king is said to date from the time when he was serving in Holland, and was reprimanded by William, then prince of Orange.

FEOFFMENT, in English law, during the feudal period, the usual method of granting or conveying a freehold or fee. For the derivation of the word see Fief and Fee. The essential elements were livery of seisin (delivery of possession), which consisted in formally giving to the feoffee on the land a clod or turf, or a growing twig, as a symbol of the transfer of the land, and words by the feoffor declaratory of his intent to deliver possession to the feoffee with a “limitation” of the estate intended to be transferred. This was called livery in deed. Livery in law was made not on but in sight of this land, the feoffor saying to the feoffee, “I give you that land; enter and take possession.” Livery in law, in order to pass the estate, had to be perfected by entry by the feoffee during the joint lives of himself and the feoffor. It was usual to evidence the feoffment by writing in a charter or deed of feoffment; but writing was not essential until the Statute of Frauds; now, by the Real Property Act 1845, a conveyance of real property is void unless evidenced by deed, and 261 thus feoffments have been rendered unnecessary and superfluous. All corporeal hereditaments were by that act declared to be in grant as well as livery, i.e. they could be granted by deed without livery. A feoffment might be a tortious conveyance, i.e. if a person attempted to give to the feoffee a greater estate than he himself had in the land, he forfeited the estate of which he was seised. (See Conveyancing; Real Property.)

FERDINAND (Span. Fernando or Hernando; Ital. Ferdinando or Ferrante; in O.H. Ger. Herinand, i.e. “brave in the host,” from O.H.G. Heri, “army,” A.S. here, Mod. Ger. Heer, and the Goth, nanþjan, “to dare”), a name borne at various times by many European sovereigns and princes, the more important of whom are noticed below in the following order: emperors, kings of Naples, Portugal, Spain (Castile, Leon and Aragon) and the two Sicilies; then the grand duke of Tuscany, the prince of Bulgaria, the duke of Brunswick and the elector of Cologne.

FERDINAND I. (1503-1564), Roman emperor, was born at Alcalá de Henares on the 10th of March 1503, his father being Philip the Handsome, son of the emperor Maximilian I., and his mother Joanna, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, king and queen of Castile and Aragon. Philip died in 1506 and Ferdinand, educated in Spain, was regarded with especial favour by his maternal grandfather who wished to form a Spanish-Italian kingdom for his namesake. This plan came to nothing, and the same fate attended a suggestion made after the death of Maximilian in 1519 that Ferdinand, and not his elder brother Charles, afterwards the emperor Charles V., should succeed to the imperial throne. Charles, however, secured the Empire and the whole of the lands of Maximilian and Ferdinand, while the younger brother was perforce content with a subordinate position. Yet some provision must be made for Ferdinand. In April 1521 the emperor granted to him the archduchies and duchies of upper and lower Austria, Carinthia, Styria and Carniola, adding soon afterwards the county of Tirol and the hereditary possessions of the Habsburgs in south-western Germany. About the same time the archduke was appointed to govern the duchy of Württemberg, which had come into the possession of Charles V.; and in May 1521 he was married at Linz to Anna (d. 1547), a daughter of Ladislaus, king of Hungary and Bohemia, a union which had been arranged some years before by the emperor Maximilian. In 1521 also he was made president of the council of regency (Reichsregiment), appointed to govern Germany during the emperor’s absence, and the next five years were occupied with imperial business, in which he acted as his brother’s representative, and in the government of the Austrian lands.

In Austria and the neighbouring duchies Ferdinand sought at first to suppress the reformers and their teaching, and this was possibly one reason why he had some difficulty in quelling risings in the districts under his rule after the Peasants’ War broke out in 1524. But a new field was soon opened for his ambition. In August 1526 his childless brother-in-law, Louis II., king of Hungary and Bohemia, was killed at the battle of Mohacs, and the archduke at once claimed both kingdoms, both by treaty and by right of his wife. Taking advantage of the divisions among his opponents, he was chosen king of Bohemia in October 1526, and crowned at Prague in the following February, but in Hungary he was less successful. John Zapolya, supported by the national party and soon afterwards by the Turks, offered a sturdy resistance, and although Ferdinand was chosen king at Pressburg in December 1526, and after defeating Zapolya at Tokay was crowned at Stuhlweissenburg in November 1527, he was unable to take possession of the kingdom. The Bavarian Wittelsbachs, incensed at not securing the Bohemian throne, were secretly intriguing with his foes; the French, after assisting spasmodically, made a formal alliance with Turkey in 1535; and Zapolya was a very useful centre round which the enemies of the Habsburgs were not slow to gather. A truce made in 1533 was soon broken, and the war dragged on until 1538, when by the treaty of Grosswardein, Hungary was divided between the claimants. The kingly title was given to Zapolya, but Ferdinand was to follow him on the throne. Before this, in January 1531, he had been chosen king of the Romans, or German king, at Cologne, and his coronation took place a few days later at Aix-la-Chapelle. He had thoroughly earned this honour by his loyalty to his brother, whom he had represented at several diets. In religious matters the king was now inclined, probably owing to the Turkish danger, to steer a middle course between the contending parties, and in 1532 he agreed to the religious peace of Nuremberg, receiving in return from the Protestants some assistance for the war against the Turks. In 1534, however, his prestige suffered a severe rebuff. Philip, landgrave of Hesse, and his associates had succeeded in conquering Württemberg on behalf of its exiled duke, Ulrich (q.v.), and, otherwise engaged, neither Charles nor Ferdinand could send much help to their lieutenants. They were consequently obliged to consent to the treaty of Cadan, made in June 1534, by which the German king recognized Ulrich as duke of Württemberg, on condition that he held his duchy under Austrian suzerainty.

In Hungary the peace of 1538 was not permanent. When Zapolya died in July 1540 a powerful faction refused to admit the right of Ferdinand to succeed him, and put forward his young son John Sigismund as a candidate for the throne. The cause of John Sigismund was espoused by the Turks and by Ferdinand’s other enemies, and, unable to get any serious assistance from the imperial diet, the king repeatedly sought to make peace with the sultan, but his envoys were haughtily repulsed. In 1544, however, a short truce was made. This was followed by others, and in 1547 one was concluded for five years, but only on condition that Ferdinand paid tribute for the small part of Hungary which remained in his hands. The struggle was renewed in 1551 and was continued in the same desultory fashion until 1562, when a truce was made which lasted during the remainder of Ferdinand’s lifetime. During the war of the league of Schmalkalden in 1546 and 1547 the king had taken the field primarily to protect Bohemia, and after the conclusion of the war he put down a rising in this country with some rigour. He appears during these years to have governed his lands with vigour and success, but in imperial politics he was merely the representative and spokesman of the emperor. About 1546, however, he began to take up a more independent position. Although Charles had crushed the league of Schmalkalden he had refused to restore Württemberg to Ferdinand; and he gave further offence by seeking to secure the succession of his son Philip, afterwards king of Spain, to the imperial throne. Ferdinand naturally objected, but in 1551 his reluctant consent was obtained to the plan that, on the proposed abdication of Charles, Philip should be chosen king of the Romans, and should succeed Ferdinand himself as emperor. Subsequent events caused the scheme to be dropped, but it had a somewhat unfortunate sequel for Charles, as during the short war between the emperor and Maurice, elector of Saxony, in 1552 Ferdinand’s attitude was rather that of a spectator and mediator than of a partisan. There seems, however, to be no truth in the suggestion that he acted treacherously towards his brother, and was in alliance with his foes. On behalf of Charles he negotiated the treaty of Passau with Maurice in 1552, and in 1555 after the conduct of imperial business had virtually been made over to him, and harmony had been restored between the brothers, he was responsible for the religious peace of Augsburg. Early in 1558 Charles carried out his intention to abdicate the imperial throne, and on the 24th of March Ferdinand was crowned as his successor at Frankfort. Pope Paul IV. would not recognize the new emperor, but his successor Pius IV. did so in 1559 through the mediation of Philip of Spain. The emperor’s short reign was mainly spent in seeking to settle the religious differences of Germany, and in efforts to prosecute the Turkish war more vigorously. His hopes at one time centred round the council of Trent which resumed its sittings in 1562, but he was unable to induce the Protestants to be represented. Although he held firmly to the Roman Catholic Church he sought to obtain tangible concessions to her opponents; but he refused to conciliate the Protestants by abrogating the clause concerning ecclesiastical reservation in the peace of Augsburg, and all his efforts to bring about reunion were futile. He did indeed secure the privilege of communion in both kinds from Pius IV. for the 262 laity in Bohemia and in various parts of Germany, but the hearty support which he gave the Jesuits shows that he had no sympathy with Protestantism, and was only anxious to restore union in the Church. In November 1562 he obtained the election of his son Maximilian as king of the Romans, and having arranged a partition of his lands among his three surviving sons, died in Vienna on the 25th of July 1564. His family had consisted of six sons and nine daughters.

In spite of constant and harassing engagements Ferdinand was fairly successful both as king and emperor. He sought to consolidate his Austrian lands, reformed the monetary system in Germany, and reorganized the Aulic council (Reichshofrat). Less masterful but more popular than his brother, whose character overshadows his own, he was just and tolerant, a good Catholic and a conscientious ruler.

FERDINAND II. (1578-1637), Roman emperor, was the eldest son of Charles, archduke of Styria (d. 1590), and his wife Maria, daughter of Albert IV., duke of Bavaria and a grandson of the emperor Ferdinand I. Born at Gratz on the 9th of July 1578, he was trained by the Jesuits, finishing his education at the university of Ingolstadt, and became the pattern prince of the counter-reformation. In 1596 he undertook the government of Styria, Carinthia and Carniola, and after a visit to Italy began an organized attack on Protestantism which under his father’s rule had made great progress in these archduchies; and although hampered by the inroads of the Turks, he showed his indifference to the material welfare of his dominions by compelling many of his Protestant subjects to choose between exile and conversion, and by entirely suppressing Protestant worship. He was not, however, unmindful of the larger interest of his family, or of the Empire which the Habsburgs regarded as belonging to them by hereditary right. In 1606 he joined his kinsmen in recognizing his cousin Matthias as the head of the family in place of the lethargic Rudolph II.; but he shrank from any proceedings which might lead to the deposition of the emperor, whom he represented at the diet of Regensburg in 1608; and his conduct was somewhat ambiguous during the subsequent quarrel between Rudolph and Matthias.

In the first decade of the 17th century the house of Habsburg seemed overtaken by senile decay, and the great inheritance of Charles V. and Ferdinand I. to be threatened with disintegration and collapse. The reigning emperor, Rudolph II., was inert and childless; his surviving brothers, the archduke Matthias (afterwards emperor), Maximilian (1558-1618) and Albert (1559-1621), all men of mature age, were also without direct heirs; the racial differences among its subjects were increased by their religious animosities; and it appeared probable that the numerous enemies of the Habsburgs had only to wait a few years and then to divide the spoil. In spite of the recent murder of Henry IV. of France, this issue seemed still more likely when Matthias succeeded Rudolph as emperor in 1612. The Habsburgs, however, were not indifferent to the danger, and about 1615 it was agreed that Ferdinand, who already had two sons by his marriage with his cousin Maria Anna (d. 1616), daughter of William V., duke of Bavaria, should be the next emperor, and should succeed Matthias in the elective kingdoms of Hungary and Bohemia. The obstacles which impeded the progress of the scheme were gradually overcome by the energy of the archduke Maximilian. The elder archdukes renounced their rights in the succession; the claims of Philip III. and the Spanish Habsburgs were bought off by a promise of Alsace; and the emperor consented to his supercession in Hungary and Bohemia. In 1617 Ferdinand, who was just concluding a war with Venice, was chosen king of Bohemia, and in 1618 king of Hungary; but his election as German king, or king of the Romans, delayed owing to the anxiety of Melchior Klesl (q.v.) to conciliate the protestant princes, had not been accomplished when Matthias died in March 1619. Before this event, however, an important movement had begun in Bohemia. Having been surprised into choosing a devoted Roman Catholic as their king, the Bohemian Protestants suddenly realized that their religious, and possibly their civil liberties, were seriously menaced, and deeds of aggression on the part of Ferdinand’s representatives showed that this was no idle fear. Gaining the upper hand they declared Ferdinand deposed, and elected the elector palatine of the Rhine, Frederick V., in his stead; and the struggle between the rivals was the beginning of the Thirty Years’ War. At the same time other difficulties confronted Ferdinand, who had not yet secured the imperial throne. Bethlen Gabor, prince of Transylvania, invaded Hungary, while the Austrians rose and joined the Bohemians; but having seen his foes retreat from Vienna, Ferdinand hurried to Frankfort, where he was chosen emperor on the 28th of August 1619.

To deal with the elector palatine and his allies the new emperor allied himself with Maximilian I., duke of Bavaria, and the Catholic League, who drove Frederick from Bohemia in 1620, while Ferdinand’s Spanish allies devastated the Palatinate. Peace having been made with Bethlen Gabor in December 1621, the first period of the war ended in a satisfactory fashion for the emperor, and he could turn his attention to completing the work of crushing the Protestants, which had already begun in his archduchies and in Bohemia. In 1623 the Protestant clergy were expelled from Bohemia; in 1624 all worship save that of the Roman Catholic church was forbidden; and in 1627 an order of banishment against all Protestants was issued. A new constitution made the kingdom hereditary in the house of Habsburg, gave larger powers to the sovereign, and aimed at destroying the nationality of the Bohemians. Similar measures in Austria led to a fresh rising which was put down by the aid of the Bavarians in 1627, and Ferdinand could fairly claim that in his hereditary lands at least he had rendered Protestantism innocuous.

The renewal of the Thirty Years’ War in 1625 was caused mainly by the emperor’s vigorous championship of the cause of the counter-reformation in northern and north-eastern Germany. Again the imperial forces were victorious, chiefly owing to the genius of Wallenstein, who raised and led an army in this service, although the great scheme of securing the southern coast of the Baltic for the Habsburgs was foiled partly by the resistance of Stralsund. In March 1629 Ferdinand and his advisers felt themselves strong enough to take the important step towards which their policy in the Empire had been steadily tending. Issuing the famous edict of restitution, the emperor ordered that all lands which had been secularized since 1552, the date of the peace of Passau, should be restored to the church, and prompt measures were taken to enforce this decree. Many and powerful interests were vitally affected by this proceeding, and the result was the outbreak of the third period of the war, which was less favourable to the imperial arms than the preceding ones. This comparative failure was due, in the initial stages of the campaign, to Ferdinand’s weakness in assenting in 1630 to the demand of Maximilian of Bavaria that Wallenstein should be deprived of his command, and also to the genius of Gustavus Adolphus; and in its later stages to his insistence on the second removal of Wallenstein, and to his complicity in the assassination of the general. This deed was followed by the peace of Prague, concluded in 1635, primarily with John George I., elector of Saxony, but soon assented to by other princes; and this treaty, which made extensive concessions to the Protestants, marks the definite failure of Ferdinand to crush Protestantism in the Empire, as he had already done in Austria and Bohemia. It is noteworthy, however, that the emperor refused to allow the inhabitants of his hereditary dominions to share in the benefits of the peace. During these years Ferdinand had also been menaced by the secret or open hostility of France. A dispute over the duchies of Mantua and Monferrato was 263 ended by the treaty of Cherasco in 1631, but the influence of France was employed at the imperial diets and elsewhere in thwarting the plans of Ferdinand and in weakening the power of the Habsburgs. The last important act of the emperor was to secure the election of his son Ferdinand as king of the Romans. An attempt in 1630 to attain this end had failed, but in December 1636 the princes, meeting at Regensburg, bestowed the coveted dignity upon the younger Ferdinand. A few weeks afterwards, on the 15th of February 1637, the emperor died at Vienna, leaving, in addition to the king of the Romans, a son Leopold William (1614-1662), bishop of Passau and Strassburg. Ferdinand’s reign was so occupied with the Thirty Years’ War and the struggle with the Protestants that he had little time or inclination for other business. It is interesting to note, however, that this orthodox and Catholic emperor was constantly at variance with Pope Urban VIII. The quarrel was due principally, but not entirely, to events in Italy, where the pope sided with France in the dispute over the succession to Mantua and Monferrato. The succession question was settled, but the enmity remained; Urban showing his hostility by preventing the election of the younger Ferdinand as king of the Romans in 1630, and by turning a deaf ear to the emperor’s repeated requests for assistance to prosecute the war against the heretics. Ferdinand’s character has neither individuality nor interest, but he ruled the Empire during a critical and important period. Kind and generous to his dependents, his private life was simple and blameless, but he was to a great extent under the influence of his confessors.

FERDINAND III. (1608-1657), Roman emperor, was the elder son of the emperor Ferdinand II., and was born at Gratz on the 13th of July 1608. Educated by the Jesuits, he was crowned king of Hungary in December 1625, and king of Bohemia two years later, and soon began to take part in imperial business. Wallenstein, however, refused to allow him to hold a command in the imperial army; and henceforward reckoned among his enemies, the young king was appointed the successor of the famous general when he was deposed in 1634; and as commander-in-chief of the imperial troops he was nominally responsible for the capture of Regensburg and Donauwörth, and the defeat of the Swedes at Nördlingen. Having been elected king of the Romans, or German king, at Regensburg in December 1636, Ferdinand became emperor on his father’s death in the following February, and showed himself anxious to put an end to the Thirty Years’ War. He persuaded one or two princes to assent to the terms of the treaty of Prague; but a general peace was delayed by his reluctance to grant religious liberty to the Protestants, and by his anxiety to act in unison with Spain. In 1640 he had refused to entertain the idea of a general amnesty suggested by the diet at Regensburg; but negotiations for peace were soon begun, and in 1648 the emperor assented to the treaty of Westphalia. This event belongs rather to the general history of Europe, but it is interesting to note that owing to Ferdinand’s insistence the Protestants in his hereditary dominions did not obtain religious liberty at this settlement. After 1648 the emperor was engaged in carrying out the terms of the treaty and ridding Germany of the foreign soldiery. In 1656 he sent an army into Italy to assist Spain in her struggle with France, and he had just concluded an alliance with Poland to check the aggressions of Charles X, of Sweden when he died on the 2nd of April 1657. Ferdinand was a scholarly and cultured man, an excellent linguist and a composer of music. Industrious and popular in public life, his private life was blameless; and although a strong Roman Catholic he was less fanatical than his father. His first wife was Maria Anna (d. 1646), daughter of Philip III. of Spain, by whom he had three sons: Ferdinand, who was chosen king of the Romans in 1653, and who died in the following year; Leopold, who succeeded his father on the imperial throne; and Charles Joseph (d. 1664), bishop of Passau and Breslau, and grand-master of the Teutonic order. The emperor’s second wife was his cousin Maria (d. 1649), daughter of the archduke Leopold; and his third wife was Eleanora of Mantua (d. 1686). His musical works, together with those of the emperors Leopold I. and Joseph I., have been published by G. Adler (Vienna, 1892-1893).

FERDINAND I. (1793-1875), emperor of Austria, eldest son of Francis I. and of Maria Theresa of Naples, was born at Vienna on the 19th of April 1793. In his boyhood he suffered from epileptic fits, and could therefore not receive a regular education. As his health improved with his growth and with travel, he was not set aside from the succession. In 1830 his father caused him to be crowned king of Hungary, a pure formality, which gave him no power, and was designed to avoid possible trouble in the future. In 1831 he was married to Anna, daughter of Victor Emmanuel I. of Sardinia. The marriage was barren. When Francis I. died on the 2nd of March 1835, Ferdinand was recognized as his successor. But his incapacity was so notorious that the conduct of affairs was entrusted to a council of state, consisting of Prince Metternich (q.v.) with other ministers, and two archdukes, Louis and Francis Charles. They composed the Staatsconferenz, the ill-constructed and informal regency which led the Austrian dominions to the revolutionary outbreaks of 1846-1849. (See Austria-Hungary.) The emperor, who was subject to fits of actual insanity, and in his lucid intervals was weak and confused in mind, was a political nullity. His personal amiability earned him the affectionate pity of his subjects, and he became the hero of popular stories which did not tend to maintain the dignity of the crown. It was commonly said that having taken refuge on a rainy day in a farmhouse he was so tempted by the smell of the dumplings which the farmer and his family were eating for dinner, that he insisted on having one. His doctor, who knew them to be indigestible, objected, and thereupon Ferdinand, in an imperial rage, made the answer:—“Kaiser bin i’, und Knüdel müss i’ haben” (I am emperor, and will have the dumpling)—which has become a Viennese proverb. His popular name of Der Gütige (the good sort of man) expressed as much derision as affection. Ferdinand had good taste for art and music. Some modification of the tight-handed rule of his father was made by the Staatsconferenz during his reign. In the presence of the revolutionary troubles, which began with agrarian riots in Galicia in 1846, and then spread over the whole empire, he was personally helpless. He was compelled to escape from the disorders of Vienna to Innsbruck on the 17th of May 1848. He came back on the invitation of the diet on the 12th of August, but soon had to escape once more from the mob of students and workmen who were in possession of the city. On the 2nd of December he abdicated at Olmütz in favour of his nephew, Francis Joseph. He lived under supervision by doctors and guardians at Prague till his death on the 29th of June 1855.

FERDINAND I. (1423-1494), also called Don Ferrante, king of Naples, the natural son of Alphonso V. of Aragon and I. of Sicily and Naples, was horn in 1423. In accordance with his father’s will, he succeeded him on the throne of Naples in 1458, but Pope Calixtus III. declared the line of Aragon extinct and the kingdom a fief of the church. But although he died before he could make good his claim (August 1458), and the new Pope Pius II. recognized Ferdinand, John of Anjou, profiting by the discontent of the Neapolitan barons, decided to try to regain the throne conquered by his ancestors, and invaded Naples. Ferdinand was severely defeated by the Angevins and the rebels at Sarno in July 1460, but with the help of Alessandro Sforza 264 and of the Albanian chief, Skanderbeg, who chivalrously came to the aid of the prince whose father had aided him, he triumphed over his enemies, and by 1464 had re-established his authority in the kingdom. In 1478 he allied himself with Pope Sixtus IV. against Lorenzo de’ Medici, but the latter journeyed alone to Naples when he succeeded in negotiating an honourable peace with Ferdinand. In 1480 the Turks captured Otranto, and massacred the majority of the inhabitants, but in the following year it was retaken by his son Alphonso, duke of Calabria. His oppressive government led in 1485 to an attempt at revolt on the part of the nobles, led by Francesca Coppola and Antonello Sanseverino and supported by Pope Innocent VIII.; the rising having been crushed, many of the nobles, notwithstanding Ferdinand’s promise of a general amnesty, were afterwards treacherously murdered at his express command. In 1493 Charles VIII. of France was preparing to invade Italy for the conquest of Naples, and Ferdinand realized that this was a greater danger than any he had yet faced. With almost prophetic instinct he warned the Italian princes of the calamities in store for them, but his negotiations with Pope Alexander VI. and Ludovico il Moro, lord of Milan, having failed, he died in January 1494, worn out with anxiety. Ferdinand was gifted with great courage and real political ability, but his method of government was vicious and disastrous. His financial administration was based on oppressive and dishonest monopolies, and he was mercilessly severe and utterly treacherous towards his enemies.

FERDINAND II. (1469-1496), king of Naples, was the grandson of the preceding, and son of Alphonso II. Alphonso finding his tenure of the throne uncertain on account of the approaching invasion of Charles VIII. of France and the general dissatisfaction of his subjects, abdicated in his son’s favour in 1495, but notwithstanding this the treason of a party in Naples rendered it impossible to defend the city against the approach of Charles VIII. Ferdinand fled to Ischia; but when the French king left Naples with most of his army, in consequence of the formation of an Italian league against him, he returned, defeated the French garrisons, and the Neapolitans, irritated by the conduct of their conquerors during the occupation of the city, received him back with enthusiasm; with the aid of the great Spanish general Gonzalo de Cordova he was able completely to rid his state of its invaders shortly before his death, which occurred on the 7th of September 1496.

FERDINAND IV. (1751-1825), king of Naples (III. of Sicily, and I. of the Two Sicilies), third son of Don Carlos of Bourbon, king of Naples and Sicily (afterwards Charles III. of Spain), was born in Naples on the 12th of January 1751. When his father ascended the Spanish throne in 1759 Ferdinand, in accordance with the treaties forbidding the union of the two crowns, succeeded him as king of Naples, under a regency presided over by the Tuscan Bernardo Tanucci. The latter, an able, ambitious man, wishing to keep the government as much as possible in his own hands, purposely neglected the young king’s education, and encouraged him in his love of pleasure, his idleness and his excessive devotion to outdoor sports. Ferdinand grew up athletic, but ignorant, ill-bred, addicted to the lowest amusements; he delighted in the company of the lazzaroni (the most degraded class of the Neapolitan people), whose dialect and habits he affected, and he even sold fish in the market, haggling over the price.

His minority ended in 1767, and his first act was the expulsion of the Jesuits. The following year he married Maria Carolina, daughter of the empress Maria Theresa. By the marriage contract the queen was to have a voice in the council of state after the birth of her first son, and she was not slow to avail herself of this means of political influence. Beautiful, clever and proud, like her mother, but cruel and treacherous, her ambition was to raise the kingdom of Naples to the position of a great power; she soon came to exercise complete sway over her stupid and idle husband, and was the real ruler of the kingdom. Tanucci, who attempted to thwart her, was dismissed in 1777, and the Englishman Sir John Acton (1736), who in 1779 was appointed director of marine, succeeded in so completely winning the favour of Maria Carolina, by supporting her in her scheme to free Naples from Spanish influence and securing a rapprochement with Austria and England, that he became practically and afterwards actually prime minister. Although not a mere grasping adventurer, he was largely responsible for reducing the internal administration of the country to an abominable system of espionage, corruption and cruelty. On the outbreak of the French Revolution the Neapolitan court was not hostile to the movement, and the queen even sympathized with the revolutionary ideas of the day. But when the French monarchy was abolished and the royal pair beheaded, Ferdinand and Carolina were seized with a feeling of fear and horror and joined the first coalition against France in 1793. Although peace was made with France in 1796, the demands of the French Directory, whose troops occupied Rome, alarmed the king once more, and at his wife’s instigation he took advantage of Napoleon’s absence in Egypt and of Nelson’s victories to go to war. He marched with his army against the French and entered Rome (29th of November), but on the defeat of some of his columns he hurried back to Naples, and on the approach of the French, fled on board Nelson’s ship the “Vanguard” to Sicily, leaving his capital in a state of anarchy. The French entered the city in spite of the fierce resistance of the lazzaroni, who were devoted to the king, and with the aid of the nobles and bourgeois established the Parthenopaean Republic (January 1799). When a few weeks later the French troops were recalled to the north of Italy, Ferdinand sent an expedition composed of Calabrians, brigands and gaol-birds, under Cardinal Ruffo, a man of real ability, great devotion to the king, and by no means so bad as he has been painted, to reconquer the mainland kingdom. Ruffo was completely successful, and reached Naples in May. His army and the lazzaroni committed nameless atrocities, which he honestly tried to prevent, and the Parthenopaean Republic collapsed.

The savage punishment of the Neapolitan Republicans is dealt with in more detail under Naples, Nelson and Caracciolo, but it is necessary to say here that the king, and above all the queen, were particularly anxious that no mercy should be shown to the rebels, and Maria Carolina made use of Lady Hamilton, Nelson’s mistress, to induce him to execute her own spiteful vengeance. Her only excuse is that as a sister of Marie Antoinette the very name of Republican or Jacobin filled her with loathing. The king returned to Naples soon afterwards, and ordered wholesale arrests and executions of supposed Liberals, which continued until the French successes forced him to agree to a treaty in which amnesty for members of the French party was included. When war broke out between France and Austria in 1805, Ferdinand signed a treaty of neutrality with the former, but a few days later he allied himself with Austria and allowed an Anglo-Russian force to land at Naples. The French victory at Austerlitz enabled Napoleon to despatch an army to southern Italy. Ferdinand with his usual precipitation fled to Palermo (23rd of January 1806), followed soon after by his wife and son, and on the 14th of February the French again entered Naples. Napoleon declared that the Bourbon dynasty had forfeited the crown, and proclaimed his brother Joseph king of Naples and Sicily. But Ferdinand continued to reign over the latter kingdom under British protection. Parliamentary institutions of a feudal type had long existed in the island, and Lord William Bentinck (q.v.), the British minister, insisted on a reform of the constitution on English and French lines. The king indeed practically abdicated his power, appointing his son Francis 265 regent, and the queen, at Bentinck’s instance, was exiled to Austria, where she died in 1814.

After the fall of Napoleon, Joachim Murat, who had succeeded Joseph Bonaparte as king of Naples in 1808, was dethroned, and Ferdinand returned to Naples. By a secret treaty he had bound himself not to advance further in a constitutional direction than Austria should at any time approve; but, though on the whole he acted in accordance with Metternich’s policy of preserving the status quo, and maintained with but slight change Murat’s laws and administrative system, he took advantage of the situation to abolish the Sicilian constitution, in violation of his oath, and to proclaim the union of the two states into the kingdom of the Two Sicilies (December 12th, 1816). He was now completely subservient to Austria, an Austrian, Count Nugent, being even made commander-in-chief of the army; and for four years he reigned as a despot, every tentative effort at the expression of liberal opinion being ruthlessly suppressed. The result was an alarming spread of the influence and activity of the secret society of the Carbonari (q.v.), which in time affected a large part of the army. In July 1820 a military revolt broke out under General Pepe, and Ferdinand was terrorized into subscribing a constitution on the model of the impracticable Spanish constitution of 1812. On the other hand, a revolt in Sicily, in favour of the recovery of its independence, was suppressed by Neapolitan troops.

The success of the military revolution at Naples seriously alarmed the powers of the Holy Alliance, who feared that it might spread to other Italian states and so lead to that general European conflagration which it was their main preoccupation to avoid (see Europe: History). After long diplomatic negotiations, it was decided to hold a congress ad hoc at Troppau (October 1820). The main results of this congress were the issue of the famous Troppau Protocol, signed by Austria, Prussia and Russia only, and an invitation to King Ferdinand to attend the adjourned congress at Laibach (1821), an invitation of which Great Britain approved “as implying negotiation” (see Troppau, Laibach, Congresses of). At Laibach Ferdinand played so sorry a part as to provoke the contempt of those whose policy it was to re-establish him in absolute power. He had twice sworn, with gratuitous solemnity, to maintain the new constitution; but he was hardly out of Naples before he repudiated his oaths and, in letters addressed to all the sovereigns of Europe, declared his acts to have been null and void. An attitude so indecent threatened to defeat the very objects of the reactionary powers, and Gentz congratulated the congress that these sorry protests would be buried in the archives, offering at the same time to write for the king a dignified letter in which he should express his reluctance at having to violate his oaths in the face of irresistible force! But, under these circumstances, Metternich had no difficulty in persuading the king to allow an Austrian army to march into Naples “to restore order.”

The campaign that followed did little credit either to the Austrians or the Neapolitans. The latter, commanded by General Pepe (q.v.), who made no attempt to defend the difficult defiles of the Abruzzi, were defeated, after a half-hearted struggle at Rieti (March 7th, 1821), and the Austrians entered Naples. The parliament was now dismissed, and Ferdinand inaugurated an era of savage persecution, supported by spies and informers, against the Liberals and Carbonari, the Austrian commandant in vain protesting against the savagery which his presence alone rendered possible.

Ferdinand died on the 4th of January 1825. Few sovereigns have left behind so odious a memory. His whole career is one long record of perjury, vengeance and meanness, unredeemed by a single generous act, and his wife was a worthy helpmeet and actively co-operated in his tyranny.

FERDINAND I., king of Portugal (1345-1383), sometimes referred to as el Gentil (the Gentleman), son of Pedro I. of Portugal (who is not to be confounded with his Spanish contemporary Pedro the Cruel), succeeded his father in 1367. On the death of Pedro of Castile in 1369, Ferdinand, as great-grandson of Sancho IV. by the female line, laid claim to the vacant throne, for which the kings of Aragon and Navarre, and afterwards the duke of Lancaster (married in 1370 to Constance, the eldest daughter of Pedro), also became competitors. Meanwhile Henry of Trastamara, the brother (illegitimate) and conqueror of Pedro, had assumed the crown and taken the field. After one or two indecisive campaigns, all parties were ready to accept the mediation of Pope Gregory XI. The conditions of the treaty, ratified in 1371, included a marriage between Ferdinand and Leonora of Castile. But before the union could take place the former had become passionately attached to Leonora Tellez, the wife of one of his own courtiers, and having procured a dissolution of her previous marriage, he lost no time in making her his queen. This strange conduct, although it raised a serious insurrection in Portugal, did not at once result in a war with Henry; but the outward concord was soon disturbed by the intrigues of the duke of Lancaster, who prevailed on Ferdinand to enter into a secret treaty for the expulsion of Henry from his throne. The war which followed was unsuccessful; and peace was again made in 1373. On the death of Henry in 1379, the duke of Lancaster once more put forward his claims, and again found an ally in Portugal; but, according to the Continental annalists, the English proved as offensive to their companions in arms as to their enemies in the field; and Ferdinand made a peace for himself at Badajoz in 1382, it being stipulated that Beatrix, the heiress of Ferdinand, should marry King John of Castile, and thus secure the ultimate union of the crowns. Ferdinand left no male issue when he died on the 22nd of October 1383, and the direct Burgundian line, which had been in possession of the throne since the days of Count Henry (about 1112), became extinct. The stipulations of the treaty of Badajoz were set aside, and John, grand-master of the order of Aviz, Ferdinand’s illegitimate brother, was proclaimed. This led to a war which lasted for several years.

FERDINAND I., El Magno or “the Great,” king of Castile (d. 1065), son of Sancho of Navarre, was put in possession of Castile in 1028, on the murder of the last count, as the heir of his mother Elvira, daughter of a previous count of Castile. He reigned with the title of king. He married Sancha, sister and heiress of Bermudo, king of Leon. In 1038 Bermudo was killed in battle with Ferdinand at Tamaron, and Ferdinand then took possession of Leon by right of his wife, and was recognized in Spain as emperor. The use of the title was resented by the emperor Henry IV. and by Pope Victor II. in 1055, as implying a claim to the headship of Christendom, and as a usurpation on the Holy Roman Empire. It did not, however, mean more than that Spain was independent of the Empire, and that the sovereign of Leon was the chief of the princes of the peninsula. Although Ferdinand had grown in power by a fratricidal strife with Bermudo of Leon, and though at a later date he defeated and killed his brother Garcia of Navarre, he ranks high among the kings of Spain who have been counted religious. To a large extent he may have owed his reputation to the victories over the Mahommedans, with which he began the period of the great reconquest. But there can be no doubt that Ferdinand was profoundly pious. Towards the close of his reign he sent a special embassy to Seville to bring back the body of Santa Justa. The then king of Seville, Motadhid, one of the small princes who had divided the caliphate of Cordova, was himself a sceptic and poisoner, but he stood in wholesome awe of the power of the 266 Christian king. He favoured the embassy in every way, and when the body of Santa Justa could not be found, helped the envoys who were also aided by a vision seen by one of them in a dream, to discover the body of Saint Isidore, which was reverently carried away to Leon. Ferdinand died on the feast of Saint John the Evangelist, the 24th of June 1065, in Leon, with many manifestations of ardent piety—having laid aside his crown and royal mantle, dressed in the frock of a monk and lying on a bier, covered with ashes, which was placed before the altar of the church of Saint Isidore.

FERDINAND II., king of Leon only (d. 1188), was the son of Alphonso VII. and of Berenguela, of the house of the counts of Barcelona. On the division of the kingdoms which had obeyed his father, he received Leon. His reign of thirty years was one of strife marked by no signal success or reverse. He had to contend with his unruly nobles, several of whom he put to death. During the minority of his nephew Alphonso VIII. of Castile he endeavoured to impose himself on the kingdom as regent. On the west he was in more or less constant strife with Portugal, which was in process of becoming an independent kingdom. His relations to the Portuguese house must have suffered by his repudiation of his wife Urraca, daughter of Alphonso I. of Portugal. Though he took the king of Portugal prisoner in 1180, he made no political use of his success. He extended his dominions southward in Estremadura at the expense of the Moors. Ferdinand, who died in 1188, left the reputation of a good knight and hard fighter, but did not display political or organizing faculty.

FERDINAND III., El Santo or “the Saint,” king of Castile (1199-1252), son of Alphonso IX. of Leon, and of Berengaria, daughter of Alphonso VIII. of Castile, ranks among the greatest of the Spanish kings. The marriage of his parents, who were second cousins, was dissolved as unlawful by the pope, but the legitimacy of the children was recognized. Till 1217 he lived with his father in Leon. In that year the young king of Castile, Henry, was killed by accident. Berengaria sent for her son with such speed that her messenger reached Leon before the news of the death of the king of Castile, and when he came to her she renounced the crown in his favour. Alphonso of Leon considered himself tricked, and the young king had to begin his reign by a war against his father and a faction of the Castilian nobles. His own ability and the remarkable capacity of his mother proved too much for the king of Leon and his Castilian allies. Ferdinand, who showed himself docile to the influence of Berengaria, so long as she lived, married the wife she found for him, Beatrice, daughter of the emperor Philip (of Hohenstaufen), and followed her advice both in prosecuting the war against the Moors and in the steps which she took to secure his peaceful succession to Leon on the death of his father in 1231. After the union of Castile and Leon in that year he began the series of campaigns which ended by reducing the Mahommedan dominions in Spain to Granada. Cordova fell in 1236, and Seville in 1248. The king of Granada did homage to Ferdinand, and undertook to attend the cortes when summoned. The king was a severe persecutor of the Albigenses, and his formal canonization was due as much to his orthodoxy as to his crusading by Pope Clement X. in 1671. He revived the university first founded by his grandfather Alphonso VIII., and placed it at Salamanca. By his second marriage with Joan (d. 1279), daughter of Simon, of Dammartin, count of Ponthieu, by right of his wife Marie, Ferdinand was the father of Eleanor, the wife of Edward I. of England.

FERDINAND IV., El Emplazado or “the Summoned,” king of Castile (d. 1312), son of Sancho El Bravo, and his wife Maria de Molina, is a figure of small note in Spanish history. His strange title is given him in the chronicles on the strength of a story that he put two brothers of the name of Carvajal to death tyrannically, and was given a time, a plazo, by them in which to answer for his crime in the next world. But the tale is not contemporary, and is an obvious copy of the story told of Jacques de Molay, grand-master of the Temple, and Philippe Le Bel. Ferdinand IV. succeeded to the throne when a boy of six. His minority was a time of anarchy. He owed his escape from the violence of competitors and nobles, partly to the tact and undaunted bravery of his mother Maria de Molina, and partly to the loyalty of the citizens of Avila, who gave him refuge within their walls. As a king he proved ungrateful to his mother, and weak as a ruler. He died suddenly in his tent at Jaen when preparing for a raid into the Moorish territory of Granada, on the 7th of September 1312.

FERDINAND I., king of Aragon (1373-1416), called “of Antequera,” was the son of John I. of Castile by his wife Eleanor, daughter of the third marriage of Peter IV. of Aragon. His surname “of Antequera” was given him because he was besieging that town, then in the hands of the Moors, when he was told that the cortes of Aragon had elected him king in succession to his uncle Martin, the last male of the old line of Wilfred the Hairy. As infante of Castile Ferdinand had played an honourable part. When his brother Henry III. died at Toledo, in 1406, the cortes was sitting, and the nobles offered to make him king in preference to his nephew John. Ferdinand refused to despoil his brother’s infant son, and even if he did not act on the moral ground he alleged, his sagacity must have shown him that he would be at the mercy of the men who had chosen him in such circumstances. As co-regent of the kingdom with Catherine, widow of Henry III. and daughter of John of Gaunt by his marriage with Constance, daughter of Peter the Cruel and Maria de Padilla, Ferdinand proved a good ruler. He restrained the follies of his sister-in-law, and kept the realm quiet, by firm government, and by prosecuting the war with the Moors. As king of Aragon his short reign of two years left him little time to make his mark. Having been bred in Castile, where the royal authority was, at least in theory, absolute, he showed himself impatient under the checks imposed on him by the fueros, the chartered rights of Aragon and Catalonia. He particularly resented the obstinacy of the Barcelonese, who compelled the members of his household to pay municipal taxes. His most signal act as king was to aid in closing the Great Schism in the Church by agreeing to the deposition of the antipope Benedict XIV., an Aragonese. He died at Ygualada in Catalonia on the 2nd of April 1416.

FERDINAND V. of Castile and Leon, and II. of Aragon (1452-1516), was the son of John I. of Aragon by his second marriage with Joanna Henriquez, of the family of the hereditary grand admirals of Castile, and was born at Sos in Aragon on the 16th of March 1452. Under the name of “the Catholic” and as the husband of Isabella, queen of Castile, he played a great part in Europe. His share in establishing the royal authority in all parts of Spain, in expelling the Moors from Granada, in the conquest of Navarre, in forwarding the voyages of Columbus, and in contending with France for the supremacy in Italy, is dealt with elsewhere (see Spain: History). In personal character he had none of the attractive qualities of his wife. It may fairly be said of him that he was purely a politician. His marriage in 1469 to his cousin Isabella of Castile was dictated by the desire to unite his own claims to the crown, as the head of the younger branch of the same family, with hers, in case Henry IV. should die childless. When the king died in 1474 he made an ungenerous attempt to procure his own proclamation as king without recognition of the rights of his wife. Isabella asserted her claims firmly, and at all times insisted on a voice in the government of Castile. But though Ferdinand had sought a selfish political advantage at his wife’s expense, he was well aware of her ability and high character. Their married life was dignified and harmonious; for Ferdinand had no common vices, and their views in government were identical. The king cared for nothing but dominion and political power. His character explains the most ungracious acts of his life, such as his breach of his promises to Columbus, his distrust of Ximenez and of the Great Captain. He had given wide privileges to Columbus on the supposition that the discoverer would reach powerful kingdoms. When islands inhabited by feeble savages were discovered, Ferdinand appreciated the risk that they might become the seat of a power too strong to be controlled, and took measures to avert the danger. He feared that Jiménez and the 267 Great Captain would become too independent, and watched them in the interest of the royal authority. Whether he ever boasted, as he is said to have boasted, that he had deceived Louis XII. of France twelve times, is very doubtful; but it is certain that when Ferdinand made a treaty, or came to an understanding with any one, the contract was generally found to contain implied meanings favourable to himself which the other contracting party had not expected. The worst of his character was prominently shown after the death of Isabella in 1504. He endeavoured to lay hands on the regency of Castile in the name of his insane daughter Joanna, and without regard to the claims of her husband Philip of Habsburg. The hostility of the Castilian nobles, by whom he was disliked, baffled him for a time, but on Philip’s early death he reasserted his authority. His second marriage with Germaine of Foix in 1505 was apparently contracted in the hope that by securing an heir male he might punish his Habsburg son-in-law. Aragon did not recognize the right of women to reign, and would have been detached together with Catalonia, Valencia and the Italian states if he had had a son. This was the only occasion on which Ferdinand allowed passion to obscure his political sense, and lead him into acts which tended to undo his work of national unification. As king of Aragon he abstained from inroads on the liberties of his subjects which might have provoked rebellion. A few acts of illegal violence are recorded of him—as when he invited a notorious demagogue of Saragossa to visit him in the palace, and caused the man to be executed without form of trial. Once when presiding over the Aragonese cortes he found himself sitting in a thorough draught and ordered the window to be shut, adding in a lower voice, “If it is not against the fueros.” But his ill-will did not go beyond such sneers. He was too intent on building up a great state to complicate his difficulties by internal troubles. His arrangement of the convention of Guadalupe, which ended the fierce Agrarian conflicts of Catalonia, was wise and profitable to the country, though it was probably dictated mainly by a wish to weaken the landowners by taking away their feudal rights. Ferdinand died at Madrigalejo in Estremadura on the 23rd of February 1516.

FERDINAND VI., king of Spain (1713-1759), second son of Philip V., founder of the Bourbon dynasty, by his first marriage with Maria Louisa of Savoy, was born at Madrid on the 23rd of September 1713. His youth was depressed. His father’s second wife, Elizabeth Farnese, was a managing woman, who had no affection except for her own children, and who looked upon her stepson as an obstacle to their fortunes. The hypochondria of his father left Elizabeth mistress of the palace. Ferdinand was married in 1729 to Maria Magdalena Barbara, daughter of John V. of Portugal. The very homely looks of his wife were thought by observers to cause the prince a visible shock when he was first presented to her. Yet he became deeply attached to his wife, and proved in fact nearly as uxorious as his father. Ferdinand was by temperament melancholy, shy and distrustful of his own abilities. When complimented on his shooting, he replied, “It would be hard if there were not something I could do.” As king he followed a steady policy of neutrality between France and England, and refused to be tempted by the offers of either into declaring war on the other. In his life he was orderly and retiring, averse from taking decisions, though not incapable of acting firmly, as when he cut short the dangerous intrigues of his able minister Ensenada by dismissing and imprisoning him. Shooting and music were his only pleasures, and he was the generous patron of the famous singer Farinelli (q.v.), whose voice soothed his melancholy. The death of his wife Barbara, who had been devoted to him, and who carefully abstained from political intrigue, broke his heart. Between the date of her death in 1758 and his own on the 10th of August 1759 he fell into a state of prostration in which he would not even dress, but wandered unshaven, unwashed and in a night-gown about his park. The memoirs of the count of Fernan Nuñez give a shocking picture of his death-bed.

FERDINAND VII., king of Spain (1784-1833), the eldest son of Charles IV., king of Spain, and of his wife Maria Louisa of Parma, was born at the palace of San Ildefonso near Balsain in the Somosierra hills, on the 14th of October 1784. The events with which he was connected were many, tragic and of the widest European interest. In his youth he occupied the painful position of an heir apparent who was carefully excluded from all share in government by the jealousy of his parents, and the prevalence of a royal favourite. National discontent with a feeble government produced a revolution in 1808 by which he passed to the throne by the forced abdication of his father. Then he spent years as the prisoner of Napoleon, and returned in 1814 to find that while Spain was fighting for independence in his name a new world had been born of foreign invasion and domestic revolution. He came back to assert the ancient doctrine that the sovereign authority resided in his person only. Acting on this principle he ruled frivolously, and with a wanton indulgence of whims. In 1820 his misrule provoked a revolt, and he remained in the hands of insurgents till he was released by foreign intervention in 1823. When free, he revenged himself with a ferocity which disgusted his allies. In his last years he prepared a change in the order of succession established by his dynasty in Spain, which angered a large part of the nation, and made a civil war inevitable. We have to distinguish the part of Ferdinand VII. in all these transactions, in which other and better men were concerned. It can confidently be said to have been uniformly base. He had perhaps no right to complain that he was kept aloof from all share in government while only heir apparent, for this was the traditional practice of his family. But as heir to the throne he had a right to resent the degradation of the crown he was to inherit, and the power of a favourite who was his mother’s lover. If he had put himself at the head of a popular rising he would have been followed, and would have had a good excuse. His course was to enter on dim intrigues at the instigation of his first wife, Maria Antonietta of Naples. After her death in 1806 he was drawn into other intrigues by flatterers, and, in October 1807, was arrested for the conspiracy of the Escorial. The conspiracy aimed at securing the help of the emperor Napoleon. When detected, Ferdinand betrayed his associates, and grovelled to his parents. When his father’s abdication was extorted by a popular riot at Aranjuez in March 1808, he ascended the throne—not to lead his people manfully, but to throw himself into the hands of Napoleon, in the fatuous hope that the emperor would support him. He was in his turn forced to make an abdication and imprisoned in France, while Spain, with the help of England, fought for its life. At Valançay, where he was sent as a prisoner of state, he sank contentedly into vulgar vice, and did not scruple to applaud the French victories over the people who were suffering unutterable misery in his cause. When restored in March 1814, on the fall of Napoleon, he had just cause to repudiate the impracticable constitution made by the cortes without his consent. He did so, and then governed like an evil-disposed boy—indulging the merest animal passions, listening to a small camarilla of low-born favourites, changing his ministers every three months, and acting on the impulse of whims which were sometimes mere buffoonery, but were at times lubricous, or ferocious. The autocratic powers of the Grand Alliance, though forced to support him as the representative of legitimacy in Spain, watched his proceedings with disgust and alarm. “The king,” wrote Gentz to the hospodar Caradja on the 1st of December 1814, “himself enters the houses of his first ministers, arrests them, and hands them over to their cruel enemies”; and again, on the 14th of January 1815, “The king has so debased himself that he has become no more than the leading police agent and gaoler of his country.” When at last the inevitable revolt came 268 in 1820 he grovelled to the insurgents as he had done to his parents, descending to the meanest submissions while fear was on him, then intriguing and, when detected, grovelling again. When at the beginning of 1823, as a result of the congress of Verona, the French invaded Spain,1 “invoking the God of St Louis, for the sake of preserving the throne of Spain to a descendant of Henry IV., and of reconciling that fine kingdom with Europe,” and in May the revolutionary party carried Ferdinand to Cadiz, he continued to make promises of amendment till he was free. Then, in violation of his oath to grant an amnesty, he revenged himself for three years of coercion by killing on a scale which revolted his “rescuers,” and against which the duke of Angoulême, powerless to interfere, protested by refusing the Spanish decorations offered him for his services. During his last years Ferdinand’s energy was abated. He no longer changed ministers every few months as a sport, and he allowed some of them to conduct the current business of government. His habits of life were telling on him. He became torpid, bloated and horrible to look at. After his fourth marriage in 1829 with Maria Christina of Naples, he was persuaded by his wife to set aside the law of succession of Philip V., which gave a preference to all the males of the family in Spain over the females. His marriage had brought him only two daughters. When well, he consented to the change under the influence of his wife. When ill, he was terrified by priestly advisers, who were partisans of his brother Don Carlos. What his final decision was is perhaps doubtful. His wife was mistress by his death-bed, and she could put the words she chose into the mouth of a dead man—and could move the dead hand at her will. Ferdinand died on the 29th of September 1833. It had been a frequent saying with the more zealous royalists of Spain that a king must be wiser than his ministers, for he was placed on the throne and directed by God. Since the reign of Ferdinand VII. no one has maintained this unqualified version of the great doctrine of divine right.

FERDINAND II. (1810-1859), king of the Two Sicilies, son of Francis I, was born at Palermo on the 12th of January 1810. In his early years he was credited with Liberal ideas and he was fairly popular, his free and easy manners having endeared him to the lazzaroni. On succeeding his father in 1830, he published an edict in which he promised to “give his most anxious attention to the impartial administration of justice,” to reform the finances, and to “use every effort to heal the wounds which had afflicted the kingdom for so many years”; but these promises seem to have been meant only to lull discontent to sleep, for although he did something for the economic development of the kingdom, the existing burden of taxation was only slightly lightened, corruption continued to flourish in all departments of the administration, and an absolutism was finally established harsher than that of all his predecessors, and supported by even more extensive and arbitrary arrests. Ferdinand was naturally shrewd, but badly educated, grossly superstitious and possessed of inordinate self-esteem. Though he kept the machinery of his kingdom fairly efficient, and was a patriot to the extent of brooking no foreign interference, he made little account of the wishes or welfare of his subjects. In 1832 he married Cristina, daughter of Victor Emmanuel I., king of Sardinia, and shortly after her death in 1836 he took for a second wife Maria Theresa, daughter of archduke Charles of Austria. After his Austrian alliance the bonds of despotism were more closely tightened, and the increasing discontent of his subjects was manifested by various abortive attempts at insurrection; in 1837 there was a rising in Sicily in consequence of the outbreak of cholera, and in 1843 the Young Italy Society tried to organize a general rising, which, however, only manifested itself in a series of isolated outbreaks. The expedition of the Bandiera brothers (q.v.) in 1844, although it had no practical result, aroused great ill-feeling owing to the cruel sentences passed on the rebels. In January 1848 a rising in Sicily was the signal for revolutions all over Italy and Europe; it was followed by a movement in Naples, and the king granted a constitution which he swore to observe. A dispute, however, arose as to the nature of the oath which should be taken by the members of the chamber of deputies, and as neither the king nor the deputies would yield, serious disturbances broke out in the streets of Naples on the 15th of May; so the king, making these an excuse for withdrawing his promise, dissolved the national parliament on the 13th of March 1849. He retired to Gaeta to confer with various deposed despots, and when the news of the Austrian victory at Novara (March 1849) reached him, he determined to return to a reactionary policy. Sicily, whence the Royalists had been expelled, was subjugated by General Filangieri (q.v.), and the chief cities were bombarded, an expedient which won for Ferdinand the epithet of “King Bomba.” During the last years of his reign espionage and arbitrary arrests prevented all serious manifestations of discontent among his subjects. In 1851 the political prisoners of Naples were calculated by Mr Gladstone in his letters to Lord Aberdeen (1851) to number 15,000 (probably the real figure was nearer 40,000), and so great was the scandal created by the prevailing reign of terror, and the abominable treatment to which the prisoners were subjected, that in 1856 France and England made diplomatic representations to induce the king to mitigate his rigour and proclaim a general amnesty, but without success. An attempt was made by a soldier to assassinate Ferdinand in 1856. He died on the 22nd of May 1856, just after the declaration of war by France and Piedmont against Austria, which was to result in the collapse of his kingdom and his dynasty. He was bigoted, cruel, mean, treacherous, though not without a certain bonhomie; the only excuse that can be made for him is that with his heredity and education a different result could scarcely be expected.

FERDINAND III. (1769-1824), grand duke of Tuscany, and archduke of Austria, second son of the emperor Leopold II., was born on the 6th of May 1769. On his father becoming emperor in 1790, he succeeded him as grand duke of Tuscany. Ferdinand was one of the first sovereigns to enter into diplomatic relations with the French republic (1793); and although, a few months later, he was compelled by England and Russia to join the coalition against France, he concluded peace with that power in 1795, and by observing a strict neutrality saved his dominions from invasion by the French, except for a temporary occupation of Livorno, till 1799, when he was compelled to vacate his throne, and a provisional Republican government was established at Florence. Shortly afterwards the French arms suffered severe reverses in Italy, and Ferdinand was restored to his territories; but in 1801, by the peace of Lunéville, Tuscany was converted into the kingdom of Etruria, and he was again compelled to return to Vienna. In lieu of the sovereignty of Tuscany, he obtained in 1802 the electorship of Salzburg, which he exchanged by the peace of Pressburg in 1805 for that of Würzburg. In 1806 he was admitted as grand duke of Würzburg to the confederation of the Rhine. He was restored to the throne of Tuscany after the abdication of Napoleon in 1814 and was received with enthusiasm by the people, but had again to vacate his capital for a short time in 1815, when Murat proclaimed war against Austria. The final overthrow of the French supremacy at the battle of Waterloo secured him, however, in the undisturbed possession of his grand duchy during the remainder of his life. The restoration in Tuscany was not accompanied by the reactionary excesses which characterized it elsewhere, and a large part of the French legislation was retained. His prime minister was Count V. Fossombroni (q.v.). The mild rule of Ferdinand, his solicitude for the welfare of his subjects, 269 his enlightened patronage of art and science, his encouragement of commerce, and his toleration render him an honourable exception to the generality of Italian princes. At the same time his paternal despotism tended to emasculate the Tuscan character. He died in June 1824, and was succeeded by his son Leopold II. (q.v.).

FERDINAND, MAXIMILIAN KARL LEOPOLD MARIA, king of Bulgaria (1861-  ), fifth and youngest son of Prince Augustus of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, was born on the 26th of February 1861. Great care was exercised in his education, and every encouragement given to the taste for natural history which he exhibited at an early age. In 1879 he travelled with his brother Augustus to Brazil, and the results of their botanical observations were published at Vienna, 1883-1888, under the title of Itinera Principum S. Coburgi. Having been appointed to a lieutenancy in the 2nd regiment of Austrian hussars, he was holding this rank when, by unanimous vote of the National Assembly, he was elected prince of Bulgaria, on the 7th of July 1887, in succession to Prince Alexander, who had abdicated on the 7th of September preceding. He assumed the government on the 14th of August 1887, for Russia for a long time refused to acknowledge the election, and he was accordingly exposed to frequent military conspiracies, due to the influence or attitude of that power. The firmness and vigour with which he met all attempts at revolution were at length rewarded, and his election was confirmed in March 1896 by the Porte and the great powers. On the 20th of April 1893 he married Marie Louise de Bourbon (d. 1899), eldest daughter of Duke Robert of Parma, and in May following the Grand Sobranye confirmed the title of Royal Highness to the prince and his heir. The prince adhered to the Roman Catholic faith, but his son and heir, the young Prince Boris, was received into the Orthodox Greek Church on the 14th of February 1896. Prince Boris, to whom the tsar Nicholas III. became godfather, accompanied his father to Russia in 1898, when Prince Ferdinand visited St Petersburg and Moscow, and still further strengthened the bond already existing between Russia and Bulgaria. In 1908 Ferdinand married Eleanor (b. 1860), a princess of the house of Reuss. Later in the year, in connexion with the Austrian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the crisis with Turkey, he proclaimed the independence of Bulgaria, and took the title of king or tsar. (See Bulgaria, and Europe: History.)

FERDINAND, duke of Brunswick (1721-1792), Prussian general field marshal, was the fourth son of Ferdinand Albert, duke of Brunswick, and was born at Wolfenbüttel on the 12th of January 1721. He was carefully educated with a view to a military career, and in his twentieth year he was made chief of a newly-raised Brunswick regiment in the Prussian service. He was present in the battles of Mollwitz and Chotusitz. In succession to Margrave Wilhelm of Brandenburg, killed at Prague (1744), Ferdinand received the command of Frederick the Great’s Leibgarde battalion, and at Sohr (1745) he distinguished himself so greatly at the head of his brigade that Frederick wrote of him, “le Prince Ferdinand s’est surpassé.” The height which he captured was defended by his brother Ludwig as an officer of the Austrian service, and another brother of Duke Ferdinand was killed by his side in the charge. During the ten years’ peace he was in the closest touch with the military work of Frederick the Great, who supervised the instruction of the guard battalion, and sought to make it a model of the whole Prussian army. Ferdinand was, moreover, one of the most intimate friends of the king, and thus he was peculiarly fitted for the tasks which afterwards fell to his lot. In this time he became successively major-general and lieutenant-general. In the first campaign of the Seven Years’ War Ferdinand commanded one of the Prussian columns which converged upon Dresden, and in the operations which led up to the surrender of the Saxon army at Pirna (1756), and at the battle of Lobositz, he led the right wing of the Prussian infantry. In 1757 he was present, and distinguished himself, at Prague, and he served also in the campaign of Rossbach. Shortly after this he was appointed to command the allied forces which were being organized for the war in western Germany. He found this army dejected by a reverse and a capitulation, yet within a week of his taking up the command he assumed the offensive, and thus began the career of victory which made his European reputation as a soldier. His conduct of the five campaigns which followed (see Seven Years’ War) was naturally influenced by the teachings of Frederick, whose pupil the duke had been for so many years. Ferdinand, indeed, approximated more closely to Frederick in his method of making war than any other general of the time. Yet his task was in many respects far more difficult than that of the king. Frederick was the absolute master of his own homogeneous army, Ferdinand merely the commander of a group of contingents, and answerable to several princes for the troops placed under his control. The French were by no means despicable opponents in the field, and their leaders, if not of the first grade, were cool and experienced veterans. In 1758 he fought and won the battle of Crefeld, several marches beyond the Rhine, but so advanced a position he could not well maintain, and he fell back to the Lippe. He resumed a bold offensive in 1759, only to be repulsed at Bergen (near Frankfort-on-Main). On the 1st of August of this year Ferdinand won the brilliant victory of Minden (q.v.). Vellinghausen, Wilhelmsthal, Warburg and other victories attested the increasing power of Ferdinand in the following campaigns, and Frederick, hard pressed in the eastern theatre of war, owed much of his success in an almost hopeless task to the continued pressure exerted by Ferdinand in the west. In promoting him to be a field marshal (November 1758) Frederick acknowledged his debt in the words, “Je n’ai fait que ce que je dois, mon cher Ferdinand.” After Minden, King George II. gave the duke the order of the Garter, and the thanks of the British parliament were voted on the same occasion to the “Victor of Minden.” After the war he was honoured by other sovereigns, and he received the rank of field marshal and a regiment from the Austrians. During the War of American Independence there was a suggestion, which came to nothing, of offering him the command of the British forces. He exerted himself to compensate those who had suffered by the Seven Years’ War, devoting to this purpose most of the small income he received from his various offices and the rewards given to him by the allied princes. The estrangement of Frederick and Ferdinand in 1766 led to the duke’s retirement from Prussian service, but there was no open breach between the old friends, and Ferdinand visited the king in 1772, 1777, 1779 and 1782. After 1766 he passed the remainder of his life at his castle of Veschelde, where he occupied himself in building and other improvements, and became a patron of learning and art, and a great benefactor of the poor. He died on the 3rd of July 1792. The merits, civil and military, of the prince were recognized by memorials not only in Prussia and Hanover, but also in Denmark, the states of western Germany and England. The Prussian memorials include an equestrian statue at Berlin (1863).

FERDINAND (1577-1650), elector and archbishop of Cologne, son of William V., duke of Bavaria, was born on the 7th of October 1577. Intended for the church, he was educated by the Jesuits at the university of Ingolstadt, and in 1595 became coadjutor archbishop of Cologne. He became elector and archbishop in 1612 on the death of his uncle Ernest, whom he also succeeded as bishop of Liége, Munster and Hildesheim. He 270 endeavoured resolutely to root out heresy in the lands under his rule, and favoured the teaching of the Jesuits in every possible way. He supported the league founded by his brother Maximilian I., duke of Bavaria, and wished to involve the leaguers in a general attack on the Protestants of north Germany. The cool political sagacity of the duke formed a sharp contrast to the impetuosity of the archbishop, and he refused to accede to his brother’s wish; but, in spite of these temporary differences, Ferdinand sent troops and money to the assistance of the league when the Thirty Years’ War broke out in 1619. The elector’s alliance with the Spaniards secured his territories to a great extent from the depredations of the war until the arrival of the Swedes in Germany in 1630, when the extension of the area of the struggle to the neighbourhood of Cologne induced him to enter into negotiations for peace. Nothing came of these attempts until 1647, when he joined his brother Maximilian in concluding an armistice with France and Sweden at Ulm. The elector’s later years were marked by a conflict with the citizens of Liége; and when the peace of Westphalia freed him from his enemies, he was able to crush the citizens and deprive them of many privileges. Ferdinand, who had held the bishopric of Paderborn since 1618, died at Arnsberg on the 13th of September 1650, and was buried in the cathedral at Cologne.

FERENTINO (anc. Ferentinum, to be distinguished from Ferentum or Ferentinum in Etruria), a town and episcopal see of Italy, in the province of Rome, from which it is 48 m. E.S.E. by rail. Pop. (1901) 7957 (town), 12,279 (commune). It is picturesquely situated on a hill 1290 ft. above sea-level, and still possesses considerable remains of ancient fortifications. The lower portion of the outer walls, which probably did not stand free, is built of roughly hewn blocks of a limestone which naturally splits into horizontal layers; above this in places is walling of rectangular blocks of tufa. Two gates, the Porta Sanguinaria (with an arch with tufa voussoirs), and the Porta S. Maria, a double gate constructed entirely of rectangular blocks of tufa, are preserved. Outside this gate is the tomb of A. Quinctilius Priscus, a citizen of Ferentinum, with a long inscription cut in the rock. See Th. Mommsen in Corp. Inscrip. Lat. x. (Berlin, 1883), No. 5853.

The highest part of the town, the acropolis, is fortified also; it has massive retaining walls similar to those of the lower town. At the eastern corner, under the present episcopal palace, the construction is somewhat more careful. A projecting rectangular terrace has been erected, supported by walls of quadrilateral blocks of limestone arranged almost horizontally; while upon the level thus formed a building of rectangular blocks of local travertine was raised. The projecting cornice of this building bears two inscriptions of the period of Sulla, recording its construction by two censors (local officials); and in the interior, which contains several chambers, there is an inscription of the same censors over one of the doors, and another over a smaller external side door. The windows lighting these chambers come immediately above the cornice, and the wall continues above them again. The whole of this construction probably belongs to one period (Mommsen, op. cit. No. 5837 seq.). The cathedral occupies a part of the level top of the ancient acropolis; it was reconstructed on the site of an older church in 1099-1118; the interior was modernized in 1693, but was restored to its original form in 1902. It contains a fine canopy in the “Cosmatesque” style (see Relazione dei lavori eseguiti dall’ ufficio tecnico per la conservazione dei monumenti di Rome a provincia, Rome, 1903, 175 seq.). The Gothic church of S. Maria Maggiore, in the lower town (13th-14th century), has a very fine exterior; the interior, the plan of which is a perfect rectangle, has been spoilt by restoration. There are several other Gothic churches in the town.

Ferentinum was the chief town of the Hernici; it was captured from them by the Romans in 364 B.C. and took no part in the rising of 306 B.C. The inhabitants became Roman citizens after 195 B.C., and the place later became a municipium. It lay just above the Via Latina and, being a strong place, served for the detention of hostages. Horace praises its quietness, and it does not appear much in later history.

FERENTUM, or Ferentinum, an ancient town of Etruria, about 6 m. N. of Viterbo (the ancient name of which is unknown) and 3½ m. E. of the Via Cassia. It was the birthplace (32 A.D.) of the emperor Otho, was destroyed in the 11th century, and is now entirely deserted, though it retains its ancient name. It occupied a ridge running from east to west, with deep ravines on three sides. There are some remains of the city walls, and of various Roman structures, but the most important ruin is that of the theatre. The stage front is still standing; it is pierced by seven openings with flat arches, and shows traces of reconstruction. The acropolis was on the hill called Talone on the north-east.

FERETORY (from Lat. feretrum, a bier, from ferre, to bear), in architecture, the enclosure or chapel within which the “fereter” shrine, or tomb (as in Henry VII.’s chapel), was placed.

FERGHANA, or Fergana, a province of Russian Turkestan, formed in 1876 out of the former khanate of Khokand. It is bounded by the provinces of Syr-darya on the N. and N.W., Samarkand on the W., and Semiryechensk on the N.E., by Chinese Turkestan (Kashgaria) on the E., and by Bokhara and Afghanistan on the S. Its southern limits, on the Pamirs, were fixed by an Anglo-Russian commission in 1885, from Zor-kul (Victoria Lake) to the Chinese frontier; and Shignan, Roshan and Wakhan were assigned to Bokhara in exchange for part of Darvaz (on the left bank of the Panj), which was given to Afghanistan. The area amounts to some 53,000 sq. m., of which 17,600 sq. m. are on the Pamirs. The most important part of the province is a rich and fertile valley (1200-1500 ft.), opening towards the S.W. Thence the province stretches northwards across the mountains of the Tian-shan system and southwards across the Alai and Trans-Alai Mts., which reach their highest point in Peak Kaufmann (23,000 ft.), in the latter range. The valley owes its fertility to two rivers, the Naryn and the Karadarya, which unite within its confines, near Namangan, to form the Syr-darya or Jaxartes. These streams, and their numerous mountain affluents, not only supply water for irrigation, but also bring down vast quantities of sand, which is deposited alongside their courses, more especially alongside the Syr-darya where it cuts its way through the Khojent-Ajar ridge, forming there the Karakchikum. This expanse of moving sands, covering an area of 750 sq. m., under the influence of south-west winds, encroaches upon the agricultural districts. The climate of this valley is dry and warm. In March the temperature reaches 68° F., and then rapidly rises to 95° in June, July and August. During the five months following April no rain falls, but it begins again in October. Snow and frost (down to −4° F.) occur in December and January.

Out of some 3,000,000 acres of cultivated land, about two-thirds are under constant irrigation and the remaining third under partial irrigation. The soil is admirably cultivated, the principal crops being wheat, rice, barley, maize, millet, lucerne, tobacco, vegetables and fruit. Gardening is conducted with a high degree of skill and success. Large numbers of horses, cattle and sheep are kept, and a good many camels are bred. Over 17,000 acres are planted with vines, and some 350,000 acres are under cotton. Nearly 1,000,000 acres are covered with forests. The government maintains a forestry farm at Marghelan, from which 120,000 to 200,000 young trees are distributed free every year amongst the inhabitants of the province.

Silkworm breeding, formerly a prosperous industry, has decayed, despite the encouragement of a state farm at New Marghelan. Coal, iron, sulphur, gypsum, rock-salt, lacustrine salt and naphtha are all known to exist, but only the last two are extracted. Some seventy or eighty factories are engaged in cotton cleaning; while leather, saddlery, paper and cutlery 271 are the principal products of the domestic industries. A considerable trade is carried on with Russia; raw cotton, raw silk, tobacco, hides, sheepskins, fruit and cotton and leather goods are exported, and manufactured wares, textiles, tea and sugar are imported and in part re-exported to Kashgaria and Bokhara. The total trade of Ferghana reaches an annual value of nearly £3,500,000. A new impulse was given to trade by the extension (1899) of the Transcaspian railway into Ferghana and by the opening of the Orenburg-Tashkent railway (1906). The routes to Kashgaria and the Pamirs are mere bridle-paths over the mountains, crossing them by lofty passes. For instance, the passes of Kara-kazyk (14,400 ft.) and Tenghiz-bai (11,200 ft.), both passable all the year round, lead from Marghelan to Kara-teghin and the Pamirs, while Kashgar is reached via Osh and Gulcha, and then over the passes of Terek-davan (12,205 ft.; open all the year round), Taldyk (11,500 ft.), Archat (11,600 ft.), and Shart-davan (14,000 ft.). Other passes leading out of the valley are the Jiptyk (12,460 ft.), S. of Khokand; the Isfairam (12,000 ft.), leading to the glen of the Surkhab, and the Kavuk (13,000 ft.), across the Alai Mts.

The population numbered 1,571,243 in 1897, and of that number 707,132 were women and 286,369 were urban. In 1906 it was estimated at 1,796,500. Two-thirds of the total are Sarts and Uzbegs (of Turkic origin). They live mostly in the valley; while the mountain slopes above it are occupied by Kirghiz, partly nomad and pastoral, partly agricultural and settled. The other races are Tajiks, Kashgarians, Kipchaks, Jews and Gypsies. The governing classes are of course Russians, who constitute also the merchant and artizan classes. But the merchants of West Turkestan are called all over central Asia Andijanis, from the town of Andijan in Ferghana. The great mass of the population are Mussulmans (1,039,115 in 1897). The province is divided into five districts, the chief towns of which are New Marghelan, capital of the province (8977 inhabitants in 1897), Andijan (49,682 in 1900), Khokand (86,704 in 1900), Namangan (61,906 in 1897), and Osh (37,397 in 1900); but Old Marghelan (42,855 in 1900) and Chust (13,686 in 1897) are also towns of importance. For the history, see Khokand.

FERGUS FALLS, a city and the county-seat of Otter Tail county, Minnesota, U.S.A., on the Red river, 170 m. N.W. of Minneapolis. Pop. (1890) 3772; (1900) 6072, of whom 2131 were foreign-born; (1905) 6692; (1910) 6887. A large part of the population is of Scandinavian birth or descent. Fergus Falls is served by the Great Northern and the Northern Pacific railways. Situated in the celebrated “park region” of the state, the city possesses great natural beauty, which has been enhanced by a system of boulevards and well-kept private lawns. Lake Alice, in the residential district, adds to the city’s attractions. The city has a public library, a county court house, St Luke’s hospital, the G.B. Wright memorial hospital, and a city hall. It is the seat of a state hospital for the insane (1887) with about 1600 patients, of a business college, of the Park Region Luther College (Norwegian Lutheran, 1892), and of the North-western College (Swedish Lutheran; opened in 1901). It has one of the finest water-powers in the state. Flour is the principal product; among others are woollen goods, foundry and machine-shop products, wooden ware, sash, doors and blinds, caskets, shirts, wagons and packed meats. The city owns and operates its water-works and its electric-lighting plant. Fergus Falls was settled about 1859 and was incorporated in 1863.

FERGUSON, ADAM (1723-1816), Scottish philosopher and historian, was born on the 20th of June 1723, at Logierait, Perthshire. He was educated at Perth grammar school and the university of St Andrews. In 1745, owing to his knowledge of Gaelic, he was appointed deputy chaplain of the 43rd (afterwards the 42nd) regiment (the Black Watch), the licence to preach being granted him by special dispensation, although he had not completed the required six years of theological study. At the battle of Fontenoy (1745) Ferguson fought in the ranks throughout the day, and refused to leave the field, though ordered to do so by his colonel. He continued attached to the regiment till 1754, when, disappointed at not obtaining a living, he abandoned the clerical profession and resolved to devote himself to literary pursuits. In January 1757 he succeeded David Hume as librarian to the faculty of advocates, but soon relinquished this office on becoming tutor in the family of Lord Bute.

In 1759 Ferguson was appointed professor of natural philosophy in the university of Edinburgh, and in 1764 was transferred to the chair of “pneumatics” (mental philosophy) “and moral philosophy.” In 1767, against Hume’s advice, he published his Essay on the History of Civil Society, which was well received and translated into several European languages. In 1776 appeared his (anonymous) pamphlet on the American revolution in opposition to Dr Price’s Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty, in which he sympathized with the views of the British legislature. In 1778 Ferguson was appointed secretary to the commission which endeavoured, but without success, to negotiate an arrangement with the revolted colonies. In 1783 appeared his History of the Progress and Termination of the Roman Republic; it was very popular, and went through several editions. Ferguson was led to undertake this work from a conviction that the history of the Romans during the period of their greatness was a practical illustration of those ethical and political doctrines which were the object of his special study. The history is written in an agreeable style and a spirit of impartiality, and gives evidence of a conscientious use of authorities. The influence of the author’s military experience shows itself in certain portions of the narrative. Finding himself unequal to the labour of teaching, he resigned his professorship in 1785, and devoted himself to the revision of his lectures, which he published (1792) under the title of Principles of Moral and Political Science.

When in his seventieth year, Ferguson, intending to prepare a new edition of the history, visited Italy and some of the principal cities of Europe, where he was received with honour by learned societies. From 1795 he resided successively at the old castle of Neidpath near Peebles, at Hallyards on Manor Water and at St Andrews, where he died on the 22nd of February 1816.

In his ethical system Ferguson treats man throughout as a social being, and illustrates his doctrines by political examples. As a believer in the progression of the human race, he placed the principle of moral approbation in the attainment of perfection. His speculations were carefully criticized by Cousin (see his Cours d’histoire de la philosophie morale au dix-huitième siècle, pt. ii., 1839-1840):—“We find in his method the wisdom and circumspection of the Scottish school, with something more masculine and decisive in the results. The principle of perfection is a new one, at once more rational and comprehensive than benevolence and sympathy, which in our view places Ferguson as a moralist above all his predecessors.” By this principle Ferguson endeavours to reconcile all moral systems. With Hobbes and Hume he admits the power of self-interest or utility, and makes it enter into morals as the law of self-preservation. Hutcheson’s theory of universal benevolence and Smith’s idea of sympathy he combines under the law of society. But, as these laws are the means rather than the end of human destiny, they are subordinate to a supreme end, and this supreme end is perfection. In the political part of his system Ferguson follows Montesquieu, and pleads the cause of well-regulated liberty and free government. His contemporaries, with the exception of Hume, regarded his writings as of great importance; in point of fact they are superficial. The facility of their style and the frequent occurrence of would-be weighty epigrams blinded his critics to the fact that, in spite of his recognition of the importance of observation, he made no real contribution to political theory (see Sir Leslie Stephen, English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, x. 89-90).

272

FERGUSON, JAMES (1710-1776), Scottish mechanician and astronomer, was born near Rothiemay in Banffshire on the 25th of April 1710, of parents in very humble circumstances. He first learned to read by overhearing his father teach his elder brother, and with the help of an old woman was “able,” he says in his autobiography, “to read tolerably well before his father thought of teaching him.” After receiving further instruction in reading from his father, who also taught him to write, he was sent at the age of seven for three months to the grammar school at Keith. His taste for mechanics was about this time accidentally awakened on seeing his father making use of a lever to raise a part of the roof of his house—an exhibition of seeming strength which at first “excited his terror as well as wonder.” In 1720 he was sent to a neighbouring farm to keep sheep, where in the daytime he amused himself by making models of mills and other machines, and at night in studying the stars. Afterwards, as a servant with a miller, and then with a doctor, he met with hardships which rendered his constitution feeble through life. Being compelled by his weak health to return home, he there amused himself with making a clock having wooden wheels and a whalebone spring. When slightly recovered he showed this and some other inventions to a neighbouring gentleman, who engaged him to clean his clocks, and also desired him to make his house his home. He there began to draw patterns for needlework, and his success in this art led him to think of becoming a painter. In 1734 he went to Edinburgh, where he began to take portraits in miniature, by which means, while engaged in his scientific studies, he supported himself and his family for many years. Subsequently he settled at Inverness, where he drew up his Astronomical Rotula for showing the motions of the planets, places of the sun and moon, &c., and in 1743 went to London, which was his home for the rest of his life. He wrote various papers for the Royal Society, of which he became a fellow in 1763, devised astronomical and mechanical models, and in 1748 began to give public lectures on experimental philosophy. These he repeated in most of the principal towns in England. His deep interest in his subject, his clear explanations, his ingeniously constructed diagrams, and his mechanical apparatus rendered him one of the most successful of popular lecturers on scientific subjects. It is, however, as the inventor and improver of astronomical and other scientific apparatus, and as a striking instance of self-education, that he claims a place among the most remarkable men of science of his country. During the latter years of his life he was in receipt of a pension of £50 from the privy purse. He died in London on the 17th of November 1776.

FERGUSON, ROBERT (c. 1637-1714), British conspirator and pamphleteer, called the “Plotter,” was a son of William Ferguson (d. 1699) of Badifurrow, Aberdeenshire, and after receiving a good education, probably at the university of Aberdeen, became a Presbyterian minister. According to Bishop Burnet he was cast out by the Presbyterians; but whether this be so or not, he soon made his way to England and became vicar of Godmersham, Kent, from which living he was expelled by the Act of Uniformity in 1662. Some years later, having gained meanwhile a reputation as a theological controversialist and become a person of importance among the Nonconformists, he attracted the notice of the earl of Shaftesbury and the party which favoured the exclusion of the duke of York (afterwards King James II.) from the throne, and he began to write political pamphlets just at the time when the feeling against the Roman Catholics was at its height. In 1680 he wrote “A Letter to a Person of Honour concerning the ‘Black Box,’” in which he supported the claim of the duke of Monmouth to the crown against that of the duke of York; returning to the subject after Charles II. had solemnly denied the existence of a marriage between himself and Lucy Waters. He took an active part in the controversy over the Exclusion Bill, and claimed to be the author of the whole of the pamphlet “No Protestant Plot” (1681), parts of which are usually ascribed to Shaftesbury. Ferguson was deeply implicated in the Rye House Plot, although he asserted that he had frustrated both this and a subsequent attempt to assassinate the king, and he fled to Holland with Shaftesbury in 1682, returning to England early in 1683. For his share in another plot against Charles II. he was declared an outlaw, after which he entered into communication with Argyll, Monmouth and other malcontents. Ferguson then took a leading part in organizing the rising of 1685. Having overcome Monmouth’s reluctance to take part in this movement, he accompanied the duke to the west of England and drew up the manifesto against James II., escaping to Holland after the battle of Sedgemoor. He landed in England with William of Orange in 1688, and aided William’s cause with his pen; but William and his advisers did not regard him as a person of importance, although his services were rewarded with a sinecure appointment in the Excise. Chagrined at this treatment, Ferguson was soon in correspondence with the exiled Jacobites. He shared in all the plots against the life of William, and after his removal from the Excise in 1692 wrote violent pamphlets against the government. Although he was several times arrested on suspicion, he was never brought to trial. He died in great poverty in 1714, leaving behind him a great and deserved reputation for treachery. It has been thought by Macaulay and others that Ferguson led the English government to believe that he was a spy in their interests, and that his frequent escapes from justice were due to official connivance. In a proclamation issued for his arrest in 1683 he is described as “a tall lean man, dark brown hair, a great Roman nose, thin-jawed, heat in his face, speaks in the Scotch tone, a sharp piercing eye, stoops a little in the shoulders.” Besides numerous pamphlets Ferguson wrote: History of the Revolution (1706); Qualifications requisite in a Minister of State (1710); and part of the History of all the Mobs, Tumults and Insurrections in Great Britain (London, 1715).

FERGUSON, SIR SAMUEL (1810-1886), Irish poet and antiquary, was born at Belfast, on the 10th of March 1810. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, was called to the Irish bar in 1838, and was made Q.C. in 1859, but in 1867 retired from practice upon his appointment as deputy-keeper of the Irish records, then in a much neglected condition. He was an excellent civil servant, and was knighted in 1878 for his services to the department. His spare time was given to general literature, and in particular to poetry. He had long been a leading contributor to the Dublin University Magazine and to Blackwood, where he had published his two literary masterpieces, “The Forging of the Anchor,” one of the finest of modern ballads, and the humorous prose extravaganza of “Father Tom and the Pope.” He published Lays of the Western Gael in 1865, Poems in 1880, and in 1872 Congal, a metrical narrative of the heroic age of Ireland, and, though far from ideal perfection, perhaps the most successful attempt yet made by a modern Irish poet to revivify the spirit of the past in a poem of epic proportions. Lyrics have succeeded better in other hands; many of Ferguson’s pieces on modern themes, notably his “Lament for Thomas Davis” (1845), are, nevertheless, excellent. He was an extensive contributor on antiquarian subjects to the Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, and was elected its president in 1882. His manners were delightful, and his hospitality was boundless. He died at Howth on the 9th of August 1886. His most important antiquarian work, Ogham Inscriptions in Ireland, Wales, Scotland, was published in the year after his death.

273

FERGUSSON, JAMES (1808-1886), Scottish writer on architecture, was born at Ayr on the 22nd of January 1808. His father was an army surgeon. After being educated first at the Edinburgh high school, and afterwards at a private school at Hounslow, James went to Calcutta as partner in a mercantile house. Here he was attracted by the remains of the ancient architecture of India, little known or understood at that time. The successful conduct of an indigo factory, as he states in his own account, enabled him in about ten years to retire from business and settle in London. The observations made on Indian architecture were first embodied in his book on The Rock-cut Temples of India, published in 1845. The task of analysing the historic and aesthetic relations of this type of ancient buildings led him further to undertake a historical and critical comparative survey of the whole subject of architecture in The Handbook of Architecture, a work which first appeared in 1855. This did not satisfy him, and the work was reissued ten years later in a much more extended form under the title of The History of Architecture. The chapters on Indian architecture, which had been considered at rather disproportionate length in the Handbook, were removed from the general History, and the whole of this subject treated more fully in a separate volume, The History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, which appeared in 1876, and, although complete in itself, formed a kind of appendix to The History of Architecture. Previously to this, in 1862, he issued his History of Modern Architecture, in which the subject was continued from the Renaissance to the present day, the period of “modern architecture” being distinguished as that of revivals and imitations of ancient styles, which began with the Renaissance. The essential difference between this and the spontaneously evolved architecture of preceding ages Fergusson was the first clearly to point out and characterize. His treatise on The True Principles of Beauty in Art, an early publication, is a most thoughtful metaphysical study. Some of his essays on special points in archaeology, such as the treatise on The Mode in which Light was introduced into Greek Temples, included theories which have not received general acceptance. His real monument is his History of Architecture (later edition revised by R. Phenè Spiers), which, for grasp of the whole subject, comprehensiveness of plan, and thoughtful critical analysis, stands quite alone in architectural literature. He received the gold medal of the Royal Institute of British Architects in 1871. Among his works, besides those already mentioned, are: A Proposed New System of Fortification (1849), Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis restored (1851), Mausoleum at Halicarnassus restored (1862), Tree and Serpent Worship (1868), Rude Stone Monuments in all Countries (1872), and The Temples of the Jews and the other Buildings in the Haram Area at Jerusalem (1878). The sessional papers of the Institute of British Architects include papers by him on The History of the Pointed Arch, Architecture of Southern India, Architectural Splendour of the City of Beejapore, On the Erechtheum and on the Temple of Diana at Ephesus.

Although Fergusson never practised architecture he took a keen interest in all the professional work of his time. He was adviser with Austen Layard in the scheme of decoration for the Assyrian court at the Crystal Palace, and indeed assumed in 1856 the duties of general manager to the Palace Company, a post which he held for two years. In 1847 Fergusson had published an “Essay on the Ancient Topography of Jerusalem,” in which he had contended that the “Mosque of Omar” was the identical church built by Constantine the Great over the tomb of our Lord at Jerusalem, and that it, and not the present church of the Holy Sepulchre, was the genuine burial-place of Jesus. The burden of this contention was further explained by the publication in 1860 of his Notes on the Site of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem; and The Temples of the Jews and the other Buildings in the Haram Area at Jerusalem, published in 1878, was a still completer elaboration of these theories, which are said to have been the origin of the establishment of the Palestine Exploration fund. His manifold activities continued till his death, which took place in London on the 9th of January 1886.

FERGUSSON, ROBERT (1750-1774), Scottish poet, son of Sir William Fergusson, a clerk in the British Linen Company, was born at Edinburgh on the 5th of September 1750. Robert was educated at the grammar school of Dundee, and at the university of St Andrews, where he matriculated in 1765. His father died while he was still at college; but a bursary enabled him to complete his four years of study. He refused to study for the church, and was too nervous to study medicine as his friends wished. He quarrelled with his uncle, John Forbes of Round Lichnot, Aberdeenshire, and went to Edinburgh, where he obtained employment as copying clerk in a lawyer’s office. In this humble occupation he passed the remainder of his life. While at college he had written a clever elegy on Dr David Gregory, and in 1771 he began to contribute verses regularly to Ruddiman’s Weekly Magazine. He was a member of the Cape Club, celebrated by him in his poem of “Auld Reekie.” “The Knights of the Cape” assembled at a tavern in Craig’s Close, in the vicinity of the Cross; each member had a name and character assigned to him, which he was required to maintain at all gatherings of the order. David Herd (1732-1810), the collector of the classic edition of Ancient and Modern Scottish Songs (1776), was sovereign of the Cape (in which he was known as “Sir Scrape”) when Fergusson was dubbed a knight of the order, with the title of “Sir Precentor,” in allusion to his fine voice. Alexander Runciman, the historical painter, his pupil Jacob More, and Sir Henry Raeburn were all members. The old minute books of the club abound with pencilled sketches by them, one of the most interesting of which, ascribed to Runciman’s pencil, is a sketch of Fergusson in his character of “Sir Precentor.”

Fergusson’s gaiety and wit made him an entertaining companion, and he indulged too freely in the convivial habits of the time. After a meeting with John Brown of Haddington he became, however, very serious, and would read nothing but his Bible. A fall by which his head was severely injured aggravated symptoms of mental aberration which had begun to show themselves; and after about two months’ confinement in the old Darien House—then the only public asylum in Edinburgh—the poet died on the 16th of October 1774.

Fergusson’s poems were collected in the year before his death. The influence of his writings on Robert Burns is undoubted. His “Leith Races” unquestionably supplied the model for the “Holy Fair.” Not only is the stanza the same, but the Mirth who plays the part of conductor to Fergusson, and the Fun who renders a like service to Burns, are manifestly conceived on the same model. “The Mutual Complaint of Plainstanes and Causey” probably suggested “The Brigs of Ayr”; “On seeing a Butterfly in the Street” has reflections in it which strikingly correspond with “To a Mouse”; nor will a comparison of “The Farmer’s Ingle” of the elder poet with “The Cottar’s Saturday Night” admit of a doubt as to the influence of the city-bred poet’s muse on that exquisite picturing of homely peasant life. Burns was himself the first to render a generous tribute to the merits of Fergusson; on his visit to Edinburgh in 1787 he sought out the poet’s grave, and petitioned the authorities of the Canongate burying-ground for permission to erect the memorial stone which is preserved in the existing monument. The date there assigned for his birth differs from the one given above, which rests on the authority of his younger sister Margaret.

FERGUSSON, SIR WILLIAM, Bart. (1808-1877), British surgeon, the son of James Fergusson of Lochmaben, Dumfriesshire, was born at Prestonpans, East Lothian, on the 20th of March 1808. After receiving his early education at Lochmaben and the high school of Edinburgh, he entered the university of Edinburgh with the view of studying law, but soon afterwards abandoned his intention and became a pupil of the anatomist Robert Knox (1791-1862) whose demonstrator he was 274 appointed at the age of twenty. In 1836 he succeeded Robert Liston as surgeon to the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, and coming to London in 1840 as professor of surgery in King’s College, and surgeon to King’s College Hospital, he acquired a commanding position among the surgeons of the metropolis. He revived the operation for cleft-palate, which for many years had fallen into disrepute, and invented a special mouth-gag for the same. He also devised many other surgical instruments, chief among which, and still in use to-day, are his bone forceps, lion forceps and vaginal speculum. In 1866 he was created a baronet. He died in London on the 10th of February 1877. As a surgeon Fergusson’s greatest merit is that of having introduced the practice of “conservative surgery,” by which he meant the excision of a joint rather than the amputation of a limb. He made his diagnosis with almost intuitive certainty; as an operator he was characterized by self-possession in the most critical circumstances, by minute attention to details and by great refinement of touch, and he relied more on his mechanical dexterity than on complicated instruments. He was the author of The Progress of Anatomy and Surgery in the Nineteenth Century (1867), and of a System of Practical Surgery (1842), which went through several editions.

FERINGHI, or Feringhee, a Frank (Persian, Farangi). This term for a European is very old in Asia, and was originally used in a purely geographical sense, but now generally carries a hostile or contemptuous significance. The combatants on either side during the Indian Mutiny called each other Feringhies and Pandies.

FERISHTA, MAHOMMED KASIM (c. 1570-c. 1611), Persian historian, was born at Astrabad, on the shores of the Caspian Sea. While he was still a child his father was summoned away from his native country into Hindostan, where he held high office in the Deccan; and by his influence the young Ferishta received court promotion. In 1589 Ferishta removed to Bijapur, where he spent the remainder of his life under the immediate protection of the shah Ibrahim Adil II., who engaged him to write a history of India. At the court of this monarch he died about 1611. In the introduction to his work a résumé is given of the history of Hindostan prior to the times of the Mahommedan conquest, and also of the victorious progress of the Arabs through the East. The first ten books are each occupied with a history of the kings of one of the provinces; the eleventh book gives an account of the Mussulmans of Malabar; the twelfth a history of the Mussulman saints of India; and the conclusion treats of the geography and climate of India. Ferishta is reputed one of the most trustworthy of the Oriental historians, and his work still maintains a high place as an authority. Several portions of it have been translated into English; but the best as well as the most complete translation is that published by General J. Briggs under the title of The History of the Rise of the Mahometan Power in India (London, 1829, 4 vols. 8vo). Several additions were made by Briggs to the original work of Ferishta, but he omitted the whole of the twelfth book, and various other passages which had been omitted in the copy from which he translated.

FERMANAGH, a county of Ireland, in the province of Ulster, bounded N.W. by Donegal, N.E. by Tyrone, E. by Monaghan and S.W. by Cavan and Leitrim. The area is 457,369 acres or about 715 sq. m. The county is situated mostly in the basin of the Erne, which divides the county into two nearly equal sections. Its surface is hilly, and its appearance (in many parts) somewhat sterile, though in the main, and especially in the neighbourhood of Lough Erne, it is picturesque and attractive. The climate, though moist, is healthy, and the people are generally tall and robust. The chief mountains are Cuilcagh (2188 ft.), partly in Leitrim and Cavan, Belmore (1312), Glenkeel (1223), North Shean (1135), Tappahan (1110), Carnmore (1034). Tossett or Toppid and Turaw mountains command extensive prospects, and form striking features in the scenery of the county. But the most distinguishing features of Fermanagh are the Upper and Lower Loughs Erne, which occupy a great extent of its surface, stretching for about 45 m. from S.E. to N.W. These lakes are expansions of the river Erne, which enters the county from Cavan at Wattle Bridge. It passes Belturbet, the Loughs Erne, Enniskillen and Belleek, on its way to the Atlantic, into which it descends at Ballyshannon. At Belleek it forms a considerable waterfall and is here well known to sportsmen for its good salmon fishing. Trout are taken in most of the loughs, and pike of great size in the Loughs Erne. There are several mineral springs in the county, some of them chalybeate, others sulphurous. At Belcoo, near Enniskillen, there is a famous well called Daragh Phadric, held in repute by the peasantry for its cure of paralytic and other diseases; and 4 m. N.W. of the same town, at a place called “the Daughton,” are natural caves of considerable size.

This county includes in the north an area of the gneiss that is discussed under county Donegal, and, west of Omagh, a metamorphic region that stretches in from the central axis of Tyrone. A fault divides the latter from the mass of red-brown Old Red Sandstone that spreads south nearly to Enniskillen. Lower Carboniferous sandstone and limestone occur on the north of Lower Lough Erne. The limestone forms fine scarps on the southern side of the lake, capped by beds regarded as the Yoredale series. The scenery about the two Loughs Macnean is carved out in similarly scarped hills, rising to 2188 ft. in Cuilcagh on the south. The “Marble Arch” cave near Florence-court, with its emerging river, is a characteristic example of the subterranean waterways in the limestone. Upper Lough Erne is a typical meandering lake of the limestone lowland, with outliers of higher Carboniferous strata forming highlands north-east and south-west of it.

With the exception of the pottery works at Belleek, where iridescent ware of good quality is produced, Fermanagh has no distinguishing manufactures. It is chiefly an agricultural county. The proportion of tillage to pasture is roughly as 1 to 2½. Cattle and poultry are the principal classes of live stock. Oats and potatoes are the crops most extensively cultivated. The north-western division of the Great Northern railway passes through the most populous portion of the county, one branch connecting Enniskillen with Clones, another connecting Enniskillen with Londonderry via Omagh, and a third connecting Bundoran Junction with Bundoran, in county Donegal. The Sligo, Leitrim & Northern Counties railway connects with the Great Northern at Enniskillen, and the Clogher Valley light railway connects southern county Tyrone with the Great Northern at Maguiresbridge.

The population (74,170 in 1891; 65,430 in 1901; almost wholly rural) shows a decrease among the most serious of the county populations of Ireland. It includes 55% of Roman Catholics and about 35% of Protestant Episcopalians. Enniskillen (the county town, pop. 5412) is the only town of importance, the rest being little more than villages. The principal are Lisnaskea, Irvinestown (formerly Lowtherstown), Maguiresbridge, Tempo, Newtownbutler, Belleek, Derrygonnelly and Kesh, at which fairs are held. Garrison, a fishing station on the wild Lough Melvin, and Pettigo, near to the lower Lough Erne, are market villages. Fermanagh returns two members to parliament, one each for the north and south divisions. It comprises eight baronies and nineteen civil parishes. The assizes are held at Enniskillen, quarter sessions at Enniskillen and Newtownbutler. The headquarters of the constabulary are at Enniskillen. Ecclesiastically it belongs to the Protestant and Roman Catholic dioceses of Clogher and Kilmore.

By the ancient Irish the district was called Feor-magh-Eanagh, or the “country of the lakes” (lit. “the mountain-valley marsh district”); and also Magh-uire, or “the country of the waters.” A large portion was occupied by the Guarii, the ancestors of the MacGuires or Maguires, a name still common in the district. This family was so influential that for centuries the county was called after it Maguire’s Country, and one of the towns still existing bears its name, Maguiresbridge. Fermanagh was formed into a county on the shiring of Ulster in 1585 by Sir John Perrot, and was included in the well-known scheme of colonization of James I., the Plantation of Ulster. In 1689 battles were fought between William III.’s army and the Irish 275 under Macarthy (for James II.), Lisnaskea (26th July) and Newtownbutler (30th July). The chief place of interest to the antiquary is Devenish Island in Lough Erne, about 2½ m. N.W. from Enniskillen (q.v.), with its ruined abbey, round tower and cross. In various places throughout the county may be seen the ruins of several ancient castles, Danish raths or encampments, and tumuli, in the last of which urns and stone coffins have sometimes been found. The round tower on Devenish Island is one of the finest examples in the country.

FERMAT, PIERRE DE (1601-1665), French mathematician, was born on the 17th of August 1601, at Beaumont-de-Lomagne near Montauban. While still young, he, along with Blaise Pascal, made some discoveries in regard to the properties of numbers, on which he afterwards built his method of calculating probabilities. He discovered a simpler method of quadrating parabolas than that of Archimedes, and a method of finding the greatest and the smallest ordinates of curved lines analogous to that of the then unknown differential calculus. His great work De maximis et minimis brought him into conflict with René Descartes, but the dispute was chiefly due to a want of explicitness in the statement of Fermat (see Infinitesimal Calculus). His brilliant researches in the theory of numbers entitle him to rank as the founder of the modern theory. They originally took the form of marginal notes in a copy of Bachet’s Diophantus, and were published in 1670 by his son Samuel, who incorporated them in a new edition of this Greek writer. Other theorems were published in his Opera Varia, and in John Wallis’s Commercium epistolicum (1658). He died in the belief that he had found a relation which every prime number must satisfy, namely 22n + 1 = a prime. This was afterwards disproved by Leonhard Euler for the case when n = 5. Fermat’s Theorem, if p is prime and a is prime to p then ap−1 − 1 is divisible by p, was first given in a letter of 1640. Fermat’s Problem is that xn + yn = zn is impossible for integral values of x, y and z when n is greater than 2.

Fermat was for some time councillor for the parliament of Toulouse, and in the discharge of the duties of that office he was distinguished both for legal knowledge and for strict integrity of conduct. Though the sciences were the principal objects of his private studies, he was also an accomplished general scholar and an excellent linguist. He died at Toulouse on the 12th of January 1665. He left a son, Samuel de Fermat (1630-1690) who published translations of several Greek authors and wrote certain books on law in addition to editing his father’s works.

FERMENTATION. The process of fermentation in the preparation of wine, vinegar, beer and bread was known and practised in prehistoric times. The alchemists used the terms fermentation, digestion and putrefaction indiscriminately; any reaction in which chemical energy was displayed in some form or other—such, for instance, as the effervescence occasioned by the addition of an acid to an alkaline solution—was described as a fermentation (Lat. fervere, to boil); and the idea of the “Philosopher’s Stone” setting up a fermentation in the common metals and developing the essence or germ, which should transmute them into silver or gold, further complicated the conception of fermentation. As an outcome of this alchemical doctrine the process of fermentation was supposed to have a purifying and elevating effect on the bodies which had been submitted to its influence. Basil Valentine wrote that when yeast was added to wort “an internal inflammation is communicated to the liquid, so that it raises in itself, and thus the segregation and separation of the feculent from the clear takes place.” Johann Becher, in 1669, first found that alcohol was formed during the fermentation of solutions of sugar; he distinguished also between fermentation and putrefaction. In 1697 Georg Stahl admitted that fermentation and putrefaction were analogous processes, but that the former was a particular case of the latter.

The beginning of definite knowledge on the phenomenon of fermentation may be dated from the time of Antony Leeuwenhoek, who in 1680 designed a microscope sufficiently powerful to render yeast cells and bacteria visible; and a description of these organisms, accompanied by diagrams, was sent to the Royal Society of London. This investigator just missed a great discovery, for he did not consider the spherical forms to be living organisms but compared them with starch granules. It was not until 1803 that L.J. Thénard stated that yeast was the cause of fermentation, and held it to be of an animal nature, since it contained nitrogen and yielded ammonia on distillation, nor was it conclusively proved that the yeast cell was the originator of fermentation until the researches of C. Cagniard de la Tour, T. Schwann and F. Kützing from 1836 to 1839 settled the point. These investigators regarded yeast as a plant, and Meyer gave to the germs the systematic name of “Saccharomyces” (sugar fungus). In 1839-1840 J. von Liebig attacked the doctrine that fermentation was caused by micro-organisms, and enunciated his theory of mechanical decomposition. He held that every fermentation consisted of molecular motion which is transmitted from a substance in a state of chemical motion—that is, of decomposition—to other substances, the elements of which are loosely held together. It is clear from Liebig’s publications that he first regarded yeast as a lifeless, albuminoid mass; but, although later he considered they were living cells, he would never admit that fermentation was a physiological process, the chemical aspect being paramount in the mind of this distinguished investigator.

In 1857 Pasteur decisively proved that fermentation was a physiological process, for he showed that the yeast which produced fermentation was no dead mass, as assumed by Liebig, but consisted of living organisms capable of growth and multiplication. His own words are: “The chemical action of fermentation is essentially a correlative phenomenon of a vital act, beginning and ending with it. I think that there is never any alcoholic fermentation without there being at the same time organization, development and multiplication of globules, or the continued consecutive life of globules already formed.” Fermentation, according to Pasteur, was caused by the growth and multiplication of unicellular organisms out of contact with free oxygen, under which circumstance they acquire the power of taking oxygen from chemical compounds in the medium in which they are growing. In other words “fermentation is life without air, or life without oxygen.” This theory of fermentation was materially modified in 1892 and 1894 by A.J. Brown, who described experiments which were in disagreement with Pasteur’s dictum. A.J. Brown writes: “If for the theory ’life without air’ is substituted the consideration that yeast cells can use oxygen in the manner of ordinary aërobic fungi, and probably do require it for the full completion of their life-history, but that the exhibition of their fermentative functions is independent of their environment with regard to free oxygen, it will be found that there is nothing contradictory in Pasteur’s experiments to such a hypothesis.”

Liebig and Pasteur were in agreement on the point that fermentation is intimately connected with the presence of yeast in the fermenting liquid, but their explanations concerning the mechanism of fermentation were quite opposed. According to M. Traube (1858), the active cause of fermentation is due to the action of different enzymes contained in yeast and not to the yeast cell itself. As will be seen later this theory was confirmed by subsequent researches of E. Fischer and E. Buchner.

In 1879 C. Nägeli formulated his well-known molecular-physical theory, which supported Liebig’s chemical theory on the one hand and Pasteur’s physiological hypothesis on the 276 other: “Fermentation is the transference of the condition of motion of the molecules, atomic groups and atoms of the various compounds constituting the living plasma, to the fermenting material, in consequence of which equilibrium in the molecules of the latter is destroyed, the result being their disintegration.” He agreed with Pasteur that the presence of living cells is essential to the transformation of sugar into alcohol, but dissented from the view that the process occurs within the cell. This investigator held that the decomposition of the sugar molecules takes place outside the cell wall. In 1894 and 1895, Fischer, in a remarkable series of papers on the influence of molecular structure upon the action of the enzyme, showed that various species of yeast behave very differently towards solutions of sugars. For example, some species hydrolyse cane sugar and maltose, and then carry on fermentation at the expense of the simple sugars (hexoses) so formed. Saccharomyces Marxianus will not hydrolyse maltose, but it does attack cane sugar and ferment the products of hydrolysis. Fischer next suggested that enzymes can only hydrolyse those sugars which possess a molecular structure in harmony with their own, or to use his ingenious analogy, “the one may be said to fit into the other as a key fits into a lock.” The preference exhibited by yeast cells for sugar molecules is shared by mould fungi and soluble enzymes in their fermentative actions. Thus, Pasteur showed that Penicillium glaucum, when grown in an aqueous solution of ammonium racemate, decomposed the dextro-tartrate, leaving the laevo-tartrate, and the solution which was originally inactive to polarized light became dextro-rotatory. Fischer found that the enzyme “invertase,” which is present in yeast, attacks methyl-d-glucoside but not methyl-l-glucoside.

In 1897 Buchner submitted yeast to great pressure, and isolated a nitrogenous substance, enzymic in character, which he termed “zymase.” This body is being continually formed in the yeast cell, and decomposes the sugar which has diffused into the cell. The freshly-expressed yeast juice causes concentrated solutions of cane sugar, glucose, laevulose and maltose to ferment with the production of alcohol and carbon dioxide, but not milk-sugar and mannose. In this respect the plasma behaves in a similar manner towards the sugars as does the living yeast cell. Pasteur found that, when cane sugar was fermented by yeast, 49.4% of carbonic acid and 51.1% of alcohol were produced; with expressed yeast juice cane sugar yields 47% of carbonic acid and 47.7% of alcohol. According to Buchner the fermentative activity of yeast-cell juice is not due to the presence of living yeast cells, or to the action of living yeast protoplasm, but it is caused by a soluble enzyme. A. Macfadyen, G.H. Morris and S. Rowland, in repeating Buchner’s experiments, found that zymase possessed properties differing from all other enzymes, thus: dilution with twice its volume of water practically destroys the fermentative power of the yeast juice. These investigators considered that differences of this nature cannot be explained by the theory that it is a soluble enzyme, which brings about the alcoholic fermentation of sugar. The remarkable discoveries of Fischer and Buchner to a great extent confirm Traube’s views, and reconcile Liebig’s and Pasteur’s theories. Although the action of zymase may be regarded as mechanical, the enzyme cannot be produced by any other than living protoplasm.

Pasteur’s important researches mark an epoch in the technical aspect of fermentation. His investigations on vinegar-making revolutionized that industry, and he showed how, instead of waiting two or three months for the elaboration of the process, the vinegar could be made in eight or ten days by exposing the vats containing the mixture of wine and vinegar to a temperature of 20° to 25° C., and sowing with a small quantity of the acetic organism. To the study of the life-history of the butyric and acetic organisms we owe the terms “anaërobic” and “aërobic.” His researches from 1860 and onwards on the then vexed question of spontaneous generation proved that, in all cases where spontaneous generation appeared to have taken place, some defect or other was in the experiment. Although the direct object of Pasteur was to prove a negative, yet it was on these experiments that sterilization as known to us was developed. It is only necessary to bear in mind the great part played by sterilization in the laboratory, and pasteurization on the fermentation industries and in the preservation of food materials. Pasteur first formulated the idea that bacteria are responsible for the diseases of fermented liquids; the corollary of this was a demand for pure yeast. He recommended that yeast should be purified by cultivating it in a solution of sugar containing tartaric acid, or, in wort containing a small quantity of phenol. It was not recognized that many of the diseases of fermented liquids are occasioned by foreign yeasts; moreover, this process, as was shown later by Hansen, favours the development of foreign yeasts at the expense of the good yeast.

About this time Hansen, who had long been engaged in researches on the biology of the fungi of fermentation, demonstrated that yeast free from bacteria could nevertheless occasion diseases in beer. This discovery was of great importance to the zymo-technical industries, for it showed that bacteria are not the only undesirable organisms which may occur in yeast. Hansen set himself the task of studying the properties of the varieties of yeast, and to do this he had to cultivate each variety in a pure state. Having found that some of the commonest diseases of beer, such as yeast turbidity and the objectionable changes in flavour, were caused not by bacteria but by certain species of yeast, and, further, that different species of good brewery yeast would produce beers of different character, Hansen argued that the pitching yeast should consist only of a single species—namely, that best suited to the brewery in question. These views met with considerable opposition, but in 1890 Professor E. Duclaux stated that the yeast question as regards low fermentation has been solved by Hansen’s investigations. He emphasized the opinion that yeast derived from one cell was of no good for top fermentation, and advocated Pasteur’s method of purification. But in the course of time, notwithstanding many criticisms and objections, the reform spread from bottom fermentation to top fermentation breweries on the continent and in America. In the United Kingdom the employment of brewery yeasts selected from a single cell has not come into general use; it may probably be accounted for in a great measure by conservatism and the wrong application of Hansen’s theories.

Pure Cultivation of Yeasts.—The methods which were first adopted by Hansen for obtaining pure cultures of yeast were similar in principle to one devised by J. Lister for isolating a pure culture of lactic acid bacterium. Lister determined the number of bacteria present in a drop of the liquid under examination by counting, and then diluted this with a sufficient quantity of sterilized water so that each drop of the mixture should contain, on an average, less than one bacterium. A number of flasks containing a nutrient medium were each inoculated with one drop of this mixture; it was found that some remained sterile, and Lister assumed that the remaining flasks each contained a pure culture. This method did not give very certain results, for it could not be guaranteed that the growth in the inoculated flask was necessarily derived from a single bacterium. Hansen counted the number of yeast cells suspended in a drop of liquid diluted with sterilized water. A volume of the diluted yeast was introduced into flasks containing sterilized wort, the degree of dilution being such that only a small proportion of the flasks became infected. The flasks were then well shaken, and the yeast cell or cells settled to the bottom, and gave rise to a separate yeast speck. Only those cultures which contained a single yeast speck were assumed to be pure cultivations. By this method several races of Saccharomycetes and brewery yeasts were isolated and described.

The next important advance was the substitution of solid for liquid media; due originally to Schroter. R. Koch subsequently improved the method. He introduced bacteria into liquid sterile nutrient gelatin. After being well shaken, the liquid was poured into a sterile glass Petrie dish and covered with a moist and sterile bell-jar. It was assumed that each separate speck contained a pure culture. Hansen pointed out that this 277 was by no means the case, for it is more difficult to separate the cells from each other in the gelatin than in the liquid. To obtain an absolutely pure culture with certainty it is necessary, even when the gelatin method is employed, to start from a single cell. To effect this some of the nutrient gelatin containing yeast cells is placed on the under-surface of the cover-glass of the moist chamber. Those cells are accurately marked, the position of which is such that the colonies, to which they give rise, can grow to their full size without coming into contact with other colonies. The growth of the marked cells is kept under observation for three or four days, by which time the colonies will be large enough to be taken out of the chamber and placed in flasks. The contents of the flasks can then be introduced into larger flasks, and finally into an apparatus suitable for making enough yeast for technical purposes. Such, in brief, are the methods devised by that brilliant investigator Hansen; and these methods have not only been the basis on which our modern knowledge of the Saccharomycetes is founded, but are the only means of attack which the present-day observer has at his disposal.

From the foregoing it will be seen that the term fermentation has now a much wider significance than when it was applied to such changes as the decomposition of must or wort with the production of carbon dioxide and alcohol. Fermentation now includes all changes in organic compounds brought about by ferments elaborated in the living animal or vegetable cell. There are two distinct types of fermentation: (1) those brought about by living organisms (organized ferments), and (2) those brought about by non-living or unorganized ferments (enzymes). The first class include such changes as the alcoholic fermentation of sugar solutions, the acetic acid fermentation of alcohol, the lactic acid fermentation of milk sugar, and the putrefaction of animal and vegetable nitrogenous matter. The second class include all changes brought about by the agency of enzymes, such as the action of diastase on starch, invertase on cane sugar, glucase on maltose, &c. The actions are essentially hydrolytic.

Biological Aspect of Yeast.—The Saccharomycetes belong to that division of the Thallophyta called the Hyphomycetes or Fungi (q.v.). Two great divisions are recognized in the Fungi: (i.) the Phycomycetes or Algal Fungi, which retain a definitely sexual method of reproduction as well as asexual (vegetative) methods, and (ii.) the Mycomycetes, characterized by extremely reduced or very doubtful sexual reproduction. The Mycomycetes may be divided as follows: (A) forms bearing both sporangia and conidia (see Fungi), (B) forms bearing conidia only, e.g. the common mushroom. Division A comprises (a) the true Ascomycetes, of which the moulds Eurotium and Penicillium are examples, and (b) the Hemiasci, which includes the yeasts. The gradual disappearance of the sexual method of reproduction, as we pass upwards in the fungi from the points of their departure from the Algae, is an important fact, the last traces of sexuality apparently disappearing in the ascomycetes.

With certain rare exceptions the Saccharomycetes have three methods of asexual reproduction:—

1. The most common.—The formation of buds which separate to form new cells. A portion of the nucleus of the parent cell makes its way through the extremely narrow neck into the daughter cell. This method obtains when yeast is vigorously fermenting a saccharine solution.

2. A division by fission followed by Endogenous spore formation, characteristic of the Schizosaccharomycetes. Some species show fermentative power.

3. Endospore formation, the conditions for which are as follows: (1) suitable temperature, (2) presence of air, (3) presence of moisture, (4) young and vigorous cells, (5) a food supply in the case of one species at least is necessary, and is in no case prejudicial. In some cases a sexual act would appear to precede spore formation. In most cases four spores are formed within the cell by free formation. These may readily be seen after appropriate staining.

In some of the true Ascomycetes, such as Penicillium glaucum, the conidia if grown in saccharine solutions, which they have the power of fermenting, develop single cell yeast-like forms, and do not—at any rate for a time—produce again the characteristic branching mycelium. This is known as the Torula condition. It is supposed by some that Saccharomyces is a very degraded Ascomycete, in which the Torula condition has become fixed.

The yeast plant and its allies are saprophytes and form no chlorophyll. Their extreme reduction in form and loss of sexuality may be correlated with the saprophytic habit, the proteids and other organic material required for the growth and reproduction being appropriated ready synthesized, the plant having entirely lost the power of forming them for itself, as evidenced by the absence of chlorophyll. The beer yeast S. cerevisiae, is never found wild, but the wine yeasts occur abundantly in the soil of vineyards, and so are always present on the fruit, ready to ferment the expressed juice.

Chemical Aspect of Alcoholic Fermentation.—Lavoisier was the first investigator to study fermentation from a quantitative standpoint. He determined the percentages of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen in the sugar and in the products of fermentation, and concluded that sugar in fermenting breaks up into alcohol, carbonic acid and acetic acid. The elementary composition of sugar and alcohol was fixed in 1815 by analyses made by Gay-Lussac, Thénard and de Saussure. The first-mentioned chemist proposed the following formula to represent the change which takes place when sugar is fermented:—

This formula substantially holds good to the present day, although a number of definite bodies other than carbon dioxide and alcohol occur in small and varying quantities, according to the conditions of the fermentation and the medium fermented. Prominent among these are glycerin and succinic acid. In this connexion Pasteur showed that 100 parts of cane sugar on inversion gave 105.4 parts of invert sugar, which, when fermented, yielded 51.1 parts alcohol, 49.4 carbonic acid, 0.7 succinic acid, 3.2 glycerin and 1.0 unestimated. A. Béchamp and E. Duclaux found that acetic acid is formed in small quantities during fermentation; aldehyde has also been detected. The higher alcohols such as propyl, isobutyl, amyl, capryl, oenanthyl and caproyl, have been identified; and the amount of these vary according to the different conditions of the fermentation. A number of esters are also produced. The characteristic flavour and odour of wines and spirits is dependent on the proportion of higher alcohols, aldehydes and esters which may be produced.

Certain yeasts exercise a reducing action, forming sulphuretted hydrogen, when sulphur is present. The “stinking fermentations” occasionally experienced in breweries probably arise from this, the free sulphur being derived from the hops. Other yeasts are stated to form sulphurous acid in must and wort. Another fact of considerable technical importance is, that the various races of yeast show considerable differences in the amount and proportion of fermentation products other than ethyl alcohol and carbonic acid which they produce. From these remarks it will be clear that to employ the most suitable kind of yeast for a given alcoholic fermentation is of fundamental importance in certain industries. It is beyond the scope of the present article to attempt to describe the different forms of budding fungi (Saccharomyces), mould fungi and bacteria which are capable of fermenting sugar solutions. Thus, six species isolated by Hansen, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, S. Pasteurianus I.,1 II., III., and S. ellipsoideus, contained invertase and maltase, and can invert and subsequently ferment cane sugar and maltose. S. exiguus and S. Ludwigii contain only invertase and not maltase, and therefore ferment cane sugar but not maltose. S. apiculatus (a common wine yeast) contains neither of these enzymes, and only ferments solutions of glucose or laevulose.

Previously to Hansen’s work the only way of differentiating 278 yeasts was by studying morphological differences with the aid of the microscope. Max Reess distinguished the species according to the appearance of the cells thus, the ellipsoidal cells were designated Saccharomyces ellipsoideus, the sausage-shaped Saccharomyces Pasteurianus, and so on. It was found by Hansen that the same species of yeast can assume different shapes; and it therefore became necessary to determine how the different varieties of yeast could be distinguished with certainty. The formation of spores in yeast (first discovered by T. Schwann in 1839) was studied by Hansen, who found that each species only developed spores between certain definite temperatures. The time taken for spore formation varies greatly; thus, at 52° F., S. cerevisiae takes 10, S. Pasteurianus I. and II. about 4, S. Pasteurianus III. about 7, and S. ellipsoideus about 4½ days. The formation of spores is used as an analytical method for determining whether a yeast is contaminated with another species,—for example: a sample of yeast is placed on a gypsum or porcelain block saturated with water; if in ten days at a temperature of 52° F. no spores make their appearance, the yeast in question may be regarded as S. cerevisiae, and not associated with S. Pasteurianus or S. ellipsoideus.

The formation of films on fermented liquids is a well-known phenomenon and common to all micro-organisms. A free still surface with a direct access of air are the necessary conditions. Hansen showed that the microscopic appearance of film cells of the same species of Saccharomycetes varies according to the temperature of growth; the limiting temperatures of film formation, as well as the time of its appearance for the different species, also vary.

In the zymo-technical industries the various species of yeast exhibit different actions during fermentations. A well-known instance of this is the “top” and “bottom” brewery fermentations (see Brewing). In a top fermentation—typical of English breweries—the yeast rises, in a bottom fermentation, as the phrase implies, it settles in the vessel. Sometimes a bottom yeast may for a time exhibit signs of a top fermentation. It has not, however, been possible to transform a typical top yeast into a permanent typical bottom yeast. There appear to be no true distinctive characteristics for these two types. Their selection for a particular purpose depends upon some special quality which they possess; thus for brewing certain essentials are demanded as regards stability, clarification, taste and smell; whereas, in distilleries, the production of alcohol and a high multiplying power in the yeast are required. Culture yeasts have also been successfully employed in the manufacture of wine and cider. By the judicious selection of a type of yeast it is possible to improve the bouquet, and from an inferior must obtain a better wine or cider than would otherwise be produced.

Certain acid fermentations are of common occurrence. The Bacterium acidi lacti described by Pasteur decomposes milk sugar into lactic acid. Bacillus amylobacter usually accompanies the lactic acid organism, and decomposes lactic and other higher acids with formation of butyric acid. Moulds have been isolated which occasion the formation of citric acid from glucose. The production of acetic acid from alcohol has received much attention at the hands of investigators, and it has an important technical aspect in the manufacture of vinegar. The phenomenon of nitrification (see Bacteriology, Agriculture and Manure), i.e. the formation of nitrites and nitrates from ammonia and its compounds in the soil, was formerly held to be a purely chemical process, until Schloesing and Müntz suggested in 1877 that it was biological. It is now known that the action takes place in two stages; the ammonium salt is first oxidized to the nitrite stage and subsequently to the nitrate.

FERMO (anc. Firmum Picenum), a town and archiepiscopal see of the Marches, Italy, in the province of Ascoli Piceno, on a hill with a fine view, 1046 ft. above sea-level, on a branch from Porto S. Giorgio on the Adriatic coast railway. Pop. (1901) town, 16,577, commune 20,542. The summit of the hill was occupied by the citadel until 1446. It is crowned by the cathedral, reconstructed in 1227 by Giorgio da Como; the fine façade and campanile of this period still remain, and the side portal is good; the beautiful rose-window over the main door dates from 1348. In the porch are several good tombs, including one of 1366 by Tura da Imola, and also the modern monument of Giuseppe Colucci, a famous writer on the antiquities of Picenum. The interior has been modernized. The building is now surrounded by a garden, with a splendid view. Against the side of the hill was built the Roman theatre; scanty traces of an amphitheatre also exist. Remains of the city wall, of rectangular blocks of hard limestone, may be seen just outside the Porta S. Francesco; whether the walling under the Casa Porti belongs to them is doubtful. The medieval battlemented walls superposed on it are picturesque. The church of S. Francesco has a good tower and choir in brickwork of 1240, the rest having been restored in the 17th century. Under the Dominican monastery is a very large Roman reservoir in two storeys, belonging to the imperial period, divided into many chambers, at least 24 on each level, each 30 by 20 ft., for filtration (see G. de Minicis in Annali dell’ Istituto, 1846, p. 46; 1858, p. 125). The piazza contains the Palazzo Comunale, restored in 1446, with a statue of Pope Sixtus V. in front of it. The Biblioteca Comunale contains a collection of inscriptions and antiquities. Porto S. Giorgio has a fine castle of 1269, blocking the valley which leads to Fermo.

The ancient Firmum Picenum was founded as a Latin colony in 264 B.C., after the conquest of the Picentes, as the local headquarters of the Roman power, to which it remained faithful. It was originally governed by five quaestors. It was made a colony with full rights after the battle of Philippi, the 4th legion being settled there. It lay at the junction of roads to Pausulae, Urbs Salvia and Asculum, being connected with the coast road by a short branch road from Castellum Firmanum (Porto S. Giorgio). In the 10th century it became the capital of the Marchia Firmana. In 1199 it became a free city, and remained independent until 1550, when it became subject to the papacy.

FERMOY, a market town in the east riding of Co. Cork, Ireland, in the north-east parliamentary division, 21 m. by road N.E. of Cork, and 14 m. E. of Mallow by a branch of the Great Southern & Western railway. Pop. of urban district (1901) 6126. It is situated on the river Blackwater, which divides the town into two parts, the larger of which is on the southern bank, and there the trade of the town, which is chiefly in flour and agricultural produce, is mainly carried on. The town has several good streets and some noteworthy buildings. Of the latter, the most prominent are the military barracks on the north bank of the river, the Protestant church, the Roman Catholic cathedral and St Colman’s Roman Catholic college. Fermoy rose to importance only at the beginning of the 19th century, owing entirely to the devotion of John Anderson, a citizen, on becoming landlord. The town is a centre for salmon and trout fishing on the Blackwater and its tributary the Funshion. The neighbouring scenery is attractive, especially in the Glen of Araglin, once famed for its ironworks.

FERN (from O. Eng. fearn, a word common to Teutonic languages, cf. Dutch varen, and Ger. Farn; the Indo-European root, seen in the Sanskrit parna, a feather, shows the primary meaning; cf. Gr. πτερόν, feather, πτερίς, fern), a name often used to denote the whole botanical class of Pteridophytes, including both the true ferns, Filicales, by far the largest group of this class in the existing flora, and the fern-like plants, Equisetales, Sphenophyllales, Lycopodiales (see Pteridophyta).

FERNANDEZ, ALVARO, one of the leading Portuguese explorers of the earlier 15th century, the age of Henry the Navigator. He was brought up (as a page or esquire) in the household of Prince Henry, and while still “young and audacious” took an important part in the discovery of “Guinea.” He was a nephew of João Gonçalvez Zarco, who had rediscovered the Madeira group in Henry’s service (1418-1420), and had become part-governor of Madeira and commander of Funchal; when the great expedition of 1445 sailed for West Africa he was entrusted by his uncle with a specially fine caravel, under particular injunctions to devote himself to discovery, the most cherished object of his princely master, so constantly thwarted. 279 Fernandez, as a pioneer, outstripped all other servants of the prince at this time. After visiting the mouth of the Senegal, rounding Cape Verde, and landing in Goree (?), he pushed on to the “Cape of Masts” (Cabo dos Matos, or Mastos, so called from its tall spindle-palms), probably between Cape Verde and the Gambia, the most southerly point till then attained. Next year (1446) he returned, and coasted on much farther, to a bay one hundred and ten leagues “south” (i.e. S.S.E.) of Cape Verde, perhaps in the neighbourhood of Konakry and the Los Islands, and but little short of Sierra Leone. This record was not broken till 1461, when Sierra Leone was sighted and named. A wound, received from a poisoned arrow in an encounter with natives, now compelled Fernandez to return to Portugal, where he was received with distinguished honour and reward by Prince Henry and the regent of the kingdom, Henry’s brother Pedro.

FERNANDEZ, DIEGO, a Spanish adventurer and historian of the 16th century. Born at Palencia, he was educated for the church, but about 1545 he embarked for Peru, where he served in the royal army under Alonzo de Alvarado. Andres Hurtado de Mendoza, marquess of Cañeté, who became viceroy of Peru in 1655, bestowed on Fernandez the office of chronicler of Peru; and in this capacity he wrote a narrative of the insurrection of Francisco Hernandez Giron, of the rebellion of Gonzalo Pizarro, and of the administration of Pedro de la Gasca. The whole work, under the title Primera y segunda parte de la Historia del Piru, was published at Seville in 1571 and was dedicated to King Philip II. It is written in a clear and intelligible style, and with more art than is usual in the compositions of the time. It gives copious details, and, as he had access to the correspondence and official documents of the Spanish leaders, it is, although necessarily possessing bias, the fullest and most authentic record existing of the events it relates.

FERNANDEZ, JOHN (João, Joam), Portuguese traveller of the 15th century. He was perhaps the earliest of modern explorers in the upland of West Africa, and a pioneer of the European slave- and gold-trade of Guinea. We first hear of him (before 1445) as a captive of the Barbary Moors in the western Mediterranean; while among these he acquired a knowledge of Arabic, and probably conceived the design of exploration in the interior of the continent whose coasts the Portuguese were now unveiling. In 1445 he volunteered to stay in Guinea and gather what information he could for Prince Henry the Navigator; with this object he accompanied Antam Gonçalvez to the “River of Gold” (Rio d’Ouro, Rio de Oro) in 23° 40′ N., where he landed and went inland with some native shepherds. He stayed seven months in the country, which lay just within Moslem Africa, slightly north of Pagan Negroland (W. Sudan); he was taken off again by Antam Gonçalvez at a point farther down the coast, near the “Cape of Ransom” (Cape Mirik), in 19° 22′ 14″; and his account of his experiences proved of great interest and value, not only as to the natural features, climate, fauna and flora of the south-western Sahara, but also as to the racial affinities, language, script, religion, nomad habits, and trade of its inhabitants. These people—though Mahommedans, maintaining a certain trade in slaves, gold, &c., with the Barbary coast (especially with Tunis), and classed as “Arabs,” “Berbers,” and “Tawny Moors”—did not then write or speak Arabic. In 1446 and 1447 John Fernandez accompanied other expeditions to the Rio d’Ouro and other parts of West Africa in the service of Prince Henry. He was personally known to Gomes Eannes de Azurara, the historian of this early period of Portuguese expansion; and from Azurara’s language it is clear that Fernandez’ revelation of unknown lands and races was fully appreciated at home.

FERNANDEZ, JUAN (fl. c. 1570), Spanish navigator and discoverer. While navigating the coasts of South America it occurred to him that the south winds constantly prevailing near the shore, and retarding voyages between Peru and Chile, might not exist farther out at sea. His idea proved correct, and by the help of the trade winds and some currents at a distance from the coast he sailed with such rapidity (thirty days) from Callao to Chile that he was apprehended on a charge of sorcery. His inquisitors, however, accepted his natural explanation of the marvel. During one of his voyages in 1563 (from Lima to Valdivia) Fernandez discovered the islands which now bear his name. He was so enchanted with their beauty and fertility that he solicited the concession of them from the Spanish government. It was granted in 1572, but a colony which he endeavoured to establish at the largest of them (Isla Mas-a-Tierra) soon broke up, leaving behind the goats, whose progeny were hunted by Alexander Selkirk. In 1574 Fernandez discovered St Felix and St Ambrose islands (in 27° S., 82° 7′ W.); and in 1576, while voyaging in the southern ocean, he is said to have sighted not only Easter Island, but also a continent, which was probably Australia or New Zealand if the story (rejected by most critics, but with reservations as to Easter Island) is to be accepted.

FERNANDEZ, LUCAS, Spanish dramatist, was born at Salamanca about the middle of the 15th century. Nothing is known of his life, and he is represented by a single volume of plays, Farsas y églogas al modo y estilo pastoril (1514). In his secular pieces—a comedia and two farsas—he introduces few personages, employs the simplest possible action, and burlesques the language of the uneducated class; the secular and devout elements are skilfully intermingled in his two Farsas del nascimiento de Nuestro Señor Jesucristo. But the best of his dramatic essays is the Auto de la Pasión, a devout play intended to be given on Maundy Thursday. It is written in the manner of Encina, with less spontaneity, but with a sombre force to which Encina scarcely attained.

FERNANDINA, a city, a port of entry, and the county-seat of Nassau county, Florida, U.S.A., a winter and summer resort, in the N.E. part of the state, 36 m. N.E. of Jacksonville, on Amelia Island (about 22 m. long and from ½ m. to 1½ m. wide), which is separated from the mainland by an arm of the sea, known as Amelia river and bay. Pop. (1900) 3245; (1905, state census), 4959 (2957 negroes); (1910) 3482. Fernandina is served by the Seaboard Air Line railway, and by steamship lines connecting with domestic and foreign ports; its harbour, which has the deepest water on the E. coast of Florida, opens on the N. to Cumberland Sound, which was improved by the Federal government, beginning in 1879, reducing freight rates at Fernandina by 25 to 40%. Under an act of 1907 the channel of Fernandina harbour, 1300 ft. wide at the entrance and about 2 m. long, was dredged to a depth of 20 to 24 ft. at mean low water with a width of 400 to 600 ft. The “inside” water-route between Savannah, Georgia and Fernandina is improved by the Federal government (1892 sqq.) and has a 7-ft. channel. The principal places of interest are “Amelia Beach,” more than 20 m. long and 200 ft. wide, connected with the city by a compact shell road nearly 2 m. long and by electric line; the Amelia Island lighthouse, in the N. end of the island, established in 1836 and rebuilt in 1880; Fort Clinch, at the entrance to the harbour; Cumberland Island, in Georgia, N. of Amelia Island, where land was granted to General Nathanael Greene after the War of American Independence by the state of Georgia; and Dungeness, the estate of the Carnegie family. Ocean City, on Amelia Beach, is a popular pleasure resort. The principal industries are the manufacture of lumber, cotton, palmetto fibres, and cigars, the canning of oysters, and the building and repair of railway cars. The foreign exports, chiefly lumber, railway ties, cotton, phosphate rock, and naval stores, were valued at $9,346,704 in 1907; and the imports in 1907 at $116,514.

The harbour of Fernandina was known to the early explorers 280 of Florida, and it was here that Dominic de Gourgues landed when he made his expedition against the Spanish at San Mateo in 1568. An Indian mission was established by Spanish priests later in the same century, but it was not successful. When Georgia was founded, General James Oglethorpe placed a military guard on Amelia Island to prevent sudden attack upon his colony by the Spanish, and the first blood shed in the petty warfare between Georgia and Florida was the murder of two unarmed members of the guard by a troop of Spanish soldiers and Indians in 1739. The first permanent settlement was made by the Spanish in 1808, at what is now the village of Old Fernandina, about 1 m. from the city. The island was a centre for smuggling during the period of the embargo and non-importation acts preceding the war of 1812. This was the pretext for General George Matthews (1738-1812) to gather a band of adventurers at St Mary’s, Georgia, invade the island, and capture Fernandina in 1812. In the following year the American forces were withdrawn. In 1817 Gregor MacGregor, a filibuster who had aided the Spanish provinces of South America in their revolt against Spain, fitted out an expedition in Baltimore and seized Fernandina, but departed soon after. Later in the same year Louis Aury, another adventurer, appeared with a small force from Texas, and took possession of the place in the name of the Republic of Mexico. In the following year Aury was expelled by United States troops, who held Fernandina in trust for Spain until Florida was finally ceded to the United States in 1821. Fernandina was first incorporated in 1859. In 1861 Fort Clinch was seized by the Confederates, and Fernandina harbour was a centre of blockade running in the first two years of the Civil War. In 1862 the place was captured by a Federal naval force from Port Royal, South Carolina, commanded by Commodore S.F. Du Pont.

FERNANDO DE NORONHA [Fernão de N.], an island in the South Atlantic, 125 m. from the coast of Brazil, to which country it belongs, in 3° 50′ S., 32° 25′ W. It is about 7 m. long and 1½ wide, and some other islets lie adjacent to it. Its surface is rugged, and it contains a number of rocky hills from 500 to 700 ft. high, and one peak towering to the height of 1089 ft. It is formed of basalt, trachyte and phonolite, and the soil is very fertile. The climate is healthy. It is defended by forts, and serves as a place of banishment for criminals from Brazil. The next largest island of the group is about a mile in circumference, and the others are small barren rocks. The population is about 2000, all males, including some 1400 criminals, and a garrison of 150. Communication is maintained by steamer with Pernambuco. The island takes name from its Portuguese discoverer (1503), the count of Noronha.

FERNANDO PO, or Fernando Póo, a Spanish island on the west coast of Africa, in the Bight of Biafra, about 20 m. from the mainland, in 3° 12′ N. and 8° 48′ E. It is of volcanic origin, related to the Cameroon system of the adjacent mainland, is the largest island in the Gulf of Guinea, is 44 m. long from N.N.E. to S.S.W., about 20 m. broad, and has an area of about 780 sq. m. Fernando Po is noted for its beautiful aspect, seeming from a short distance to be a single mountain rising from the sea, its sides covered with luxuriant vegetation. The shores are steep and rocky and the coast plain narrow. This plain is succeeded by the slopes of the mountains which occupy the rest of the island and culminate in the magnificent cone of Clarence Peak or Pico de Santa Isabel (native name Owassa). Clarence Peak, about 10,000 ft. high,1 is in the north-central part of the island. In the south Musolo Mt. attains a height of 7400 ft. There are numerous other peaks between 4000 and 6000 ft. high. The mountains contain craters and crater lakes, and are covered, most of them to their summits, with forests. Down the narrow intervening valleys rush torrential streams which have cut deep beds through the coast plains. The trees most characteristic of the forest are oil palms and tree ferns, but there are many varieties, including ebony, mahogany and the African oak. The undergrowth is very dense; it includes the sugar-cane and cotton and indigo plants. The fauna includes antelopes, monkeys, lemurs, the civet cat, porcupine, pythons and green tree-snakes, crocodiles and turtles. The climate is very unhealthy in the lower districts, where malarial fever is common. The mean temperature on the coast is 78° Fahr. and varies little, but in the higher altitudes there is considerable daily variation. The rainfall is very heavy except during November-January, which is considered the dry season.

The inhabitants number about 25,000. In addition to about 500 Europeans, mostly Spaniards and Cubans, they are of two classes, the Bubis or Bube (formerly also called Ediya), who occupy the interior, and the coast dwellers, a mixed Negro race, largely descended from slave ancestors with an admixture of Portuguese and Spanish blood, and known to the Bubis as “Portos”—a corruption of Portuguese. The Bubis are of Bantu stock and early immigrants from the mainland. Physically they are a finely developed race, extremely jealous of their independence and unwilling to take service of any kind with Europeans. They go unclothed, smearing their bodies with a kind of pomatum. They stick pieces of wood in the lobes of their ears, wear numerous armlets made of ivory, beads or grass, and always wear hats, generally made of palm leaves. Their weapons are mainly of wood; stone axes and knives were in use as late as 1858. They have no knowledge of working iron. Their villages are built in the densest parts of the forest, and care is taken to conceal the approach to them. The Bubis are sportsmen and fishermen rather than agriculturists. The staple foods of the islanders generally are millet, rice, yams and bananas. Alcohol is distilled from the sugar-cane. The natives possess numbers of sheep, goats and fowls.

The principal settlement is Port Clarence (pop. 1500), called by the Spaniards Santa Isabel, a safe and commodious harbour on the north coast. In its graveyard are buried Richard Lander and several other explorers of West Africa. Port Clarence is unhealthy, and the seat of government has been removed to Basile, a small town 5 m. from Port Clarence and over 1000 ft. above the sea. On the west coast are the bay and port of San Carlos, on the east coast Concepcion Bay and town. The chief industry until the close of the 19th century was the collection of palm-oil, but the Spaniards have since developed plantations of cocoa, coffee, sugar, tobacco, vanilla and other tropical plants. The kola nut is also cultivated. The cocoa plantations are of most importance. The amount of cocoa exported in 1905 was 1800 tons, being 370 tons above the average export for the preceding five years. The total value of the trade of the island (1900-1905) was about £250,000 a year.

History.—The island was discovered towards the close of the 15th century by a Portuguese navigator called Fernão do Po, who, struck by its beauty, named it Formosa, but it soon came to be called by the name of its discoverer.2 A Portuguese colony was established in the island, which together with Annobon was ceded to Spain in 1778. The first attempts of Spain to develop the island ended disastrously, and in 1827, with the consent of Spain, the administration of the island was taken over by Great Britain, the British “superintendent” having a Spanish commission as governor. By the British Fernando Po was used as a naval station for the ships engaged in the suppression of the slave trade. The British headquarters were named Port Clarence and the adjacent promontory Cape William, in honour of the duke of Clarence (William IV.). In 1844 the Spaniards reclaimed the island, refusing to sell their rights to Great Britain. They did no more at that time, however, than hoist the Spanish flag, appointing a British resident, John Beecroft, governor. Beecroft, who was made British consul in 1849, died in 1854. During the British occupation a considerable number of Sierra Leonians, West Indians and freed slaves settled in the island, and English became and remains the common speech of the coast peoples. In 1858 a Spanish governor was sent out, and the Baptist missionaries who had laboured in the island since 1843 were compelled to withdraw. They settled in Ambas Bay on the 281 neighbouring mainland (see Cameroon). The Jesuits who succeeded the Baptists were also expelled, but mission and educational work is now carried on by other Roman Catholic agencies, and (since 1870) by the Primitive Methodists. In 1879 the Spanish government recalled its officials, but a few years later, when the partition of Africa was being effected, they were replaced and a number of Cuban political prisoners were deported thither. Very little was done to develop the resources of the island until after the loss of the Spanish colonies in the West Indies and the Pacific, when Spain turned her attention to her African possessions. Stimulated by the success of the Portuguese cocoa plantations in the neighbouring island of St Thomas, the Spaniards started similar plantations, with some measure of success. The strategical importance and commercial possibilities of the island caused Germany and other powers to approach Spain with a view to its acquisition, and in 1900 the Spaniards gave France, in return for territorial concessions on the mainland, the right of pre-emption over the island and her other West African possessions.

The administration of the island is in the hands of a governor-general, assisted by a council, and responsible to the ministry of foreign affairs at Madrid. The governor-general has under his authority the sub-governors of the other Spanish possessions in the Gulf of Guinea, namely, the Muni River Settlement, Corisco and Annobon (see those articles). None of these possessions is self-supporting.

FERNEL, JEAN FRANÇOIS (1497-1558), French physician, was born at Clermont in 1497, and after receiving his early education at his native town, entered the college of Sainte-Barbe, Paris. At first he devoted himself to mathematical and astronomical studies; his Cosmotheoria (1528) records a determination of a degree of the meridian, which he made by counting the revolutions of his carriage wheels on a journey between Paris and Amiens. But from 1534 he gave himself up entirely to medicine, in which he graduated in 1530. His extraordinary general erudition, and the skill and success with which he sought to revive the study of the old Greek physicians, gained him a great reputation, and ultimately the office of physician to the court. He practised with great success, and at his death in 1558 left behind him an immense fortune. He also wrote Monalosphaerium, sive astrolabii genus, generalis horarii structura et usus (1526); De proportionibus (1528); De evacuandi ratione (1545); De abditis rerum causis (1548); and Medicina ad Henricum II. (1554).

FERNIE, an important city in the east Kootenay district of British Columbia. Pop. about 4000. It is situated on the Crow’s Nest branch of the Canadian Pacific railway, at the junction of Coal Creek with the Elk river, and owes its importance to the extensive coal mines in its vicinity. There are about 500 coke ovens in operation at Fernie, which supply most of the smelting plants in southern British Columbia with fuel.

FERNOW, KARL LUDWIG (1763-1808), German art-critic and archaeologist, was born in Pomerania on the 19th of November 1763. His father was a servant in the household of the lord of Blumenhagen. At the age of twelve he became clerk to a notary, and was afterwards apprenticed to a druggist. While serving his time he had the misfortune accidentally to shoot a young man who came to visit him; and although through the intercession of his master he escaped prosecution, the untoward event weighed heavily on his mind, and led him at the close of his apprenticeship to quit his native place. He obtained a situation at Lübeck, where he had leisure to cultivate his natural taste for drawing and poetry. Having formed an acquaintance with the painter Carstens, whose influence was an important stimulus and help to him, he renounced his trade of druggist, and set up as a portrait-painter and drawing-master. At Ludwigslust he fell in love with a young girl, and followed her to Weimar; but failing in his suit, he went next to Jena. There he was introduced to Professor Reinhold, and in his house met the Danish poet Baggesen. The latter invited him to accompany him to Switzerland and Italy, a proposal which he eagerly accepted (1794) for the sake of the opportunity of furthering his studies in the fine arts. On Baggesen’s return to Denmark, Fernow, assisted by some of his friends, visited Rome and made some stay there. He now renewed his intercourse with Carstens, who had settled at Rome, and applied himself to the study of the history and theory of the fine arts and of the Italian language and literature. Making rapid progress, he was soon qualified to give a course of lectures on archaeology, which was attended by the principal artists then at Rome. Having married a Roman lady, he returned in 1802 to Germany, and was appointed in the following year professor extraordinary of Italian literature at Jena. In 1804 he accepted the post of librarian to Amelia, duchess-dowager of Weimar, which gave him the leisure he desired for the purpose of turning to account the literary and archaeological researches in which he had engaged at Rome. His most valuable work, the Römische Studien, appeared in 3 vols. (1806-1808). Among his other works are—Das Leben des Künstlers Carstens (1806), Ariosto’s Lebenslauf (1809), and Francesco Petrarca (1818). Fernow died at Weimar, December 4, 1808.

FEROZEPUR, or Firozpur, a town and district of British India, in the Jullundur division of the Punjab. The town is a railway junction connecting the North-Western and Rajputana railways, and is situated about 4 m. from the present south bank of the Sutlej. Pop. (1901) 49,341. The arsenal is the largest in India, and Ferozepur is the headquarters of a brigade in the 3rd division of the northern army corps. British rule was first established at Ferozepur in 1835, when, on the failure of heirs to the Sikh family who possessed it, a small territory 86 m. in extent became an escheat to the British government, and the present district has been gradually formed around this nucleus. The strategic importance of Ferozepur was at this time very great; and when, in 1839, Captain (afterwards Sir Henry) Lawrence took charge of the station as political officer, it was the outpost of British India in the direction of the Sikh power. Ferozepur accordingly became the scene of operations during the first Sikh War. The Sikhs crossed the Sutlej in December 1845, and were defeated successively at Mudki, Ferozepur, Aliwal and Sobraon; after which they withdrew into their own territory, and peace was concluded at Lahore. At the time of the mutiny Ferozepur cantonments contained two regiments of native infantry and a regiment of native cavalry, together with the 61st Foot and two companies of European artillery. One of the native regiments, the 57th, was disarmed; but the other, the 45th, broke into mutiny, and, after an unsuccessful attempt to seize the magazine, which was held by the Europeans, proceeded to join the rebel forces in Delhi. Throughout the mutiny Ferozepur remained in the hands of the English.

Ferozepur has rapidly advanced in material prosperity of late years, and is now a very important seat of commerce, trade being mainly in grain. The main streets of the city are wide and well paved, and the whole is enclosed by a low brick wall. Great improvements have been made in the surroundings of the city. The cantonment lies 2 m. to the south of the city, and is connected with it by a good metalled road.

282

The District of Ferozepur comprises an area of 4302 sq. m. The surface is level, with the exception of a few sand-hills in the south and south-east. The country consists of two distinct tracts, that liable to annual fertilizing inundations from the Sutlej, known as the bhet, and the rohi or upland tract. The only river is the Sutlej, which runs along the north-western boundary. The principal crops are wheat, barley, millet, gram, pulses, oil-seeds, cotton, tobacco, &c. The manufactures are of the humblest kind, consisting chiefly of cotton and wool-weaving, and are confined entirely to the supply of local wants. The Lahore and Ludhiāna road runs for 51 m. through the district, and forms an important trade route. The North-Western, the Southern Punjab, and a branch of the Rajputana-Malwa railways serve the district. The other important towns and seats of commerce are Fazilka (pop. 8505), Dharmkot (6731), Moga (6725), and Muktsar (6389). Owing principally to the dryness of its climate, Ferozepur has the reputation of being an exceptionally healthy district. In September and October, however, after the annual rains, the people suffer a good deal from remittent fever. In 1901 the population was 958,072. Distributaries of the Sirhind canal water the whole district.

FEROZESHAH, a village in the Punjab, India, notable as the scene of one of the chief battles in the first Sikh War. The battle immediately succeeded that of Mudki, and was fought on the 21st and 22nd of December 1845. During its course Sir Hugh Gough, the British commander, was overruled by the governor-general, Lord Hardinge, who was acting as his second in command (see Sikh Wars). At the end of the first day’s fighting the British had occupied the Sikh position, but had not gained an undisputed victory. On the following morning the battle was resumed, and the Sikhs were reinforced by a second army under Tej Singh; but through cowardice or treachery Tej Singh withdrew at the critical moment, leaving the field to the British. In the course of the fight the British lost 694 killed and 1721 wounded, the vast majority being British troops, while the Sikhs lost 100 guns and about 5000 killed and wounded.

FERRAND, ANTOINE FRANÇOIS CLAUDE, Comte (1751-1825), French statesman and political writer, was born in Paris on the 4th of July 1751, and became a member of the parlement of Paris at eighteen. He left France with the first party of emigrants, and attached himself to the prince of Condé; later he was a member of the council of regency formed by the comte de Provence after the death of Louis XVI. He lived at Regensburg until 1801, when he returned to France, though he still sought to serve the royalist cause. In 1814 Ferrand was made minister of state and postmaster-general. He countersigned the act of sequestration of Napoleon’s property, and introduced a bill for the restoration of the property of the emigrants, establishing a distinction, since become famous, between royalists of la ligne droite and those of la ligne courbe. At the second restoration Ferrand was again for a short time postmaster-general. He was also made a peer of France, member of the privy council, grand-officer and secretary of the orders of Saint Michel and the Saint Esprit, and in 1816 member of the Academy, He continued his active support of ultra-royalist views until his death, which took place in Paris on the 17th of January 1825.

FERRAR, NICHOLAS (1592-1637), English theologian, was born in London in 1592 and educated at Clare Hall, Cambridge, graduating in 1610. He was obliged for some years to travel for his health, but on returning to England in 1618 became actively connected with the Virginia Company. When this company was deprived of its patent in 1623 Ferrar turned his attention to politics, and was elected to parliament. But he soon decided to devote himself to a religious life; he purchased the manor of Little Gidding in Huntingdonshire, where he organized a small religious community. Here, in 1626, he was ordained a deacon by Laud, and declining preferment, he lived an austere, almost monastic life of study and good works. He died on the 4th of December 1637, and the house was despoiled and the community broken up ten years later. There are extant a number of “harmonies” of the Gospel, printed and bound by the community, two of them by Ferrar himself. One of the latter was made for Charles I. on his request, after a visit in 1633 to see the “Arminian Nunnery at Little Gidding,” which had been the subject of some scandalous—and undeserved—criticism.

FERRAR, ROBERT (d. 1555), bishop of St David’s and martyr, born about the end of the 15th century of a Yorkshire family, is said to have been educated at Cambridge, whence he proceeded to Oxford and became a canon regular of St Augustine. He came under the influence of Thomas Gerrard and Lutheran theology, and was compelled to bear a faggot with Anthony Dalaber and others in 1528. He graduated B.D. in 1533, accompanied Bishop Barlow on his embassy to Scotland in 1535, and was made prior of St Oswald’s at Nostell near Pontefract. At the dissolution he surrendered his priory without compunction to the crown, and received a liberal pension. For the rest of Henry’s reign his career is obscure; perhaps he fled abroad on the enactment of the Six Articles. He certainly married, and is said to have been made Cranmer’s chaplain, and bishop of Sodor and Man; but he was never consecrated to that see.

After the accession of Edward VI., Ferrar was, probably through the influence of Bishop Barlow, appointed chaplain to Protector Somerset, a royal visitor, and bishop of St David’s on Barlow’s translation to Bath and Wells in 1548. He was the first bishop appointed by letters patent under the act passed in 1547 without the form of capitular election; and the service performed at his consecration was also novel, being in English; he also preached at St Paul’s on the 11th of November clad only as a priest and not as a bishop, and inveighed against vestments and altars. At St David’s he had trouble at once with his singularly turbulent chapter, who, finding that he was out of favour at court since Somerset’s fall in 1549, brought a long list of fantastic charges against him. He had taught his child to whistle, dined with his servants, talked of “worldly things such as baking, brewing, enclosing, ploughing and mining,” preferred walking to riding, and denounced the debasement of the coinage. He seems to have been a kindly, homely, somewhat feckless person like many an excellent parish priest, who did not conceal his indignation at some of Northumberland’s deeds. He had voted against the act of November 1549 for a reform of the canon law, and on a later occasion his nonconformity brought him into conflict with the Council; he was also the only bishop who satisfied Hooper’s test of sacramental orthodoxy. The Council accordingly listened to the accusations of Ferrar’s chapter, and in 1552 he was summoned to London and imprisoned on a charge of praemunire incurred by omitting the king’s authority in a commission which he issued for the visitation of his diocese.

Imprisonment on such a charge under Northumberland might have been expected to lead to liberation under Mary. But Ferrar had been a monk and was married. Even so, it is difficult to see on what legal ground he was kept in the queen’s bench prison after July 1553; for Mary herself was repudiating the royal authority in religion. Ferrar’s marriage accounts for the loss of his bishopric in March 1554, and his opinions for his further punishment. As soon as the heresy laws and ecclesiastical jurisdiction had been re-established, Ferrar was examined by Gardiner, and then with signal indecency sent down to be tried by Morgan, his successor in the bishopric of St David’s. He appealed from Morgan’s sentence to Pole as papal legate, but in vain, and was burnt at Caermarthen on the 30th of March 1555. It was perhaps the most wanton of all Mary’s acts of persecution; Ferrar had been no such protagonist of the Reformation as Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper and Latimer; he had had nothing to do with Northumberland’s or Wyatt’s conspiracy. He had 283 taken no part in politics, and, so far as is known, had not said a word or raised a hand against Mary. He was burnt simply because he could not change his religion with the law and would not pretend that he could; and his execution is a complete refutation of the idea that Mary only persecuted heretics because and when they were traitors.

FERRARA, a city and archiepiscopal see of Emilia, Italy, capital of the province of Ferrara, 30 m. N.N.E. of Bologna, situated 30 ft. above sea-level on the Po di Vomano, a branch channel of the main stream of the Po, which is 3½ m. N. Pop. (1901) 32,968 (town), 86,392 (commune). The town has broad streets and numerous palaces, which date from the 16th century, when it was the seat of the court of the house of Este, and had, it is said, 100,000 inhabitants.

The most prominent building is the square castle of the house of Este, in the centre of the town, a brick building surrounded by a moat, with four towers. It was built after 1385 and partly restored in 1554; the pavilions on the top of the towers date from the latter year. Near it is the hospital of S. Anna, where Tasso was confined during his attack of insanity (1579-1586). The Palazzo del Municipio, rebuilt in the 18th century, was the earlier residence of the Este family. Close by is the cathedral of S. Giorgio, consecrated in 1135, when the Romanesque lower part of the main façade and the side façades were completed. It was built by Guglielmo degli Adelardi (d. 1146), who is buried in it. The upper part of the main façade, with arcades of pointed arches, dates from the 13th century, and the portal has recumbent lions and elaborate sculptures above. The interior was restored in the baroque style in 1712. The campanile, in the Renaissance style, dates from 1451-1493, but the last storey was added at the end of the 16th century. Opposite the cathedral is the Gothic Palazzo della Ragione, in brick (1315-1326), now the law-courts. A little way off is the university, which has faculties of law, medicine and natural science (hardly 100 students in all); the library has valuable MSS., including part of that of the Orlando Furioso and letters by Tasso. The other churches are of less interest than the cathedral, though S. Francesco, S. Benedetto, S. Maria in Vado and S. Cristoforo are all good early Renaissance buildings. The numerous early Renaissance palaces, often with good terra-cotta decorations, form quite a feature of Ferrara; few towns of Italy have so many of them proportionately, though they are mostly comparatively small in size. Among them may be noted those in the N. quarter (especially the four at the intersection of its two main streets), which was added by Ercole (Hercules) I. in 1492-1505, from the plans of Biagio Rossetti, and hence called the “Addizione Erculea.” The finest of these is the Palazzo de’ Diamanti, so called from the diamond points into which the blocks of stone with which it is faced are cut. It contains the municipal picture gallery, with a large number of pictures of artists of the school of Ferrara. This did not require prominence until the latter half of the 15th century, when its best masters were Cosimo Tura (1432-1495), Francesco Cossa (d. 1480) and Ercole dei Roberti (d. 1496). To this period are due famous frescoes in the Palazzo Schifanoia, which was built by the Este family; those of the lower row depict the life of Borso of Este, in the central row are the signs of the zodiac, and in the upper are allegorical representations of the months. The vestibule was decorated with stucco mouldings by Domenico di Paris of Padua. The building also contains fine choir-books with miniatures, and a collection of coins and Renaissance medals. The simple house of Ariosto, erected by himself after 1526, in which he died in 1532, lies farther west. The best Ferrarese masters of the 16th century of the Ferrara school were Lorenzo Costa (1460-1535), and Dosso Dossi (1479-1542), the most eminent of all, while Benvenuto Tisi (Garofalo, 1481-1559) is somewhat monotonous and insipid.

The origin of Ferrara is uncertain, and probabilities are against the supposition that it occupies the site of the ancient Forum Alieni. It was probably a settlement formed by the inhabitants of the lagoons at the mouth of the Po. It appears first in a document of Aistulf of 753 or 754 as a city forming part of the exarchate of Ravenna. After 984 we find it a fief of Tedaldo, count of Modena and Canossa, nephew of the emperor Otho I. It afterwards made itself independent, and in 1101 was taken by siege by the countess Matilda. At this time it was mainly dominated by several great families, among them the Adelardi.

In 1146 Guglielmo, the last of the Adelardi, died, and his property passed, as the dowry of his niece Marchesella, to Azzolino d’ Este. There was considerable hostility between the newly entered family and the Salinguerra, but after considerable struggles Azzo Novello was nominated perpetual podestà in 1242; in 1259 he took Ezzelino of Verona prisoner in battle. His grandson, Obizzo II. (1264-1293), succeeded him, and the pope nominated him captain-general and defender of the states of the Church; and the house of Este was from henceforth settled in Ferrara. Niccolò III. (1393-1441) received several popes with great magnificence, especially Eugene IV., who held a council here in 1438. His son Borso received the fiefs of Modena and Reggio from the emperor Frederick III. as first duke in 1452 (in which year Girolamo Savonarola was born here), and in 1470 was made duke of Ferrara by Pope Paul II. Ercole I. (1471-1505) carried on a war with Venice and increased the magnificence of the city. His son Alphonso I. married Lucrezia Borgia, and continued the war with Venice with success. In 1509 he was excommunicated by Julius II., and attacked the pontifical army in 1512 outside Ravenna, which he took. Gaston de Foix fell in the battle, in which he was supporting Alphonso. With the succeeding popes he was able to make peace. He was the patron of Ariosto from 1518 onwards. His son Ercole II. married Renata, daughter of Louis XII. of France; he too embellished Ferrara during his reign (1534-1559). His son Alphonso II. married Barbara, sister of the emperor Maximilian II. He raised the glory of Ferrara to its highest point, and was the patron of Tasso and Guarini, favouring, as the princes of his house had always done, the arts and sciences. He had no legitimate male heir, and in 1597 Ferrara was claimed as a vacant fief by Pope Clement VIII., as was also Comacchio. A fortress was constructed by him on the site of the castle of Tedaldo, at the W. angle of the town. The town remained a part of the states of the Church, the fortress being occupied by an Austrian garrison from 1832 until 1859, when it became part of the kingdom of Italy.

A considerable area within the walls of Ferrara is unoccupied by buildings, especially on the north, where, the handsome Renaissance church of S. Cristoforo, with the cemetery, stands; but modern times have brought a renewal of industrial activity. Ferrara is on the main line from Bologna to Padua and Venice, and has branches to Ravenna and Poggio Rusco (for Suzzara).

FERRARA-FLORENCE, COUNCIL OF (1438 ff.). The council of Ferrara and Florence was the culmination of a series of futile medieval attempts to reunite the Greek and Roman churches. The emperor, John VI. Palaeologus, had been advised by his experienced father to avoid all serious negotiations, as they had invariably resulted in increased bitterness; but John, in view of the rapid dismemberment of his empire by the Turks, felt constrained to seek a union. The situation was, however, complicated by the strife which broke out between the pope (Eugenius IV.) and the oecumenical council of Basel. Both sides sent embassies to the emperor at Constantinople, as both saw the importance of gaining the recognition and support of the East, for on this practically depended the victory in the struggle between papacy and council for the supreme jurisdiction over the church (see Councils). The Greeks, fearing the domination of the papacy, were at first more favourably inclined toward the conciliar party; but the astute diplomacy of the Roman representatives, who have been charged by certain Greek writers with the skilful use of money and of lies, won over the emperor. 284 With a retinue of about 700 persons, entertained in Italy at the pope’s expense, he reached Ferrara early in March 1438. Here a council had been formally opened in January by the papal party, a bull of the previous year having promptly taken advantage of the death of the Emperor Sigismund by ordering the removal of the council of Basel to Ferrara; and one of the first acts of the assemblage at Ferrara had been to excommunicate the remnant at Basel. A month after the coming of the Greeks, the Union Synod was solemnly inaugurated on the 9th of April 1438. After six months of negotiation, the first formal session was held on the 8th of October, and on the 14th the real issues were reached. The time-honoured question of the filioque was still in the foreground when it seemed for several reasons advisable to transfer the council to Florence: Ferrara was threatened by condottieri, the pest was raging; Florence promised a welcome subvention, and a situation further inland would make it more difficult for uneasy Greek bishops to flee the synod.

The first session at Florence and the seventeenth of the union council took place on the 26th of February 1439; there ensued long debates and negotiations on the filioque, in which Markos Eugenikos, archbishop of Ephesus, spoke for the irreconcilables; but the Greeks under the leadership of Bessarion, archbishop of Nicaea, and Isidor, metropolitan of Kiev, at length made a declaration on the filioque (4th of June), to which all save Markos Eugenikos subscribed. On the next topic of importance, the primacy of the pope, the project of union nearly suffered shipwreck; but here a vague formula was finally constructed which, while acknowledging the pope’s right to govern the church, attempted to safeguard as well the rights of the patriarchs. On the basis of the above-mentioned agreements, as well as of minor discussions as to purgatory and the Eucharist, the decree of union was drawn up in Latin and in Greek, and signed on the 5th of July by the pope and the Greek emperor, and all the members of the synod save Eugenikos and one Greek bishop who had fled; and on the following day it was solemnly published in the cathedral of Florence. The decree explains the filioque in a manner acceptable to the Greeks, but does not require them to insert the term in their symbol; it demands that celebrants follow the custom of their own church as to the employment of leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist. It states essentially the Roman doctrine of purgatory, and asserts the world-wide primacy of the pope as the “true vicar of Christ and the head of the whole Church, the Father and teacher of all Christians”; but, to satisfy the Greeks, inconsistently adds that all the rights and privileges of the Oriental patriarchs are to be maintained unimpaired. After the consummation of the union the Greeks remained in Florence for several weeks, discussing matters such as the liturgy, the administration of the sacraments, and divorce; and they sailed from Venice to Constantinople in October.

The council, however, desirous of negotiating unions with the minor churches of the East, remained in session for several years, and seems never to have reached a formal adjournment. The decree for the Armenians was published on the 22nd of November 1439; they accepted the filioque and the Athanasian creed, rejected Monophysitism and Monothelitism, agreed to the developed scholastic doctrine concerning the seven sacraments, and conformed their calendar to the Western in certain points. On the 26th of April 1441 the pope announced that the synod would be transferred to the Lateran; but before leaving Florence a union was negotiated with the Oriental Christians known as Jacobites, through a monk named Andreas, who, at least as regards Abyssinia, acted in excess of his powers. The Decretum pro Jacobitis, published on the 4th of February 1442, is, like that for the Armenians, of high dogmatic interest, as it summarizes the doctrine of the great medieval scholastics on the points in controversy. The decree for the Syrians, published at the Lateran on the 30th of September 1444, and those for the Chaldeans (Nestorians) and the Maronites (Monothelites), published at the last known session of the council on the 7th of August 1445, added nothing of doctrinal importance. Though the direct results of these unions were the restoration of prestige to the absolutist papacy and the bringing of Byzantine men of letters, like Bessarion, to the West, the outcome was on the whole disappointing. Of the complicated history of the “United” churches of the East it suffices to say that Rome succeeded in securing but fragments, though important fragments, of the greater organizations. As for the Greeks, the union met with much opposition, particularly from the monks, and was rejected by three Oriental patriarchs at a synod of Jerusalem in 1443; and after various ineffective attempts to enforce it, the fall of Constantinople in 1453 put an end to the endeavour. As Turkish interests demanded the isolation of the Oriental Christians from their western brethren, and as the orthodox Greek nationalists feared Latinization more than Mahommedan rule, a patriarch hostile to the union was chosen, and a synod of Constantinople in 1472 formally rejected the decisions of Florence.

FERRARI, GAUDENZIO (1484-1549), Italian painter and sculptor, of the Milanese, or more strictly the Piedmontese, school, was born at Valduggia, Piedmont, and is said (very dubiously) to have learned the elements of painting at Vercelli from Girolamo Giovenone. He next studied in Milan, in the school of Scotto, and some say of Luini; towards 1504 he proceeded to Florence, and afterwards (it used to be alleged) to Rome. His pictorial style may be considered as derived mainly from the old Milanese school, with a considerable tinge of the influence of Da Vinci, and later on of Raphael; in his personal manner there was something of the demonstrative and fantastic. The gentler qualities diminished, and the stronger intensified, as he progressed. By 1524 he was at Varallo in Piedmont, and here, in the chapel of the Sacro Monte, the sanctuary of the Piedmontese pilgrims, he executed his most memorable work. This is a fresco of the Crucifixion, with a multitude of figures, no less than twenty-six of them being modelled in actual relief, and coloured; on the vaulted ceiling are eighteen lamenting angels, powerful in expression. Other leading examples are the following. In the Royal Gallery, Turin, a “Pietà,” an able early work. In the Brera Gallery, Milan, “St Katharine miraculously preserved from the Torture of the Wheel,” a very characteristic example, hard and forcible in colour, thronged in composition, turbulent in emotion; also several frescoes, chiefly from the church of Santa Maria della Pace, three of them being from the history of Joachim and Anna. In the cathedral of Vercelli, the choir, the “Virgin with Angels and Saints under an Orange Tree.” In the refectory of San Paolo, the “Last Supper.” In the church of San Cristoforo, the transept (in 1532-1535), a series of paintings in which Ferrari’s scholar Lanini assisted him; by Ferrari himself are the “Birth of the Virgin,” the “Annunciation,” the “Visitation,” the “Adoration of the Shepherds and Kings,” the “Crucifixion,” the “Assumption of the Virgin,” all full of life and decided character, though somewhat mannered. 285 In the Louvre, “St Paul Meditating.” In Varallo, convent of the Minorites (1507), a “Presentation in the Temple,” and “Christ among the Doctors,” and (after 1510) the “History of Christ,” in twenty-one subjects; also an ancona in six compartments, named the “Ancona di San Gaudenzio.” In Santa Maria di Loreto, near Varallo (after 1527), an “Adoration.” In the church of Saronno, near Milan, the cupola (1535), a “Glory of Angels,” in which the beauty of the school of Da Vinci alternates with bravura of foreshortenings in the mode of Correggio. In Milan, Santa Maria delle Grazie (1542), the “Scourging of Christ,” an “Ecce Homo” and a “Crucifixion.” The “Scourging,” or else a “Last Supper,” in the Passione of Milan (unfinished), is regarded as Ferrari’s latest work. He was a very prolific painter, distinguished by strong expression, animation and fulness of composition, and abundant invention; he was skilful in painting horses, and his decisive rather hard colour is marked by a partiality for shot tints in drapery. In general character, his work appertains more to the 15th than the 16th century. His subjects were always of the sacred order. Ferrari’s death took place in Milan. Besides Lanini, already mentioned, Andrea Solario, Giambattista della Cerva and Fermo Stella were three of his principal scholars. He is represented to us as a good man, attached to his country and his art, jovial and sometimes facetious, but an enemy of scandal. The reputation which he enjoyed soon after his death was very great, but it has not fully stood the test of time. Lomazzo went so far as to place him seventh among the seven prime painters of Italy.

FERRARI, GIUSEPPE (1812-1876), Italian philosopher, historian and politician, was born at Milan on the 7th of March 1812, and died in Rome on the 2nd of July 1876. He studied law at Pavia, and took the degree of doctor in 1831. A follower of Romagnosi (d. 1835) and Giovan Battista Vico (q.v.), his first works were an article in the Biblioteca Italiana entitled “Mente di Gian Domenico Romagnosi” (1835), and a complete edition of the works of Vico, prefaced by an appreciation (1835). Finding Italy uncongenial to his ideas, he went to France and, in 1839, produced in Paris his Vico et l’Italie, followed by La Nouvelle Religion de Campanella and La Théorie de l’erreur. On account of these works he was made Docteur-ès-lettres of the Sorbonne and professor of philosophy at Rochefort (1840). His views, however, provoked antagonism, and in 1842 he was appointed to the chair of philosophy at Strassburg. After fresh trouble with the clergy, he returned to Paris and published a defence of his theories in a work entitled Idées sur la politique de Platon et d’Aristote. After a short connexion with the college at Bourges, he devoted himself from 1849 to 1858 exclusively to writing. The works of this period are Les Philosophes Salariés, Machiavel juge des révolutions de notre temps (1849), La Federazione repubblicana (1851), La Filosofia della rivoluzione (1851), L’ Italia dopo il colpo di Stato (1852), Histoire des révolutions, ou Guelfes et Gibelins (1858; Italian trans., 1871-1873). In 1859 he returned to Italy, where he opposed Cavour, and upheld federalism against the policy of a single Italian monarchy. In spite of this opposition, he held chairs of philosophy at Turin, Milan and Rome in succession, and during several administrations represented the college of Gavirate in the chamber. He was a member of the council of education and was made senator on the 15th of May 1876. Amongst other works may be mentioned Histoire de la raison d’état, La China et l’ Europa, Corso d’ istoria degli scrittori politici italiani. A sceptic in philosophy and a revolutionist in politics, rejoicing in controversy of all kinds, he was admired as a man, as an orator, and as a writer.

FERRARI, PAOLO (1822-1889), Italian dramatist, was born at Modena. After producing some minor pieces, in 1852 he made his reputation as a playwright with Goldoni e le sue sedici commedie. Among numerous later plays his comedy Parini e la satira (1857) had considerable success. Ferrari may be regarded as a follower of Goldoni, modelling himself on the French theatrical methods. His collected plays were published in 1877-1880.

FERREIRA, ANTONIO (1528-1569), Portuguese poet, was a native of Lisbon; his father held the post of escrivão de fazenda in the house of the duke of Coimbra at Setubal, so that he must there have met the great adventurer Mendes Pinto. In 1547-1548 he went to the university of Coimbra, and on the 16th of July 1551 took his bachelor’s degree. The Sonnets forming the First Book in his collected works date from 1552 and contain the history of his early love for an unknown lady. They seem to have been written in Coimbra or during vacations in Lisbon; and if some are dry and stilted, others, like the admirable No. 45, are full of feeling and tears. The Sonnets in the Second Book were inspired by D. Maria Pimentel, whom he afterwards married, and they are marked by that chastity of sentiment, seriousness and ardent patriotism which characterized the man and the writer. Ferreira’s ideal, as a poet, was to win “the applause of the good,” and, in the preface to his poems, he says, “I am content with this glory, that I have loved my land and my people.” He was intimate with princes, nobles and the most distinguished literary men of the time, such as the scholarly Diogo de Teive and the poets Bernardes, Caminha and Corte-Real, as well as with the aged Sá de Miranda, the founder of the classical school of which Ferreira became the foremost representative.

The death in 1554 of Prince John, the heir to the throne, drew from him, as from Camoens, Bernardes and Caminha, a poetical lament, which consisted of an elegy and two eclogues, imitative of Virgil and Horace, and devoid of interest. On the 14th of July 1555 he took his doctor’s degree, an event which was celebrated, according to custom, by a sort of Roman triumph, and he stayed on as a professor, finding Coimbra with its picturesque environs congenial to his poetical tastes and love of a country life. The year 1557 produced his sixth elegy, addressed to the son of the great Albuquerque, a poem of noble patriotism expressed in eloquent and sonorous verse, and in the next year he married. After a short and happy married life, his wife died, and the ninth sonnet of Book 2 describes her end in moving words. This loss lent Ferreira’s verse an added austerity, and the independence of his muse is remarkable when he addresses King Sebastian and reminds him of his duties as well as his rights. On the 14th of October 1567 he became Disembargador da Casa do Civel, and had to leave the quiet of Coimbra for Lisbon. His verses tell how he disliked the change, and how the bustle of the capital, then a great commercial emporium, made him sad and almost tongue-tied for poetry. The intrigues and moral twists of the courtiers and traders, among whom he was forced to live, hurt his fine sense of honour, and he felt his mental isolation the more, because his friends were few and scattered in that great city which the discoveries and conquests of the Portuguese had made the centre of a world empire. In 1569 a terrible epidemic of carbunculous fever broke out and carried off 50,000 inhabitants of Lisbon, and, on the 29th of November, Ferreira, who had stayed there doing his duty when others fled, fell a victim.

Horace was his favourite poet, erudition his muse, and his admiration of the classics made him disdain the popular poetry of the Old School (Escola Velha) represented by Gil Vicente. His national feeling would not allow him to write in Latin or Spanish, like most of his contemporaries, but his Portuguese is as Latinized as he could make it, and he even calls his poetical works Poemas Lusitanos. Sá de Miranda had philosophized in the familiar redondilha, introduced the epistle and founded the comedy of learning. It was the beginning of a revolution, which Ferreira completed by abandoning the hendecasyllable for the Italian decasyllable, and by composing the noble and austere 286 Roman poetry of his letters, odes and elegies. It was all done of set purpose, for he was a reformer conscious of his mission and resolved to carry it out. The gross realism of the popular poetry, its lack of culture and its carelessness of form, offended his educated taste, and its picturesqueness and ingenuity made no appeal to him. It is not surprising, however, that though he earned the applause of men of letters he failed to touch the hearts of his countrymen. Ferreira wrote the Terentian prose comedy Bristo, at the age of twenty-five (1553), and dedicated it to Prince John in the name of the university. It is neither a comedy of character nor manners, but its vis comica lies in its plot and situations. The Cioso, a later product, may almost be called a comedy of character. Castro is Ferreira’s most considerable work, and, in date, is the first tragedy in Portuguese, and the second in modern European literature. Though fashioned on the great models of the ancients, it has little plot or action, and the characters, except that of the prince, are ill-designed. It is really a splendid poem, with a chorus which sings the sad fate of Ignez in musical odes, rich in feeling and grandeur of expression. Her love is the chaste, timid affection of a wife and a vassal rather than the strong passion of a mistress, but Pedro is really the man history describes, the love-fettered prince whom the tragedy of Ignez’s death converted into the cruel tyrant. King Alfonso is little more than a shadow, and only meets Ignez once, his son never; while, stranger still, Pedro and Ignez never come on the stage together, and their love is merely narrated. Nevertheless, Ferreira merits all praise for choosing one of the most dramatic episodes in Portuguese history for his subject, and though it has since been handled by poets of renown in many different languages, none has been able to surpass the old master.

FERREL’S LAW, in physical geography. “If a body moves in any direction on the earth’s surface, there is a deflecting force arising from the earth’s rotation, which deflects it to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere.” This law applies to every body that is set in motion upon the surface of the rotating earth, but usually the duration of the motion of any body due to a single impulse is so brief, and there are so many frictional disturbances, that it is not easy to observe the results of this deflecting force. The movements of the atmosphere, however, are upon a scale large enough to make this observation easy, and the simplest evidence is obtained from a study of the direction of the air movements in the great wind systems of the globe. (See Meteorology.)

FERRERS, the name of a great Norman-English feudal house, derived from Ferrières-St-Hilaire, to the south of Bernay, in Normandy. Its ancestor Walkelin was slain in a feud during the Conqueror’s minority, leaving a son Henry, who took part in the Conquest. At the time of the Domesday survey his fief extended into fourteen counties, but the great bulk of it was in Derbyshire and Leicestershire, especially the former. He himself occurs in Worcestershire as one of the royal commissioners for the survey. He established his chief seat at Tutbury Castle, Staffordshire, on the Derbyshire border, and founded there a Cluniac priory. As was the usual practice with the great Norman houses, his eldest son succeeded to Ferrières, and, according to Stapleton, he was ancestor of the Oakham house of Ferrers, whose memory is preserved by the horseshoes hanging in the hall of their castle. Robert, a younger son of Henry, inherited his vast English fief, and, for his services at the battle of the Standard (1138), was created earl of Derby by Stephen. He appears to have died a year after.

Both the title and the arms of the earls have been the subject of much discussion, and they seem to have been styled indifferently earls of Derby or Nottingham (both counties then forming one shrievalty) or of Tutbury, or simply (de) Ferrers. Robert, the 2nd earl, who founded Merevale Abbey, was father of William, the 3rd earl, who began the opposition of his house to the crown by joining in the great revolt of 1173, when he fortified his castles of Tutbury and Duffield and plundered Nottingham, which was held for the king. On his subsequent submission his castles were razed. Dying at the siege of Acre, 1190, he was succeeded by his son William, who attacked Nottingham on Richard’s behalf in 1194, but whom King John favoured and confirmed in the earldom of Derby, 1199. A claim that he was heir to the honour of Peveral of Nottingham, which has puzzled genealogists, was compromised with the king, whom the earl thenceforth stoutly supported, being with him at his death and witnessing his will, with his brother-in-law the earl of Chester, and with William Marshal, earl of Pembroke, whose daughter married his son. With them also he acted in securing the succession of the young Henry, joining in the siege of Mountsorrel and the battle of Lincoln. But he was one of those great nobles who looked with jealousy on the rising power of the king’s favourites. In 1227 he was one of the earls who rose against him on behalf of his brother Richard and made him restore the forest charters, and in 1237 he was one of the three counsellors forced on the king by the barons. His influence had by this time been further increased by the death, in 1232, of the earl of Chester, whose sister, his wife, inherited a vast estate between the Ribble and the Mersey. On his death in 1247, his son William succeeded as 5th earl, and inherited through his wife her share of the great possessions of the Marshals, earls of Pembroke. By his second wife, a daughter of the earl of Winchester, he was father of Robert, 6th and last earl. Succeeding as a minor in 1254, Robert had been secured by the king, as early as 1249, as a husband for his wife’s niece, Marie, daughter of Hugh, count of Angoulême, but, in spite of this, he joined the opposition in 1263 and distinguished himself by his violence. He was one of the five earls summoned to Simon de Montfort’s parliament, though, on taking the earl of Gloucester’s part, he was arrested by Simon. In spite of this he was compelled on the king’s triumph to forfeit his castles and seven years’ revenues. In 1266 he broke out again in revolt on his own estates in Derbyshire, but was utterly defeated at Chesterfield by Henry “of Almain,” deprived of his earldom and lands and imprisoned. Eventually, in 1269, he agreed to pay £50,000 for restoration, and to pledge all his lands save Chartley and Holbrook for its payment. As he was not able to find the money, the lands passed to the king’s son, Edmund, to whom they had been granted on his forfeiture.

The earl’s son John succeeded to Chartley, a Staffordshire estate long famous for the wild cattle in its chase, and was summoned as a baron in 1299, though he had joined the baronial opposition in 1297. On the death, in 1450, of the last Ferrers lord of Chartley, the barony passed with his daughter to the Devereux family and then to the Shirleys, one of whom was created Earl Ferrers in 1711. The barony has been in abeyance since 1855.

The line of Ferrers of Groby was founded by William, younger brother of the last earl, who inherited from his mother Margaret de Quinci her estate of Groby in Leicestershire, and some Ferrers manors from his father. His son was summoned as a baron in 1300, but on the death of his descendant, William, Lord Ferrers of Groby, in 1445, the barony passed with his granddaughter to the Grey family and was forfeited with the dukedom of Suffolk in 1554. A younger son of William, the last lord, married the heiress of Tamworth Castle, and his line was seated at Tamworth till 1680, when an heiress carried it to a son of the first Earl Ferrers. From Sir Henry, a younger son of the first Ferrers of Tamworth, descended Ferrers of Baddesley Clinton, seated there in the male line till towards the end of the 19th century. The line of Ferrers of Wemme was founded by a younger son of Lord Ferrers of Chartley, who married the heiress of Wemme, Co. Salop, and was summoned as a baron in her right; but it 287 ended with their son. There are doubtless male descendants of this great Norman house still in existence.

Higham Ferrers, Northants, and Woodham Ferrers, Essex, take their names from this family. It has been alleged that they bore horseshoes for their arms in allusion to Ferrières (i.e. ironworks); but when and why they were added to their coat is a moot point.

FERRERS, LAURENCE SHIRLEY, 4th Earl (1720-1760), the last nobleman in England to suffer a felon’s death, was born on the 18th of August 1720. There was insanity in his family, and from an early age his behaviour seems to have been eccentric, and his temper violent, though he was quite capable of managing his business affairs. In 1758 his wife obtained a separation from him for cruelty. The Ferrers estates were then vested in trustees, the Earl Ferrers secured the appointment of an old family steward, Johnson, as receiver of rents. This man faithfully performed his duty as a servant to the trustees, and did not prove amenable to Ferrer’s personal wishes. On the 18th of January 1760, Johnson called at the earl’s mansion at Staunton Harold, Leicestershire, by appointment, and was directed to his lordship’s study. Here, after some business conversation, Lord Ferrers shot him. In the following April Ferrers was tried for murder by his peers in Westminster Hall. His defence, which he conducted in person with great ability, was a plea of insanity, and it was supported by considerable evidence, but he was found guilty. He subsequently said that he had only pleaded insanity to oblige his family, and that he had himself always been ashamed of such a defence. On the 5th of May 1760, dressed in a light-coloured suit, embroidered with silver, he was taken in his own carriage from the Tower of London to Tyburn and there hanged. It has been said that as a concession to his order the rope used was of silk.

FERRET, a domesticated, and frequently albino breed of quadruped, derived from the wild polecat (Putorius foetidus, or P. putorius), which it closely resembles in size, form, and habits, and with which it interbreeds. It differs in the colour of its fur, which is usually yellowish-white, and of its eyes, which are pinky-red. The “polecat-ferret” is a brown breed, apparently the product of the above-mentioned cross. The ferret attains a length of about 14 in., exclusive of the tail, which measures 5 in. Although exhibiting considerable tameness, it seems incapable of attachment, and when not properly fed, or when irritated, is apt to give painful evidence of its ferocity. It is chiefly employed in destroying rats and other vermin, and in driving rabbits from their burrows. The ferret is remarkably prolific, the female bringing forth two broods annually, each numbering from six to nine young. It is said to occasionally devour its young immediately after birth, and in this case produces another brood soon after. The ferret was well known to the Romans, Strabo stating that it was brought from Africa into Spain, and Pliny that it was employed in his time in rabbit-hunting, under the name Viverra; the English name is not derived from this, but from Fr. furet, Late Lat. furo, robber. The date of its introduction into Great Britain is uncertain, but it has been known in England for at least 600 years.

The ferret should be kept in dry, clean, well-ventilated hutches, and fed twice daily on bread, milk, and meat, such as rabbits’ and fowls’ livers. When used to hunt rabbits it is provided with a muzzle, or, better and more usual, a cope, made by looping and knotting twine about the head and snout, in order to prevent it killing its quarry, in which case it would gorge itself and go to sleep in the hole. As the ferret enters the hole the rabbits flee before it, and are shot or caught by dogs as they break ground. A ferret’s hold on its quarry is as obstinate as that of a bulldog, but can easily be broken by a strong pressure of the thumb just above the eyes. Only full-grown ferrets are “worked to” rats. Several are generally used at a time and without copes, as rats are fierce fighters.

FERRI, CIRO (1634-1689), Roman painter, the chief disciple and successor of Pietro da Cortona. He was born in the Roman territory, studied under Pietro, to whom he became warmly attached, and, at an age a little past thirty, completed the painting of the ceilings and other internal decorations begun by his instructor in the Pitti palace, Florence. He also co-operated in or finished several other works by Pietro, both in Florence and in Rome, approaching near to his style and his particular merits, but with less grace of design and native vigour, and in especial falling short of him in colour. Of his own independent productions, the chief is an extensive series of scriptural frescoes in the church of S. Maria Maggiore in Bergamo; also a painting (rated as Ferri’s best work) of St Ambrose healing a sick person, the principal altarpiece in the church of S. Ambrogio della Massima in Rome. The paintings of the cupola of S. Agnese in the same capital might rank even higher than these; but this labour remained uncompleted at the death of Ferri, and was marred by the performances of his successor Corbellini. He executed also a large amount of miscellaneous designs, such as etchings and frontispieces for books; and he was an architect besides. Ferri was appointed to direct the Florentine students in Rome, and Gabbiani was one of his leading pupils. As regards style, Ferri ranks as chief of the so-called Machinists, as opposed to the school founded by Sacchi, and continued by Carlo Maratta. He died in Rome—his end being hastened, as it is said, by mortification at his recognized inferiority to Bacciccia in colour.

FERRI, LUIGI (1826-1895), Italian philosopher, was born at Bologna on the 15th of June 1826. His education was obtained mainly at the École Normale in Paris, where his father, a painter and architect, was engaged in the construction of the Théâtre Italien. From his twenty-fifth year he began to lecture in the colleges of Evreux, Dieppe, Blois and Toulouse. Later, he was lecturer at Annecy and Casal-Montferrat, and became head of the education department under Mamiani in 1860. Three years later he was appointed to the chair of philosophy at the Istituto di Perfezionamento at Florence, and, in 1871, was made professor of philosophy in the university of Rome. On the death of Mamiani in 1885 he became editor of the Filosofia delle scuole italiane, the title of which he changed to Rivista italiana di filosofia. He wrote both on psychology and on metaphysics, but is known especially as a historian of philosophy. His original work is eclectic, combining the psychology of his teachers, Jules Simon, Saisset and Mamiani, with the idealism of Rosmini and Gioberti. Among his works may be mentioned Studii sulla coscienza; Il Fenomeno nelle sue relazioni con la sensazione; Della idea del vero; Della filosofia del diritto presso Aristotile (1885); Il Genio di Aristotile; La Psicologia di Pietro Pomponazzi (1877), and, most important, Essai sur l’histoire de la philosophie en Italie au XIXe siècle (Paris, 1869), and La Psychologie de l’association depuis Hobbes jusqu’à nos jours.

FERRIER, ARNAUD DU (c. 1508-1585), French jurisconsult and diplomatist, was born at Toulouse about 1508, and practised as a lawyer first at Bourges, afterwards at Toulouse. Councillor to the parlement of the latter town, and then to that of Rennes, he later became president of the parlement of Paris. He represented Charles IX., king of France, at the council of Trent in 1562, but had to retire in consequence of the attitude he had adopted, and was sent as ambassador to Venice, where he remained till 1567, returning again in 1570. On his return to France he came into touch with the Calvinists whose tenets he probably embraced, and consequently lost his place in the privy council and part of his fortune. As compensation, Henry, king of Navarre, appointed him his chancellor. He died in the end of October 1585.

FERRIER, JAMES FREDERICK (1808-1864), Scottish metaphysical writer, was born in Edinburgh on the 16th of 288 June 1808, the son of John Ferrier, writer to the signet. His mother was a sister of John Wilson (Christopher North). He was educated at the university of Edinburgh and Magdalen College, Oxford, and subsequently, his metaphysical tastes having been fostered by his intimate friend, Sir William Hamilton, spent some time at Heidelberg studying German philosophy. In 1842 he was appointed professor of civil history in Edinburgh University, and in 1845 professor of moral philosophy and political economy at St Andrews. He was twice an unsuccessful candidate for chairs in Edinburgh, for that of moral philosophy on Wilson’s resignation in 1852, and for that of logic and metaphysics in 1856, after Hamilton’s death. He remained at St Andrews till his death on the 11th of June 1864. He married his cousin, Margaret Anne, daughter of John Wilson. He had five children, one of whom became the wife of Sir Alexander Grant.

Ferrier’s first contribution to metaphysics was a series of articles in Blackwood’s Magazine (1838-1839), entitled An Introduction to the Philosophy of Consciousness. In these he condemns previous philosophers for ignoring in their psychological investigations the fact of consciousness, which is the distinctive feature of man, and confining their observation to the so-called “states of the mind.” Consciousness comes into manifestation only when the man has used the word “I” with full knowledge of what it means. This notion he must originate within himself. Consciousness cannot spring from the states which are its object, for it is in antagonism to them. It originates in the will, which in the act of consciousness puts the “I” in the place of our sensations. Morality, conscience, and responsibility are necessary results of consciousness. These articles were succeeded by a number of others, of which the most important were The Crisis of Modern Speculation (1841), Berkeley and Idealism (1842), and an important examination of Hamilton’s edition of Reid (1847), which contains a vigorous attack on the philosophy of common sense. The perception of matter is pronounced to be the ne plus ultra of thought, and Reid, for presuming to analyse it, is declared to be a representationist in fact, although he professed to be an intuitionist. A distinction is made between the “perception of matter” and “our apprehension of the perception of matter.” Psychology vainly tries to analyse the former. Metaphysic shows the latter alone to be analysable, and separates the subjective element, “our apprehension,” from the objective element, “the perception of matter,”—not matter per se, but the perception of matter is the existence independent of the individual’s thought. It cannot, however, be independent of thought. It must belong to some mind, and is therefore the property of the Divine Mind. There, he thinks, is an indestructible foundation for the a priori argument for the existence of God.

Ferrier’s matured philosophical doctrines find expression in the Institutes of Metaphysics (1854), in which he claims to have met the twofold obligation resting on every system of philosophy, that it should be reasoned and true. His method is that of Spinoza, strict demonstration, or at least an attempt at it. All the errors of natural thinking and psychology must fall under one or other of three topics:—Knowing and the Known, Ignorance, and Being. These are all-comprehensive, and are therefore the departments into which philosophy is divided, for the sole end of philosophy is to correct the inadvertencies of ordinary thinking.

The problems of knowing and the known are treated in the “Epistemology or Theory of Knowing.” The truth that “along with whatever any intelligence knows it must, as the ground or condition of its knowledge, have some cognizance of itself,” is the basis of the whole philosophical system. Object + subject, thing + me, is the only possible knowable. This leads to the conclusion that the only independent universe which any mind can think of is the universe in synthesis with some other mind or ego.

The leading contradiction which is corrected in the “Agnoiology or Theory of Ignorance” is this: that there can be an ignorance of that of which there can be no knowledge. Ignorance is a defect. But there is no defect in not knowing what cannot be known by any intelligence (e.g. that two and two make five), and therefore there can be an ignorance only of that of which there can be a knowledge, i.e. of some-object-plus-some-subject. The knowable alone is the ignorable. Ferrier lays special claim to originality for this division of the Institutes.

The “Ontology or Theory of Being” forms the third and final division. It contains a discussion of the origin of knowledge, in which Ferrier traces all the perplexities and errors of philosophers to the assumption of the absolute existence of matter. The conclusion arrived at is that the only true real and independent existences are minds-together-with-that-which-they-apprehend, and that the one strictly necessary absolute existence is a supreme and infinite and everlasting mind in synthesis with all things.

FERRIER, PAUL (1843-  ), French dramatist, was born at Montpellier on the 29th of March 1843. He had already produced several comedies when in 1873 he secured real success with two short pieces, Chez l’avocat and Les Incendies de Massoulard. Others of his numerous plays are Les Compensations (1876); L’Art de tromper les femmes (1890), with M. Najac. One of Ferrier’s greatest triumphs was the production with Fabrice Carré of Joséphine vendue par ses sœurs (1886), an opéra bouffe with music by Victor Roger. His opera libretti include La Marocaine (1879), music of J. Offenbach; Le Chevalier d’Harmental (1896) after the play of Dumas père, for the music of A. Messager; La Fille de Tabarin (1901), with Victorien Sardou, music of Gabriel Pierné.

FERRIER, SUSAN EDMONSTONE (1782-1854), Scottish novelist, born in Edinburgh on the 7th of September 1782, was the daughter of James Ferrier, for some years factor to the duke of Argyll, and at one time one of the clerks of the court of session with Sir Walter Scott. Her mother was a Miss Coutts, the beautiful daughter of a Forfarshire farmer. James Frederick Ferrier, noticed above, was Susan Ferrier’s nephew.

Miss Ferrier’s first novel, Marriage, was begun in concert with a friend, Miss Clavering, a niece of the duke of Argyll; but this lady only wrote a few pages, and Marriage, completed by Miss Ferrier as early as 1810, appeared in 1818. It was followed in 1824 by The Inheritance, a better constructed and more mature work; and the last and perhaps best of her novels, Destiny, dedicated to Sir Walter Scott (who himself undertook to strike the bargain with the publisher Cadell), appeared in 1831. All these novels were published anonymously; but, with their clever portraiture of contemporary Scottish life and manners, and even recognizable caricatures of some social celebrities of the day, they could not fail to become popular north of the Tweed. “Lady MacLaughlan” represents Mrs Seymour Damer in dress and Lady Frederick Campbell, whose husband, Lord Ferrier, was executed in 1760, in manners. Mary, Lady Clark, well known in Edinburgh, figured as “Mrs Fox” and the three maiden aunts were the Misses Edmonstone. Many were the conjectures as to the authorship of the novels. In the Noctes Ambrosianae (November 1826), James Hogg is made to mention The Inheritance, and adds, “which I aye thought was written by Sir Walter, as weel’s Marriage, till it spunked out that it was written by a leddy.” Scott himself gave Miss Ferrier a very high place indeed among the novelists of the day. In his diary (March 27, 1826), criticizing a new work which he had been reading, he says, “The women do this better. Edgeworth, Ferrier, Austen, have all given portraits of real society far superior to anything man, vain man, has produced of the like nature.” Another friendly recognition of Miss Ferrier is to be found at the conclusion of his Tales of my Landlord, where Scott calls her his “sister shadow,” the still anonymous author of “the very lively work entitled Marriage.” Lively, indeed, all Miss Ferrier’s works are,—written in clear, brisk English, and 289 with an inexhaustible fund of humour. It is true her books portray the eccentricities, the follies, and foibles of the society in which she lived, caricaturing with terrible exactness its hypocrisy, boastfulness, greed, affectation, and undue subservience to public opinion. Yet Miss Ferrier wrote less to reform than to amuse. In this she is less like Miss Edgeworth than Miss Austen. Miss Edgeworth was more of a moralist; her wit is not so involuntary, her caricatures not always so good-natured. But Miss Austen and Miss Ferrier were genuine humorists, and with Miss Ferrier especially a keen sense of the ludicrous was always dominant. Her humorous characters are always her best. It was no doubt because she felt this that in the last year of her life she regretted not having devoted her talents more exclusively to the service of religion. But if she was not a moralist, neither was she a cynic; and her wit, even where it is most caustic, is never uncharitable.

Miss Ferrier’s mother died in 1797, and from that date she kept house for her father until his death in 1829. She lived quietly at Morningside House and in Edinburgh for more than twenty years after the publication of her last work. The pleasantest picture that we have of her is in Lockhart’s description of her visit to Scott in May 1831. She was asked there to help to amuse the dying master of Abbotsford, who, when he was not writing Count Robert of Paris, would talk as brilliantly as ever. Only sometimes, before he had reached the point in a narrative, “it would seem as if some internal spring had given way.” He would pause, and gaze blankly and anxiously round him. “I noticed,” says Lockhart, “the delicacy of Miss Ferrier on such occasions. Her sight was bad, and she took care not to use her glasses when he was speaking; and she affected to be also troubled with deafness, and would say, ‘Well, I am getting as dull as a post; I have not heard a word since you said so-and-so,’—being sure to mention a circumstance behind that at which he had really halted. He then took up the thread with his habitual smile of courtesy—as if forgetting his case entirely in the consideration of the lady’s infirmity.”

Miss Ferrier died on the 5th of November 1854, at her brother’s house in Edinburgh. She left among her papers a short unpublished article, entitled “Recollections of Visits to Ashestiel and Abbotsford.” This is her own very interesting account of her long friendship with Sir Walter Scott, from the date of her first visit to him and Lady Scott at Ashestiel, where she went with her father in the autumn of 1811, to her last sad visit to Abbotsford in 1831. It contains some impromptu verses written by Scott in her album at Ashestiel.

FERROL [El Ferrol], a seaport of north-western Spain, in the province of Corunna; situated 12 m. N.E. of the city of Corunna, and on the Bay of Ferrol, an inlet of the Atlantic Ocean. Pop. (1900) 25,281. Together with San Fernando, near Cadiz, and Cartagena, Ferrol is governed by an admiral, with the special title of captain-general; and it ranks beside these two ports as one of the principal naval stations of Spain. The town is beautifully situated on a headland overlooking the bay, and is surrounded by rocky hills which render it invisible from the sea. Its harbour, naturally one of the best in Europe, and the largest in Spain except those of Vigo and Corunna, is deep, capacious and secure; but the entrance is a narrow strait about 2 m. long, which admits only one vessel at a time, and is commanded by modern and powerfully armed forts, while the neighbouring heights are also crowned by defensive works. Ferrol is provided with extensive dockyards, quays, warehouses and an arsenal; most of these, with the palace of the captain-general, the bull-ring, theatres, and other principal buildings, were built or modernized between 1875 and 1905. The local industries are mainly connected with the shipping trade, or the refitting of warships. Owing to the lack of railway communication, and the competition of Corunna at so short a distance, Ferrol is not a first-class commercial port; and in the early years of the 20th century its trade, already injured by the loss to Spain of Cuba and Porto Rico in 1898, showed little prospect of improvement. The exports are insignificant, and consist chiefly of wooden staves and beams for use as pit-props; the chief imports are coal, cement, timber, iron and machinery. In 1904, 282 vessels of 155,881 tons entered the harbour. In the same year the construction of a railway to the neighbouring town of Betanzos was undertaken, and in 1909 important shipbuilding operations were begun.

Ferrol was a mere fishing village until 1752, when Ferdinand VI. began to fit it for becoming an arsenal. In 1799 the British made a fruitless attempt to capture it, but on the 4th of November 1805 they defeated the French fleet in front of the town, which they compelled to surrender. On the 27th of January 1809 it was through treachery delivered over to the French, but it was vacated by them on the 22nd of July. On the 15th of July 1823 another blockade was begun by the French, and Ferrol surrendered to them on the 27th of August.

FERRUCCIO, or Ferrucci, FRANCESCO (1489-1530), Florentine captain. After spending a few years as a merchant’s clerk he took to soldiering at an early age, and served in the Bande Nere in various parts of Italy, earning a reputation as a daring fighter and somewhat of a swashbuckler. When Pope Clement VII. and the emperor Charles V. decided to reinstate the Medici in Florence, they made war on the Florentine republic, and Ferruccio was appointed Florentine military commissioner at Empoli, where he showed great daring and resource by his rapid marches and sudden attacks on the Imperialists. Early in 1530 Volterra had thrown off Florentine allegiance and had been occupied by an Imperialist garrison, but Ferruccio surprised and recaptured the city. During his absence, however, the Imperialists captured Empoli by treachery, thus cutting off one of the chief avenues of approach to Florence. Ferruccio proposed to the government of the republic that he should march on Rome and terrorize the pope by the threat of a sack into making peace with Florence on favourable terms, but although the war committee appointed him commissioner-general for the operations outside the city, they rejected his scheme as too audacious. Ferruccio then decided to attempt a diversion by attacking the Imperialists in the rear and started from Volterra for the Apennines. But at Pisa he was laid up for a month with a fever—a misfortune which enabled the enemy to get wind of his plan and to prepare for his attack. At the end of July Ferruccio left Pisa at the head of about 4000 men, and although the besieged in Florence, knowing that a large part of the Imperialists under the prince of Orange had gone to meet Ferruccio, wished to co-operate with the latter by means of a sortie, they were prevented from doing so by their own traitorous commander-in-chief, Malatesta Baglioni. Ferruccio encountered a much larger force of the enemy on the 3rd of August at Gavinana; a desperate battle ensued, and at first the Imperialists were driven back by Ferruccio’s fierce onslaught and the prince of Orange himself was killed, but reinforcements under Fabrizio Maramaldo having arrived, the Florentines were almost annihilated and Ferruccio was wounded and captured. Maramaldo out of personal spite despatched the wounded man with his own hand. This defeat sealed the fate of the republic, and nine days later Florence surrendered. Ferruccio was one of the great soldiers of the age, and his enterprise is the finest episode of the last days of the Florentine republic. See also under Florence and Medici.

FERRULE, a small metal cap or ring used for holding parts of a rod, &c., together, and for giving strength to weakened materials, or especially, when attached to the end of a stick, umbrella, &c., for preventing wearing or splitting. The word is properly verrel or verril, in which form it was used till the 18th century, and is derived through the O. Fr. virelle, modern 290 virole, from a diminutive Latin viriola of viriae, bracelets. The form in which the word is now known is due to the influence of Latin ferrum, iron. “Ferrule” must be distinguished from “ferule” or “ferula,” properly the Latin name of the “giant fennel.” From the use of the stalk of this plant as a cane or rod for punishment, comes the application of the word to many instruments used in chastisement, more particularly a short flat piece of wood or leather shaped somewhat like the sole of a boot, and applied to the palms of the hand. It is the common form of disciplinary instrument in Roman Catholic schools; the pain inflicted is exceedingly sharp and immediate, but the effects are momentary and leave no chance for any dangerous results. The word is sometimes applied to the ordinary cane as used by schoolmasters.

FERRY, JULES FRANÇOIS CAMILLE (1832-1893), French statesman, was born at Saint Dié (Vosges) on the 5th of April 1832. He studied law, and was called to the bar at Paris, but soon went into politics, contributing to various newspapers, particularly to the Temps. He attacked the Empire with great violence, directing his opposition especially against Baron Haussmann, prefect of the Seine. Elected republican deputy for Paris in 1869, he protested against the declaration of war with Germany, and on the 6th of September 1870 was appointed prefect of the Seine by the government of national defence. In this position he had the difficult task of administering Paris during the siege, and after the Commune was obliged to resign (5th of June 1871). From 1872-1873 he was sent by Thiers as minister to Athens, but returned to the chamber as deputy for the Vosges, and became one of the leaders of the republican party. When the first republican ministry was formed under W.H. Waddington on the 4th of February 1879, he was one of its members, and continued in the ministry until the 30th of March 1885, except for two short interruptions (from the 10th of November 1881 to the 30th of January 1882, and from the 29th of July 1882 to the 21st of February 1883), first as minister of education and then as minister of foreign affairs. He was twice premier (1880-1881 and 1883-1885). Two important works are associated with his administration, the non-clerical organization of public education, and the beginning of the colonial expansion of France. Following the republican programme he proposed to destroy the influence of the clergy in the university. He reorganized the committee of public education (law of the 27th of February 1880), and proposed a regulation for the conferring of university degrees, which, though rejected, aroused violent polemics because the 7th article took away from the unauthorized religious orders the right to teach. He finally succeeded in passing the great law of the 28th of March 1882, which made primary education in France free, non-clerical and obligatory. In higher education the number of professors doubled under his ministry. After the military defeat of France by Germany in 1870, he formed the idea of acquiring a great colonial empire, not to colonize it, but for the sake of economic exploitation. He directed the negotiations which led to the establishment of a French protectorate in Tunis (1881), prepared the treaty of the 17th of December 1885 for the occupation of Madagascar; directed the exploration of the Congo and of the Niger region; and above all he organized the conquest of Indo-China. The excitement caused at Paris by an unimportant reverse of the French troops at Lang-son caused his downfall (30th of March 1885), but the treaty of peace with China (9th of June 1885) was his work. He still remained an influential member of the moderate republican party, and directed the opposition to General Boulanger. After the resignation of President Grévy (2nd of December 1887), he was a candidate for the presidency of the republic, but the radicals refused to support him, and he withdrew in favour of Sadi Carnot. The violent polemics aroused against him at this time caused a madman to attack him with a revolver, and he died from the wound, on the 17th of March 1893. The chamber of deputies voted him a state funeral.

FERRY (from the same root as that of the verb “to fare,” to journey or travel, common to Teutonic languages, cf. Ger. fahren; it is connected with the root of Gr. πόρος, way, and Lat. portare, to carry), a place where boats ply regularly across a river or arm of the sea for the conveyance of goods and persons. The word is also applied to the boats employed (ferry boats). In a car-ferry or train-ferry railway cars or complete trains are conveyed across a piece of water in vessels which have railway lines laid on their decks, so that the vehicles run on and off them on their own wheels. In law the right of ferrying persons or goods across a particular river or strait, and of exacting a reasonable toll for the service, belongs, like the right of fair and market, to the class of rights known as franchises. Its origin must be by statute, royal grant, or prescription. It is wholly unconnected with the ownership or occupation of land, so that the owner of the ferry need not be proprietor of the soil on either side of the water over which the right is exercised. He is bound to maintain safe and suitable boats ready for the use of the public, and to employ fit persons as ferrymen. As a correlative of this duty he has a right of action, not only against those who evade or refuse payment of toll when it is due, but also against those who disturb his franchise by setting up a new ferry, so as to diminish his custom, unless a change of circumstances, such as an increase of population near the ferry, justify other means of passage, whether of the same kind or not. See also Water Rights.

FERSEN, FREDRIK AXEL, Count von (1719-1794), Swedish politician, was a son of Lieutenant-General Hans Reinhold Fersen and entered the Swedish Life Guards in 1740, and from 1743 to 1748 was in the French service (Royal-Suédois), where he rose to the rank of brigadier. In the Seven Years’ War Fersen distinguished himself during the operations round Usedom and Wollin (1759), when he inflicted serious loss on the Prussians. But it is as a politician that he is best known. At the diet of 1755-1756 he was elected landtmarskalk, or marshal of the diet, and from henceforth, till the revolution of 1772, led the Hat party (see Sweden: History). In 1756 he defeated the projects of the court for increasing the royal power; but, after the disasters of the Seven Years’ War, gravitated towards the court again and contributed, by his energy and eloquence, to uphold the tottering Hats for several years. On the accession of the Caps to power in 1766, Fersen assisted the court in its struggle with them by refusing to employ the Guards to keep order in the capital when King Adolphus Frederick, driven to desperation by the demands of the Caps, publicly abdicated, and a seven days’ interregnum ensued. At the ensuing diet of 1769, when the Hats returned to power, Fersen was again elected marshal of the diet; but he made no attempt to redeem his pledges to the crown prince Gustavus, as to a very necessary reform of the constitution, which he had made before the elections, and thus involuntarily contributed to the subsequent establishment of absolutism. When Gustavus III. ascended the throne in 1772, and attempted to reconcile the two factions by a composition which aimed at dividing all political power between them, Fersen said he despaired of bringing back, in a moment, to the path of virtue and patriotism a people who had been running riot for more than half a century in the wilderness of political licence and corruption. Nevertheless he consented to open negotiations with the Caps, and was the principal Hat representative on the abortive composition committee. During the revolution of August 1772, Fersen remained a passive spectator of the overthrow of the constitution, and was one of the first whom Gustavus summoned to his side after his triumph. Yet his relations with the king were never cordial. The old party-leader could never forget that he had once been a power in the state, and it is evident, from his Historiska Skrifter, how jealous he was of Gustavus’s personal qualities. There was a slight collision between them as early as the diet of 1778; but at the diet of 1786 Fersen boldly led the opposition against the king’s financial measures (see Gustavus III.) which were consequently rejected; while in private interviews, if his own account of them is to be trusted, he addressed his sovereign with 291 outrageous insolence. At the diet of 1789 Fersen marshalled the nobility around him for a combat à outrance against the throne and that, too, at a time when Sweden was involved in two dangerous foreign wars, and national unity was absolutely indispensable. This tactical blunder cost him his popularity and materially assisted the secret operations of the king. Obstruction was Fersen’s chief weapon, and he continued to postpone the granting of subsidies by the house of nobles for some weeks. But after frequent stormy scenes in the diet, which were only prevented from becoming mêlées by Fersen’s moderation, or hesitation, at the critical moment, he and twenty of his friends of the nobility were arrested (17th February 1789) and the opposition collapsed. Fersen was speedily released, but henceforth kept aloof from politics, surviving the king two years. He was a man of great natural talent, with an imposing presence, and he always bore himself like the aristocrat he was. But his haughtiness and love of power are undeniable, and he was perhaps too great a party-leader to be a great statesman. Yet for seventeen years, with very brief intervals, he controlled the destinies of Sweden, and his influence in France was for some time pretty considerable. His Historiska Skrifter, which are a record of Swedish history, mainly autobiographical, during the greater part of the 18th century, is excellent as literature, but somewhat unreliable as an historical document, especially in the later parts.

FERSEN, HANS AXEL, Count von (1755-1810), Swedish statesman, was carefully educated at home, at the Carolinum at Brunswick and at Turin. In 1779 he entered the French military service (Royal-Bavière), accompanied General Rochambeau to America as his adjutant, distinguished himself during the war with England, notably at the siege of Yorktown, 1781, and in 1785 was promoted to be colonel propriétaire of the regiment Royal-Suédois. The young nobleman was, from the first, a prime favourite at the French court, owing, partly to the recollection of his father’s devotion to France, but principally because of his own amiable and brilliant qualities. The queen, Marie Antoinette, was especially attracted by the grace and wit of le beau Fersen, who had inherited his full share of the striking handsomeness which was hereditary in the family.

It is possible that Fersen would have spent most of his life at Versailles, but for a hint from his own sovereign, then at Pisa, that he desired him to join his suite. He accompanied Gustavus III. in his Italian tour and returned home with him in 1784. When the war with Russia broke out, in 1788, Fersen accompanied his regiment to Finland, but in the autumn of the same year was sent to France, where the political horizon was already darkening. It was necessary for Gustavus to have an agent thoroughly in the confidence of the French royal family, and, at the same time, sufficiently able and audacious to help them in their desperate straits, especially as he had lost all confidence in his accredited minister, the baron de Stael. With his usual acumen, he fixed upon Fersen, who was at his post early in 1790. Before the end of the year he was forced to admit that the cause of the French monarchy was hopeless so long as the king and queen of France were nothing but captives in their own capital, at the mercy of an irresponsible mob. He took a leading part in the flight to Varennes. He found most of the requisite funds at the last moment. He ordered the construction of the famous carriage for six, in the name of the baroness von Korff, and kept it in his hotel grounds, rue Matignon, that all Paris might get accustomed to the sight of it. He was the coachman of the fiacre which drove the royal family from the Carrousel to the Porte Saint-Martin. He accompanied them to Bondy, the first stage of their journey.

In August 1791, Fersen was sent to Vienna to induce the emperor Leopold to accede to a new coalition against revolutionary France, but he soon came to the conclusion that the Austrian court meant to do nothing at all. At his own request, therefore, he was transferred to Brussels, where he could be of more service to the queen of France. In February 1792, at his own mortal peril, he once more succeeded in reaching Paris with counterfeit credentials as minister plenipotentiary to Portugal. On the 13th he arrived, and the same evening contrived to steal an interview with the queen unobserved. On the following day he was with the royal family from six o’clock in the evening till six o’clock the next morning, and convinced himself that a second flight was physically impossible. On the afternoon of the 21st he succeeded in paying a third visit to the Tuileries, stayed there till midnight and succeeded, with great difficulty, in regaining Brussels on the 27th. This perilous expedition, a monumental instance of courage and loyalty, had no substantial result. In 1797 Fersen was sent to the congress of Rastatt as the Swedish delegate, but in consequence of a protest from the French government, was not permitted to take part in it.

During the regency of the duke of Sudermania (1792-1796) Fersen, like all the other Gustavians, was in disgrace; but, on Gustavus IV. attaining his majority in 1796, he was welcomed back to court with open arms, and reinstated in all his offices and dignities. In 1801 he was appointed Riksmarskalk (= earl-marshal). On the outbreak of the war with Napoleon, Fersen accompanied Gustavus IV. to Germany to assist him in gaining fresh allies. He prevented Gustavus from invading Prussia in revenge for the refusal of the king of Prussia to declare war against France, and during the rest of the reign was in semi-disgrace, though generally a member of the government when the king was abroad.

Fersen stood quite aloof from the revolution of 1809. (See Sweden: History.) His sympathies were entirely with Prince Gustavus, son of the unfortunate Gustavus IV., and he was generally credited with the desire to see him king. When the newly elected successor to the throne, the highly popular prince Christian Augustus of Augustenburg, died suddenly in Skåne in May 1810, the report spread that he had been poisoned, and that Fersen and his sister, the countess Piper, were accessories. The source of this equally absurd and infamous libel has never been discovered. But it was eagerly taken up by the anti-Gustavian press, and popular suspicion was especially aroused by a fable called “The Foxes” directed against the Fersens, which appeared in Nya Posten. When, then, on the 20th of June 1810, the prince’s body was conveyed to Stockholm, and Fersen, in his official capacity as Riksmarskalk, received it at the barrier and led the funeral cortège into the city, his fine carriage and his splendid robes seemed to the people an open derision of the general grief. The crowd began to murmur and presently to fling stones and cry “murderer!” He sought refuge in a house in the Riddarhus Square, but the mob rushed after him, brutally maltreated him and tore his robes to pieces. To quiet the people and save the unhappy victim, two officers volunteered to conduct him to the senate house and there place him in arrest. But he had no sooner mounted the steps leading to the entrance than the crowd, which had followed him all the way beating him with sticks and umbrellas, made a rush at him, knocked him down, and kicked and trampled him to death. This horrible outrage, which lasted more than an hour, happened, too, in the presence of numerous troops, drawn up in the Riddarhus Square, who made not the slightest effort to rescue the Riksmarskalk from his tormentors. In the circumstances, one must needs adopt the opinion of Fersen’s contemporary, Baron Gustavus Armfelt, “One is almost tempted to say that the government wanted to give the people a victim to play with, just as when one throws something to an irritated wild beast to distract its attention. The more I consider it all, the more I am certain that the mob had the least to do with it.... But in God’s name what were the troops about? How could such a thing happen in broad daylight during a procession, when troops and a military escort were actually present?” The responsibility certainly rests with the government of Charles XIII., which apparently intended to intimidate the Gustavians by the removal of one of 292 their principal leaders. Armfelt escaped in time, so Fersen fell the victim.

FESCA, FREDERIC ERNEST (1789-1826), German violinist and composer of instrumental music, was born on the 15th of February 1789 at Magdeburg, where he received his early musical education. He completed his studies at Leipzig under Eberhard Müller, and at the early age of fifteen appeared before the public with several concerti for the violin, which were received with general applause, and resulted in his being appointed leading violinist of the Leipzig orchestra. This position he occupied till 1806, when he became concert-master to the duke of Oldenburg. In 1808 he was appointed solo-violinist by King Jerome of Westphalia at Cassel, and there he remained till the end of the French occupation (1814), when he went to Vienna, and soon afterwards to Carlsruhe, having been appointed concert-master to the grand-duke of Baden. His failing health prevented him from enjoying the numerous and well-deserved triumphs he owed to his art, and in 1826 he died of consumption at the early age of thirty-seven. As a virtuoso Fesca ranks amongst the best masters of the German school of violinists, the school subsequently of Spohr and of Joachim. Especially as leader of a quartet he is said to have been unrivalled with regard to classic dignity and simplicity of style. Amongst his compositions, his quartets for stringed instruments and other pieces of chamber music are the most remarkable. His two operas, Cantemira and Omar and Leila, were less successful, lacking dramatic power and originality. He also wrote some sacred compositions, and numerous songs and vocal quartets.

FESCENNIA, an ancient city of Etruria, which is probably to be placed immediately to the N. of the modern Corchiano, 6 m. N.W. of Civita Castellana (see Falerii). The Via Amerina traverses it. G. Dennis (Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria, London, 1883, i. 115) proposed to place it at the Riserva S. Silvestro, 3 m. E. of Corchiano, nearer the Tiber, where remains of Etruscan walls exist. At Corchiano itself, however, similar walls may be traced, and the site is a strong and characteristic one—a triangle between two deep ravines, with the third (west) side cut off by a ditch. Here, too, remains of two bridges may be seen, and several rich tombs have been excavated.

FESCENNINE VERSES (Fescennina carmina), one of the earliest kinds of Italian poetry, subsequently developed into the Satura and the Roman comic drama. Originally sung at village harvest-home rejoicings, they made their way into the towns, and became the fashion at religious festivals and private gatherings—especially weddings, to which in later times they were practically restricted. They were usually in the Saturnian metre and took the form of a dialogue, consisting of an interchange of extemporaneous raillery. Those who took part in them wore masks made of the bark of trees. At first harmless and good-humoured, if somewhat coarse, these songs gradually outstripped the bounds of decency; malicious attacks were made upon both gods and men, and the matter became so serious that the law intervened and scurrilous personalities were forbidden by the Twelve Tables (Cicero, De re publica, iv. 10). Specimens of the Fescennines used at weddings are the Epithalamium of Manlius (Catullus, lxi. 122) and the four poems of Claudian in honour of the marriage of Honorius and Maria; the first, however, is distinguished by a licentiousness which is absent in the latter. Ausonius in his Cento nuptialis mentions the Fescennines of Annianus Faliscus, who lived in the time of Hadrian. Various derivations have been proposed for Fescennine. According to Festus, they were introduced from Fescennia in Etruria, but there is no reason to assume that any particular town was specially devoted to the use of such songs. As an alternative Festus suggests a connexion with fascinum, either because the Fescennina were regarded as a protection against evil influences (see Munro, Criticisms and Elucidations of Catullus, p. 76) or because fascinum (= phallus), as the symbol of fertility, would from early times have been naturally associated with harvest festivals. H. Nettleship, in an article on “The Earliest Italian Literature” (Journal of Philology, xi. 1882), in support of Munro’s view, translates the expression “verses used by charmers,” assuming a noun fescennus, connected with fas fari.

FESCH, JOSEPH (1763-1839), cardinal, was born at Ajaccio on the 3rd of January 1763. His father, a Swiss officer in the service of the Genoese Republic, had married the mother of Laetitia Bonaparte, after the decease of her first husband. Fesch therefore stood almost in the relation of an uncle to the young Bonapartes, and after the death of Lucien Bonaparte, archdeacon of Ajaccio, he became for a time the protector and patron of the family. In the year 1789, when the French Revolution broke out, he was archdeacon of Ajaccio, and, like the majority of the Corsicans, he felt repugnance for many of the acts of the French government during that period; in particular he protested against the application to Corsica of the act known as the “Civil Constitution of the Clergy” (July 1790). As provost of the “chapter” in that city he directly felt the pressure of events; for on the suppression of religious orders and corporations, he was constrained to retire into private life.

Thereafter he shared the fortunes of the Bonaparte family in the intrigues and strifes which ensued. Drawn gradually by that family into espousing the French cause against Paoli and the Anglophiles, he was forced to leave Corsica and to proceed with Laetitia and her son to Toulon, in the early part of the autumn of 1793. Failing to find clerical duties at that time (the period of the Terror), he entered civil life, and served in various capacities, until on the appointment of Napoleon Bonaparte to the command of the French “Army of Italy” he became a commissary attached to that army. This part of his career is obscure and without importance. His fortunes rose rapidly on the attainment of the dignity of First Consul by his former charge, Napoleon, after the coup d’état of Brumaire (November 1799). Thereafter, when the restoration of the Roman Catholic religion was in the mind of the First Consul, Fesch resumed his clerical vocation and took an active part in the complex negotiations which led to the signing of the Concordat with the Holy See on the 15th of July 1801. His reward came in the prize of the archbishopric of Lyons, on the duties of which he entered in August 1802. Six months later he received a still more signal reward for his past services, being raised to the dignity of cardinal.

In 1804 on the retirement of Cacault from the position of French ambassador at Rome, Fesch received that important appointment. He was assisted by Châteaubriand, but soon sharply differed with him on many questions. Towards the close of the year 1804 Napoleon entrusted to Fesch the difficult task of securing the presence of Pope Pius VII. at the forthcoming coronation of the emperor at Notre Dame, Paris (Dec. 2nd, 1804). His tact in overcoming the reluctance of the pope to be present at the coronation (it was only eight months after the execution of the duc d’Enghien) received further recognition. He received the grand cordon of the Legion of Honour, became grand-almoner of the empire and had a seat in the French senate. He was to receive further honours. In 1806 one of the most influential of the German clerics, Karl von Dalberg, then prince bishop of Regensburg, chose him to be his coadjutor and designated him as his successor.

Events, however, now occurred which overclouded his prospects. In the course of the years 1806-1807 Napoleon came into sharp collision with the pope on various matters both political and religious. Fesch sought in vain to reconcile the two potentates. Napoleon was inexorable in his demands, and Pius VII. refused to give way where the discipline and 293 vital interests of the church seemed to be threatened. The emperor on several occasions sharply rebuked Fesch for what he thought to be weakness and ingratitude. It is clear, however, that the cardinal went as far as possible in counselling the submission of the spiritual to the civil power. For a time he was not on speaking terms with the pope; and Napoleon recalled him from Rome.

Affairs came to a crisis in the year 1809, when Napoleon issued at Vienna the decree of the 17th of May, ordering the annexation of the papal states to the French empire. In that year Napoleon conferred on Fesch the archbishopric of Paris, but he refused the honour. He, however, consented to take part in an ecclesiastical commission formed by the emperor from among the dignitaries of the Gallican Church, but in 1810 the commission was dissolved. The hopes of Fesch with respect to Regensburg were also damped by an arrangement of the year 1810 whereby Regensburg was absorbed in Bavaria.

In the year 1811 the emperor convoked a national council of Gallican clerics for the discussion of church affairs, and Fesch was appointed to preside over their deliberations. Here again, however, he failed to satisfy the inflexible emperor and was dismissed to his diocese. The friction between uncle and nephew became more acute in the following year. In June 1812, Pius VII. was brought from his first place of detention, Savona, to Fontainebleau, where he was kept under surveillance in the hope that he would give way in certain matters relating to the Concordat and in other clerical affairs. Fesch ventured to write to the aged pontiff a letter which came into the hands of the emperor. His anger against Fesch was such that he stopped the sum of 150,000 florins which had been accorded to him. The disasters of the years 1812-1813 brought Napoleon to treat Pius VII. with more lenity and the position of Fesch thus became for a time less difficult. On the first abdication of Napoleon (April 11th, 1814) and the restoration of the Bourbons, he, however, retired to Rome where he received a welcome. The events of the Hundred Days (March-June, 1815) brought him back to France; he resumed his archiepiscopal duties at Lyons and was further named a member of the senate. On the second abdication of the emperor (June 22nd, 1815) Fesch retired to Rome, where he spent the rest of his days in dignified ease, surrounded by numerous masterpieces of art, many of which he bequeathed to the city of Lyons. He died at Rome on the 13th of May 1839.

FESSA, a town and district of Persia in the province of Fars. The town is situated in a fertile plain in 29° N. and 90 m. from Shiraz, and has a population of about 5000. The district has forty villages and extends about 40 m. north-south from Runiz to Nassīrabad and 16 m. east-west from Vāsilabad to Deh Dasteh (Dastajah); it produces much grain, dates, tobacco, opium and good fruit.

FESSENDEN, WILLIAM PITT (1806-1869), American statesman and financier, was born in Boscawen, New Hampshire, on the 16th of October 1806. After graduating at Bowdoin College in 1823, he studied law, and in 1827 was admitted to the bar, eventually settling in Portland, Maine, where for two years he was associated in practice with his father, Samuel Fessenden (1784-1869), a prominent lawyer and anti-slavery leader. In 1832 and in 1840 Fessenden was a representative in the Maine legislature, and in 1841-1843 was a Whig member of the national House of Representatives. When his term in this capacity was over, he devoted himself unremittingly and with great success to the law. He became well known, also, as an eloquent advocate of slavery restriction. In 1845-1846 and 1853-1854 he again served in the state House of Representatives, and in 1854 was chosen by the combined votes of Whigs and Anti-Slavery Democrats to the United States Senate. Within a fortnight after taking his seat he delivered a speech in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, which at once made him a force in the congressional anti-slavery contest. From then on he was one of the most eloquent and frequent debaters among his colleagues, and in 1859, almost without opposition, he was re-elected to the Senate as a member of the Republican party, in the organization of which he had taken an influential part. He was a delegate in 1861 to the Peace Congress, but after the actual outbreak of hostilities he insisted that the war should be prosecuted vigorously. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, his services were second in value only to those of President Lincoln and Secretary Salmon P. Chase in efforts to provide funds for the defence of the Union; and in July 1864 Fessenden succeeded Chase as secretary of the treasury. The finances of the country in the early summer of 1864 were in a critical condition; a few days before leaving office Secretary Chase had been compelled to withdraw from the market $32,000,000 of 6% bonds, on account of the lack of acceptable bids; gold had reached 285 and was fluctuating between 225 and 250, while the value of the paper dollar had sunk as low as 34 cents. It was Secretary Fessenden’s policy to avoid a further increase of the circulating medium, and to redeem or consolidate the temporary obligations outstanding. In spite of powerful pressure the paper currency was not increased a dollar during his tenure of the office. As the sales of bonds and treasury notes were not sufficient for the needs of the Treasury, interest-bearing certificates of indebtedness were issued to cover the deficits; but when these began to depreciate the secretary, following the example of his predecessors, engaged the services of the Philadelphia banker Jay Cooke (q.v.) and secured the consent of Congress to raise the balance of the $400,000,000 loan authorized on the 30th of June 1864 by the sale of the so-called “seven-thirty” treasury notes (i.e. notes bearing interest at 7.3% payable in currency in three years or convertible at the option of the holder into 6% 5-20 year gold bonds). Through Cooke’s activities the sales became enormous; the notes, issued in denominations as low as $50, appealed to the patriotic impulses of the people who could not subscribe for bonds of a higher denomination. In the spring of 1865 Congress authorized an additional loan of $600,000,000 to be raised in the same manner, and for the first time in four years the Treasury was able to meet all its obligations. After thus securing ample funds for the enormous expenditures of the war, Fessenden resigned the treasury portfolio in March 1865, and again took his seat in the Senate, serving till his death. In the Senate he again became chairman of the finance committee, and also of the joint committee on reconstruction. He was the author of the report of this last committee (1866), in which the Congressional plan of reconstruction was set forth and which has been considered a state paper of remarkable power and cogency. He was not, however, entirely in accord with the more radical members of his own party, and this difference was exemplified in his opposition to the impeachment of President Johnson and subsequently in his voting for Johnson’s acquittal. He bore with calmness the storm of reproach from his party associates which followed, and lived to regain the esteem of those who had attacked him. He died at Portland, Maine, on the 6th of September 1869.

FESSLER, IGNAZ AURELIUS (1756-1839), Hungarian ecclesiastic, historian and freemason, was born on the 18th of May 1756 at the village of Zurány in the county of Moson. In 1773 he joined the order of Capuchins, and in 1779 was ordained priest. He had meanwhile continued his classical and philological studies, and his liberal views brought him into frequent conflict with his superiors. In 1784, while at the monastery of Mödling, near Vienna, he wrote to the emperor Joseph II., making suggestions for the better education of the clergy and drawing his attention to the irregularities of the monasteries. The searching investigation which followed raised up against him many implacable enemies. In 1784 he was appointed professor of Oriental languages and hermeneutics in the university of Lemberg, when he took the degree of doctor 294 of divinity; and shortly afterwards he was released from his monastic vows on the intervention of the emperor. In 1788 he brought out his tragedy of Sidney, an exposé of the tyranny of James II. and of the fanaticism of the papists in England. This was attacked so violently as profane and revolutionary that he was compelled to resign his office and seek refuge in Silesia. In Breslau he met with a cordial reception from G.W. Korn the publisher, and was, moreover, subsequently employed by the prince of Carolath-Schönaich as tutor to his sons. In 1791 Fessler was converted to Lutheranism and next year contracted an unhappy marriage, which was dissolved in 1802, when he married again. In 1796 he went to Berlin, where he founded a humanitarian society, and was commissioned by the freemasons of that city to assist Fichte in reforming the statutes and ritual of their lodge. He soon after this obtained a government appointment in connexion with the newly-acquired Polish provinces, but in consequence of the battle of Jena (1806) he lost this office, and remained in very needy circumstances until 1809, when he was summoned to St Petersburg by Alexander I., to fill the post of court councillor, and the professorship of oriental languages and philosophy at the Alexander-Nevski Academy. This office, however, he was soon obliged to resign, owing to his alleged atheistic tendencies, but he was subsequently nominated a member of the legislative commission. In 1815 he went with his family to Sarepta, where he joined the Moravian community and again became strongly orthodox. This cost him the loss of his salary, but it was restored to him in 1817. In November 1820 he was appointed consistorial president of the evangelical communities at Saratov and subsequently became chief superintendent of the Lutheran communities in St Petersburg. Fessler’s numerous works are all written in German. In recognition of his important services to Hungary as a historian, he was in 1831 elected a corresponding member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. He died at St Petersburg on the 15th of December 1839.

Fessler was a voluminous writer, and during his life exercised great influence; but, with the possible exception of the history of Hungary, none of his books has any value now. He did not pretend to any critical treatment of his materials, and most of his historical works are practically historical novels. He did much, however, to make the study of history popular. His most important works are—Die Geschichten der Ungarn und ihrer Landsassen (10 vols. Leipzig, 1815-1825); Marcus Aurelius (3 vols., Breslau, 1790-1792; 3rd edition, 4 vols., 1799); Aristides und Themistokles (2 vols., Berlin, 1792; 3rd edition, 1818); Attila, König der Hunnen (Breslau, 1794); Mathias Corvinus (2 vols., Breslau, 1793-1794); and Die drei grossen Könige der Hungarn aus dem Arpadischen Stamme (Breslau, 1808).

FESTA, CONSTANZO (c. 1495-1545), Italian singer and musical composer, became a member of the Pontifical choir in Rome in 1517, and soon afterwards maestro at the Vatican. His motets and madrigals (the first book of which appeared in 1537) excited Dr Burney’s warm praise in his History of Music; and, among other church music, his Te Deum (published in 1596) is still sung at important services in Rome. His madrigal, called in English “Down in a flow’ry vale,” is well known.

FESTINIOG (or Ffestiniog), a town of Merionethshire, North Wales, at the head of the Festiniog valley, 600 ft. above the sea, in the midst of rugged scenery, near the stream Dwyryd, 31 m. from Conway. Pop. of urban district (1901), 11,435. There are many large slate quarries in this parish, especially at Blaenau Festiniog, the junction of three railways, London & North Western, Great Western and Festiniog, a narrow-gauge line between Portmadoc and Duffws. This light railway runs at a considerable elevation (some 700 ft.), commanding a view across the valley and lake of Tan y Bwlch. Lord Lyttelton’s letter to Mr Bower is a well-known panegyric on Festiniog. Thousands of workmen are employed in the slate quarries. The Cynfael falls are famous. Near are Beddau gwyr Ardudwy (the graves of the men of Ardudwy), memorials of a fight to recover women of the Clwyd valley from the men of Ardudwy. Near, too, is a rock named “Hugh Lloyd’s pulpit” (Lloyd lived in the time of Charles I., Cromwell and Charles II.).

FESTOON (from Fr. feston, Ital. festone, from a Late Lat. festo, originally a “festal garland,” Lat. festum, feast), a wreath or garland, and so in architecture a conventional arrangement of flowers, foliage or fruit bound together and suspended by ribbons, either from a decorated knot, or held in the mouths of lions, or suspended across the back of bulls’ heads as in the Temple of Vesta at Tivoli. The “motif” is sometimes known as a “swag.” It was largely employed both by the Greeks and Romans and formed the principal decoration of altars, friezes and panels. The ends of the ribbons are sometimes formed into bows or twisted curves; when in addition a group of foliage or flowers is suspended it is called a “drop.” Its origin is probably due to the representation in stone of the garlands of natural flowers, &c., which were hung up over an entrance doorway on fête days, or suspended round the altar.

FESTUS (? Rufus or Rufius), one of the Roman writers of breviaria (epitomes of Roman history). The reference to the defeat of the Goths at Noviodunum (A.D. 369) by the emperor Valens, and the fact that the author is unaware of the constitution of Valentia as a province (which took place in the same year) are sufficient indication to fix the date of composition. Mommsen identifies the author with Rufius Festus, proconsul of Achaea (366), and both with Rufius Festus Avienus (q.v.), the translator of Aratus. But the absence of the name Rufius in the best MSS. is against this. Others take him to be Festus of Tridentum, magister memoriae (secretary) to Valens and proconsul of Asia, where he was sent to punish those implicated in the conspiracy of Theodorus, a commission which he executed with such merciless severity that his name became a byword. The work itself (Breviarium rerum gestarum populi Romani) is divided into two parts—one geographical, the other historical. The chief authorities used are Livy, Eutropius and Florus. It is extremely meagre, but the fact that the last part is based on the writer’s personal recollections makes it of some value for the history of the 4th century.

FESTUS, SEXTUS POMPEIUS, Roman grammarian, probably flourished in the 2nd century A.D. He made an epitome of the celebrated work De verborum significatu, a valuable treatise alphabetically arranged, written by M. Verrius Flaccus, a freedman and celebrated grammarian who flourished in the reign of Augustus. Festus gives the etymology as well as the meaning of every word; and his work throws considerable light on the language, mythology and antiquities of ancient Rome. He made a few alterations, and inserted some critical remarks of his own. He also omitted such ancient Latin words as had long been obsolete; these he discussed in a separate work now lost, entitled Priscorum verborum cum exemplis. Of Flaccus’s work only a few fragments remain, and of Festus’s epitome only one original copy is in existence. This MS., the Codex Festi Farnesianus at Naples, only contains the second half of the work (M-V) and that not in a perfect condition. It has been published in facsimile by Thewrewk de Ponor (1890). At the close of the 8th century Paulus Diaconus abridged the abridgment. From his work and the solitary copy of the original attempts have been made with the aid of conjecture to reconstruct the treatise of Festus.

FÉTIS, FRANÇOIS JOSEPH (1784-1871), Belgian composer and writer on music, was born at Mons in Belgium on the 25th of March 1784, and was trained as a musician by his father, who followed the same calling. His talent for composition manifested 295 itself at the age of seven, and at nine years old he was an organist at Sainte-Waudru. In 1800 he went to Paris and completed his studies at the conservatoire under such masters as Boieldieu, Rey and Pradher. In 1806 he undertook the revision of the Roman liturgical chants in the hope of discovering and establishing their original form. In this year he married the granddaughter of the Chevalier de Kéralio, and also began his Biographie universelle des musiciens, the most important of his works, which did not appear until 1834. In 1821 he was appointed professor at the conservatoire. In 1827 he founded the Revue musicale, the first serious paper in France devoted exclusively to musical matters. Fétis remained in the French capital till in 1833, at the request of Leopold I., he became director of the conservatoire of Brussels and the king’s chapel-master. He also was the founder, and, till his death, the conductor of the celebrated concerts attached to the conservatoire of Brussels, and he inaugurated a free series of lectures on musical history and philosophy. He produced a large quantity of original compositions, from the opera and the oratorio down to the simple chanson. But all these are doomed to oblivion. Although not without traces of scholarship and technical ability, they show total absence of genius. More important are his writings on music. They are partly historical, such as the Curiosités historiques de la musique (Paris, 1850), and the Histoire universelle de musique (Paris, 1869-1876); partly theoretical, such as the Méthode des méthodes de piano (Paris, 1837), written in conjunction with Moscheles. Fétis died at Brussels on the 26th of March 1871. His valuable library was purchased by the Belgian government and presented to the Brussels conservatoire. His work as a musical historian was prodigious in quantity, and, in spite of many inaccuracies and some prejudice revealed in it, there can be no question as to its value for the student.

FETISHISM, an ill-defined term, used in many different senses: (a) the worship of inanimate objects, often regarded as peculiarly African; (b) negro religion in general; (c) the worship of inanimate objects conceived as the residence of spirits not inseparably bound up with, nor originally connected with, such objects; (d) the doctrine of spirits embodied in, or attached to, or conveying influence through, certain material objects (Tylor); (e) the use of charms, which are not worshipped, but derive their magical power from a god or spirit; (f) the use as charms of objects regarded as magically potent in themselves. A further extension is given by some writers, who use the term as synonymous with the religions of primitive peoples, including under it not only the worship of inanimate objects, such as the sun, moon or stars, but even such phases of primitive philosophy as totemism. Comte applied the term to denominate the view of nature more commonly termed animism.

Derivation.—The word fetish (or fetich) was first used in connexion with Africa by the Portuguese discoverers of the last half of the 15th century; relics of saints, rosaries and images were then abundant all over Europe and were regarded as possessing magical virtue; they were termed by the Portuguese feiticos (i.e. charms). Early voyagers to West Africa applied this term to the wooden figures, stones, &c., regarded as the temporary residence of gods or spirits, and to charms. There is no reason to suppose that the word feitico was applied either to an animal or to the local spirit of a river, hill or forest. Feitico is sometimes interpreted to mean artificial, made by man, but the original sense is more probably “magically active or artful.” The word was probably brought into general use by C. de Brosses, author of Du culte des dieux fétiches (1760), but it is frequently used by W. Bosman in his Description of Guinea (1705), in the sense of “the false god, Bossum” or “Bohsum,” properly a tutelary deity of an individual.

Definition.—The term fetish is commonly understood to mean the worship of or respect for material, inanimate objects, conceived as magically active from a virtue inherent in them, temporarily or permanently, which does not arise from the fact that a god or spirit is believed to reside in them or communicate virtue to them. Taken in this sense fetishism is probably a mark of decadence. There is no evidence of any such belief in Africa or elsewhere among primitive peoples. It is only after a certain grade of culture has been attained that the belief in luck appears; the fetish is essentially a mascot or object carried for luck.

Ordinary Usage.—In the sense in which Dr Tylor uses the term the fetish is (1) a “god-house” or (2) a charm derived from a tutelary deity or spirit, and magically active in virtue of its association with such deity or spirit. In the first of these senses the word is applied to objects ranging from the unworked stone to the pot or the wooden figure, and is thus hardly distinguishable from idolatry. (a) The bohsum or tutelary deity of a particular section of the community is derived from the local gods through the priests by the performance of a certain series of rites. The priest indicates into what object the bohsum will enter and proceeds to the abode of the local god to procure the object in question. After making an offering the object is carried to an appropriate spot and a “fetish” tree set up as a shade for it, which is sacred so long as the bohsum remains beneath it. The fall of the tree is believed to mark the departure of the spirit. A bohsum may also be procured through a dream; but in this case, too, it is necessary to apply to the priest to decide whether the dream was veridical. (b) The suhman or tutelary deity of an individual is not an object selected at random to be the residence of the spirit. It is only procurable at the residence of a Sasabonsum, a malicious non-human being. Various ceremonies are performed, and a spirit connected with the Sasabonsum is finally asked to enter an object. This is then kept for three days; if no good fortune results it is concluded either that the spirit did not enter the object selected, or that it is disinclined to extend its protection. In either case the ceremonies must be commenced afresh. Otherwise offerings and even human sacrifices in exceptional cases are made to the suhman. It is commonly believed that the negro claims the power of coercing his tutelary deity. This is denied by Colonel Ellis. It is certain that coercion of deities is not unknown, but further evidence is required that the negro uses it when his deity is refractory.

The suhman can, it is believed, communicate a part of his powers to various objects in which he does not dwell; these are also termed suhman by the natives and may have given rise to the belief that the practices commonly termed fetishism are not animistic. These charms are many in number; offerings of food and drink are made, i.e. to the portion of the power of the suhman which resides in them. These charms can only be made by the possessor of the suhman.

On the Guinea Coast the spirit implanted in the object is usually, if not invariably, non-human. Farther south on the Congo the “fetish” is inhabited by human souls also. The priest goes into the forest and cuts an image; when a party enters a wood for this purpose they may not mention the name of any living being unless they wish him to die and his soul to enter the fetish. The right person having been selected, his name is mentioned; and he is believed to die within ten days, his soul passing into the nkissi. It is into these figures that the nails are driven, in order to procure the vengeance of the indwelling spirit on some enemy.

In many cases the fetish spirit is believed to leave the “god-house” and pass for the time being into the body of the priest, who manifests the phenomena of possession (q.v.). It is a common error to suppose that the whole of African religion is embraced in the practices connected with these tutelary deities; so far from this being the case, belief in higher gods, not necessarily accompanied with worship or propitiation, is common in many parts of Africa, and there is no reason to suppose that it had been derived in every case, perhaps not in any case, from Christian or Mahommedan missionaries.

296

FETTERCAIRN, a burgh of barony of Kincardineshire, Scotland, 4½ m. N.W. of Laurencekirk. Pop. of parish (1901) 1390. The chief structures include a public hall, library and reading-room, and the arch built to commemorate the visit of Queen Victoria in 1861. The most interesting relic, however, is the market cross, which originally belonged to the extinct town of Kincardine. To the S.W. is Balbegno Castle, dating from 1509, and planned on a scale that threatened to ruin its projector. It contains a lofty hall of fine proportions. Two miles N. is Fasque, the estate of the Gladstones, which was acquired in 1831 by Sir John Gladstone (1764-1851), the father of W.E. Gladstone. The castle, which stands in beautiful grounds, was built in 1809. Sir John Gladstone’s tomb is in the Episcopal church of St Andrew, which he erected and endowed. In the immediate vicinity are the ruins of the royal castle of Kincardine, where, according to tradition, Kenneth III. was assassinated in 1005, although he is more generally said to have been slain in battle at Monzievaird, near Crieff in Perthshire.

FETTERS AND HANDCUFFS, instruments for securing the feet and hands of prisoners under arrest, or as a means of punishment. The old names were manacles, shackbolts or shackles, gyves and swivels. Until within recent times handcuffs were of two kinds, the figure-8 ones which confined the hands close together either in front or behind the prisoner, or the rings from the wrists were connected by a short chain much on the model of the handcuffs in use by the police forces of to-day. Much improvement has been made in handcuffs of late. They are much lighter and they are adjustable, fitting any wrist, and thus the one pair will serve a police officer for any prisoner. For the removal of gangs of convicts an arrangement of handcuffs connected by a light chain is used, the chain running through a ring on each fetter and made fast at both ends by what are known as end-locks. Several recently invented appliances are used as handcuffs, e.g. snaps, nippers, twisters. They differ from handcuffs in being intended for one wrist only, the other portion being held by the captor. In the snap the smaller circlet is snapped to on the prisoner’s wrist. The nippers can be instantly fastened on the wrist. The twister, not now used in England as being liable to injure prisoners seriously, is a chain attached to two handles; the chain is put round the wrist and the two handles twisted till the chain is tight enough.

Leg-irons are anklets of steel connected by light chains long enough to permit of the wearer walking with short steps. An obsolete form was an anklet and chain to the end of which was attached a heavy weight, usually a round shot. The Spanish used to secure prisoners in bilboes, shackles round the ankles secured by a long bar of iron. This form of leg-iron was adopted in England, and was much employed in the services during the 17th and 18th centuries. An ancient example is preserved in the Tower of London. The French marine still use a kind of leg-iron of the bilbo type.

FEU, in Scotland, the commonest mode of land tenure. The word is the Scots variant of “fee” (q.v.). The relics of the feudal system still dominate Scots conveyancing. That system has recognized as many as seven forms of tenure—ward, socage, mortification, feu, blench, burgage, booking. Ward, the original military holding, was abolished in 1747 (20 G. II. c. 20), as an effect of the rising of 1745. Socage and mortification have long since disappeared. Booking is a conveyance peculiar to the borough of Paisley, but does not differ essentially from feu. Burgage is the system by which land is held in royal boroughs. Blench holding is by a nominal payment, as of a penny Scots, or a red rose, often only to be rendered upon demand. In feu holding there is a substantial annual payment in money or in kind in return for the enjoyment of the land. The crown is the first overlord or superior, and land is held of it by crown vassals, but they in their turn may “feu” their land, as it is called, to others who become their vassals, whilst they themselves are mediate overlords or superiors; and this process of sub-infeudation may be repeated to an indefinite extent. The Conveyancing Act of 1874 renders any clause in a disposition against sub-infeudation null and void. In England on the other hand, since 1290, when the statute Quia Emptores was passed, sub-infeudation is impossible, as the new holder simply effaces the grantor, holding by the same title as the grantor himself. Casualties, which are a feature of land held in feu, are certain payments made to the superior, contingent on the happening of certain events. The most important was the payment of an amount equal to one year’s feu-duty by a new holder, whether heir or purchaser of the feu. The Conveyancing Act of 1874 abolished casualties in all feus after that date, and power was given to redeem this burden on feus already existing. If the vassal does not pay the feu-duty for two years, the superior, among other remedies, may obtain by legal process a decree of irritancy, whereupon tinsel or forfeiture of the feu follows. Previously to 1832 only the vassals of the crown had votes in parliamentary elections for the Scots counties, and this made in favour of sub-infeudation as against sale outright. In Orkney and Shetland land is still largely possessed as udal property, a holding derived or handed down from the time when these islands belonged to Norway. Such lands may be converted into feus at the will of the proprietor and held from the crown or Lord Dundas. At one time the system of conveyancing by which the transfer of feus was effected was curious and complicated, requiring the presence of parties on the land itself and the symbolical handing over of the property, together with the registration of various documents. But legislation since the middle of the 19th century has changed all that. The system of feuing in Scotland, as contrasted with that of long leaseholds in England, has tended to secure greater solidity and firmness in the average buildings of the northern country.

FEUCHÈRES, SOPHIE, Baronne de (1795-1840), Anglo-French adventuress, was born at St Helens, Isle of Wight, in 1795, the daughter of a drunken fisherman named Dawes. She grew up in the workhouse, went up to London as a servant, and became the mistress of the duc de Bourbon, afterwards prince de Condé. She was ambitious, and he had her well educated not only in modern languages but, as her exercise books—still extant—show, in Greek and Latin. He took her to Paris and, to prevent scandal and to qualify her to be received at court, had her married in 1818 to Adrien Victor de Feuchères, a major in the Royal Guards. The prince provided her dowry, made her husband his aide-de-camp and a baron. The baroness, pretty and clever, became a person of consequence at the court of Louis XVIII. De Feuchères, however, finally discovered the relations between his wife and Condé, whom he had been assured was her father, left her—he obtained a legal separation in 1827—and told the king, who thereupon forbade her appearance at court. Thanks to her influence, however, Condé was induced in 1829 to sign a will bequeathing about ten million francs to her, and the rest of his estate—more than sixty-six millions—to the duc d’Aumale, fourth son of Louis Philippe. Again she was in high favour. Charles X. received her at court, Talleyrand visited her, her niece married a marquis and her nephew was made a baron. Condé, wearied by his mistress’s importunities, and but half pleased by the advances made him by the government of July, had made up his mind to leave France secretly. When on the 27th of August 1830 he was found hanging dead from his window, the baroness was suspected and an inquiry was held, but the evidence of death being the result of any crime appearing insufficient, she was not prosecuted. Hated as she was alike by legitimatists and republicans, life in Paris was no longer agreeable for her, and she returned to London, where she died in December 1840.

FEUCHTERSLEBEN, ERNST, Freiherr von (1806-1849), Austrian physician, poet and philosopher, was born in Vienna on the 29th of April 1806; of an old Saxon noble family. He attended the “Theresian Academy” in his native city, and in 1825 entered its university as a student of medicine. In 1833 he obtained the degree of doctor of medicine, settled in Vienna as a practising surgeon, and in 1834 married. The young doctor kept up his connexion with the university, where he lectured, and 297 in 1844 was appointed dean of the faculty of medicine. He cultivated the acquaintance of Franz Grillparzer, Heinrich Laube, and other intellectual lights of the Viennese world, interested himself greatly in educational matters, and in 1848, while refusing the presidency of the ministry of education, accepted the appointment of under secretary of state in that department. His health, however, gave way, and he died at Vienna on the 3rd of September 1849. He was not only a clever physician, but a poet of fine aesthetical taste and a philosopher. Among his medical works may be mentioned: Über das Hippokratische erste Buch von der Diät (Vienna, 1835), Ärzte und Publicum (Vienna, 1848) and Lehrbuch der ärztlichen Seelenkunde (1845). His poetical works include Gedichte (Stutt. 1836), among which is the well-known beautiful hymn, which Mendelssohn set to music. “Es ist bestimmt in Gottes Rat.” As a philosopher he is best known by his Zur Diätetik der Seele [Dietetics of the soul] (Vienna, 1838), which attained great popularity, and the tendency of which, in contrast to Hufeland’s Makrobiotik (On the Art of Prolonging Life), is to show the true way of rendering life harmonious and lovely. This work had by 1906 gone into fifty editions. Noteworthy also is his Beiträge zur Litteratur-, Kunst- und Lebenstheorie (Vienna, 1837-1841), and an anthology, Geist der deutschen Klassiker (Vienna, 1851; 3rd ed. 1865-1866).

FEUD, animosity, hatred, especially a permanent condition of hostilities between persons, and hence applied to a state of private warfare between tribes, clans or families, a “vendetta.” The word appears in Mid. Eng. as fede, which came through the O. Fr. from the O. High Ger. fehida, modern Fehde. The O. Teutonic faiho, an adjective, the source of fehida, gives the O. Eng. fáh, foe. “Fiend,” originally an enemy (cf. Ger. Feind), hence the enemy of mankind, the devil, and so any evil spirit, is probably connected with the same source. The word fede was of Scottish usage, but in the 16th century took the form foode, fewd in English. The New English Dictionary points out that “feud, fee (Lat. feudum) could not have influenced the change, for it appears fifty years later than the first instances of foode, &c., and was only used by writers on feudalism.” For the etymology of “feud” (feudum) see Fee, and for its history see Feudalism.

FEUDALISM (from Late Lat. feodum or feudum, a fee or fiel; see Fee). In every case of institutional growth in history two things are to be clearly distinguished from the beginning for a correct understanding of the process and its results. One of these is the change of conditions in the political or social environment which made growth necessary. The other is the already existing institutions which began to be transformed to meet the new needs. In studying the origin and growth of political feudalism, the distinction is easy to make. The all-prevailing need of the later Roman and early medieval society was protection—protection against the sudden attacks of invading tribes or revolted peasants, against oppressive neighbours, against the unwarranted demands of government officers, or even against the legal but too heavy exactions of the government itself. In the days of the decaying empire and of the chaotic German settlement, the weak freeman, the small landowner, was exposed to attack in almost every relation of life and on every side. The protection which normally it is the business of government to furnish he could no longer obtain. He must seek protection elsewhere wherever he could get it, and pay the price demanded for it. This is the great social fact—the failure of government to perform one of its most primary duties, the necessity of finding some substitute in private life—extending in greater or less degree through the whole formative period of feudalism, which explains the transformation of institutions that brought it into existence. Similar conditions have produced an organization which may be called feudal, in various countries, and in widely separated periods of history. While these different feudal systems have shown a general similarity of organization, there has been also great variation in their details, because they have started from different institutions and developed in different ways. The feudal system with which history most concerns itself is that of medieval western Europe, and it is that which will be here described.

The institutions which the need of protection seized upon when it first began to turn away from the state were twofold. They had both long existed in the private, not public, relations of the Romans, and they had up to this time Roman origins. shown no tendency to grow. One of them related to the person, to the man himself, without reference to property, the other related to land. There are thus distinguished at the beginning those two great sides of feudalism which remained to the end of its history more or less distinct, the personal relation and the land relation. The personal institution needs little description. It was the Roman patron and client relationship which had remained in existence into the days of the empire, in later times less important perhaps legally than socially, and which had been reinforced in Gaul by very similar practices in use among the Celts before their conquest. The description of this institution which has come down to us from Roman sources of the days when feudalism was beginning is not so detailed as we could wish, but we can see plainly enough that it met a frequent need, that it was called by a new name, the patrocinium, and that it was firmly enough entrenched in usage to survive the German conquest, and to be taken up and continued by the conquerors. In its new use, alike in the later Roman and the early German state, the landless freeman who could not support himself went to some powerful man, stated his need, and offered his services, those proper to a freeman, in return for shelter and support. This transaction, which was called commendation, gave rise in the German state to a written contract which related the facts and provided a penalty for its violation. It created a relationship of protection and support on one side, and of free service on the other.

The other institution, relating to land, was that known to the Roman law as the precarium, a name derived from one of its essential features through all its history, the prayer of the suppliant by which the relationship was begun. The precarium was a form of renting land not intended primarily for income, but for use when the lease was made from friendship for example, or as a reward, or to secure a debt. Legally its characteristic feature was that the lessee had no right of any kind against the grantor. The owner could call in his land and terminate the relation at any time, for any reason, or for none at all. Even a definite understanding at the outset that the lease might be enjoyed to a specified date was no protection.1 It followed of course that the heir had no right in the land which his father held in this way, nor was the heir of the donor bound by his father’s act. The legal character of this transaction is summed up in a well-known passage in the Digest:—Interdictum de precariis merito introductum est, quia nulla eo nomine juris civilis actio esset, magis enim ad donationes et beneficii causam, quam ad negotii contracti spectat precarii conditio.2 This may be paraphrased as follows:—The precarium tenant may employ the interdict against a third party, because he cannot use the ordinary civil action, his holding being not a matter of business but rather of favour and kindness. It should be noted that from its very beginning the land relationship of feudalism was not created primarily for the grantor’s income, but that it emphasized in the most striking way his continued ownership.

As used for protection in later Roman days the precarium gave rise to what was called the commendation of lands, patrocinium fundorum. The poor landowner, likely to lose all that he had from one kind of oppression or another, went to the great landowner, his neighbour, whose position gave him immunity from attack or the power to prevent official abuses, and begged to be protected. The rich man answered, I can only protect my own. Of necessity the poor man must surrender to his powerful neighbour the ownership of his lands, which he then received back as a precarium—gaining protection during his lifetime 298 at the cost of his children, who were left without legal claim and compelled to make the best terms they could.3 Applied to this use the precarium found extensive employment in the last age of the empire. The government looked on the practice with great disfavour, because it transferred large areas from the easy access of the state to an ownership beyond its reach. The laws repeatedly forbade it under increasing penalties, but clearly it could not be stopped. The motive was too strong on both sides—the need of protection on one side, the natural desire to increase large possessions and means of self-defence on the other.

These practices the Frankish conquerors of Gaul found in full possession of society when they entered into that province. They seem to have understood them at once, and, like much else Roman, to have made them their own without Frankish development. material change. The patrocinium they were made ready to understand by the existence of a somewhat similar institution among themselves, the comitatus, described by Tacitus. In this institution the chief of the tribe, or of some plainly marked division of the tribe, gathered about himself a band of chosen warriors, who formed a kind of private military force and body-guard. The special features of the institution were the strong tie of faith and service which bound the man, the support and rewards given by the lord, and the pride of both in the relationship. The patrocinium might well seem to the German only a form of the comitatus, but it was a form which presented certain advantages in his actual situation. The chief of these was perhaps the fact that it was not confined to king or tribal chief, but that every noble was able in the Roman practice to surround himself with his organized private army. Probably this fact, together with the more general fact of the absorption in most things of the German in the Roman, accounts for the substitution of the patrocinium for the comitatus which took place under the Merovingians.

This change did not occur, however, without some modification of the Roman customs. The comitatus made contributions of its own to future feudalism, to some extent to its institutional side, largely to the ideas and spirit which ruled in it. Probably the ceremony which grew into feudal homage, and the oath of fealty, certainly the honourable position of the vassal and his pride in the relationship, the strong tie which bound lord and man together, and the idea that faith and service were due on both sides in equal measure, we may trace to German sources. But we must not forget that the origin of the vassal relationship, as an institution, is to be found on Roman and not on German soil. The comitatus developed and modified, it did not originate. Nor was the feudal system established in any sense by the settlement of the comitatus group on the conquered land. The uniting of the personal and the land sides of feudalism came long after the conquest, and in a different way.

To the precarium German institutions offered no close parallel. The advantages, however, which it afforded were obvious, and this side of feudalism developed as rapidly after the conquest as the personal. The new German noble was as eager to extend the size of his lands and to increase the numbers of his dependants as the Roman had been. The new German government furnished no better protection from local violence, nor was it able any more effectively to check the practices which were creating feudalism; indeed for a long time it made no attempt to do so. Precarium and patrocinium easily passed from the Roman empire to the Frankish kingdom, and became as firmly rooted in the new society as they had ever been in the old. Up to this point we have seen only the small landowner and the landless man entering into these relations. Feudalism could not be established, however, until the great of the land had adopted them for themselves, and had begun to enter the clientage of others and to hold lands by the precarium tenure. The first step towards this result was easily and quickly taken. The same class continued to furnish the king’s men, and to form his household and body-guard whether the relation was that of the patrocinium or the comitatus, and to be made noble by entering into it. It was later that they became clients of one another, and in part at least as a result of their adoption of the precarium tenure. In this latter step the influence of the Church rather than of the king seems to have been effective. The large estates which pious intentions had bestowed on the Church it was not allowed to alienate. It could most easily make them useful to gain the influence and support which it needed, and to provide for the public functions which fell to its share, by employing the precarium tenure. On the other side, the great men coveted the wide estates of bishop and abbot, and were ready without persuasion to annex portions of them to their own on the easy terms of this tenure, not always indeed observed by the holder, or able to be enforced by the Church. The employment of the precarium by the Church seems to have been one of the surest means by which this form of landholding was carried over from the Romans to the Frankish period and developed into new forms. It came to be made by degrees the subject of written contract, by which the rights of the holder were more definitely defined and protected than had been the case in Roman law. The length of time for which the holding should last came to be specified, at first for a term of years and then for life, and some payment to the grantor was provided for, not pretending to represent the economic value of the land, but only to serve as a mark of his continued ownership.

These changes characterize the Merovingian age of Frankish history. That period had practically ended, however, before these two institutions showed any tendency to join together as they were joined in later feudalism. Nor had the king up to that time exerted any apparent influence on the processes that were going forward. Grants of land of the Merovingian kings had carried with them ownership and not a limited right, and the king’s patrocinium had not widened in extent in the direction of the later vassal relation. It was the advent of the Carolingian princes and the difficulties which they had to overcome that carried these institutions a stage further forward. Making their way up from a position among the nobility to be the rulers of the land, and finally to supplant the kings, the Carolingians had especial need of resources from which to purchase and reward faithful support. This need was greatly increased when the Arab attack on southern Gaul forced them to transform a large part of the old Frankish foot army into cavalry.4 The fundamental principle of the Frankish military system, that the man served at his own expense, was still unchanged. It had indeed begun to break down under the strain of frequent and distant campaigns, but it was long before it was changed as the recognized rule of medieval service. If now, in addition to his own expenses, the soldier must provide a horse and its keeping, the system was likely to break down altogether. It was this problem which led to the next step. To solve it the early Carolingian princes, especially Charles Martel, who found the royal domains exhausted and their own inadequate, grasped at the land of the Church. Here was enough to endow an army, if some means could be devised to permit its use. This means was found in the precarium tenure. Keeping alive, as it did, the fact of the grantor’s ownership, it did not in form deprive the Church of the land. Recognizing that ownership by a small payment only, not corresponding to the value of the land, it left the larger part of the income to meet the need which had arisen. At the same time undoubtedly the new holder of the land, if not already the vassal of the prince, was obliged to become so and to assume an obligation of service with a mounted force when called upon.5 This expedient seems to have solved the problem. It gave rise to the numerous precariae verbo regis, of the Church records, and to the condemnation of Charles Martel in the visions of the clergy to worse difficulties in the future life than he had overcome in this. The most important consequences of the expedient, however, were not intended or perceived at the time. It brought together the two sides of feudalism, vassalage and benefice, as they were now commonly called, and from this age their union into what is really a single 299 institution was rapid;6 it emphasized military service as an essential obligation of the vassal; and it spread the vassal relation between individual proprietors and the sovereign widely over the state.

In the period that followed, the reign of Charlemagne and the later Carolingian age, continued necessities, military and civil, forced the kings to recognize these new institutions more fully, even when standing in a position between the government and the subject, intercepting the public duties of the latter. The incipient feudal baron had not been slow to take advantage of the break-down of the old German military system. As in the last days of the Roman empire the poor landowner had found his only refuge from the exactions of the government in the protection of the senator, who could in some way obtain exemptions, so the poor Frank could escape the ruinous demands of military service only by submitting himself and his lands to the count, who did not hesitate on his side to force such submission. Charlemagne legislated with vigour against this tendency, trying to make it easier for the poor freeman to fulfil his military duties directly to the state, and to forbid the misuse of power by the rich, but he was not more successful than the Roman government had been in a like attempt. Finally the king found himself compelled to recognize existing facts, to lay upon the lord the duty of producing his men in the field and to allow him to appear as their commander. This solved the difficulty of military service apparently, but with decisive consequences. It completed the transformation of the army into a vassal army; it completed the recognition of feudalism by the state, as a legitimate relation between different ranks of the people; and it recognized the transformation in a great number of cases of a public duty into a private obligation.

In the meantime another institution had grown up in this Franco-Roman society, which probably began and certainly assisted in another transformation of the same kind. This is the immunity. Suggested probably by Roman practices, possibly developed directly from them, it received a great extension in the Merovingian period, at first and especially in the interest of the Church, but soon of lay land-holders. By the grant of an immunity to a proprietor the royal officers, the count and his representatives, were forbidden to enter his lands to exercise any public function there. The duties which the count should perform passed to the proprietor, who now represented the government for all his tenants free and unfree. Apparently no modification of the royal rights was intended by this arrangement, but the beginning of a great change had really been made. The king might still receive the same revenues and the same services from the district held by the lord as formerly, but for their payment a private person in his capacity as overlord was now responsible. In the course of a long period characterized by a weak central government, it was not difficult to enlarge the rights which the lord thus obtained, to exclude even the king’s personal authority from the immunity, and to translate the duties and payments which the tenant had once owed to the state into obligations which he owed to his lord, even finally into incidents of his tenure. The most important public function whose transformation into a private possession was assisted by the growth of the immunity was the judicial. This process had probably already begun in a small way in the growth of institutions which belong to the economic side of feudalism, the organization of agriculture on the great estates. Even in Roman days the proprietor had exercised a jurisdiction over the disputes of his unfree tenants. Whether this could by its own growth have been extended over his free tenants and carried so far as to absorb a local court, like that of the hundred, into private possession, is not certain. It seems probable that it could. But in any case, the immunity easily carried the development of private jurisdiction through these stages. The lord’s court took the place of the public court in civil, and even by degrees in criminal cases. The plaintiff, even if he were under another lord, was obliged to sue in the court of the defendant’s lord, and the portion of the fine for a breach of the peace which should have gone to the state went in the end to the lord.

The transfer of the judicial process, and of the financial and administrative sides of the government as well, into private possession, was not, however, accomplished entirely by the road of the immunity. As government weakened after the strong days of Charlemagne, and disorder, invasion, and the difficulty of intercommunication tended to throw the locality more and more upon its own resources, the officer who had once been the means of centralization, the count, found success in the effort for independence which even Charlemagne had scarcely overcome. He was able to throw off responsibility to any central authority, and to exercise the powers which had been committed to him as an agent of the king, as if they were his own private possession. Nor was the king’s aid lacking to this method of dividing up the royal authority, any more than to the immunity, for it became a frequent practice to make the administrative office into a fief, and to grant it to be held in that form of property by the count. In this way the feudal county, or duchy, formed itself, corresponding in most cases only roughly to the old administrative divisions of the state, for within the bounds of the county there had often formed private feudal possessions too powerful to be forced into dependence upon the count, sometimes the vice-comes had followed the count’s example, and often, on the other hand, the count had attached to his county like private possessions of his own lying outside its boundaries. In time the private lord, who had never been an officer of the state, assumed the old administrative titles and called himself count or viscount, and perhaps with some sort of right, for his position in his territories, through the development of the immunity, did not differ from that now held by the man who had been originally a count.

In these two ways then the feudal system was formed, and took possession of the state territorially, and of its functions in government. Its earliest stage of growth was that of the private possession only. Under a government too weak to preserve order, the great landowner formed his estate into a little territory which could defend itself. His smaller neighbours who needed protection came to him for it. He forced them to become his dependants in return under a great variety of forms, but especially developing thereby the precarium land tenure and the patrocinium personal service, and organizing a private jurisdiction over his tenants, and a private army for defence. Finally he secured from the king an immunity which excluded the royal officers from his lands and made him a quasi-representative of the state. In the meantime his neighbour the count had been following a similar process, and in addition he had enjoyed considerable advantages of his own. His right to exact military, financial and judicial duties for the state he had used to force men to become his dependants, and then he had stood between them and the state, freeing them from burdens which he threw with increased weight upon those who still stood outside his personal protection. In ignorance of their danger, and later in despair of getting public services adequately performed in any other way, the kings first adopted for themselves some of the forms and practices which had thus grown up, and by degrees recognized them as legally proper for all classes. It proved to be easier to hold the lord responsible for the public duties of all his dependants because he was the king’s vassal and by attaching them as conditions to the benefices which he held, than to enforce them directly upon every subject.

When this stage was reached the formative age of feudalism may be considered at an end. When the government of the state had entered into feudalism, and the king was as much senior as king; when the vassal relationship was recognized as a proper and legal foundation of public duties; when the two separate sides of early feudalism were united as the almost universal rule, so that a man received a fief because he owed a vassal’s duties, or looked at in the other and finally prevailing way, that he owed a vassal’s duties because he had received a fief; and finally, when the old idea of the temporary character of the precarium tenure was lost sight of, and the right of the 300 vassal’s heir to receive his father’s holding was recognized as the general rule—then the feudal system may be called full grown. Not that the age of growth was really over. Feudal history was always a becoming, always a gradual passing from one stage to another, so long as feudalism continued to form the main organization of society. But we may say that the formative age was over when these features of the system had combined to be its characteristic marks. What follows is rather a perfection of details in the direction of logical completeness. To assign any specific date to the end of this formative age is of course impossible, but meaning by the end what has just been stated, we shall not be far wrong if we place it somewhere near the beginning of the 10th century.

Before we leave the history of feudal origins another word is necessary. We have traced a definite line of descent for feudal institutions from Roman days through the Merovingian and Carolingian ages to the 10th century. That line of descent can be made out with convincing clearness and with no particular difficulty from epoch to epoch, from the precarium and the patrocinium, through the benefice and commendation, to the fief and vassalage. But the definiteness of this line should not cause us to overlook the fact that there was during these centuries much confusion of custom and practice. All round and about this line of descent there was a crowd of varying forms branching off more or less widely from the main stem, different kinds of commendation, different forms of precarium, some of which varied greatly from that through which the fief descends, and some of which survived in much the old character and under the old name for a long time after later feudalism was definitely established.7 The variety and seeming confusion which reign in feudal society, under uniform controlling principles, rule also in the ages of beginning. It is easy to lose one’s bearings by over-emphasizing the importance of variation and exception. It is indeed true that what was the exception, the temporary offshoot, might have become the main line. It would then have produced a system which would have been feudal, in the wide sense of the term, but it would have been marked by different characteristics, it would have operated in a somewhat different way. The crowd of varying forms should not prevent us from seeing that we can trace through their confusion the line along which the characteristic traits and institutions of European feudalism, as it actually was, were growing constantly more distinct.8 That is the line of the origin of the feudal system. (See also France: Law and Institutions.)

The growth which we have traced took place within the Frankish empire. When we turn to Anglo-Saxon England we find a different situation and a different result. There precarium and patrocinium were lacking. Certain Results in England. forms of personal commendation did develop, certain forms of dependent land tenure came into use. These do not show, however, the characteristic marks of the actual line of feudal descent. They belong rather in the varying forms around that line. Scholars are not yet agreed as to what would have been their result if their natural development had not been cut off by the violent introduction of Frankish feudalism with the Norman conquest, whether the historical feudal system, or a feudal system in the general sense. To the writer it seems clear that the latter is the most that can be asserted. They were forms which may rightly be called feudal, but only in the wider meaning in which we speak of the feudalism of Japan, or of Central Africa, not in the sense of 12th-century European feudalism; Saxon commendation may rightly be called vassalage, but only as looking back to the early Frankish use of the term for many varying forms of practice, not as looking forward to the later and more definite usage of completed feudalism; and such use of the terms feudal and vassalage is sure to be misleading. It is better to say that European feudalism is not to be found in England before the Conquest, not even in its beginnings. If these had really been in existence it would require no argument to show the fact. There is no trace of the distinctive marks of Frankish feudalism in Saxon England, not where military service may be thought to rest upon the land, nor even in the rare cases where the tenant seems to some to be made responsible for it, for between these cases as they are described in the original accounts, legally interpreted, and the feudal conception of the vassal’s military service, there is a great gulf.

In turning from the origin of feudalism to a description of the completed system one is inevitably reminded of the words with which de Quincey opens the second part of his essay on style. He says: “It is a natural resource that The completed system. whatsoever we find it difficult to investigate as a result, we endeavour to follow as a growth. Failing analytically to probe its nature, historically we seek relief to our perplexities by tracing its origin.... Thus for instance when any feudal institution (be it Gothic, Norman, or Anglo-Saxon) eludes our deciphering faculty from the imperfect records of its use and operation, then we endeavour conjecturally to amend our knowledge by watching the circumstances in which that institution arose.” The temptation to use the larger part of any space allotted to the history of feudalism for a discussion of origins does not arise alone from greater interest in that phase of the subject. It is almost impossible even with the most discriminating care to give a brief account of completed feudalism and convey no wrong impression. We use the term “feudal system” for convenience sake, but with a degree of impropriety if it conveys the meaning “systematic.” Feudalism in its most flourishing age was anything but systematic. It was confusion roughly organized. Great diversity prevailed everywhere, and we should not be surprised to find some different fact or custom in every lordship. Anglo-Norman feudalism attained a logical completeness and a uniformity of practice which, in the feudal age proper, can hardly be found elsewhere through so large a territory; but in Anglo-Norman feudalism the exception holds perhaps as large a place as the regular, and the uniformity itself was due to the most serious of exceptions from the feudal point of view—centralization under a powerful monarchy.

But too great emphasis upon variation conveys also a wrong impression. Underlying all the apparent confusion of fact and practice were certain fundamental principles and relationships, which were alike everywhere, and which really gave shape to everything that was feudal, no matter what its form might be. The chief of these are the following: the relation of vassal and lord; the principle that every holder of land is a tenant and not an owner, until the highest rank is reached, sometimes even the conception rules in that rank; that the tenure by which a thing of value is held is one of honourable service, not intended to be economic, but moral and political in character; the principle of mutual obligations of loyalty, protection and service binding together all the ranks of this society from the highest to the lowest; and the principle of contract between lord and tenant, as determining all rights, controlling their modification, and forming the foundation of all law. There was actually in fact and practice a larger uniformity than this short list implies, because these principles tended to express themselves in similar forms, and because historical derivation from a common source in Frankish feudalism tended to preserve some degree of uniformity in the more important usages.

The foundation of the feudal relationship proper was the fief, which was usually land, but might be any desirable thing, as an office, a revenue in money or kind, the right to collect a toll, or operate a mill. In return for the fief, the man became the vassal of his lord; he knelt before him, and, with his hands between his lord’s hands, promised him fealty and service; he rose to his feet and took the oath of fealty which bound him to the obligations he had assumed in homage; he received from his lord ceremonial investiture with the fief. The faithful performance of all the duties he had assumed in homage constituted the vassal’s right and title to his fief. So long as they were fulfilled, he, and his heir after him, held the fief as his property, practically and in relation to all under tenants as if 301 he were the owner. In the ceremony of homage and investiture, which is the creative contract of feudalism, the obligations assumed by the two parties were, as a rule, not specified in exact terms. They were determined by local custom. What they were, however, was as well known, as capable of proof, and as adequate a check on innovation by either party, as if committed to writing. In many points of detail the vassal’s services differed widely in different parts of the feudal world. We may say, however, that they fall into two classes, general and specific. The general included all that might come under the idea of loyalty, seeking the lord’s interests, keeping his secrets, betraying the plans of his enemies, protecting his family, &c. The specific services are capable of more definite statement, and they usually received exact definition in custom and sometimes in written documents. The most characteristic of these was the military service, which included appearance in the field on summons with a certain force, often armed in a specified way, and remaining a specified length of time. It often included also the duty of guarding the lord’s castle, and of holding one’s own castle subject to the plans of the lord for the defence of his fief. Hardly less characteristic was court service, which included the duty of helping to form the court on summons, of taking one’s own cases to that court instead of to some other, and of submitting to its judgments. The duty of giving the lord advice was often demanded and fulfilled in sessions of the court, and in these feudal courts the obligations of lord and vassal were enforced, with an ultimate appeal to war. Under this head may be enumerated also the financial duties of the vassal, though these were not regarded by the feudal law as of the nature of the tenure, i.e. failure to pay them did not lead to confiscation, but they were collected by suit and distraint like any debt. They did not have their origin in economic considerations, but were either intended to mark the vassal’s tenant relation, like the relief, or to be a part of his service, like the aid, that is, he was held to come to the aid of his lord in a case of financial as of military necessity. The relief was a sum paid by the heir for the lord’s recognition of his succession. The aids were paid on a few occasions, determined by custom, where the lord was put to unusual expense, as for his ransom when captured by the enemy, or for the knighting of his eldest son. There was great variety regarding the occasion and amount of these payments, and in some parts of the feudal world they did not exist at all. The most lucrative of the lord’s rights were wardship and marriage, but the feudal theory of these also was non-economic. The fief fell into the hands of the lord, and he enjoyed its revenues during the minority of the heir, because the minor could not perform the duties by which it was held. The heiress must marry as the lord wished, because he had a right to know that the holder of the fief could meet the obligations resting upon it. Both wardship and marriage were, however, valuable rights which the lord could exercise himself or sell to others. These were by no means the only rights and duties which could be described as existing in feudalism, but they are the most characteristic, and on them, or some of them, as a foundation, the whole structure of feudal obligation was built, however detailed.

Ideally regarded, feudalism covered Europe with a network of these fiefs, rising in graded ranks one above the other from the smallest, the knight’s fee, at the bottom, to the king at the top, who was the supreme landowner, or who held the kingdom from God. Actually not even in the most regular of feudal countries, like England or Germany, was there any fixed gradation of rank, titles or size. A knight might hold directly of the king, a count of a viscount, a bishop of an abbot, or the king himself of one of his own vassals, or even of a vassal’s vassal, and in return his vassal’s vassal might hold another fief directly of him. The case of the count of Champagne, one of the peers of France, is a famous example. His great territory was held only in small part of the king of France. He held a portion of a foreign sovereign, the emperor, and other portions of the duke of Burgundy, of two archbishops, of four bishops, and of the abbot of St Denis. Frequently did great lay lords, as in this case, hold lands by feudal tenure of ecclesiastics.

It is now possible perhaps to get some idea of the way in which the government of a feudal country was operated. The early German governments whose chief functions, military, judicial, financial, legislative, were carried on by the freemen of the nation because they were members of the body politic, and were performed as duties owed to the community for its defence and sustenance, no longer existed. New forms of organization had arisen in which indeed these conceptions had not entirely disappeared, but in which the vast majority of cases a wholly different idea of the ground of service and obligation prevailed. Superficially, for example, the feudal court differed but little from its Teutonic predecessor. It was still an assembly court. Its procedure was almost the same as the earlier. It often included the same classes of men. Saxon Witenagemot and Norman Curia regis seem very much alike. But the members of the feudal court met, not to fulfil a duty owed to the community, but a private obligation which they had assumed in return for the fiefs they held, and in the history of institutions it is differences of this sort which are the determining principles. The feudal state was one in which, as it has been said, private law had usurped the place of public law. Public duty had become private obligation. To understand the feudal state it is essential to make clear to one’s mind that all sorts of services, which men ordinarily owe to the public or to one another, were translated into a form of rent paid for the use of land, and defined and enforced by a private contract. In every feudal country, however, something of the earlier conception survived. A general military levy was occasionally made. Something like taxation occasionally occurred, though the government was usually sustained by the scanty feudal payments, by the proceeds of justice and by the income of domain manors. About the office of king more of this earlier conception gathered than elsewhere in the state, and gradually grew, aided not merely by traditional ideas, but by the active influence of the Bible, and soon of the Roman law. The kingship formed the nucleus of new governments as the feudal system passed away.

Actual government in the feudal age was primitive and undifferentiated. Its chief and almost only organ, for kingdom and barony alike, was the curia—a court formed of the vassals. This acted at once and without any consciousness of difference of function, as judiciary, as legislature, in so far as there was any in the feudal period, and as council, and it exercised final supervision and control over revenue and administration. Almost all the institutions of modern states go back to the curia regis, branching off from it at different dates as the growing complexity of business forced differentiation of function and personnel. In action it was an assembly court, deciding all questions by discussion and the weight of opinion, though its decisions obtained their legal validity by the formal pronunciation of the presiding member, i.e. of the lord whose court it was. It can readily be seen that in a government of this kind the essential operative element was the baron. So long as the government remained dependent on the baron, it remained feudal in its character. When conditions so changed that government could free itself from its dependence on the baron, feudalism disappeared as the organization of society; when a professional class arose to form the judiciary, when the increased circulation of money made regular taxation possible and enabled the government to buy military and other services, and when better means of intercommunication and the growth of common ideas made a wide centralization possible and likely to be permanent. Feudalism had performed a great service, during an age of disintegration, by maintaining a general framework of government, while allowing the locality to protect and care for itself. When the function of protection and local supervision could be resumed by the general government the feudal age ended. In nearly all the states of Europe this end was reached during, or by the close of, the 13th century.

At the moment, however, when feudalism was disappearing as the organization of society, it gave rise to results which in a sense continued it into after ages and even to our own day. One of these results was the system of law which it created. Decline and survivals. 302 As feudalism passed from its age of supremacy into its age of decline, its customs tended to crystallize into fixed forms. At the same time a class of men arose interested in these forms for their own sake, professional lawyers or judges, who wrote down for their own and others’ use the feudal usages with which they were familiar. The great age of these codes was the 13th century, and especially the second half of it. The codes in their turn tended still further to harden these usages into fixed forms, and we may date from the end of the 13th century an age of feudal law regulating especially the holding and transfer of land, and much more uniform in character than the law of the feudal age proper. This was particularly the case in parts of France and Germany where feudalism continued to regulate the property relations of lords and vassals longer than elsewhere, and where the underlying economic feudalism remained in large part unchanged. In this later pseudo-feudalism, however, the political had given way to the economic, and customs which had once had no economic significance came to have that only.

Feudalism formed the starting-point also of the later social nobilities of Europe. They drew from it their titles and ranks and many of their regulative ideas, though these were formed into more definite and regular systems than ever existed in feudalism proper. It was often the policy of kings to increase the social privileges and legal exemptions of the nobility while taking away all political power, so that it is necessary in the history of institutions to distinguish sharply between these nobilities and the feudal baronage proper. It is only in certain backward parts of Europe that the terms feudal and baronage in any technical sense can be used of the nobility of the 15th century.

FEUERBACH, ANSELM (1829-1880), German painter, born at Spires, the son of a well-known archaeologist, was the leading classicist painter of the German 19th-century school. He was the first to realize the danger arising from contempt of technique, that mastery of craftsmanship was needed to express even the loftiest ideas, and that an ill-drawn coloured cartoon can never be the supreme achievement in art. After having passed through the art schools of Düsseldorf and Munich, he went to Antwerp and subsequently to Paris, where he benefited by the teaching of Couture, and produced his first masterpiece, “Hafiz at the Fountain” in 1852. He subsequently worked at Karlsruhe, Venice (where he fell under the spell of the greatest school of colourists), Rome and Vienna. He was steeped in classic knowledge, and his figure compositions have the statuesque dignity and simplicity of Greek art. Disappointed with the reception given in Vienna to his design of “The Fall of the Titans” for the ceiling of the Museum of Modelling, he went to live in Venice, where he died in 1880. His works are to be found at the leading public galleries of Germany; Stuttgart has his “Iphigenia”; Karlsruhe, the “Dante at Ravenna”; Munich, the “Medea”; and Berlin, “The Concert,” his last important picture. Among his chief works are also “The Battle of the Amazons,” “Pietà,” “The Symposium of Plato,” “Orpheus and Eurydice” and “Ariosto in the Park of Ferrara.”

FEUERBACH, LUDWIG ANDREAS (1804-1872), German philosopher, fourth son of the eminent jurist (see below), was born at Landshut in Bavaria on the 28th of July 1804. He matriculated at Heidelberg with the intention of pursuing an ecclesiastical career. Through the influence of Prof. Daub he was led to an interest in the then predominant philosophy of Hegel and, in spite of his father’s opposition, went to Berlin to study under the master himself. After two years’ discipleship the Hegelian influence began to slacken. “Theology,” he wrote to a friend, “I can bring myself to study no more. I long to take nature to my heart, that nature before whose depth the faint-hearted theologian shrinks back; and with nature man, man in his entire quality.” These words are a key to Feuerbach’s development. He completed his education at Erlangen with the study of natural science. His first book, published anonymously, Gedanken über Tod und Unsterblichkeit (1830, 3rd ed. 1876), contains an attack upon personal immortality and an advocacy of the Spinozistic immortality of reabsorption in nature. These principles, combined with his embarrassed manner of public speaking, debarred him from academic advancement. After some years of struggling, during which he published his Geschichte der neueren Philosophie (2 vols., 1833-1837, 2nd ed. 1844), and Abälard und Heloise (1834, 3rd ed. 1877), he married in 1837 and lived a rural existence at Bruckberg near Nuremberg, supported by his wife’s share in a small porcelain factory. In two works of this period, Pierre Bayle (1838) and Philosophie und Christentum (1839), which deal largely with theology, he held that he had proved “that Christianity has in fact long vanished not only from the reason but from the life of mankind, that it is nothing more than a fixed idea” in flagrant contradiction to the distinctive features of contemporary civilization. This attack is followed up in his most important work, Das Wesen des Christentums (1841), which was translated into English (The Essence of Religion, by George Eliot, 1853, 2nd ed. 1881), French and Russian. Its aim may be described shortly as an effort to humanize theology. He lays it down that man, so far as he is rational, is to himself his own object of thought. Religion is consciousness of the infinite. Religion therefore is “nothing else than the consciousness of the infinity of the consciousness; or, in the consciousness of the infinite, the conscious subject has for his object the infinity of his own nature.” Thus God is nothing else than man: he is, so to speak, the outward projection of man’s inward nature. In part 1 of his book he develops what he calls the “true or anthropological essence of religion.” Treating of God in his various aspects “as a being of the understanding,” “as a moral being or law,” “as love” and so on, Feuerbach shows that in every aspect God corresponds to some feature or need of human nature. “If man is to find contentment in God, he must find himself in God.” In part 2 he discusses the “false or theological essence of religion,” i.e. the view which regards God as having a separate existence over against man. Hence arise various mistaken beliefs, such as the belief in revelation which not only injures the moral 303 sence, but also “poisons, nay destroys, the divinest feeling in man, the sense of truth,” and the belief in sacraments such as the Lord’s Supper, a piece of religious materialism of which “the necessary consequences are superstition and immorality.” In spite of many admirable qualities both of style and matter the Essence of Christianity has never made much impression upon British thought. To treat the actual forms of religion as expressions of our various human needs is a fruitful idea which deserves fuller development than it has yet received; but Feuerbach’s treatment of it is fatally vitiated by his subjectivism. Feuerbach denied that he was rightly called an atheist, but the denial is merely verbal: what he calls “theism” is atheism in the ordinary sense. Feuerbach labours under the same difficulty as Fichte; both thinkers strive in vain to reconcile the religious consciousness with subjectivism.

During the troubles of 1848-1849 Feuerbach’s attack upon orthodoxy made him something of a hero with the revolutionary party; but he never threw himself into the political movement, and indeed had not the qualities of a popular leader. During the period of the diet of Frankfort he had given public lectures on religion at Heidelberg. When the diet closed he withdrew to Bruckberg and occupied himself partly with scientific study, partly with the composition of his Theogonie (1857). In 1860 he was compelled by the failure of the porcelain factory to leave Bruckberg, and he would have suffered the extremity of want but for the assistance of friends supplemented by a public subscription. His last book, Gottheit, Freiheit und Unsterblichkeit, appeared in 1866 (2nd ed., 1890). After a long period of decay he died on the 13th of September 1872.

Feuerbach’s influence has been greatest upon the anti-Christian theologians such as D.F. Strauss, the author of the Leben Jesu, and Bruno Bauer, who like Feuerbach himself had passed over from Hegelianism to a form of naturalism. But many of his ideas were taken up by those who, like Arnold Ruge, had entered into the struggle between church and state in Germany, and those who, like F. Engels and Karl Marx, were leaders in the revolt of labour against the power of capital. His work was too deliberately unsystematic (“keine Philosophie ist meine Philosophie”) ever to make him a power in philosophy. He expressed in an eager, disjointed, but condensed and laboured fashion, certain deep-lying convictions—that philosophy must come back from unsubstantial metaphysics to the solid facts of human nature and natural science, that the human body was no less important than the human spirit (“Der Mensch ist was er isst”) and that Christianity was utterly out of harmony with the age. His convictions gained weight from the simplicity, uprightness and diligence of his character; but they need a more effective justification than he was able to give them.

FEUERBACH, PAUL JOHANN ANSELM, Ritter von (1775-1833), German jurist and writer on criminal law, was born at Hainichen near Jena on the 14th of November 1775. He received his early education at Frankfort on Main, whither his family had removed soon after his birth. At the age of sixteen, however, he ran away from home, and, going to Jena, was helped by relations there to study at the university. In spite of poor health and the most desperate poverty, he made rapid progress. He attended the lectures of Karl Leonhard Reinhold and Gottlieb Hufeland, and soon published some literary essays of more than ordinary merit. In 1795 he took the degree of doctor in philosophy, and in the same year, though he only possessed 150 thalers (£22 : 10s.), he married. It was this step which led him to success and fame, by forcing him to turn from his favourite studies of philosophy and history to that of law, which was repugnant to him, but which offered a prospect of more rapid advancement. His success in this new and uncongenial sphere was soon assured. In 1796 he published Kritik des natürlichen Rechts als Propädeutik zu einer Wissenschaft der natürlichen Rechte, which was followed, in 1798, by Anti-Hobbes, oder über die Grenzen der bürgerlichen Gewalt, a dissertation on the limits of the civil power and the right of resistance on the part of subjects against their rulers, and by Philosophische, juristische Untersuchungen über das Verbrechen des Hochverraths. In 1799 he obtained the degree of doctor of laws. Feuerbach, as the founder of a new theory of penal law, the so-called “psychological-coercive or intimidation theory,” occupied a prominent place in the history of criminal science. His views, which he first made known in his Revision der Grundsätze und Grundbegriffe des positiven peinlichen Rechts (1799), were further elucidated and expounded in the Bibliothek für die peinliche Rechtswissenschaft (1800-1801), an encyclopaedic work produced in conjunction with Karl L.W.G. Grolmann and Ludwig Harscher von Almendingen, and in his famous Lehrbuch des gemeinen in Deutschland geltenden peinlichen Rechts (1801). These works were a powerful protest against vindictive punishment, and did much towards the reformation of the German criminal law. The Carolina (the penal code of the emperor Charles V.) had long since ceased to be respected. What in 1532 was an inestimable blessing, as a check upon the arbitrariness and violence of the effete German procedure, had in the course of time outlived its usefulness and become a source of evils similar to those it was enacted to combat. It availed nothing that, at the commencement of the 18th century, a freer and more scientific spirit had been breathed into Roman law; it failed to reach the criminal law. The administration of justice was, before Feuerbach’s time, especially distinguished by two characteristics: the superiority of the judge to all law, and the blending of the judicial and executive offices, with the result that the individual was practically at the mercy of his prosecutors. This state of things Feuerbach set himself to reform, and using as his chief weapon the Revision der Grundbegriffe above referred to, was successful in his task. His achievement in the struggle may be summed up as: nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (no wrong and no punishment without a remedy). In 1801 Feuerbach was appointed extraordinary professor of law without salary, at the university of Jena, and in the following year accepted a chair at Kiel, where he remained two years. In 1804 he removed to the university of Landshut; but on being commanded by King Maximilian Joseph to draft a penal code for Bavaria (Strafgesetzbuch für das Königreich Bayern), he removed in 1805 to Munich, where he was given a high appointment in the ministry of justice and was ennobled in 1808. Meanwhile the practical reform of penal legislation in Bavaria was begun under his influence in 1806 by the abolition of torture. In 1808 appeared the first volume of his Merkwürdige Criminalfälle, completed in 1811—a work of deep interest for its application of psychological considerations to cases Of crime, and intended to illustrate the inevitable imperfection of human laws in their application to individuals. In his Betrachtungen über das Geschworenengericht (1811) Feuerbach declared against trial by jury, maintaining that the verdict of a jury was not adequate legal proof of a crime. Much controversy was aroused on the subject, and the author’s view was subsequently to some extent modified. The result of his labours was promulgated in 1813 as the Bavarian penal code. The influence of this code, the embodiment of Feuerbach’s enlightened views, was immense. It was at once made the basis for new codes in Württemberg and Saxe-Weimar; it was adopted in its entirety in the grand-duchy of Oldenburg; and it was translated into Swedish by order of the king. Several of the Swiss cantons reformed their codes in conformity with it. Feuerbach had also undertaken to prepare a civil code for Bavaria, to be founded on the Code Napoléon. This was afterwards set aside, and the Codex Maximilianus adopted as a basis. But the project did not become law. During the war of liberation (1813-1814) Feuerbach showed himself an ardent patriot, and published several political brochures which, from the writer’s position, had almost the weight of state manifestoes. One of these is entitled Über deutsche Freiheit und Vertretung deutsche Volker durch Landstände (1514). In 1814 Feuerbach was appointed second president 304 of the court of appeal at Bamberg, and three years later he became first president of the court of appeal at Anspach. In 1821 he was deputed by the government to visit France, Belgium, and the Rhine provinces for the purpose of investigating their juridical institutions. As the fruit of this visit, he published his treatises Betrachtungen über Öffentlichkeit und Mündigkeit der Gerechtigkeitspflege (1821) and Über die Gerichtsverfassung und das gerichtliche Verfahren Frankreichs (1825). In these he pleaded unconditionally for publicity in all legal proceedings. In his later years he took a deep interest in the fate of the strange foundling Kaspar Hauser (q.v.), which had excited so much attention in Europe; and he was the first to publish a critical summary of the ascertained facts, under the title of Kaspar Hauser, ein Beispiel eines Verbrechens am Seelenleben (1832). Shortly before his death appeared a collection of his Kleine Schriften (1833). Feuerbach, still in the full enjoyment of his intellectual powers, died suddenly at Frankfort, while on his way to the baths of Schwalbach, on the 29th of May 1833. In 1853 was published the Leben und Wirken Ans. von Feuerbachs, 2 vols., consisting of a selection of his letters and journals, with occasional notes by his fourth son Ludwig, the distinguished philosopher.

FEUILLANTS, CLUB OF THE, a political association which played a prominent part during the French Revolution. It was founded on the 16th of July 1791 by several members of the Jacobin Club, who refused to sign a petition presented by this body, demanding the deposition of Louis XVI. Among the dissident members were B. Barère; and E.J. Sieyès, who were later joined by other politicians, among them being Dupont de Nemours. The name of Feuillants was popularly given to this group of men, because they met in the fine buildings which had been occupied by the religious order bearing this name, in the rue Saint-Honoré, near the Place Vendôme, in Paris. The members of the club preserved the title of Amis de la Constitution, as being a sufficient indication of the line they intended to pursue. This consisted in opposing everything not contained in the Constitution; in their opinion, the latter was in need of no modification, and they hated alike all those who were opposed to it, whether émigrés or Jacobins; they affected to avoid all political discussion, and called themselves merely a “conservative assembly.”

This attitude they maintained after the Constituent Assembly had been succeeded by the Legislative, but not many of the new deputies became members of the club. With the rapid growth of extreme democratic ideas the Feuillants soon began to be looked upon as reactionaries, and to be classed with “aristocrats.” They did, indeed, represent the aristocracy of wealth, for they had to pay a subscription of four louis, a large sum at that time, besides six livres for attendance. Moreover, the luxury with which they surrounded themselves, and the restaurant which they had annexed to their club, seemed to mock the misery of the half-starved proletariat, and added to the suspicion with which they were viewed, especially after the popular triumphs of the 20th of June and the 10th of August 1792 (see French Revolution). A few days after the insurrection of the 10th of August, the papers of the Feuillants were seized, and a list was published containing the names of 841 members proclaimed as suspects. This was the death-blow of the club. It had made an attempt, though a weak one, to oppose the forward march of the Revolution, but, unlike the Jacobins, had never sent out branches into the provinces. The name of Feuillants, as a party designation, survived the club. It was applied to those who advocated a policy of “cowardly moderation,” and feuillantisme was associated with aristocratie in the mouths of the sansculottes.

FEUILLET, OCTAVE (1821-1890), French novelist and dramatist, was born at Saint-Lô, Manche, on the 11th of August 1821. He was the son of a Norman gentleman of learning and distinction, who would have played a great part in politics “sans ses diables de nerfs,” as Guizot said. This nervous excitability was inherited, though not to the same excess, by Octave, whose mother died in his infancy and left him to the care of the hyper-sensitive invalid. The boy was sent to the lycée Louis-le Grand, in Paris, where he achieved high distinction, and was destined for the diplomatic service. In 1840 he appeared before his father at Saint-Lô, and announced that he had determined to adopt the profession of literature. There was a stormy scene, and the elder Feuillet cut off his son, who returned to Paris and lived as best he could by a scanty journalism. In company with Paul Bocage he began to write for the stage, and not without success; at all events, he continued to exist until, three years after the quarrel, his father consented to forgive him. Enjoying a liberal allowance, he now lived in Paris in comfort and independence, and he published his early novels, none of which is quite of sufficient value to retain the modern reader. The health and spirits of the elder M. Feuillet, however, having still further declined, he summoned his son to leave Paris and bury himself as his constant attendant in the melancholy château at Saint-Lô. This was to demand a great sacrifice, but Octave Feuillet cheerfully obeyed the summons. In 1851 he married his cousin, Mlle Valérie Feuillet, who helped him to endure the mournful captivity to which his filial duty bound him. Strangely enough, in this exile—rendered still more irksome by his father’s mania for solitude and by his tyrannical temper—the genius of Octave Feuillet developed. His first definite success was gained in the year 1852, when he published the novel Bellah and produced the comedy La Crise. Both were reprinted from the Revue des deux mondes, where many of his later novels also appeared. He wrote books which have long held their place, La Petite Comtesse (1857), Dalila (1857), and in particular that universal favourite, Le Roman d’un jeune homme pauvre (1858). He himself fell into a nervous state in his “prison,” but he was sustained by the devotion and intelligence of his wife and her mother. In 1857, having been persuaded to make a play of the novel of Dalila, he brought out this piece at the Vaudeville, and enjoyed a brilliant success; on this occasion he positively broke through the consigne and went up to Paris to see his play rehearsed. His father bore the shock of his temporary absence, and the following year Octave ventured to make the same experiment on occasion of the performance of Un Jeune Homme pauvre. To his infinite chagrin, during this brief absence his father died. Octave was now, however, free, and the family immediately moved to Paris, where they took part in the splendid social existence of the Second Empire. The elegant and distinguished young novelist became a favourite at court; his pieces were performed at Compiègne before they were given to the public, and on one occasion the empress Eugénie deigned to play the part of Mme de Pons in Les Portraits de la Marquise. Feuillet did not abandon the novel, and in 1862 he achieved a great success with Sibylle. His health, however, had by this time begun to decline, affected by the sad death of his eldest son. He determined to quit Paris, where the life was far too exciting for his nerves, and to regain the quietude of Normandy. The old château of the family had been sold, but he bought a house called “Les Paillers” in the suburbs of Saint-Lô, and there he lived, buried in his roses, for fifteen years. He was elected to the French Academy in 1862, and in 1868 he was made librarian of Fontainebleau palace, where he had to reside for a month or two in each year. In 1867 he produced his masterpiece of Monsieur de Camors, and in 1872 he wrote Julia de Tréœur, which is hardly less admirable. His last years, after the sale of “Les Paillers,” were passed in a ceaseless wandering, the result of the agitation of his nerves. He was broken by sorrow and by ill-health, and when he passed away in Paris on the 29th of December 1890, his death was a release. His last book was Honneur d’artiste (1890). Among the too-numerous writings of Feuillet, the novels have lasted longer than the dramas; 305 of the former three or four seem destined to retain their charm as classics. He holds a place midway between the romanticists and the realists, with a distinguished and lucid portraiture of life which is entirely his own. He drew the women of the world whom he saw around him with dignity, with indulgence, with extraordinary penetration and clairvoyance. There is little description in his novels, which sometimes seem to move on an almost bare and colourless stage, but, on the other hand, the analysis of motives, of emotions, and of “the fine shades” has rarely been carried further. Few have written French with greater purity than Feuillet, and his style, reserved in form and never excessive in ornament, but full of wit and delicate animation, is in admirable uniformity with his subjects and his treatment. It is probably in Sibylle and in Julia de Trécœur that he can now be studied to most advantage, though Monsieur de Camors gives a greater sense of power, and though Le Roman d’un jeune homme pauvre still preserves its popularity.

FEUILLETON (a diminutive of the Fr. feuillet, the leaf of a book), originally a kind of supplement attached to the political portion of French newspapers. Its inventor was Bertin the elder, editor of the Débats. It was not usually printed on a separate sheet, but merely separated from the political part of the newspaper by a line, and printed in smaller type. In French newspapers it consists chiefly of non-political news and gossip, literature and art criticism, a chronicle of the fashions, and epigrams, charades and other literary trifles; and its general characteristics are lightness, grace and sparkle. The feuilleton in its French sense has never been adopted by English newspapers, though in various modern journals (in the United States especially) the sort of matter represented by it is now included. But the term itself has come into English use to indicate the instalment of a serial story printed in one part of a newspaper.

FEUQUIÈRES, ISAAC MANASSÈS DE PAS, Marquis de (1590-1640), French soldier, came of a distinguished family of which many members held high command in the civil wars of the 16th century. He entered the Royal army at the age of thirty, and soon achieved distinction. In 1626 he served in the Valtelline, and in 1628-1629 at the celebrated siege of La Rochelle, where he was taken prisoner. In 1629 he was made Maréchal de Camp, and served in the fighting on the southern frontiers of France. After occupying various military positions in Lorraine, he was sent as an ambassador into Germany, where he rendered important services in negotiations with Wallenstein. In 1636 he commanded the French corps operating with the duke of Weimar’s forces (afterwards Turenne’s “Army of Weimar”). With these troops he served in the campaigns of 1637 (in which he became lieutenant-general), 1638 and 1639. At the siege of Thionville (Diedenhofen) he received a mortal wound. His lettres inédites appeared (ed. Gallois) in Paris in 1845.

His son Antoine Manassès de Pas, Marquis de Feuquières (1648-1711), was born at Paris in 1648, and entered the army at the age of eighteen. His conduct at the siege of Lille in 1667, where he was wounded, won him promotion to the rank of captain. In the campaigns of 1672 and 1673 he served on the staff of Marshal Luxemburg, and at the siege of Oudenarde in the following year the king gave him command of the Royal Marine regiment, which he held until he obtained a regiment of his own in 1676. In 1688 he served as a brigadier at the siege of Philipsburg, and afterwards led a ravaging expedition into south Germany, where he acquired much booty. Promoted Maréchal de Camp, he served under Catinat against the Waldenses, and in the course of the war won the nickname of the “Wizard.” In 1692 he made a brilliant defence of Speierbach against greatly superior forces, and was rewarded with the rank of lieutenant-general. He bore a distinguished part in Luxemburg’s great victory of Neerwinden or Landen in 1693. Marshal Villeroi impressed him less favourably than his old commander Luxemburg, and the resumption of war in 1701 found him in disfavour in consequence. The rest of his life, embittered by the refusal of the marshal’s baton, he spent in compiling his celebrated memoirs, which, coloured as they were by the personal animosities of the writer, were yet considered by Frederick the Great and the soldiers of the 18th century as the standard work on the art of war as a whole. He died in 1711. The Mémoires sur la guerre appeared in the same year and new editions were frequently published (Paris 1711, 1725, 1735, &c., London 1736, Amsterdam subsequently). An English version appeared in London 1737, under the title Memoirs of the Marquis de Feuquières, and a German translation (Feuquières geheime Nachrichten) at Leipzig 1732, 1738, and Berlin 1786. They deal in detail with every branch of the art of war and of military service.

FÉVAL, PAUL HENRI CORENTIN (1817-1887), French novelist and dramatist, was born on the 27th of September 1817, at Rennes in Brittany, and much of his best work deals with the history of his native province. He was educated for the bar, but after his first brief he went to Paris, where he gained a footing by the publication of his “Club des phoques” (1841) in the Revue de Paris. The Mystères de Londres (1844), in which an Irishman tries to avenge the wrongs of his countrymen by seeking the annihilation of England, was published under the ingenious pseudonym “Sir Francis Trolopp.” Others of his novels are: Le Fils du diable (1846); Les Compagnons du silence (1857); Le Bossu (1858); Le Poisson d’or (1863); Les Habits noirs (1863); Jean le diable (1868), and Les Compagnons du trésor (1872). Some of his novels were dramatized, Le Bossu (1863), in which he had M. Victorien Sardou for a collaborator, being especially successful in dramatic form. His chronicles of crime exercised an evil influence, eventually recognized by the author himself. In his later years he became an ardent Catholic, and occupied himself in revising his earlier works from his new standpoint and in writing religious pamphlets. Reverses of fortune and consequent overwork undermined his mental and bodily health, and he died of paralysis in the monastery of the Brothers of Saint John in Paris on the 8th of March 1887.

His son, Paul Féval (1860-  ), became well known as a novelist and dramatist. Among his works are Nouvelles (1890), Maria Laura (1891), and Chantepie (1896).

FEVER (Lat. febris, connected with fervere, to burn), a term generally used to include all conditions in which the normal temperature of the animal body is markedly exceeded for any length of time. When the temperature reaches as high a point as 106° F. the term hyperpyrexia (excessive fever) is applied, and is regarded as indicating a condition of danger; while, if it exceeds 107° or 108° for any length of time, death almost always results. The diseases which are called specific fevers, because of its being a predominant factor in them, are discussed separately under their ordinary names. Occasionally in certain specific fevers and febrile diseases the temperature may attain the elevation of 110°-112° prior to the fatal issue. For the treatment of fever in general, see Therapeutics.

Pathology.—Every rise of temperature is due to a disturbance in the heat-regulating mechanism, the chief variable in which is the action of the skin in eliminating heat (see Animal Heat). Although for all practical purposes this mechanism works satisfactorily, it is not by any means perfect, and many physiological conditions cause a transient rise of temperature; e.g. severe muscular exercise, in which the cutaneous eliminating mechanism is unable at once to dispose of the increased amount of heat produced in the muscles. Pathologically, the heat-regulating mechanism may be disturbed in three different ways: 1st, by mechanical interference with the nervous system; 2nd, by interference with heat elimination; 3rd, by the action of various poisons.

1. In the human subject, fever the result of mechanical interference with the nervous system rarely occurs, but it can readily be produced in the lower animals by stimulating certain parts of the great brain, e.g. the anterior portion of the corpus striatum. This leads to a rise of temperature with increased heat production. The high temperature seems to cause disintegration of cell protoplasm and increased excretion of nitrogen and of carbonic acid. Possibly some of the cases of high temperature recorded 306 after injuries to the nervous system may be caused in this way; but some may also be due to stimulation of vaso-constrictor fibres to the cutaneous vessels diminishing heat elimination. So far the pathology of this condition has not been studied with the same care that has been devoted to the investigation of the third type of fever.

2. Fever may readily be produced by interference with heat elimination. This has been done by submitting dogs to a temperature slightly below that of the rectum, and it is seen in man in Sunstroke. The typical nervous symptoms of fever are thus produced, and the rate of chemical change in the tissues is accelerated, as is shown by the increased excretion of carbonic acid. The protoplasm is also injured and the proteids are broken down, and thus an increased excretion of nitrogen is produced and the cells undergo degenerative changes.

3. The products of various micro-organisms have a toxic action on the protoplasm of a large number of animals, and among the symptoms of this toxic action one of the most frequent is a rise in temperature. While this is by no means a necessary accompaniment, its occurrence is so general that the term Fever has been applied to the general reaction of the organism to the microbial poison. Toxins which cause a marked rise of temperature in men may cause a fall in other animals. It is not the alteration of temperature which is the great index of the severity of the struggle between the host and the parasite, but the death and removal to a greater or lesser extent of the protoplasm of the host. In this respect fever resembles poisoning with phosphorus and arsenic and other similar substances. The true measure of the intensity of a fever is the extent of disintegration of protoplasm, and this may be estimated by the amount of nitrogen excreted in the urine. The increased disintegration of protoplasm is also indicated by the rise in the excretion of sulphur and phosphorus and by the appearance in the urine of acetone, aceto-acetic and β-oxybutyric acids (see Nutrition). Since the temperature is generally proportionate to the intensity of the toxic action, its height is usually proportionate to the excretion of nitrogen. But sometimes the rise of temperature is not marked, while the excretion of nitrogen is very decidedly increased. When the temperature is sufficiently elevated, the heat has of itself an injurious action on the protoplasm, and tends to increase disintegration just as when heat elimination is experimentally retarded. But the increase due to rise of temperature is small compared to that produced by the destructive action of the microbial products. In the beginning of a fever the activity of the metabolism is not increased to any marked extent, and any increase is necessarily largely due to the greater activity of the muscles of the heart and respiratory mechanism, and to the muscular contractions which produce the initial rigors. Thus the excretion of carbon dioxide—the great measure of the activity of metabolism—is not usually increased, and there is no evidence of an increased combustion. In the later stages the increased temperature may bring about an acceleration in the rate of chemical change; but this is comparatively slight, less in fact than the increase observed on taking muscular exercise after rest. The rise of temperature is primarily due to diminished heat elimination. This diminished giving off of heat was demonstrated by means of the calorimeter by I. Rosenthal, while E. Maragliano showed that the cutaneous vessels are contracted. Even in the later stages, until defervescence occurs, heat elimination is inadequate to get rid of the heat produced.

The toxic action is manifested not only by the increased disintegration of protoplasm, but also by disturbances in the functions of the various organs. The activity of the digestive glands is diminished and appetite is lost. Food is therefore not taken, although when taken it appears to be absorbed in undiminished quantities. As a result of this the patient suffers from inanition, and lives largely on his own fats and proteids, and for this reason rapidly emaciates. The functions of the liver are also diminished in activity. Glycogen is not stored in the cells, and the bile secretion is modified, the essential constituents disappearing almost entirely in some cases. The production of urea is also interfered with, and the proportion of nitrogen in the urine not in the urea increases. This is in part due to the increased disintegration of proteids setting free sulphur and phosphorus, which, oxidized into sulphuric and phosphoric acids, combine with the ammonia which would otherwise have been changed to urea. Thus the proportion of ammonia in the urine is increased. Concurrently with these alterations in the functions of the liver-cells, a condition of granular degeneration and probably a state of fatty degeneration makes its appearance. That the functional activity of the kidneys is modified, is shown by the frequent appearance of proteoses or of albumen and globulin in the urine. Frequently the toxin acts very markedly on the protoplasm of the kidney epithelium, and causes a shedding of the cells and sometimes inflammatory reaction. The muscles are weakened, but so far no satisfactory study has been made of the influence of microbial poisons on muscular contraction. A granular and fatty degeneration supervenes, and the fibres waste. The nervous structures, especially the nerve-cells, are acted upon, and not only is their functional activity modified, but they also undergo structural changes of a chromatolytic nature. The blood shows two important changes—first, a fall in the alkalinity due to the products of disintegration of protoplasm; and, secondly, an increase in the number of leucocytes, and chiefly in the polymorpho-nuclear variety. This is best marked in pneumonia, where the normal number is often increased twofold and sometimes more than tenfold, while it is altogether absent in enteric fever.

An interesting general modification in the metabolism is the enormous fall in the excretion of chlorine, a fall far in excess of what could be accounted for by inanition, and out of all proportion to the fall in the sodium and potassium with which the chlorine is usually combined in the urine. The fevered animal in fact stores chlorine in its tissues, though in what manner and for what reason is not at present known.

FEYDEAU, ERNEST-AIMÉ (1821-1873), French author, was born in Paris, on the 16th of March 1821. He began his literary career in 1844, by the publication of a volume of poetry, Les Nationales. Either the partial failure of this literary effort, or his marriage soon afterwards to a daughter of the economist Blanqui, caused him to devote himself to finance and to archaeology. He gained a great success with his novel Fanny (1858), a success due chiefly to the cleverness with which it depicted and excused the corrupt manners of a certain portion of French society. This was followed in rapid succession by a series of fictions, similar in character, but wanting the attraction of novelty; none of them enjoyed the same vogue as Fanny. Besides his novels Feydeau wrote several plays, and he is also the author of Histoire générale des usages funèbres et des sépultures des peuples anciens (3 vols., 1857-1861); Le Secret du bonheur (sketches of Algerian life) (2 vols., 1864); and L’Allemagne en 1871 (1872), a clever caricature of German life and manners. He died in Paris on the 27th of October 1873.

FEZ (Fās), the chief city of Morocco, into which empire it was incorporated in 1548. It lies in 34° 6′ 3″ N., 4° 38′ 15″ W., about 230 m. N.E. of Marrākesh, 100 m. E. from the Atlantic and 85 m. S. of the Mediterranean. It is beautifully situated in a deep valley on the Wad Fās, an affluent of the Wad Sebu, which divides the town into two parts—the ancient town, Fās el Bali, on the right bank, and the new, Fās el Jadīd, on the left.

Like many other Oriental cities, Fez from a distance appears a very attractive place. It stretches out between low hills, crowned by the ruins of ancient fortresses, and though there 307 is nothing imposing, there is something particularly impressive in the sight of that white-roofed conglomeration of habitations, broken only by occasional mosque towers or, on the outskirts, by luxuriant foliage. Except on the south side the city is surrounded by hills, interspersed with groves of orange, pomegranate and other fruit trees, and large olive gardens.

From its peculiar situation Fez has a drainage superior to that of most Moorish towns. When the town becomes very dirty, the water is allowed to run down the streets by opening lids for the purpose in the conduits and closing the ordinary exits, so that it overflows and cleanses the pavements. The Fasis as a rule prefer to drink the muddy river water rather than that of the pure springs which abound in certain quarters of the town. But the assertion that the supply and drainage system are one is a libel, since the drainage system lies below the level of the fresh river water, and was organized by a French renegade, under Mohammed XVI., about the close of the 18th century. The general dampness of the town renders it unhealthy, however, as the pallid faces of the inhabitants betoken, but this is considered a mark of distinction and is jealously guarded.

Most of the streets are exceedingly narrow, and as the houses are high and built in many cases over the thoroughfares these are often very dark and gloomy, though, since wooden beams, rough stones and mortar are used in building, there is less of that ruined, half-decayed appearance so common in other Moorish towns where mud concrete is the material employed.

As a commercial town Fez is a great depot for the trade of Barbary and wares brought from the east and south by caravans. The manufactures still carried on are those of yellow slippers of the famous Morocco leather, fine white woollen and silk haiks, of which it is justly proud, women’s embroidered sashes, various coarse woollen cloths and blankets, cotton and silk handkerchiefs, silk cords and braids, swords and guns, saddlery, brass trays, Moorish musical instruments, rude painted pottery and coloured tiles. Until recent times the city had a monopoly of the manufacture of Fez caps, for it was supposed that the dye which imparts the dull crimson hue of these caps could not be procured elsewhere; they are now, however, made both in France and Turkey. The dye is obtained from the juice of a berry which grows in large quantities near the town, and is also used in the dyeing of leather. Some gold ornaments are made, the gold being brought from the interior by caravans which trade regularly with Timbuktu.

As in other capitals each trade has a district or street devoted chiefly to its activities. Old Fez is the business portion of the town, new Fez being occupied principally by government quarters and the Jews’ mellah. The tradesman usually sits cross-legged in a corner of his shop with his goods so arranged that he can reach most of them without moving.

In the early days of Mahommedan rule in Morocco, Fez was the seat of learning and the empire’s pride. Its schools of religion, philosophy and astronomy enjoyed a great reputation in Africa and also in southern Europe, and were even attended by Christians. On the expulsion of the Moors from Spain, refugees of all kinds flocked to Fez, and brought with them some knowledge of arts, sciences and manufactures, and thither flocked students to make use of its extensive libraries. But its glories were brief, and though still “the university town” of Morocco, it retains but a shadow of its greatness. Its library, estimated by Gerhard Rohlfs in 1861 to contain 5000 volumes, is open on Fridays, and any Moor of known respectability may borrow volumes on getting an order and signing a receipt for them. There are about 1500 students who read at the Karueein. They pay no rents, but buy the keys of the rooms from the last occupants, selling them again on leaving.

The Karueein is celebrated as the largest mosque in Africa, but it is by no means the most magnificent. On account of the vast area covered, the roof, supported by three hundred and sixty-six pillars of stone, appears very low. The side chapel for services for the dead contains twenty-four pillars. All these columns support horse-shoe arches, on which the roof is built, long vistas of arches being seen from each of the eighteen doors of the mosque. The large lamp is stated to weigh 1763 ℔ and to have 509 lights, but it is very seldom lit. The total number of lights in the Karueein is given as seventeen hundred, and they are said to require 3½ cwt. of oil for one filling. The mosque of Mulai Idris, built by the founder of Fez about the year 810, is considered so sacred that the streets which approach its entrance are forbidden to Jews, Christians or four-footed beasts. The sanctity of the shrine in particular is esteemed very great, and this accounts for the crowds which daily flock to it. The Tumiat door leading to it was once very fine, but is now much faded. Opposite to it is a refuge for friendless sharifas—the female descendants of Mahomet—built by Mohammed XVII.

It is believed that the foundation stone of Fez was laid in 808 by Idris II. Since then its history has been chequered, as it was successfully besieged no fewer than eight times in the first five hundred years of its existence, yet only once knew foreign masters, when in 1554 the Turks took possession of it without a siege and held it for a short time. Fez became the chief residence of the Filali dynasty, who obtained possession of the town in 1649 (see further Morocco: History).

The population has been very varyingly estimated; probably the inhabitants number under one hundred thousand, even when the court is in residence.

FEZZAN (the ancient Phazania, or country of the Garamantes), a region of the Sahara, forming a “kaimakamlik” of the Ottoman vilayet of Tripoli (q.v.). Its frontiers, ill-defined, run from Bonjem, within 50 m. of the Mediterranean on the north, south-westward to the Akakus range of hills, which separates Fezzan from Ghat, thence eastward for over 400 m., and then turn north and west to Bonjem again, embracing an area of about 156,000 sq. m.

Physical Features.—The general form of the country is determined by the ranges of hills, including the Jebel-es-Suda (highest peak about 4000 ft.), the Haruj-el-Aswad and the Haruj-el-Abiad, which between 14° and 19° E. and 27° and 29° N. form the northern edge of a broad desert plateau, and shut off the northern region draining to the Mediterranean from the depressions in which lie the oases of Fezzan proper in the south. The central depression of Hofra (“ditch”), as it is called, lies in about 26° N. It does not form a continuous fertile tract, but consists of a monotonous sandy expanse somewhat more thickly studded with oases than the surrounding wastes. The Hofra at its lowest part is not more than 600 ft. above the sea-level, and in this hollow is situated the capital Murzuk. It has a general east to west direction. North-west of the Hofra is a long narrow valley, the Wadi-el-Gharbi, which trends north-east and is the most fertile district of Fezzan. It contains several perennial springs and lake-like basins. One of these basins, the saline Bahr-el-Dud (“Sea of Worms”), has an extent of 600 sq. m., and is in places 26 ft. deep. Southwards the Hofra rises to a height of 2000 ft., and in this direction lies the oasis of Gatron, followed by Tejerri on the verge of the desert, which marks the southern limit of the date and the northern of the dum palm. Beyond Tejerri the Saharan plateau rises continuously to the Tibesti highlands. (See further Tripoli.)

Climate.—The average temperature of Murzuk was found by Rohlfs to be 70° F. Frost is not uncommon in the winter months. The climate is a very regular one, and is in general healthy, the dryness of the air in summer making the heat more bearable than on the sea coast. An almost perpetual blue sky overhangs the desert, and the people of Fezzan are so unaccustomed to and so ill-prepared for wet weather that, as in Tuat and Tidikelt, they pray to be spared from rain. Water is found almost everywhere at small depths.

Flora and Fauna.—The date-palm is the characteristic tree of Fezzan, and constitutes the chief wealth of the land. Many different kinds of date-palms are found in the oases: in that of Murzuk alone more than 30 varieties are counted, the most 308 esteemed being named the Tillis, Tuati and Auregh. In all Fezzan the date is the staple food, not only for men, but for camels, horses and dogs. Even the stones of the fruit are softened and given to the cattle. The huts of the poorer classes are entirely made of date-palm leaves, and the more substantial habitations consist chiefly of the same material. The produce of the tree is small, 100 full-grown trees yielding only about 40 cwt. of dates. Besides the date there are numerous olive, fig and almond trees. Various grains are cultivated. Wheat and barley are sown in winter, and in spring, summer and autumn several kinds of durra, especially ksob and gafoli. Cotton flourishes, is perennial for six or seven years, and gives large pods of moderate length of staple.

There are no large carnivora in Fezzan. In the uninhabited oases gazelles and antelopes are occasionally found. The most important animal is the camel, of which there are two varieties, the Tebu or Sudan camel and the Arabian, differing very much in size, form and capabilities. Horses and cattle are not numerous. Among birds are ostriches, falcons, vultures, swallows and ravens; in summer wild pigeons and ducks are numerous, but in winter they seek a warmer climate. There are no remarkable insects or snakes. A species of Artemia or brine shrimp, about a quarter of an inch in length, of a colour resembling the bright hue of the gold fish, is fished for with cotton nets in the “Sea of Worms,” and mixed with dates and kneaded into a paste, which has the taste and smell of salt herring, is considered a luxury by the people of Fezzan.

Inhabitants.—The total population is estimated at between 50,000 and 80,000. The inhabitants are a mixed people, derived from the surrounding Teda and Bornu on the south, Tuareg of the plateaus on the west, Berbers and Arabs from the north. The primitive inhabitants, called by their Arab conquerors Berāuna, are believed to have been of Negro origin. They no longer persist as a distinct people. In colour the present inhabitants vary from black to white, but the prevailing hue of skin is a Malay-like yellow, the features and woolly hair being Negro. The chief languages are the Kanuri or Bornu language and Arabic. Many understand Targish, the Teda and the Hausa tongues. If among such a mixed people there can be said to be any national language, it is that of Bornu, which is most widely understood and spoken. The people of Sokna, north of the Jebel-es-Suda, have a peculiar Berber dialect which Rohlfs found to be very closely allied to that of Ghadames. The men wear a haik or barakan like those of Tripoli, and a fez; short hose, and a large loose shirt called mansarīa, with red or yellow slippers, complete their toilet. Yet one often sees the large blue or white tobe of Bornu, and the litham or shawl-muffler of the Tuareg, wound round the mouth to keep out the blown sand of the desert. The women, who so long as they are young have very plump forms, and who are generally small, are more simply dressed, as a rule, in the barakan, wound round their bodies; they seldom wear shoes, but generally have sandals made of palm leaf. Like the Arab women they load arms and legs with heavy metal rings, which are of silver among the more wealthy. The hair, thickly greased with butter, soon catching the dust which forms a crust over it, is done up in numberless little plaits round the head, in the same fashion as in Bornu and the Hausa countries. Children run about naked until they attain the age of puberty, which comes very early, for mothers of ten or twelve years of age are not uncommon. The Fezzani are of a gay disposition, much given to music and dancing.

Towns and Trade.—Murzuk, the present capital, which is in telegraphic communication with the town of Tripoli, lies in the western corner of the Hofra depression, in 25° 55′ N. and 14° 10′ E. It was founded about 1310, about which time the kasbah or citadel was built. The Turks repaired it, as well as the town-wall, which has, however, again fallen into a ruinous condition. Murzuk, which had in 1906 some 3000 inhabitants, is cut in two by a wide street, the dendal. The citadel and most of the houses are built of salt-saturated dried mud. Sokna, about midway between Tripoli and Murzuk, situated on a great gravel plain north of the Suda range, has a population of about 2500.

Garama (Jerma-el-Kedima), the capital under the Garamantes and the Romans, was in the Wadi-el-Gharbi. It was a flourishing town at the time of the Arab conquest but is now deserted. Among the ruins is a well-preserved stone monument marking the southern limit of the Roman dominions in this part of Africa. The modern Jerma is a small place a little north of the site of Garama. Zuila, the capital under the Arabs, lies in a depression called the Sherguia east of Murzuk on the most direct caravan route to Barca and Egypt. Of Traghen, the capital under the Nesur dynasty, which was on the same caravan route and between Zuila and Murzuk, little besides the ruined kasbah remains.

Placed roughly midway between the countries of the central Sudan and Tripoli, Fezzan serves as a depot for caravans crossing the Sahara; its commerce is unimportant. Its most important export is that of dates. Slave dealing, formerly the most lucrative occupation of the people, is moribund owing to the stoppage of slave raiding by the European governments in their Sudan territories.

History.—The country formed part of the territory of the Garamantes, described by Herodotus as a very powerful people. Attempts have been made to identify the Garamantes with the Berāuna of the Arabs of the 7th century, and to the period of the Garamantes Duveyrier assigns the remains of remarkable hydraulic works, and certain tombs and rock sculptures—indications, it is held, of a Negro civilization of ancient date which existed in the northern Sahara. The Garamantes, whether of Libyan or Negro origin, had certainly a considerable degree of civilization when in the year 19 B.C. they were conquered by the proconsul L. Cornelius Balbus Minor and their country added to the Roman empire. By the Romans it was called Phazania, whence the present name Fezzan. After the Vandal invasion Phazania appears to have regained independence and to have been ruled by a Berāuna dynasty. At this time the people were Christians, but in 666 the Arabs conquered the country and all traces of Christianity seem speedily to have disappeared. Subject at first to the caliphs, an independent Arab dynasty, that of the Beni Khattab, obtained power early in the 10th century. In the 13th century the country came under the rule of the king of Kanem (Bornu), but soon afterwards the Nesur, said to have been a native or Berāuna dynasty, were in power. More probably the Nesur were hereditary governors originally appointed by the rulers of Kanem. In the 14th century the Nesur were conquered and dethroned by an Arab tribe, that of Khorman, who reduced the people of Fezzan to a state of slavery, a position from which they were rescued about the middle of the 16th century by a sherif of Morocco, Montasir-b.-Mahommed, who founded the dynasty of Beni Mahommed. This dynasty, which came into frequent conflict with the Turks, who had about the same time that Montasir secured Fezzan established themselves in Tripoli, gradually extended its borders as far as Sokna in the north. It was the Beni Mahommed who chose Murzuk as their capital. They became intermittently tributary to the pasha of Tripoli, but within Fezzan the power of the sultans was absolute. They maintained a body-guard of mamelukes, mostly Europeans—Greeks, Genoese, or their immediate descendants. The annual tribute was paid to the pasha either in money or in gold, senna or slaves. The last of the Beni Mahommed sultans was killed in the vicinity of Traghen in 1811 by El-Mukkeni, one of the lieutenants of Yusef Pasha, the last sovereign but one of the independent Karamanli dynasty of Tripoli. El-Mukkeni now made himself sultan of Fezzan, and became notorious by his slaving expeditions into the central Sudan, in which he advanced as far as Bagirmi. In 1831, Abd-el-Jelil, a chief of the Walid-Sliman Arabs, usurped the sovereign authority. After a troublous reign of ten years he was slain in battle by a Turkish force under Bakir Bey, and Fezzan was added to the Turkish empire. Towards the end of the 19th century the Turks, alarmed at the increase of French influence in the neighbouring countries, reinforced their garrison in Fezzan. The kaimakamlik is said to yield an annual revenue of £6000 only to the Tripolitan treasury.

309

FIACRE, SAINT (Celt. Fiachra), an anchorite of the 7th century, of noble Irish descent. We have no information concerning his life in his native country. His Acta, which have scarcely any historical value, relate that he left Ireland, and came to France with his companions. He approached St Faro, the bishop of Meaux, to whom he made known his desire to live a life of solitude in the forest. St Faro assigned him a spot called Prodilus (Brodolium), the modern Breuil, in the province of Brie. There St Fiacre built a monastery in honour of the Holy Virgin, and to it added a small house for guests, to which he himself withdrew. Here he received St Chillen (? Killian), who was returning from a pilgrimage to Rome, and here he remained until his death, having acquired a great reputation for miracles. His remains rested for a long time in the place which he had sanctified. In 1568, at the time of the religious troubles, they were transferred to the cathedral of Meaux, where his shrine may still be seen in the sacristy. Various relics of St Fiacre were given to princes and great personages. His festival is celebrated on the 30th of August. He is the patron of Brie, and gardeners invoke him as their protector. French hackney-coaches received the name of fiacre from the Hôtel St Fiacre, in the rue St Martin, Paris, where one Sauvage, who was the first to provide cabs for hire, kept his vehicles.

FIARS PRICES, in the law of Scotland, the average prices of each of the different sorts of grain grown in each county, as fixed annually by the sheriff, usually after the verdict of a jury; they serve as a rule for ascertaining the value of the grain due to feudal superiors, to the clergy or to lay proprietors of teinds, to landlords as a part or the whole of their rents and in all cases where the price of grain has not been fixed by the parties. It is not known when or how the practice of “striking the fiars,” as it is called, originated. It probably was first used to determine the value of the grain rents and duties payable to the crown. In confirmation of this view it seems that at first the duty of the sheriffs was merely to make a return to the court of exchequer of the prices of grain within their counties, the court itself striking the fiars; and from an old case it appears that the fiars were struck above the true prices, being regarded rather as punishments to force the king’s tenants to pay their rents than as the proper equivalent of the grain they had to pay. Co-existent, however, with these fiars, which were termed sheriffs’ fiars, there was at an early period another class called commissaries’ fiars, by which the values of teinds were regulated. They have been traced back to the Reformation, and were under the management of the commissary or consistorial courts, which then took the place of the bishops and their officials. They have now been long out of use, but they were perhaps of greater antiquity than the sheriffs’ fiars, and the model upon which these were instituted. In 1723 the court of session passed an Act of Sederunt for the purpose of regulating the procedure in fiars courts. Down to that date the practice of striking the fiars was by no means universal over Scotland; and even in those counties into which it had been introduced, there was, as the preamble of the act puts it, “a general complaint that the said fiars are struck and given out by the sheriffs without due care and inquiry into the current and just prices.” The act in consequence provided that all sheriffs should summon annually, between the 4th and the 20th of February, a competent number of persons, living in the shire, of experience in the prices of grain within its bounds, and that from these they should choose a jury of fifteen, of whom at least eight were to be heritors; that witnesses and other evidence as to the price of grain grown in the county, especially since the 1st of November preceding until the day of inquiry, were to be brought before the jury, who might also proceed on “their own proper knowledge”; that the verdict was to be returned and the sentence of the sheriff pronounced by the 1st of March; and further, where custom or expediency recommended it, the sheriff was empowered to fix fiars of different values according to the different qualities of the grain. It cannot be said that this act has remedied all the evils of which it complained. The propriety of some of its provisions has been questioned, and the competency of the court to pass it has been doubted, even by the court itself. Its authority has been entirely disregarded in one county—Haddingtonshire—where the fiars are struck by the sheriff alone, without a jury; and when this practice was called in question the court declined to interfere, observing that the fiars were better struck in Haddingtonshire than anywhere else. The other sheriffs have in the main followed the act, but with much variety of detail, and in many instances on principles the least calculated to reach the true average prices. Thus in some counties the averages are taken on the number of transactions, without regard to the quantities sold. In one case, in 1838, the evidence was so carelessly collected that the second or inferior barley fiars were 2s. 4d. higher than the first. Formerly the price was struck by the boll, commonly the Linlithgowshire boll; now the imperial quarter is always used.

FIBRES (or Fibers, in American spelling; from Lat. fibra, apparently connected either with filum, thread, or findere, to split), the general term for certain structural components of animal and vegetable tissue utilized in manufactures, and in respect of such uses, divided for the sake of classification into textile, papermaking, brush and miscellaneous fibres.

I. Textile Fibres are mostly products of the organic world, elaborated in their elongated form to subserve protective functions in animal life (as wool and epidermal hairs, &c.) or as structural components of vegetable tissues (flax, hemp and wood cells). It may be noted that the inorganic world provides an exception to this general statement in the fibrous mineral asbestos (q.v.), which is spun or twisted into coarse textiles. Other silicates are also transformed by artificial processes into fibrous forms, such as “glass,” which is fused and drawn or spun to a continuous fibre, and various “slags” which, in the fused state, are transformed into “slag wool.” Lastly, we note that a number of metals are drawn down to the finest dimensions, in continuous lengths, and these are woven into cloth or gauze, such metallic cloths finding valuable applications in the arts. Certain metals in the form of fine wire are woven into textile fabrics used as dress materials. Such exceptional applications are of insignificant importance, and will not be further considered in this article.

The common characteristics of the various forms of matter comprised in the widely diversified groups of textile fibres are those of the colloids. Colloidal matter is intrinsically devoid of structure, and in the mass may be regarded as homogeneous; whereas crystalline matter in its proximate forms assumes definite and specific shapes which express a complex of internal stresses. The properties of matter which condition its adaptation to structural functions, first as a constituent of a living individual, and afterwards as a textile fibre, are homogeneous continuity of substance, with a high degree of interior cohesion, and associated with an irreducible minimum of elasticity or extensibility. The colloids show an infinite diversity of variations in these essential properties: certain of them, and notably cellulose (q.v.), maintain 310 these characteristics throughout a cycle of transformations such as permit of their being brought into a soluble plastic form, in which condition they may be drawn into filaments in continuous length. The artificial silks or lustra-celluloses are produced in this way, and have already taken an established position as staple textiles. For a more detailed account of these products see Cellulose.

The animal fibres are composed of nitrogenous colloids of which the typical representatives are the albumens, fibrines and gelatines. They are of highly complex constitution and their characteristics have only been generally investigated. The vegetable fibre substances are celluloses and derivatives of celluloses, also typically colloidal bodies. The broad distinction between the two groups is chiefly evident in their relationship to alkalis. The former group are attacked, resolved and finally dissolved, under conditions of action by no means severe. The celluloses, on the other hand, and therefore the vegetable fibres, are extraordinarily resistant to the action of alkalis.

The animal fibres are relatively few in number but of great industrial importance. They occur as detached units and are of varying dimensions; sheep’s wool having lengths up to 36 in., the fleeces being shorn for textile uses at lengths of 2 to 16 in.; horse hair is used in lengths of 4 to 24 in., whereas the silks may be considered as being produced in continuous length, “reeled silks” having lengths measured in hundreds of yards, but “spun silks” are composed of silk fibres purposely broken up into short lengths.

The vegetable fibres are extremely numerous and of very diversified characteristics. They are individualized units only in the case of seed hairs, of which cotton is by far the most important; with this exception they are elaborated as more or less complex aggregates. The bast tissues of dicotyledonous annuals furnish such staple materials as flax, hemp, rhea or ramie and jute. The bast occurs in a peripheral zone, external to the wood and beneath the cortex, and is mechanically separated from the stem, usually after steeping, followed by drying.

The commercial forms of these fibres are elongated filaments composed of the elementary bast cells (ultimate fibres) aggregated into bundles. The number of these as any part of the filament may vary from 3 to 20 (see figs.). In the processes of refinement preparatory to the spinning (hackling, scutching) and in the spinning process itself, the fibre-bundles are more or less subdivided, and the divisibility of the bundles is an element in the textile value of the raw material. But the value of the material is rather determined by the length of the ultimate fibres (for, although not the spinning unit, the tensile strength of the yarn is ultimately limited by the cohesion of these fibres), qualified by the important factor of uniformity.

Thus, the ultimate fibre of flax has a length of 25 to 35 mm.; jute, on the other hand, 2 to 3 mm.; and this disparity is an essential condition of the difference of values of these fibres. Rhea or ramie, to cite another typical instance, has an ultimate fibre of extraordinary length, but of equally conspicuous variability, viz. from 50 to 200 mm. The variability is a serious impediment in the preparation of the material for spinning and this defect, together with low drawing or spinning quality, limits the applications of this fibre to the lower counts or grades of yarn.

The monocotyledons yield still more complex fibre aggregates, which are the fibro-vascular bundles of leaves and stems. These complex structures as a class do not yield to the mechanical treatment by which the bast fibres are subdivided, nor is there any true spinning quality such as is conditioned by bringing the ultimate fibres into play under the drawing process, which immediately precedes the twisting into yarn. Such materials are therefore only used for the coarsest textiles, such as string or rope. An exception to be noted in passing is to be found in the pine apple (Ananassa Sativa) the fibres of which are worked into yarns and cloth of the finest quality. The more important fibres of this class are manila, sisal, phormium. A heterogeneous mass of still more complex fibre aggregates, in many cases the entire stem (cereal straws, esparto), in addition to being used in plaited form, e.g. in hats, chairs, mats, constitute the staple raw material for paper manufacturers, requiring a severe chemical treatment for the separation of the ultimate fibres.

In this class we must include the woods which furnish wood pulps of various classes and grades. Chemical processes of two types, (a) acid and (b) alkaline, are also employed in resolving the wood, and the resolution not only effects a complete isolation of the wood cells, but, by attacking the hydrolysable constituents of the wood substance (lignocellulose), the cells are obtained in the form of cellulose. These cellulose pulps are known in commerce as “sulphite pulps” and “soda pulps” respectively. In addition to these raw materials or “half stuffs” the paper-maker employs the rejecta of the vegetable and textile industries, scutching, spinning and cloth wastes of all kinds, which are treated by chemical (boiling) and mechanical means (beating) to separate the ultimate fibres and reduce them to the suitable dimensions (0.5-2.0 mm.). These papermaking fibres have also to be reckoned with as textile raw materials, in view of a new and growing industry in “pulp yarns” (Papierstoffgarn), a coarse textile obtained by treating paper as delivered in narrow strips from the paper machine; the strips are reeled, dried to retain 30-40% moisture, and in this condition subjected to the twisting operation, which confers the cylindrical form and adds considerably to the strength of the fibrous strip. The following are the essential characteristics of the economically important fibres.

Animal.—A. Silk. (a) The true silks are produced by the Bombyx Mori, the worm feeding on the leaves of the mulberry. The fibre is extruded as a viscous liquid from the glands of the worm, and solidifies to a cylindrical thread. The cohesion of these threads in pairs gives to raw silk the form of a dual cylinder (Plate I. fig. 2). For textile purposes the thread is reeled from the cocoon, and several units, five and upwards, are brought together and suitably twisted. (b) The “Wild” silks are produced by a large variety of insects, of which the most important are the various species of Antherea, which yield the Tussore silks. These silks differ in form and composition from the true silks. While they consist of a “dual” thread, each unit of these is complex, being made up of a number of fibrillae. This unit thread is quadrangular in section, and of larger diameter than the true silk, the mean breadth being 0.052 mm., as compared with 0.018, the mean diameter of the true silks. The variations in structure as well as in dimensions are, however, very considerable.

B. Epidermal hairs. Of these (a) wool, the epidermal protective covering of sheep, is the most important. The varying species of the animal produce wools of characteristic qualities, varying considerably in fineness, in length of staple, in composition and in spinning quality. Hence the classing of the fleeces or raw wool followed by the elaborate processes of selection, i.e. “sorting” and preparation, which precede the actual spinning or twisting of the yarn. These consist in entirely freeing the fibres and sorting them mechanically (combing, &c.), thereafter forming them into continuous lengths of parallelized units. This is followed by the spinning process which consists in a simultaneous drawing and twisting, and a continuous production of the yarn with the structural characteristics of worsted yarns. The shorter staple—from 5 to 25% of average fleeces—is prepared by the “carding” process for the spinning operation, in which drawing and twisting are simultaneous, the length spun being then wound up, and the process being consequently intermittent. This section of the industry is known as “woollen spinning” in contrast to the former or “worsted spinning.”

(b) An important group of raw material closely allied to the wools are the epidermal hairs of the Angora goat (mohair), the llama, alpaca. Owing to their form and the nature of the substance of which they are composed, they possess more lustre than the wools. They present structural differences from sheep wools which influence the processes by which they are prepared or spun, and the character of the yarns; but the differences are only of subordinate moment.

Plate I.

Plate II.

(c) Various animal hairs, such as those of the cow, camel 311 and rabbit, are also employed; the latter is largely worked into the class of fabrics known as felts. In these the hairs are compacted together by taking advantage of the peculiarity of structure which causes the imbrications of the surface.

(d) Horse hair is employed in its natural form as an individual filament or monofil.1

Vegetable Fibres.—The subjoined scheme of classification sets out the morphological structural characteristics of the vegetable fibres:—

In the list of the more important fibrous raw materials subjoined, the capital letter immediately following the name refers the individual to its position in this classification. In reference to the important question of chemical composition and the actual nature of the fibre substance, it may be premised that the vegetable fibres are composed of cellulose, an important representative of the group of carbohydrates, of which the cotton fibre substance is the chemical prototype, mixed and combined with various derivatives belonging to the subgroups. (a) Carbohydrates. (b) Unsaturated compounds of benzenoid and furfuroid constitutions. (c) “Fat and wax” derivatives, i.e. groups belonging to the fatty series, and of higher molecular dimensions—of such compound celluloses the following are the prototypes:—

The letters a, b, c in the table below and following the capitals, which have reference to the structural basis of classification, indicate the main characteristics of the fibre substances. (See also Cellulose.)

Miscellaneous.—Various species of the family Palmaceae yield fibrous products of value, of which mention must be made of the following. Raffia, epidermal strips of the leaves of Raphia ruffia (Madagascar), R. taedigera (Japan), largely employed as binder twine in horticulture, replacing the “bast” (linden) formerly employed. Coir, the fibrous envelope of the fruit of the Cocos nucifera, extensively used for matting and other coarse textiles. Carludovica palmata (Central America) yields the raw material for Panama hats, the Corypha australis (Australia) yields a similar product. The leaves of the date palm, Phoenix dactylifera, are employed locally in making baskets and mats, and the fibro-vascular bundles are isolated for working up into coarse twine and rope; similarly, the leaves of the Elaeis guineensis, the fruit of which yields the “palm oil” of commerce, yield a fibre which finds employment locally (Africa) for special purposes. Chamaerops humilis, the dwarf palm, yields the well-known “Crin d’Afrique.” Locally (Algiers) it is twisted into ropes, but its more general use, in Europe, is in upholstery as a stuffing material. The cereal straws are used in the form of plait in the making of hats and mats. Esparto grass is also used in the making of coarse mats.

The processes by which the fibres are transformed into textile fabrics are in the main determined by their structural features. The following are the distinctive types of treatment.

A. The fibre is in virtually continuous lengths. The textile yarn is produced by assembling together the unit threads, which are wound together and suitably twisted (silk; artificial silk).

B. The fibres in the form of units of variable short dimensions are treated by more or less elaborate processes of scutching, hackling, combing, with the aim of producing a mass of free parallelized units of uniform dimensions; these are then laid together and drawn into continuous bands of sliver and roving, which are finally drawn and twisted into yarns. In this group are comprised the larger number of textile products, such as 312 cotton, wool, flax and jute, and it also includes at the other extreme the production of coarse textiles, such as twine and rope.

C. The fibres of still shorter dimensions are treated in various ways for the production of a fabric in continuous length.

The distinction of type of manufacturing processes in which the relatively short fibres are utilized, either as disintegrated units or comminuted long fibres, follows the lines of division into long and short fibres; the long fibres are worked into yarns by various processes, whereas the shorter fibres are agglomerated by both dry and wet processes to felted tissues or felts. It is obvious, however, that these distinctions do not constitute rigid dividing lines. Thus the principles involved in felting are also applied in the manipulation of long fibre fabrics. For instance, woollen goods are closed or shrunk by milling, the web being subjected to a beating or hammering treatment in an apparatus known as “the Stocks,” or is continuously run through squeezing rollers, in weak alkaline liquids. Flax goods are “closed” by the process of beetling, a long-continued process of hammering, under which the ultimate fibres are more or less subdivided, and at the same time welded or incorporated together. As already indicated, paper, which is a web composed of units of short dimensions produced by deposition from suspension in water and agglomerated by the interlacing of the component fibres in all planes within the mass, is a species of textile. Further, whereas the silks are mostly worked up in the extreme lengths of the cocoon, there are various systems of spinning silk wastes of variable short lengths, which are similar to those required for spinning the fibres which occur naturally in the shorter lengths.

The fibres thus enumerated as commercially and industrially important have established themselves as the result of a struggle for survival, and each embodies typical features of utility. There are innumerable vegetable fibres, many of which are utilized in the locality or region of their production, but are not available for the highly specialized applications of modern competitive industry to qualify for which a very complex range of requirements has to be met. These include primarily the factors of production and transport summed up in cost of production, together with the question of regularity of supply; structural characteristics, form and dimensions, including uniformity of ultimate unit and adaptability to standard methods of preparing and spinning, together with tenacity and elasticity, lustre. Lastly, composition, which determines the degree of resistance to chemical disintegrating influences as well as subsidiary questions of colour and relationship to colouring matters. The quest for new fibres, as well as modified methods of production of those already known, require critical investigation from the point of view of established practice. The present perspective outline of the group will be found to contain the elements of a grammar of the subject. But those who wish to pursue the matter will require to amplify this outlined picture by a study of the special treatises which deal with general principles, as well as the separate articles on the various fibres.

Analysis and Identification.—For the analysis of textile fabrics and the identification of component fibre, a special treatise must be consulted. The following general facts are to be noted as of importance.

All animal fibres are effectively dissolved by 10% solution of caustic potash or soda. The fabric or material is boiled in this solution for 10 minutes and exhaustively washed. Any residue will be vegetable or cellulose fibre. It must not be forgotten that the chemical properties of the fibre substances are modified more or less by association in combination with colouring matters and mordants. These may, in many cases, be removed by treatments which do not seriously modify the fibre substances.

Wool is distinguished from silk by its relative resistance to the action of sulphuric acid. The cold concentrated acid rapidly dissolves silk as well as the vegetable fibres. The attack on wool is slow, and the epidermal scales of wool make their appearance. The true silks are distinguished from the wild silks by the action of concentrated hydrochloric acid in the cold, which reagent dissolves the former, but has only a slight effect on Tussore silk. After preliminary resolution by these group reagents, the fabric is subjected to microscopical analysis for the final identification of its component fibres (see H. Schlichter, Journal Soc. Chem. Ind., 1890, p. 241).

A scheme for the commercial analysis or assay of vegetable fibres, originally proposed by the author,2 and now generally adopted, includes the following operations:—

1. Determination of moisture.

2. Determination of ash left after complete ignition.

3. Hydrolysis:

4. Determination of cellulose: the white residue after

5. Mercerizing: the loss of weight after digestion with a 20% solution of sodium hydrate for one hour in the cold.

6. Nitration: the weight of the product obtained after digestion with a mixture of equal volumes of sulphuric and nitric acids for one hour in the cold.

7. Acid purification: treatment of the raw fibre with 20% acetic acid for one minute, the product being washed with water and alcohol, and then dried.

8. Determination of the total carbon by combustion.

II. Papermaking.—The papermaking industry (see Paper) employs as raw materials a large proportion of the vegetable fibre products already enumerated, and, for the reasons incidentally mentioned, they may be, and are, employed in a large variety of forms: in fact any fibrous material containing over 30% “cellulose” and yielding ultimate fibres of a length exceeding 1 mm. can be used in this industry. Most important staples are cotton and flax; these are known to the paper-maker as “rag” fibres, rags, i.e. cuttings of textile fabrics, new and old, being their main source of supply. These are used for writing and drawing papers. In the class of “printings” two of the most important staples are wood pulp, prepared by chemical treatment from both pine and foliage woods, and in England esparto cellulose, the cellulose obtained from esparto grass by alkali treatment; the cereal straws are also used and are resolved into cellulose by alkaline boiling followed by bleaching. In the class of “wrappings” and miscellaneous papers a large number of other materials find use, such as various residues of manufacturing and preparing processes, scutching wastes, ends of rovings and yarns, flax, hemp and manila rope waste, adansonia bast, and jute wastes, raw (cuttings) and manufactured (bagging). Other materials have been experimentally tried, and would no doubt come into use on their papermaking merits, but as a matter of fact the actually suitable raw materials are comprised in the list above enumerated, and are limited in number, through the influence of a number of factors of value or utility.

III. Brush Fibres, &c.—In addition to the textile industries there are manufactures which utilize fibres of both animal and vegetable character. The most important of these is brush-making. The familiar brushes of everyday use are extremely diversified in form and texture. The supplies of animal fibres are mainly drawn from the badger, hog, bear, sable, squirrel and horse. These fibres and bristles cover a large range of effects. Brushes required for cleansing purposes are composed of fibres of a more or less hard and resilient character, such as horse hairs, and other tail hairs and bristles. For painting work brushes of soft quality are employed, graduating for fine work into the extreme softness of the “camel hair” pencil. Of vegetable fibres the following are used in this industry. The Caryota urens furnishes the Kittul fibre, obtained from the base of the leaf stalks. Piassava is obtained from the Attalea funifera, also from the Leopoldina piassaba (Brazil). Palmyra fibre is obtained from the Borassus flabellifer. These are all members of the natural order of the Palmaceae. Mexican fibre, or Istle, is obtained from the agave. The fibre known as Whisk, largely 313 used for dusting brushes, is obtained from various species of the Gramineae; the “Mexican Whisk” from Epicampeas macroura; and “Italian Whisk” from Andropogon. The coir fibre mentioned above in connexion with coarse textiles is also extensively used in brush-making. Aloe and Agave fibres in their softer forms are also used for plasterers’ brushes. Many of the whitewashes and cleansing solutions used in house decoration are alkaline in character, and for such uses advantage is taken of the specially resistant character of the cellulose group of materials.

Stuffing and Upholstery.—Another important use for fibrous materials is for filling or stuffing in connexion with the seats and cushions in upholstery. In the large range of effects required, a corresponding number and variety of products find employment. One of the most important is the floss or seed-hair of the Eriodendron anfractuosum, known as Kapok, the use of which in Europe was created by the Dutch merchants who drew their supplies from Java. The fibre is soft, silky and elastic, and maintains its elasticity in use. Many fibres when used in the mass show, on the other hand, a tendency to become matted and compressed in use, and to restore them to their original state the fibre requires to be removed and subjected to a teasing or carding process. This defect limits the use of other “flosses” or seed hairs in competition with Kapok. Horse hair is extensively used in this industry, as are also wool flocks and other short animal hairs and wastes.

Hats and Matting.—For these manufactures a large range of the fibrous products above described are employed, chiefly in their natural or raw state.

FIBRIN, or Fibrine, a protein formed by the action of the so-called fibrin-ferment on fibrinogen, a constituent of the blood-plasma of all vertebrates. This change takes place when blood leaves the arteries, and the fibrin thus formed occasions the clotting which ensues (see Blood). To obtain pure coagulated fibrin it is best to heat blood-plasma (preferably that of the horse) to 56° C. The usual method of beating a blood-clot with twigs and removing the filamentous fibrin which attaches itself to them yields a very impure product containing haemoglobin and much globulin; moreover, it is very difficult to purify. Fibrin is a very voluminous, tough, strongly elastic, jelly-like substance; when denaturalized by heat, alcohol or salts, it behaves as any other coagulated albumin.

FICHTE, IMMANUEL HERMANN (originally Hartmann) VON (1797-1879), German philosopher, son of J.G. Fichte, was born at Jena on the 18th of July 1797. Having held educational posts at Saarbrücken and Düsseldorf, in 1836 he became extraordinary professor of philosophy at Bonn, and in 1840 full professor. In 1842 he received a call to Tübingen, retired in 1867, and died at Stuttgart on the 8th of August 1879. The most important of his comprehensive writings are: System der Ethik (1850-1853), Anthropologie (1856, 3rd ed. 1876), Psychologie (1864-1873), Die theistische Weltansicht (1873). In 1837 he had founded the Zeitschrift für Philosophie as an organ of his views, more especially on the subject of the philosophy of religion, where he was in alliance with C.H. Weisse; but, whereas Weisse thought that the Hegelian structure was sound in the main, and that its imperfections might be mended, Fichte held it to be incurably defective, and spoke of it as a “masterpiece of erroneous consistency or consistent error.” Fichte’s general views on philosophy seem to have changed considerably as he advanced in years, and his influence has been impaired by certain inconsistencies and an appearance of eclecticism, which is strengthened by his predominantly historical treatment of problems, his desire to include divergent systems within his own, and his conciliatory tone. His philosophy is an attempt to reconcile monism (Hegel) and individualism (Herbart) by means of theism (Leibnitz). He attacks Hegelianism for its pantheism, its lowering of human personality, and imperfect recognition of the demands of the moral consciousness. God, he says, is to be regarded not as an absolute but as an Infinite Person, whose nature it is that he should realize himself in finite persons. These persons are objects of God’s love, and he arranges the world for their good. The direct connecting link between God and man is the “genius,” a higher spiritual individuality existing in man by the side of his lower, earthly individuality. Fichte, in short, advocates an ethical theism, and his arguments might easily be turned to account by the apologist of Christianity. In his conception of finite personality he recurs to something like the monadism of Leibnitz. His insistence on moral experience is connected with his insistence on personality. One of the tests by which Fichte discriminates the value of previous systems is the adequateness with which they interpret moral experience. The same reason that made him depreciate Hegel made him praise Krause (panentheism) and Schleiermacher, and speak respectfully of English philosophy. It is characteristic of Fichte’s almost excessive receptiveness that in his latest published work, Der neuere Spiritualismus (1878), he supports his position by arguments of a somewhat occult or theosophical cast, not unlike those adopted by F.W.H. Myers. He also edited the complete works and literary correspondence of his father, including his life.

FICHTE, JOHANN GOTTLIEB (1762-1814), German philosopher, was born at Rammenau in Upper Lusatia on the 19th of May 1762. His father, a ribbon-weaver, was a descendant of a Swedish soldier who (in the service of Gustavus Adolphus) was left wounded at Rammenau and settled there. The family was distinguished for piety, uprightness, and solidity of character. With these qualities Fichte himself combined a certain impetuosity and impatience probably derived from his mother, a woman of a somewhat querulous and jealous disposition.

At a very early age the boy showed remarkable mental vigour and moral independence. A fortunate accident which brought him under the notice of a neighbouring nobleman, Freiherr von Miltitz, was the means of procuring him a more excellent education than his father’s circumstances would have allowed. He was placed under the care of Pastor Krebel at Niederau. After a short stay at Meissen he was entered at the celebrated school at Pforta, near Naumburg. In 1780 he entered the university of Jena as a student of theology. He supported himself mainly by private teaching, and during the years 1784-1787 acted as tutor in various families of Saxony. In 1787, after an unsuccessful application to the consistory for pecuniary assistance, he seems to have been driven to miscellaneous literary work. A tutorship at Zürich was, however, obtained in the spring of 1788, and Fichte spent in Switzerland two of the happiest years of his life. He made several valuable acquaintances, 314 among others Lavater and his brother-in-law Hartmann Rahn, to whose daughter, Johanna Maria, he became engaged.

Settling at Leipzig, still without any fixed means of livelihood, he was again reduced to literary drudgery. In the midst of this work occurred the most important event of his life, his introduction to the philosophy of Kant. At Schulpforta he had read with delight Lessing’s Anti-Goeze, and during his Jena days had studied the relation between philosophy and religion. The outcome of his speculations, Aphorismen über Religion und Deismus (unpublished, date 1790; Werke, i. 1-8), was a species of Spinozistic determinism, regarded, however, as lying altogether outside the boundary of religion. It is remarkable that even for a time fatalism should have been predominant in his reasoning, for in character he was opposed to such a view, and, as he has said, “according to the man, so is the system of philosophy he adopts.”

Fichte’s Letters of this period attest the influence exercised on him by the study of Kant. It effected a revolution in his mode of thinking; so completely did the Kantian doctrine of the inherent moral worth of man harmonize with his own character, that his life becomes one effort to perfect a true philosophy, and to make its principles practical maxims. At first he seems to have thought that the best method for accomplishing his object would be to expound Kantianism in a popular, intelligible form. He rightly felt that the reception of Kant’s doctrines was impeded by their phraseology. An abridgment of the Kritik der Urtheilskraft was begun, but was left unfinished.

Fichte’s circumstances had not improved. It had been arranged that he should return to Zürich and be married to Johanna Rahn, but the plan was overthrown by a commercial disaster which affected the fortunes of the Rahn family. Fichte accepted a post as private tutor in Warsaw, and proceeded on foot to that town. The situation proved unsuitable; the lady, as Kuno Fischer says, “required greater submission and better French” than Fichte could yield, and after a fortnight’s stay Fichte set out for Königsberg to see Kant. His first interview was disappointing; the coldness and formality of the aged philosopher checked the enthusiasm of the young disciple, though it did not diminish his reverence. He resolved to bring himself before Kant’s notice by submitting to him a work in which the principles of the Kantian philosophy should be applied. Such was the origin of the work, written in four weeks, the Versuch einer Kritik aller Offenbarung (Essay towards a Critique of all Revelation). The problem which Fichte dealt with in this essay was one not yet handled by Kant himself, the relations of which to the critical philosophy furnished matter for surmise. Indirectly, indeed, Kant had indicated a very definite opinion on theology: from the Critique of Pure Reason it was clear that for him speculative theology must be purely negative, while the Critique of Practical Reason as clearly indicated the view that the moral law is the absolute content or substance of any religion. A critical investigation of the conditions under which religious belief was possible was still wanting. Fichte sent his essay to Kant, who approved it highly, extended to the author a warm reception, and exerted his influence to procure a publisher. After some delay, consequent on the scruples of the theological censor of Halle, who did not like to see miracles rejected, the book appeared (Easter, 1792). By an oversight Fichte’s name did not appear on the title-page, nor was the preface given, in which the author spoke of himself as a beginner in philosophy. Outsiders, not unnaturally, ascribed the work to Kant. The Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung went so far as to say that no one who had read a line of Kant’s writings could fail to recognize the eminent author of this new work. Kant himself corrected the mistake, at the same time highly commending the work. Fichte’s reputation was thus secured at a stroke.

The Critique of Revelation marks the culminating point of Fichte’s Kantian period. The exposition of the conditions under which revealed religion is possible turns upon the absolute requirements of the moral law in human nature. Religion itself is the belief in this moral law as divine, and such belief is a practical postulate, necessary in order to add force to the law. It follows that no revealed religion, so far as matter or substance is concerned, can contain anything beyond this law; nor can any fact in the world of experience be recognized by us as supernatural. The supernatural element in religion can only be the divine character of the moral law. Now, the revelation of this divine character of morality is possible only to a being in whom the lower impulses have been, or are, successful in overcoming reverence for the law. In such a case it is conceivable that a revelation might be given in order to add strength to the moral law. Religion ultimately then rests upon the practical reason, and expresses some demand or want of the pure ego. In this conclusion we can trace the prominence assigned by Fichte to the practical element, and the tendency to make the requirements of the ego the ground for all judgment on reality. It was not possible that having reached this point he should not press forward and leave the Kantian position.

This success was coincident with an improvement in the fortunes of the Rahn family, and the marriage took place at Zürich in October 1793. The remainder of the year he spent at Zürich, slowly perfecting his thoughts on the fundamental problems left for solution in the Kantian philosophy. During this period he published anonymously two remarkable political works, Zurückforderung der Denkfreiheit von den Fürsten Europas and Beiträge zur Berichtigung der Urtheile des Publicums über die französische Revolution. Of these the latter is much the more important. The French Revolution seemed to many earnest thinkers the one great outcry of modern times for the liberty of thought and action which is the eternal heritage of every human being. Unfortunately the political condition of Germany was unfavourable to the formation of an unbiassed opinion on the great movement. The principles involved in it were lost sight of under the mass of spurious maxims on social order which had slowly grown up and stiffened into system. To direct attention to the true nature of revolution, to demonstrate how inextricably the right of liberty is interwoven with the very existence of man as an intelligent agent, to point out the inherent progressiveness of state arrangements, and the consequent necessity of reform or amendment, such are the main objects of the Beiträge; and although, as is often the case with Fichte, the arguments are too formal and the distinctions too wire-drawn, yet the general idea is nobly conceived and carried out. As in the Critique of Revelation so here the rational nature of man and the conditions necessary for its manifestation or realization become the standard for critical judgment.

Towards the close of 1793 Fichte received an invitation to succeed K.L. Reinhold as extraordinary professor of philosophy at Jena. This chair, not in the ordinary faculty, had become, through Reinhold, the most important in the university, and great deliberation was exercised in selecting his successor. It was desired to secure an exponent of Kantianism, and none seemed so highly qualified as the author of the Critique of Revelation. Fichte, while accepting the call, desired to spend a year in preparation; but as this was deemed inexpedient he rapidly drew out for his students an introductory outline of his system, and began his lectures in May 1794. His success was instantaneous and complete. The fame of his predecessor was altogether eclipsed. Much of this success was due to Fichte’s rare power as a lecturer. In oral exposition the vigour of thought and moral intensity of the man were most of all apparent, while his practical earnestness completely captivated his hearers. He lectured not only to his own class, but on general moral subjects to all students of the university. These general addresses, published under the title Bestimmung des Gelehrten (Vocation of the Scholar), were on a subject dear to Fichte’s heart, the supreme importance of the highest intellectual culture and the duties incumbent on those who had received it. Their tone is stimulating and lofty.

The years spent at Jena were unusually productive; indeed, the completed Fichtean philosophy is contained in the writings of this period. A general introduction to the system is given in the tractate Über den Begriff der Wissenschaftslehre (On the Notion of the Theory of Science), 1794, and the theoretical 315 portion is worked out in the Grundlage der gesammten Wissenschaftslehre (Foundation of the whole Theory of Science, 1794) and Grundriss des Eigenthümlichen d. Wissenschaftslehre (Outline of what is peculiar in the Theory of Science, 1794). To these were added in 1797 a First and a Second Introduction to the Theory of Science, and an Essay towards a new Exposition of the Theory of Science. The Introductions are masterly expositions. The practical philosophy was given in the Grundlage des Naturrechts (1796) and System der Sittenlehre (1798). The last is probably the most important of all Fichte’s works; apart from it, his theoretical philosophy is unintelligible.

During this period Fichte’s academic career had been troubled by various storms, the last so violent as to put a close to his professorate at Jena. The first of them, a complaint against the delivery of his general addresses on Sundays, was easily settled. The second, arising from Fichte’s strong desire to suppress the Landsmannschaften (students’ orders), which were productive of much harm, was more serious. Some misunderstanding caused an outburst of ignorant ill-feeling on the part of the students, who proceeded to such lengths that Fichte was compelled to reside out of Jena. The third storm, however, was the most violent. In 1798 Fichte, who, with F.I. Niethammer (1766-1848), had edited the Philosophical Journal since 1795, received from his friend F.K. Forberg (1770-1848) an essay on the “Development of the Idea of Religion.” With much of the essay he entirely agreed, but he thought the exposition in so many ways defective and calculated to create an erroneous impression, that he prefaced it with a short paper On the Grounds of our Belief in a Divine Government of the Universe, in which God is defined as the moral order of the universe, the eternal law of right which is the foundation of all our being. The cry of atheism was raised, and the electoral government of Saxony, followed by all the German states except Prussia, suppressed the Journal and confiscated the copies found in their universities. Pressure was put by the German powers on Charles Augustus, grand-duke of Saxe-Weimar, in whose dominions Jena university was situated, to reprove and dismiss the offenders. Fichte’s defences (Appellation an das Publicum gegen die Anklage des Atheismus, and Gerichtliche Verantwortung der Herausgeber der phil. Zeitschrift, 1799), though masterly, did not make it easier for the liberal-minded grand-duke to pass the matter over, and an unfortunate letter, in which he threatened to resign in case of reprimand, turned the scale against him. The grand-duke accepted his threat as a request to resign, passed censure, and extended to him permission to withdraw from his chair at Jena; nor would he alter his decision, even though Fichte himself endeavoured to explain away the unfortunate letter.

Berlin was the only town in Germany open to him. His residence there from 1799 to 1806 was unbroken save for a course of lectures during the summer of 1805 at Erlangen, where he had been named professor. Surrounded by friends, including Schlegel and Schleiermacher, he continued his literary work, perfecting the Wissenschaftslehre. The most remarkable of the works from this period are—(1) the Bestimmung des Menschen (Vocation of Man, 1800), a book which, for beauty of style, richness of content, and elevation of thought, may be ranked with the Meditations of Descartes; (2) Der geschlossene Handelsstaat, 1800 (The Exclusive or Isolated Commercial State), a very remarkable treatise, intensely socialist in tone, and inculcating organized protection; (3) Sonnenklarer Bericht an das grössere Publicum über die neueste Philosophie, 1801. In 1801 was also written the Darstellung der Wissenschaftslehre, which was not published till after his death. In 1804 a set of lectures on the Wissenschaftslehre was given at Berlin, the notes of which were published in the Nachgelassene Werke, vol. ii. In 1804 were also delivered the noble lectures entitled Grundzüge des gegenwärtigen Zeitalters (Characteristics of the Present Age, 1804), containing a most admirable analysis of the Aufklärung, tracing the position of such a movement of thought in the natural evolution of the general human consciousness, pointing out its inherent defects, and indicating as the ultimate goal of progress the life of reason in its highest aspect as a belief in the divine order of the universe. The philosophy of history sketched in this work has something of value with much that is fantastic. In 1805 and 1806 appeared the Wesen des Gelehrten (Nature of the Scholar) and the Anweisung zum seligen Leben oder Religionslehre (Way to a Blessed Life), the latter the most important work of this Berlin period. In it the union between the finite self-consciousness and the infinite ego or God is handled in an almost mystical manner. The knowledge and love of God is the end of life; by this means only can we attain blessedness (Seligkeit), for in God alone have we a permanent, enduring object of desire. The infinite God is the all; the world of independent objects is the result of reflection or self-consciousness, by which the infinite unity is broken up. God is thus over and above the distinction of subject and object; our knowledge is but a reflex or picture of the infinite essence. Being is not thought.

The disasters of Prussia in 1806 drove Fichte from Berlin. He retired first to Stargard, then to Königsberg (where he lectured for a time), then to Copenhagen, whence he returned to the capital in August 1807. From this time his published writings are practical in character; not till after the appearance of the Nachgelassene Werke was it known in what shape his final speculations had been thrown out. We may here note the order of these posthumous writings as being of importance for tracing the development of Fichte’s thought. From the year 1806 we have the remarkable Bericht über die Wissenschaftslehre (Werke, vol. viii.), with its sharp critique of Schelling; from 1810 we have the Thatsachen des Bewusstseyns, published in 1817, of which another treatment is given in lectures of 1813 (Nachgel. Werke, vol. i.). Of the Wissenschaftslehre we have, in 1812-1813, four separate treatments contained in the Nachgel Werke. As these consist mainly of notes for lectures, couched in uncouth phraseology, they cannot be held to throw much light on Fichte’s views. Perhaps the most interesting are the lectures of 1812 on Transcendental Logic (Nach. Werke, i. 106-400).

From 1812 we have notes of two courses on practical philosophy, Rechtslehre (Nach. Werke, vol. ii.) and Sittenlehre (ib. vol. iii.). A finished work in the same department is the Staatslehre, published in 1820. This gives the Fichtean utopia organized on principles of pure reason; in too many cases the proposals are identical with principles of pure despotism.

During these years, however, Fichte was mainly occupied with public affairs. In 1807 he drew up an elaborate and minute plan for the proposed new university of Berlin. In 1507-1808 he delivered at Berlin, amidst danger and discouragement, his noble addresses to the German people (Reden an die deutsche Nation). Even if we think that in these pure reason is sometimes overshadowed by patriotism, we cannot but recognize the immense practical value of what he recommended as the only true foundation for national prosperity.

In 1810 he was elected rector of the new university founded in the previous year. This post he resigned in 1812, mainly on account of the difficulties he experienced in his endeavour to reform the student life of the university.

In 1813 began the great effort of Germany for national independence. Debarred from taking an active part, Fichte made his contribution by way of lectures. The addresses on the idea of a true war (Über den Begriff eines wahrhaften Kriegs, forming part of the Staatslehre) contain a very subtle contrast between the positions of France and Germany in the war.

In the autumn of 1813 the hospitals of Berlin were filled with sick and wounded from the campaign. Among the most devoted in her exertions was Fichte’s wife, who, in January 1814, was attacked with a virulent hospital fever. On the day after she was pronounced out of danger Fichte was struck down. He lingered for some days in an almost unconscious state, and died on the 27th of January 1814.

FICHTELGEBIRGE, a mountain group of Bavaria, forming the centre from which various mountain ranges proceed,—the Elstergebirge, linking it to the Erzgebirge, in a N.E., the Frankenwald in a N.W., and the Böhmerwald in a S.E. direction. The streams to which it gives rise flow towards the four cardinal points,—e.g. the Eger eastward and the Saale northward, both to the Elbe; the Weisser Main westward to the Rhine, and the Naab southward to the Danube. The chief points of the mass are the Schneeberg and the Ochsenkopf, the former having a height of 3448, and the latter of 3356 ft. The whole district is pretty thickly populated, and there is great abundance of wood, as well as of iron, vitriol, sulphur, copper, lead and many kinds of marble. The inhabitants are employed chiefly in the iron mines, at forges and blast furnaces, and in charcoal burning and the manufacture of blacking from firewood. Although surrounded by railways and crossed by the lines Nuremberg-Eger and Regensburg-Oberkotzau, the Fichtelgebirge, owing principally to its raw climate and bleakness, is not much visited by strangers, the only important points of interest being Alexandersbad (a delightfully situated watering-place) and the granite labyrinth of Luisenburg.

FICINO, MARSILIO (1433-1499), Italian philosopher and writer, was born at Figline, in the upper Arno valley, in the year 1433. His father, a physician of some eminence, settled in Florence, and attached himself to the person of Cosimo de’ Medici. Here the young Marsilio received his elementary education in grammar and Latin literature at the high school or studio pubblico. While still a boy, he showed promise of rare literary gifts, and distinguished himself by his facility in the acquisition of knowledge. Not only literature, but the physical sciences, as then taught, had a charm for him; and he is said to have made considerable progress in medicine under the tuition of his father. He was of a tranquil temperament, sensitive to music and poetry, and debarred by weak health from joining in the more active pleasures of his fellow-students. When he had attained the age of eighteen or nineteen years, Cosimo received him into his household, and determined to make use of his rare disposition for scholarship in the development of a long-cherished project. During the session of the council for the union of the Greek and Latin churches at Florence in 1439, Cosimo had made acquaintance with Gemistos Plethon, the Neo-Platonic sage of Mistra, whose discourses upon Plato and the Alexandrian mystics so fascinated the learned society of Florence that they named him the second Plato. It had been the dream of this man’s whole life to supersede both forms of Christianity by a semi-pagan theosophy deduced from the writings of the later Pythagoreans and Platonists. When, therefore, he perceived the impression he had made upon the first citizen of Florence, Gemistos suggested that the capital of modern culture would be a fit place for the resuscitation of the once so famous Academy of Athens. Cosimo took this hint. The second half of the 15th century was destined to be the age of academies in Italy, and the regnant passion for antiquity satisfied itself with any imitation, however grotesque, of Greek or Roman institutions. In order to found his new academy upon a firm basis Cosimo resolved not only to assemble men of letters for the purpose of Platonic disputation at certain regular intervals, but also to appoint a hierophant and official expositor of Platonic doctrine. He hoped by these means to give a certain stability to his projected institution, and to avoid the superficiality of mere enthusiasm. The plan was good; and with the rare instinct for character which distinguished him, he made choice of the right man for his purpose in the young Marsilio.

Before he had begun to learn Greek, Marsilio entered upon the task of studying and elucidating Plato. It is known that at this early period of his life, while he was yet a novice, he wrote voluminous treatises on the great philosopher, which he afterwards, however, gave to the flames. In the year 1459 John Argyropoulos was lecturing on the Greek language and literature at Florence, and Marsilio became his pupil. He was then about twenty-three years of age. Seven years later he felt himself a sufficiently ripe Greek scholar to begin the translation of Plato, by which his name is famous in the history of scholarship, and which is still the best translation of that author Italy can boast. The MSS. on which he worked were supplied by this patron Cosimo de’ Medici and by Amerigo Benci. While the translation was still in progress Ficino from time to time submitted its pages to the scholars, Angelo Poliziano, Cristoforo Landino, Demetrios Chalchondylas and others; and since these men were all members of the Platonic Academy, there can be no doubt that the discussions raised upon the text and Latin version greatly served to promote the purpose of Cosimo’s 318 foundation. At last the book appeared in 1482, the expenses of the press being defrayed by the noble Florentine, Filippo Valori. About the same time Marsilio completed and published his treatise on the Platonic doctrine of immortality (Theologia Platonica de immortalitate animae), the work by which his claims to take rank as a philosopher must be estimated. This was shortly followed by the translation of Plotinus into Latin, and by a voluminous commentary, the former finished in 1486, the latter in 1491, and both published at the cost of Lorenzo de’ Medici just one month after his death. As a supplement to these labours in the field of Platonic and Alexandrian philosophy, Marsilio next devoted his energies to the translation of Dionysius the Areopagite, whose work on the celestial hierarchy, though recognized as spurious by the Neapolitan humanist, Lorenzo Valla, had supreme attraction for the mystic and uncritical intellect of Ficino.

It is not easy to value the services of Marsilio Ficino at their proper worth. As a philosopher, he can advance no claim to originality, his laborious treatise on Platonic theology being little better than a mass of ill-digested erudition. As a scholar, he failed to recognize the distinctions between different periods of antiquity and various schools of thought. As an exponent of Plato he suffered from the fatal error of confounding Plato with the later Platonists. It is true that in this respect he did not differ widely from the mass of his contemporaries. Lorenzo Valla and Angelo Poliziano, almost alone among the scholars of that age, showed a true critical perception. For the rest, it was enough that an author should be ancient to secure their admiration. The whole of antiquity seemed precious in the eyes of its discoverers; and even a thinker so acute as Pico di Mirandola dreamed of the possibility of extracting the essence of philosophical truth by indiscriminate collation of the most divergent doctrines. Ficino was, moreover, a firm believer in planetary influences. He could not separate his philosophical from his astrological studies, and caught eagerly at any fragment of antiquity which seemed to support his cherished delusions. It may here be incidentally mentioned that this superstition brought him into trouble with the Roman Church. In 1489 he was accused of magic before Pope Innocent VIII., and had to secure the good offices of Francesco Soderini, Ermolao Barbaro, and the archbishop Rinaldo Orsini, in order to purge himself of a most perilous imputation. What Ficino achieved of really solid, was his translation. The value of that work cannot be denied; the impulse which it gave to Platonic studies in Italy, and through them to the formation of the new philosophy in Europe, is indisputable. Ficino differed from the majority of his contemporaries in this that, while he felt the influence of antiquity no less strongly than they did, he never lost his faith in Christianity, or contaminated his morals by contact with paganism. For him, as for Petrarch, St Augustine was the model of a Christian student. The cardinal point of his doctrine was the identity of religion and philosophy. He held that philosophy consists in the study of truth and wisdom, and that God alone is truth and wisdom,—so that philosophy is but religion, and true religion is genuine philosophy. Religion, indeed, is common to all men, but its pure form is that revealed through Christ; and the teaching of Christ is sufficient to a man in all circumstances of life. Yet it cannot be expected that every man should accept the faith without reasoning; and here Ficino found a place for Platonism. He maintained that the Platonic doctrine was providentially made to harmonize with Christianity, in order that by its means speculative intellects might be led to Christ. The transition from this point of view to an almost superstitious adoration of Plato was natural; and Ficino, we know, joined in the hymns and celebrations with which the Florentine Academy honoured their great master on the day of his birth and death. Those famous festivals in which Lorenzo de’ Medici delighted had indeed a pagan tone appropriate to the sentiment of the Renaissance; nor were all the worshippers of the Athenian sage so true to Christianity as his devoted student.

Of Ficino’s personal life there is but little to be said. In order that he might have leisure for uninterrupted study, Cosimo de’ Medici gave him a house near S. Maria Nuova in Florence, and a little farm at Montevecchio, not far from the villa of Careggi. Ficino, like nearly all the scholars of that age in Italy, delighted in country life. At Montevecchio he lived contentedly among his books, in the neighbourhood of his two friends, Pico at Querceto, and Poliziano at Fiesole, cheering his solitude by playing on the lute, and corresponding with the most illustrious men of Italy. His letters, extending over the years 1474-1494, have been published, both separately and in his collected works. From these it may be gathered that nearly every living scholar of note was included in the list of his friends, and that the subjects which interested him were by no means confined to his Platonic studies. As instances of his close intimacy with illustrious Florentine families, it may be mentioned that he held the young Francesco Guicciardini at the font, and that he helped to cast the horoscope of the Casa Strozzi in the Via Tornabuoni.

At the age of forty Ficino took orders, and was honoured with a canonry of S. Lorenzo. He was henceforth assiduous in the performance of his duties, preaching in his cure of Novoli, and also in the cathedral and the church of the Angeli at Florence. He used to say that no man was better than a good priest, and none worse than a bad one. His life corresponded in all points to his principles. It was the life of a sincere Christian and a real sage,—of one who found the best fruits of philosophy in the practice of the Christian virtues. A more amiable and a more harmless man never lived; and this was much in that age of discordant passions and lawless licence. In spite of his weak health, he was indefatigably industrious. His tastes were of the simplest; and while scholars like Filelfo were intent on extracting money from their patrons by flattery and threats, he remained so poor that he owed the publication of all his many works to private munificence. For his old patrons of the house of Medici Ficino always cherished sentiments of the liveliest gratitude. Cosimo he called his second father, saying that Ficino had given him life, but Cosimo new birth,—the one had devoted him to Galen, the other to the divine Plato,—the one was physician of the body, the other of the soul. With Lorenzo he lived on terms of familiar, affectionate, almost parental intimacy. He had seen the young prince grow up in the palace of the Via Larga, and had helped in the development of his rare intellect. In later years he did not shrink from uttering a word of warning and advice, when he thought that the master of the Florentine republic was too much inclined to yield to pleasure. A characteristic proof of his attachment to the house of Medici was furnished by a yearly custom which he practised at his farm at Montevecchio. He used to invite the contadini who had served Cosimo to a banquet on the day of Saints Cosimo and Damiano (the patron saints of the Medici), and entertained them with music and singing. This affection was amply returned. Cosimo employed almost the last hours of his life in listening to Ficino’s reading of a treatise on the highest good; while Lorenzo, in a poem on true happiness, described him as the mirror of the world, the nursling of sacred muses, the harmonizer of wisdom and beauty in complete accord. Ficino died at Florence in 1499.

Besides the works already noticed, Ficino composed a treatise on the Christian religion, which was first given to the world in 1476, a translation into Italian of Dante’s De monarchia, a life of Plato, and numerous essays on ethical and semi-philosophical subjects. Vigour of reasoning and originality of view were not his characteristics as a writer; nor will the student who has raked these dust-heaps of miscellaneous learning and old-fashioned mysticism discover more than a few sentences of genuine enthusiasm and simple-hearted aspiration to repay his trouble and reward his patience. Only in familiar letters, prolegomena, and prefaces do we find the man Ficino, and learn to know his thoughts and sentiments unclouded by a mist of citations; these minor compositions have therefore a certain permanent value, and will continually be studied for the light they throw upon the learned circle gathered round Lorenzo in the golden age of humanism.

319

FICKSBURG, a town of Orange Free State 110 m. by rail E. by N. of Bloemfontein. Pop. (1904) 1954, of whom 1021 were whites. The town is situated near the north bank of the Caledon river and is the capital of one of the finest agricultural and stock-raising regions of the province. It has direct railway communication with Natal and an extensive trade. In the neighbourhood are petroleum wells and a diamond mine. In the fossilized ooze of the Wonderkop, a table mountain of the adjacent Wittebergen, are quantities of petrified fish.

FICTIONS, or legal fictions, in law, the term used for false averments, the truth of which is not permitted to be called in question. English law as well as Roman law abounds in fictions. Sometimes they are merely the condensed expression of a rule of law,—e.g., the fiction of English law that husband and wife were one person, and the fiction of Roman law that the wife was the daughter of the husband. Sometimes they must be regarded as reasons invented in order to justify a rule of law according to an implied ethical standard. Of this sort seems to be the fiction or presumption that every one knows the law, which reconciles the rule that ignorance is no excuse for crime with the moral commonplace that it is unfair to punish a man for violating a law of whose existence he was unaware. Again, some fictions are deliberate falsehoods, adopted as true for the purpose of establishing a remedy not otherwise attainable. Of this sort are the numerous fictions of English law by which the different courts obtained jurisdiction in private business, removed inconvenient restrictions in the law relating to land, &c.

What to the scientific jurist is a stumbling-block is to the older writers on English law a beautiful device for reconciling the strict letter of the law with common sense and justice. Blackstone, in noticing the well-known fiction by which the court of king’s bench established its jurisdiction in common pleas (viz. that the defendant was in custody of the marshal of the court), says, “These fictions of law, though at first they may startle the student, he will find upon further consideration to be highly beneficial and useful; especially as this maxim is ever invariably observed, that no fiction shall extend to work an injury; its proper operation being to prevent a mischief or remedy an inconvenience that might result from the general rule of law. So true it is that in fictione juris semper subsistit aequitas.” Austin, on the other hand, while correctly assigning as the cause of many fictions the desire to combine the necessary reform with some show of respect for the abrogated law, makes the following harsh criticism as to others:—“Why the plain meanings which I have now stated should be obscured by the fictions to which I have just adverted I cannot conjecture. A wish on the part of the authors of the fictions to render the law as uncognoscible as may be is probably the cause which Mr Bentham would assign. I judge not, I confess, so uncharitably; I rather impute such fictions to the sheer imbecility (or, if you will, to the active and sportive fancies) of their grave and venerable authors, than to any deliberate design, good or evil.” Bentham, of course, saw in fictions the instrument by which the great object of his abhorrence, judiciary law, was produced. It was the means by which judges usurped the functions of legislators. “A fiction of law.” he says, “may be defined as a wilful falsehood, having for its object the stealing legislative powers by and for hands which could not or durst not openly claim it, and but for the delusion thus produced could not exercise it.” A partnership, he says, was formed between the kings and the judges against the interests of the people. “Monarchs found force, lawyers fraud; thus was the capital found” (Historical Preface to the second edition of the Fragment on Government).1

Sir H. Maine (Ancient Law) supplies the historical element which is always lacking in the explanations of Austin and Bentham. Fictions form one of the agencies by which, in progressive societies, positive law is brought into harmony with public opinion. The others are equity and statutes. Fictions in this sense include, not merely the obvious falsities of the English and Roman systems, but any assumption which conceals a change of law by retaining the old formula after the change has been made. It thus includes both the case law of the English and the Responsa Prudentum of the Romans. “At a particular stage of social progress they are invaluable expedients for overcoming the rigidity of law; and, indeed, without one of them, the fiction of adoption, which permits the family tie to be artificially created, it is difficult to understand how society would ever have escaped from its swaddling clothes, and taken its first steps towards civilization.”

The bolder remedial fictions of English law have been to a large extent removed by legislation, and one great obstacle to any reconstruction of the legal system has thus been partially removed. Where the real remedy stood in glaring contrast to the nominal rule, it has been openly ratified by statute. In ejectment cases the mysterious sham litigants have disappeared. The bond of entail can be broken without having recourse to the collusive proceedings of fine and recovery. Fictions have been almost entirely banished from the procedure of the courts. The action for damages on account of seduction, which is still nominally an action by the father for loss of his daughter’s services, is perhaps the only fictitious action now remaining.

Fictions which appear in the form of principles are not so easily dealt with by legislation. To expel them formally from the system would require the re-enactment of vast portions of law. A change in legal modes of speech and thought would be more effective. The legal mind instinctively seizes upon concrete aids to abstract reasoning. Many hard and revolting fictions must have begun their career as metaphors. In some cases the history of the change may still almost be traced. The conception that a man-of-war is a floating island, or that an ambassador’s house is beyond the territorial limits of the country in which he resides, was originally a figure of speech designed to set a rule of law in a striking light. It is then gravely accepted as true in fact, and other rules of law are deduced from it. Its beginning is to be compared with such phrases as “an Englishman’s house is his castle,” which have had no legal offshoots and still remain mere figures of speech.

Constitutional law is of course honeycombed with fictions. Here there is hardly ever anything like direct legislative change, and yet real change is incessant. The rules defining the sovereign power and fixing the authority of its various members are in most points the same as they were at the last revolution,—in many points they have been the same since the beginning of parliamentary government. But they have long ceased to be true in fact; and it would hardly be too much to say that the entire series of formal propositions called the constitution is merely a series of fictions. The legal attributes of the king, and even of the House of Lords, are fictions. If we could suppose that the effects of the Reform Acts had been brought about, not by legislation, but by the decisions of law courts and the practice of House of Commons committees—by such assumptions as that freeholder includes lease-holder and that ten means twenty—we should have in the legal constitution of the House of Commons the same kind of fictions that we find in the legal statement of the attributes of the crown and the House of Lords. Here, too, fictions have been largely resorted to for the purpose of supporting particular 320 theories,—popular or monarchical,—and such have flourished even more vigorously than purely legal fictions.

FIDDES, RICHARD (1671-1725), English divine and historian, was born at Hunmanby and educated at Oxford. He took orders, and obtained the living of Halsham in Holderness in 1696. Owing to ill-health he applied for leave to reside at Wickham, and in 1712 he removed to London on the plea of poverty, intending to pursue a literary career. In London he met Swift, who procured him a chaplaincy at Hull. He also became chaplain to the earl of Oxford. After losing the Hull chaplaincy through a change of ministry in 1714, he devoted himself to writing. His best book is a Life of Cardinal Wolsey (London, 1724), containing documents which are still valuable for reference; of his other writings the Prefatory Epistle containing some remarks to be published on Homer’s Iliad (London, 1714), was occasioned by Pope’s proposed translation of the Iliad, and his Theologia speculativa (London, 1718), earned him the degree of D.D. at Oxford. In his own day he had a considerable reputation as an author and man of learning.

FIDDLE (O. Eng. fithele, fidel, &c., Fr. vièle, viole, violon; M. H. Ger. videle, mod. Ger. Fiedel), a popular term for the violin, derived from the names of certain of its ancestors. The word fiddle antedates the appearance of the violin by several centuries, and in England did not always represent an instrument of the same type. The word has first been traced in 1205 in Layamon’s Brut (7002), “of harpe, of salteriun, of fithele and of coriun.” In Chaucer’s time the fiddle was evidently a well-known instrument:

The origin of the fiddle is of the greatest interest; it will be found inseparable from that of the violin both as regards the instruments and the etymology of the words; the remote common ancestor is the ketharah of the Assyrians, the parent of the Greek cithara. The Romans are responsible for the word fiddle, having bestowed upon a kind of cithara—probably then in its first transition—the name of fidiculae (more rarely fidicula), a diminutive form of fides. In Alain de Lille’s De planctu naturae against the word lira stands as equivalent vioel, with the definition “Lira est quoddam genuē citharae vel fitola alioquin de reot. Hoc instrumentum est multum vulgare.” This is a marginal note in writing of the 13th century.1

Some of the transitions from fidicula to fiddle are made evident in the accompanying table:

For the descent of the guitar-fiddle, the first bowed ancestor of the violin, through many transitions from the cithara, see Cithara, Guitar and Guitar-Fiddle.

In the minnesinger and troubadour fiddles, of which evidences abound during the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries, are to be observed the structural characteristics of the violin and its ancestors in the course of evolution. The principal of these are first of all the shallow sound-chest, composed of belly and back, almost flat, connected by ribs (also present in the cithara), with incurvations more or less pronounced, an arched bridge, a finger-board and strings (varying in number), vibrated by means of a bow. The central rose sound-holes of stringed instruments whose strings are plucked by fingers, or plectrum have given place to smaller lateral sound-holes placed on each side of the strings. It is in Germany,2 where contemporary drawings of fiddles of the 13th and 14th centuries furnish an authoritative clue, and in France, that the development may best be followed. The German minnesinger fiddle with sloping shoulders was the prototype of the viols, whereas the guitar-fiddle produced the violin through the intermediary of the Italian bowed Lyra.

The fiddle of the Carolingian epoch,—such, for instance, as that mentioned by Otfrid of Weissenburg3 in his Harmony of the Gospels (c. 868),

was in all probability still an instrument whose strings were plucked by the fingers, a cithara in transition.

FIDENAE, an ancient town of Latium, situated about 5 m. N. of Rome on the Via Salaria, which ran between it and the Tiber. It was for some while the frontier of the Roman territory and was often in the hands of Veii. It appears to have fallen under the Roman sway after the capture of this town, and is spoken of by classical authors as a place almost deserted in their time. It seems, however, to have had some importance as a post station. The site of the arx of the ancient town is probably to be sought on the hill on which lies the Villa Spada, though no traces of early buildings or defences are to be seen: pre-Roman tombs are to be found in the cliffs to the north. The later village lay at the foot of the hill on the eastern edge of the high-road, and its curia, with a dedicatory inscription to M. Aurelius by the Senatus Fidenatium, was excavated in 1889. Remains of other buildings may also be seen.

FIDUCIARY (Lat. fiduciaries, one in whom trust, fiducia, is reposed), of or belonging to a position of trust, especially of one who stands in a particular relationship of confidence to another. Such relationships are, in law, those of parent and child, guardian and ward, trustee and cestui que trust, legal adviser and client, spiritual adviser, doctor and patient, &c. In many of these the law has attached special obligations in the case of gifts made to the “fiduciary,” on whom is laid the onus of proving that no “undue influence” has been exercised. (See Contract; Children, Law Relating to; Infant; Trust.)

FIEF, a feudal estate in land, land held from a superior (see Feudalism). The word is the French form, which is represented in Medieval Latin as feudum or feodum, and in English as “fee” or “feu” (see Fee). The A. Fr. feoffer, to invest with a fief or fee, has given the English law terms “feoffee” and “feoffment” (q.v.).

FIELD, CYRUS WEST (1819-1892), American capitalist, projector of the first Atlantic cable, was born at Stockbridge, Massachusetts, on the 30th of November 1819. He was a brother of David Dudley Field. At fifteen he became a clerk in the store of A.T. Stewart & Co., of New York, and stayed there three years; then worked for two years with his brother, Matthew Dickinson Field, in a paper-mill at Lee, Massachusetts; and in 1840 went into the paper business for himself at Westfield, Massachusetts, but almost immediately became a partner in E. Root & Co., wholesale paper dealers in New York City, who failed in the following year. Field soon afterwards formed with a 321 brother-in-law the firm of Cyrus W. Field & Co., and in 1853 had accumulated $250,000, paid off the debts of the Root company and retired from active business, leaving his name and $100,000 with the concern. In the same year he travelled with Frederick E. Church, the artist, through South America. In 1854 he became interested, through his brother Matthew, a civil engineer, in the project of Frederick Newton Gisborne (1824-1892) for a telegraph across Newfoundland; and he was attracted by the idea of a trans-Atlantic telegraphic cable, as to which he consulted S.F.B. Morse and Matthew F. Maury, head of the National Observatory at Washington. With Peter Cooper, Moses Taylor (1806-1882), Marshall Owen Roberts (1814-1880) and Chandler White, he formed the New York, Newfoundland & London Telegraph Company, which procured a more favourable charter than Gisborne’s, and had a capital of $1,500,000. Having secured all the practicable landing rights on the American side of the ocean, he and John W. Brett, who was now his principal colleague, approached Sir Charles Bright (q.v.) in London, and in December 1556 the Atlantic Telegraph Company was organized by them in Great Britain, a government grant being secured of £14,000 annually for government messages, to be reduced to £10,000 annually when the cable should pay a 6% yearly dividend; similar grants were made by the United States government. Unsuccessful attempts to lay the cable were made in August 1857 and in June 1858, but the complete cable was laid between the 7th of July and the 5th of August 1858; for a time messages were transmitted, but in October the cable became useless, owing to the failure of its electrical insulation. Field, however, did not abandon the enterprise, and finally in July 1866, after a futile attempt in the previous year, a cable was laid and brought successfully into use. From the Congress of the United States he received a gold medal and a vote of thanks, and he received many other honours both at home and abroad. In 1877 he bought a controlling interest in the New York Elevated Railroad Company, controlling the Third and Ninth Avenue lines, of which he was president in 1877-1880. He worked with Jay Gould for the completion of the Wabash railway, and at the time of his greatest stock activity bought The New York Evening Express and The Mail and combined them as The Mail and Express, which he controlled for six years. In 1879 Field suffered financially by Samuel J. Tilden’s heavy sales (during Field’s absence in Europe) of “Elevated” stock, which forced the price down from 200 to 164; but Field lost much more in the great “Manhattan squeeze” of the 24th of June 1887, when Jay Gould and Russell Sage, who had been supposed to be his backers in an attempt to bring the Elevated stock to 200, forsook him, and the price fell from 156½ to 114 in half an hour. Field died in New York on the 12th of July 1892.

FIELD, DAVID DUDLEY (1805-1894), American lawyer and law reformer, was born in Haddam, Connecticut, on the 13th of February 1805. He was the oldest of the four sons of the Rev. David Dudley Field (1781-1867), a well-known American clergyman and author. He graduated at Williams College in 1825, and settled in New York City, where he studied law, was admitted to the bar in 1828, and rapidly won a high position in his profession. Becoming convinced that the common law in America, and particularly in New York state, needed radical changes in respect to the unification and simplification of its procedure, he visited Europe in 1836 and thoroughly investigated the courts, procedure and codes of England, France and other countries, and then applied himself to the task of bringing about in the United States a codification of the common law procedure. For more than forty years every moment that he could spare from his extensive practice was devoted to this end. He entered upon his great work by a systematic publication of pamphlets and articles in journals and magazines in behalf of his reform, but for some years he met with a discouraging lack of interest. He appeared personally before successive legislative committees, and in 1846 published a pamphlet, “The Reorganization of the Judiciary,” which had its influence in persuading the New York State Constitutional Convention of that year to report in favour of a codification of the laws. Finally in 1847 he was appointed as the head of a state commission to revise the practice and procedure. The first part of the commission’s work, consisting of a code of civil procedure, was reported and enacted in 1848, and by the 1st of January 1850 the complete code of civil and criminal procedure was completed, and was subsequently enacted by the legislature. The basis of the new system, which was almost entirely Field’s work, was the abolition of the existing distinction in forms of procedure between suits in law and equity requiring separate actions, and their unification and simplification in a single action. Eventually the civil code with some changes was adopted in twenty-four states, and the criminal code in eighteen, and the whole formed a basis of the reform in procedure in England and several of her colonies. In 1857 Field became chairman of a state commission for the reduction into a written and systematic code of the whole body of law of the state, excepting those portions already reported upon by the Commissioners of Practice and Pleadings. In this work he personally prepared almost the whole of the political and civil codes. The codification, which was completed in February 1865, was adopted only in small part by the state, but it has served as a model after which most of the law codes of the United States have been constructed. In 1866 he proposed to the British National Association for the Promotion of Social Science a revision and codification of the laws of all nations. For an international commission of lawyers he prepared Draft Outlines of an International Code (1872), the submission of which resulted in the organization of the international Association for the Reform and Codification of the Laws of Nations, of which he became president. In politics Field was originally an anti-slavery Democrat, and he supported Van Buren in the Free Soil campaign of 1848. He gave his support to the Republican party in 1856 and to the Lincoln administration throughout the Civil War. After 1876, however, he returned to the Democratic party, and from January to March 1877 served out in Congress the unexpired term of Smith Ely, elected mayor of New York City. During his brief Congressional career he delivered six speeches, all of which attracted attention, introduced a bill in regard to the presidential succession, and appeared before the Electoral Commission in Tilden’s interest. He died in New York City on the 13th of April 1894.

FIELD, EUGENE (1850-1895), American poet, was born at St Louis, Missouri, on the 2nd of September 1850. He spent his boyhood in Vermont and Massachusetts; studied for short periods at Williams and Knox Colleges and the University of Missouri, but without taking a degree; and worked as a journalist on various papers, finally becoming connected with the Chicago News. A Little Book of Profitable Tales appeared in Chicago in 1889 and in New York the next year; but Field’s place in later American literature chiefly depends upon his poems of Christmas-time and childhood (of which “Little Boy Blue” and “A Dutch Lullaby” are most widely known), because of their union of obvious sentiment with fluent lyrical form. His principal collections of poems are: A Little Book of Western Verse (1889); A Second Book of Verse (1892); With Trumpet and Drum (1892); and Love Songs of Childhood (1894). Field died at Chicago on the 4th of November 1895.

FIELD, FREDERICK (1801-1885), English divine and biblical scholar, was born in London and educated at Christ’s hospital and Trinity College, Cambridge, where he obtained a fellowship in 1824. He took orders in 1828, and began a close study of patristic theology. Eventually he published an emended and 322 annotated text of Chrysostom’s Homiliae in Matthaeum (Cambridge, 1839), and some years later he contributed to Pusey’s Bibliotheca Patrum (Oxford, 1838-1870), a similarly treated text of Chrysostom’s homilies on Paul’s epistles. The scholarship displayed in both of these critical editions is of a very high order. In 1839 he had accepted the living of Great Saxham, in Suffolk, and in 1842 he was presented by his college to the rectory of Reepham in Norfolk. He resigned in 1863, and settled at Norwich, in order to devote his whole time to study. Twelve years later he completed the Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt (Oxford, 1867-1875), now well known as Field’s Hexapla, a text reconstructed from the extant fragments of Origen’s work of that name, together with materials drawn from the Syro-hexaplar version and the Septuagint of Holmes and Parsons (Oxford, 1798-1827). Field was appointed a member of the Old Testament revision company in 1870.

FIELD, HENRY MARTYN (1822-1907), American author and clergyman, brother of Cyrus Field, was born at Stockbridge, Massachusetts, on the 3rd of April 1822; he graduated at Williams College in 1838, and was pastor of a Presbyterian church in St Louis, Missouri, from 1842 to 1847, and of a Congregational church in West Springfield, Massachusetts, from 1850 to 1854. The interval between his two pastorates he spent in Europe. From 1854 to 1898 he was editor and for many years he was also sole proprietor of The Evangelist, a New York periodical devoted to the interests of the Presbyterian church. He spent the last years of his life in retirement at Stockbridge, Mass., where he died on the 26th of January 1907. He was the author of a series of books of travel, which achieved unusual popularity. His two volumes descriptive of a trip round the world in 1875-1876, entitled From the Lakes of Killarney to the Golden Horn (1876) and From Egypt to Japan (1877), are almost classic in their way, and have passed through more than twenty editions. Among his other publications are The Irish Confederates and the Rebellion of 1798 (1850), The History of the Atlantic Telegraph (1866), Faith or Agnosticism? the Field-Ingersoll Discussion (1888), Old Spain and New Spain (1888), and Life of David Dudley Field (1898).

He is not to be confused with another Henry Martyn Field, the gynaecologist, who was born in 1837 at Brighton, Mass., and graduated at Harvard in 1859 and at the College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City in 1862; he was professor of Materia Medica and therapeutics at Dartmouth from 1871 to 1887 and of therapeutics from 1887 to 1893.

FIELD, JOHN (1782-1837), English musical composer and pianist, was born at Dublin in 1782. He came of a musical family, his father being a violinist, and his grandfather the organist in one of the churches of Dublin. From the latter the boy received his first musical education. When a few years later the family settled in London, Field became the favourite pupil of the celebrated Clementi, whom he accompanied to Paris, and later, in 1802, on his great concert tour through France, Germany and Russia. Under the auspices of his master Field appeared in public in most of the great European capitals, especially in St Petersburg, and in that city he remained when Clementi returned to England. During his stay with the great pianist Field had to suffer many privations owing to Clementi’s all but unexampled parsimony; but when the latter left Russia his splendid connexion amongst the highest circles of the capital became Field’s inheritance. His marriage with a French lady of the name of Charpentier was anything but happy, and had soon to be dissolved. Field made frequent concert tours to the chief cities of Russia, and in 1820 settled permanently in Moscow. In 1831 he came to England for a short time, and for the next four years led a migratory life in France, Germany and Italy, exciting the admiration of amateurs wherever he appeared in public. In Naples he fell seriously ill, and lay several months in the hospital, till a Russian family discovered him and brought him back to Moscow. There he lingered for several years till his death on the 11th of January 1837. Field’s training and the cast of his genius were not of a kind to enable him to excel in the larger forms of instrumental music, and his seven concerti for the pianoforte are now forgotten. Neither do his quartets for strings and pianoforte hold their own by the side of those of the great masters. But his “nocturnes,” a form of music highly developed if not actually created by him, remain all but unrivalled for their tenderness and dreaminess of conception, combined with a continuous flow of beautiful melody. They were indeed Chopin’s models. Field’s execution on the pianoforte was nearly allied to the nature of his compositions, beauty and poetical charm of touch being one of the chief characteristics of his style. Moscheles, who heard Field in 1831, speaks of his “enchanting legato, his tenderness and elegance and his beautiful touch.”

FIELD, MARSHALL (1835-1906), American merchant, was born at Conway, Massachusetts, on the 18th of August 1835. Reared on a farm, he obtained a common school and academy education, and at the age of seventeen became a clerk in a dry goods store at Pittsfield, Mass. In 1856 he removed to Chicago, where he became a clerk in the large mercantile establishment of Cooley, Wadsworth & Company. In 1860 the firm was reorganized as Cooley, Farwell & Company, and he was admitted to a junior partnership. In 1865, with Potter Palmer (1826-1902) and Levi Z. Leiter (1834-1904), he organized the firm of Field, Palmer & Leiter, which subsequently became Field, Leiter & Company, and in 1881 on the retirement of Leiter became Marshall Field & Company. Under Field’s management the annual business of the firm increased from $12,000,000 in 1871 to more than $40,000,000 in 1895, when it ranked as one of the two or three largest mercantile establishments in the world. He died in New York city on the 16th of January 1906. He had married, for the second time, in the previous year. Field’s public benefactions were numerous; notable among them being his gift of land valued at $300,000 and of $100,000 in cash to the University of Chicago, an endowment fund of $1,000,000 to support the Field Columbian Museum at Chicago, and a bequest of $8,000,000 to this museum.

FIELD, NATHAN (1587-1633), English dramatist and actor, was baptized on the 17th of October 1587. His father, the rector of Cripplegate, was a Puritan divine, author of a Godly Exhortation directed against play-acting, and his brother Theophilus became bishop of Hereford. Nat. Field early became one of the children of Queen Elizabeth’s chapel, and in that capacity he played leading parts in Ben Jonson’s Cynthia’s Revels (in 1600), in the Poetaster (in 1601), and in Epicoene (in 1608), and the title rôle in Chapman’s Bussy d’Ambois (in 1606). Ben Jonson was his dramatic model, and may have helped his career. The two plays of which he was author were probably both written before 1611. They are boisterous, but well-constructed comedies of contemporary London life; the earlier one, A Woman is a Weathercock (printed 1612), dealing with the inconstancy of woman, while the second, Amends for Ladies (printed 1618), was written with the intention, as the title indicates, of retracting the charge. From Henslowe’s papers it appears that Field collaborated with Robert Daborne and with Philip Massinger, one letter from all three authors being a joint appeal for money to free them from prison. In 1614 Field received £10 for playing before the king in Bartholomew Fair, a play in which Jonson records his reputation as an actor in the words “which is your Burbadge now?... Your best actor, your Field?” He joined the King’s Players some time before 1619, and his name comes seventeenth on the list prefixed to the Shakespeare folio of 1623 of the “principal actors in all these plays.” He retired from the stage before 1625, and died on the 20th of February 1633. Field was part author with Massinger in the Fatal Dowry (printed 1632), and he prefixed commendatory verses to Fletcher’s Faithful Shepherdess.

FIELD, STEPHEN JOHNSON (1816-1899), American jurist, was born at Haddam, Connecticut, on the 4th of November 1816. He was the brother of David Dudley Field, Cyrus W. 323 Field and Henry M. Field. At the age of thirteen he accompanied his sister Emilia and her husband the Rev. Josiah Brewer (the parents of the distinguished judge of the Supreme Court, David J. Brewer) to Smyrna, Turkey, for the purpose of studying Oriental languages, but after three years he returned to the United States, and in 1837 graduated at Williams College at the head of his class. He then studied law in his elder brother’s office, and in 1841 he was admitted to the New York bar. He was associated in practice there with his brother until 1848, and early in 1849 removed to California, settling soon afterward at Marysville, of which place, in 1850, he became the first alcalde or mayor. In the same year he was chosen a member of the first state legislature of California, in which he drew up and secured the enactment of two bodies of law known as the Civil and Criminal Practices Acts, based on the similar codes prepared by his brother David Dudley for New York. In the former act he embodied a provision regulating and giving authority to the peculiar customs, usages, and regulations voluntarily adopted by the miners in various districts of the state for the adjudication of disputed mining claims. This, as Judge Field truly says, “was the foundation of the jurisprudence respecting mines in the country,” having greatly influenced legislation upon this subject in other states and in the Congress of the United States. He was elected, in 1857, a justice of the California Supreme Court, of which he became chief justice in 1859, on the resignation of Judge David S. Terry to fight the duel with the United States senator David C. Broderick which ended fatally for the latter. Field held this position until 1863, when he was appointed by President Lincoln a justice of the United States Supreme Court. In this capacity he was conspicuous for fearless independence of thought and action in his opinion in the test oath case, and in his dissenting opinions in the legal tender, conscription and “slaughter house” cases, which displayed unusual legal learning, and gave powerful expression to his strict constructionist theory of the implied powers of the Federal constitution. Originally a Democrat, and always a believer in states’ rights, his strong Union sentiments caused him nevertheless to accept Lincoln’s doctrine of coercion, and that, together with his anti-slavery sympathies, led him to act with the Republican party during the period of the Civil War. He was a member of the commission which revised the California code in 1873 and of the Electoral Commission in 1877, voting in favour of Tilden. In 1880 he received sixty-five votes on the first ballot for the presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention at Cincinnati. In August 1889, as a result of a ruling in the course of the Sharon-Hill litigation, a notorious conspiracy case, he was assaulted in a California railway station by Judge David S. Terry, who in turn was shot and killed by a United States deputy marshall appointed to defend Justice Field against the carrying out of Terry’s often-expressed threats. He retired from the Supreme Court on the 1st of December 1897 after a service of thirty-four years and six months, the longest in the court’s history, and died in Washington on the 9th of April 1899.

FIELD, WILLIAM VENTRIS FIELD, Baron (1813-1907), English judge, second son of Thomas Flint Field, of Fielden, Bedfordshire, was born on the 21st of August 1813. He was educated at King’s school, Bruton, Somersetshire, and entered the legal profession as a solicitor. In 1843, however, he ceased to practise as such, and entered at the Inner Temple, being called to the bar in 1850, after having practised for some time as a special pleader. He joined the Western circuit, but soon exchanged it for the Midland. He obtained a large business as a junior, and became a queen’s counsel and bencher of his inn in 1864. As a Q.C. he had a very extensive common law practice, and had for some time been the leader of the Midland circuit, when in February 1875, on the retirement of Mr Justice Keating, he was raised to the bench as a justice of the queen’s bench. Mr Justice Field was an excellent puisne judge of the type that attracts but little public attention. He was a first-rate lawyer, had a good knowledge of commercial matters, great shrewdness and a quick intellect, while he was also painstaking and scrupulously fair. When the rules of the Supreme Court 1883 came into force in the autumn of that year, Mr Justice Field was so well recognized an authority upon all questions of practice that the lord chancellor selected him to sit continuously at Judges’ Chambers, in order that a consistent practice under the new rules might as far as possible be established. This he did for nearly a year, and his name will always, to a large extent, be associated with the settling of the details of the new procedure, which finally did away with the former elaborate system of “special pleading.” In 1890 he retired from the bench and was raised to the peerage as Baron Field of Bakeham, becoming at the same time a member of the privy council. In the House of Lords he at first took part, not infrequently, in the hearing of appeals, and notably delivered a carefully-reasoned judgment in the case of the Bank of England v. Vagliano Brothers (5th of March 1891), in which, with Lord Bramwell, he differed from the majority of his brother peers. Before long, however, deafness and advancing years rendered his attendances less frequent. Lord Field died at Bognor on the 23rd of January 1907, and as he left no issue the peerage became extinct.

FIELD (a word common to many West German languages, cf. Ger. Feld, Dutch veld, possibly cognate with O.E. folde, the earth, and ultimately with root of the Gr. πλατός, broad), open country as opposed to woodland or to the town, and particularly land for cultivation divided up into separate portions by hedges, banks, stone walls, &c.; also used in combination with words denoting the crop grown on such a portion of land, such as corn-field, turnip-field, &c. The word is similarly applied to a region with particular reference to its products, as oil-field, gold-field, &c. For the “open” or “common field” system of agriculture in village communities see Commons. Generally with a reference to their “wild” as opposed to their “domestic” nature “field” is applied to many animals, such as the “field-mouse.” There are many applications of the word; thus from the use of the term for the place where a battle is fought, and widely of the whole theatre of war, come such phrases as to “take the field” for the opening of a campaign, “in the field” of troops that are engaged in the operations of a campaign. It is frequently used figuratively in this sense, of the subject matter of a controversy, and also appears in military usage, in field-fortification, field-day and the like. A “field-officer” is one who ranks above a captain and below a general (see Officers); a field marshal is the highest rank of general officer in the British and many European armies (see Marshal). “Field” is used in many games, partly with the idea of an enclosed space, partly with the idea of the ground of military operations, for the ground in which such games as cricket, football, baseball and the like are played. Hence it is applied to those players in cricket and baseball who are not “in,” and “to field” is to perform the functions of such a player—to stop or catch the ball played by the “in” side. “The field” is used in hunting, &c., for those taking part in the sport, and in racing for all the horses entered for a race, and, in such expressions as “to back the field,” is confined to all the horses with the exception of the “favourite.” A common application of the word is to a surface, more or less wide, as of the sky or sea, or of such physical phenomena as ice or snow, and particularly of the ground, of a special “tincture,” on which armorial bearings are displayed (see Heraldry); it is thus used also of the “ground” of a flag, thus the white ensign of the British navy has a red St George’s cross on a white “field.” In scientific usage the word is also used of the sphere of observation or of operations, and has come to be almost equivalent to a department of knowledge. In physics, a particular application is that to the area which is influenced by some agent, as in the magnetic or electric field. The field of observation or view is the area within which objects can be seen through any optical instrument at any one position. A “field-glass” is the name given to a binocular glass used in the field (see Binocular Instrument); the older form of field-glass was a small achromatic telescope with joints. This terms is also applied, in an astronomical telescope or compound microscope, to 324 that one of the two lenses of the “eye-piece” which is next to the object-glass; the other is called the “eye-glass.”

FIELDFARE (O.E. fealo-for = fallow-farer), a large species of thrush, the Turdus pilaris of Linnaeus—well known as a regular and common autumnal visitor throughout the British Islands and a great part of Europe, besides western Asia, and even reaching northern Africa. It is the Veldjakker and Veld-lyster of the Dutch, the Wachholderdrossel and Kramtsvogel of Germans, the Litorne of the French, and the Cesena of Italians. This bird is of all thrushes the most gregarious in. habit, not only migrating in large bands and keeping in flocks during the winter, but even commonly breeding in society—200 nests or more having been seen within a very small space. The birch-forests of Norway, Sweden and Russia are its chief resorts in summer, but it is known also to breed sparingly in some districts of Germany. Though its nest has been many times reported to have been found in Scotland, there is perhaps no record of such an incident that is not open to doubt; and unquestionably the missel-thrush (T. viscivorus) has been often mistaken for the fieldfare by indifferent observers. The head, neck, upper part of the back and the rump are grey; the wings, wing-coverts and middle of the back are rich hazel-brown; the throat is ochraceous; and the breast reddish-brown—both being streaked or spotted with black, while the belly and lower wing-coverts are white, and the legs and toes very dark-brown. The nest and eggs resemble those of the blackbird (T. merula), but the former is usually built high up in a tree. The fieldfare’s call-note is harsh and loud, sounding like t’chatt’chat: its song is low, twittering and poor. It usually arrives in Britain about the middle or end of October, but sometimes earlier, and often remains till the middle of May before departing for its northern breeding-places. In hard weather it throngs to the berry-bearing bushes which then afford it sustenance, but in open winters the flocks spread over the fields in search of animal food—worms, slugs and the larvae of insects. In very severe seasons it will altogether leave the country, and then return for a shorter or longer time as spring approaches. From William of Palerne (translated from the French c. 1350) to the writers of our own day the fieldfare has occasionally been noticed by British poets with varying propriety. Thus Chaucer’s association Of its name with frost is as happy as true, while Scott was more than unlucky in his well-known reference to its “lowly nest” in the Highlands.

Structurally very like the fieldfare, but differing greatly in many other respects, is the bird known in North America as the “robin”—its ruddy breast and familiar habits reminding the early British settlers in the New World of the household favourite of their former homes. This bird, the Turdus migratorius of Linnaeus, has a wide geographical range, extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from Greenland to Guatemala, and, except at its extreme limits, is almost everywhere a very abundant species. As its scientific name imports, it is essentially a migrant, and gathers in flocks to pass the winter in the south, though a few remain in New England throughout the year. Yet its social instincts point rather in the direction of man than of its own kind, and it is not known to breed in companies, while it affects the homesteads, villages and even the parks and gardens of the large cities, where its fine song, its attractive plumage, and its great services as a destroyer of noxious insects, combine to make it justly popular.

FIELDING, ANTHONY VANDYKE COPLEY (1787-1855), commonly called Copley Fielding, English landscape painter (son of a portrait painter), became at an early age a pupil of John Varley. He took to water-colour painting, and to this he confined himself almost exclusively. In 1810 he became an associate exhibitor in the Water-colour Society, in 1813 a full member, and in 1831 president of that body. He also engaged largely in teaching the art, and made ample profits. His death took place at Worthing in March 1855. Copley Fielding was a painter of much elegance, taste and accomplishment, and has always been highly popular with purchasers, without reaching very high in originality of purpose or of style: he painted in vast number all sorts of views (occasionally in oil-colour) including marine subjects in large proportion. Specimens of his work are to be seen in the water-colour gallery of the Victoria and Albert Museum, of dates ranging from 1829 to 1850. Among the engraved specimens of his art is the Annual of British Landscape Scenery, published in 1839.

FIELDING, HENRY (1707-1754), English novelist and playwright, was born at Sharpham Park, near Glastonbury, Somerset, on the 22nd of April 1707. His father was Lieutenant Edmund Fielding, third son of John Fielding, who was canon of Salisbury and fifth son of the earl of Desmond. The earl of Desmond belonged to the younger branch of the Denbigh family, who, until lately, were supposed to be connected with the Habsburgs. To this claim, now discredited by the researches of Mr J. Horace Round (Studies in Peerage, 1901, pp. 216-249), is to be attributed the famous passage in Gibbon’s Autobiography which predicts for Tom Jones—“that exquisite picture of human manners”—a diuturnity exceeding that of the house of Austria. Henry Fielding’s mother was Sarah Gould, daughter of Sir Henry Gould, a judge of the king’s bench. It is probable that the marriage was not approved by her father, since, though she remained at Sharpham Park for some time after that event, his will provided that her husband should have nothing to do with a legacy of £3000 left her in 1710. About this date the Fieldings moved to East Stour in Dorset. Two girls, Catherine and Ursula, had apparently been born at Sharpham Park; and three more, together with a son, Edmund, followed at East Stour. Sarah, the third of the daughters, born November 1710, and afterwards the author of David Simple and other works, survived her brother.

Fielding’s education up to his mother’s death, which took place in April 1718 at East Stour, seems to have been entrusted to a neighbouring clergyman, Mr Oliver of Motcombe, in whom tradition traces the uncouth lineaments of “Parson Trulliber” in Joseph Andrews. But he must have contrived, nevertheless, to prepare his pupil for Eton, to which place Fielding went about this date, probably as an oppidan. Little is known of his schooldays. There is no record of his name in the college lists; but, if we may believe his first biographer, Arthur Murphy, by no means an unimpeachable authority, he left “uncommonly versed in the Greek authors, and an early master of the Latin classics,”—a statement which should perhaps be qualified by his own words to Sir Robert Walpole in 1730:—

But he certainly made friends among his class-fellows—some of whom continued friends for life. Winnington and Hanbury-Williams were among these. The chief, however, and the most faithful, was George, afterwards Sir George, and later Baron Lyttelton of Frankley.

When Fielding left Eton is unknown. But in November 1725 we hear of him definitely in what seems like a characteristic escapade. He was staying at Lyme (in company with a trusty retainer, ready to “beat, maim or kill” in his young master’s behalf), and apparently bent on carrying off, if necessary by force, a local heiress, Miss Sarah Andrew, whose fluttered guardians promptly hurried her away, and married her to some one else (Athenaeum, 2nd June 1883). Her baffled admirer consoled himself by translating part of Juvenal’s sixth satire into verse as “all the Revenge taken by an injured Lover.” After this he must have lived the usual life of a young man about town, and probably at this date improved the acquaintance of his second cousin, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, to whom he inscribed his first comedy, Love in Several Masques, produced at Drury Lane in February 1728. The moment was not particularly favourable, since it succeeded Cibber’s Provok’d Husband, and was contemporary with Gay’s popular Beggar’s Opera. Almost immediately afterwards (March 16th) Fielding entered himself as “Stud. Lit.” at Leiden University. He was still there in February 1729. But he had apparently left before the annual registration of February 1730, when his name is absent from the books (Macmillan’s Magazine, April 1907); and in January 1730 he brought out a second comedy at the newly-opened theatre in Goodman’s Fields. Like its predecessor, the Temple 325 Beau was an essay in the vein of Congreve and Wycherley, though, in a measure, an advance on Love in Several Masques.

With the Temple Beau Fielding’s dramatic career definitely begins. His father had married again; and his Leiden career had been interrupted for lack of funds. Nominally, he was entitled to an allowance of £200 a year; but this (he was accustomed to say) “any body might pay that would.” Young, handsome, ardent and fond of pleasure, he began that career as a hand-to-mouth playwright around which so much legend has gathered—and gathers. Having—in his own words—no choice but to be a hackney coachman or a hackney writer, he chose the pen; and his inclinations, as well as his opportunities, led him to the stage. From 1730 to 1736 he rapidly brought out a large number of pieces, most of which had merit enough to secure their being acted, but not sufficient to earn a lasting reputation for their author. His chief successes, from a critical point of view, the Author’s Farce (1730) and Tom Thumb (1730, 1731), were burlesques; and he also was fortunate in two translations from Molière, the Mock Doctor (1732) and the Miser (1733). Of the rest (with one or two exceptions, to be mentioned presently) the names need only be recorded. They are The Coffee-House Politician, a comedy (1730); The Letter Writers, a farce (1731); The Grub-Street Opera, a burlesque (1731); The Lottery, a farce (1732); The Modern Husband, a comedy (1732); The Covent Garden Tragedy, a burlesque (1732); The Old Debauchees, a comedy (1732); Deborah; or, a Wife for you all, an after-piece (1733); The Intriguing Chambermaid (from Regnard), a two-act comedy (1734); and Don Quixote in England, a comedy, which had been partly sketched at Leiden.

Don Quixote was produced in 1734, and the list of plays may be here interrupted by an event of which the date has only recently been ascertained, namely, Fielding’s first marriage. This took place on the 28th of November 1734 at St Mary, Charlcornbe, near Bath (Macmillan’s Magazine, April 1907), the lady being a Salisbury beauty, Miss Charlotte Cradock, of whom he had been an admirer, if not a suitor, as far back as 1730. This is a fact which should be taken into consideration in estimating the exact Bohemianism of his London life, for there is no doubt that he was devotedly attached to her. After a fresh farce entitled An Old Man taught Wisdom, and the comparative failure of a new comedy, The Universal Gallant, both produced early in 1735, he seems for a time to have retired with his bride, who came into £1500, to his old home at East Stour. Around this rural seclusion fiction has freely accreted. He is supposed to have lived for three years on the footing of a typical 18th-century country gentleman; to have kept a pack of hounds; to have put his servants into impossible yellow liveries; and generally, by profuse hospitality and reckless expenditure, to have made rapid duck and drake of Mrs Fielding’s modest legacy. Something of this is demonstrably false; much, grossly exaggerated. In any case, he was in London as late as February 1735 (the date of the “Preface” to The Universal Gallant); and early in March 1736 he was back again managing the Haymarket theatre with a so-called “Great Mogul’s Company of English Comedians.”

Upon this new enterprise fortune, at the outset, seemed to smile. The first piece (produced on the 5th of March) was Pasquin, a Dramatick Satire on the Times (a piece akin in its plan to Buckingham’s Rehearsal), which contained, in addition to much admirable burlesque, a good deal of very direct criticism of the shameless political corruption of the Walpole era. Its success was unmistakable; and when, after bringing out the remarkable Fatal Curiosity of George Lillo, its author followed up Pasquin by the Historical Register for the Year 1736, of which the effrontery was even more daring than that of its predecessor, the ministry began to bethink themselves that matters were going too far. How they actually effected their object is obscure: but grounds were speedily concocted for the Licensing Act of 1737, which restricted the number of theatres, rendered the lord chamberlain’s licence an indispensable preliminary to stage representation, and—in a word—effectually put an end to Fielding’s career as a dramatist.

Whether, had that career been prolonged to its maturity, the result would have enriched the theatrical repertoire with a new species of burlesque, or reinforced it with fresh variations on the “wit-traps” of Wycherley and Congreve, is one of those inquiries that are more academic than, profitable. What may be affirmed is, that Fielding’s plays, as we have them, exhibit abundant invention and ingenuity; that they are full of humour and high spirits; that, though they may have been hastily written, they were by no means thoughtlessly constructed; and that, in composing them, their author attentively considered either managerial hints, or the conditions of the market. Against this, one must set the fact that they are often immodest; and that, whatever their intrinsic merit, they have failed to rival in permanent popularity the work of inferior men. Fielding’s own conclusion was, “that he left off writing for the stage, when he ought to have begun”—which can only mean that he himself regarded his plays as the outcome of imitation rather than experience. They probably taught him how to construct Tom Jones; but whether he could ever have written a comedy at the level of that novel, can only be established by a comparison which it is impossible to make, namely, a comparison with Tom Jones of a comedy written at the same age, and in similar circumstances.

Tumble-Down Dick; or, Phaeton in the Suds, Eurydice and Eurydice hissed are the names of three occasional pieces which belong to the last months of Fielding’s career as a Haymarket manager. By this date he was thirty, with a wife and daughter. As a means of support, he reverted to the profession of his maternal grandfather; and, in November 1737, he entered the Middle Temple, being described in the books of the society as “of East Stour in Dorset.” That he set himself strenuously to master his new profession, is admitted; though it is unlikely that he had entirely discarded the irregular habits which had grown upon him in his irresponsible bachelorhood. He also did a good deal of literary work, the best known of which is contained in the Champion, a “News-Journal” of the Spectator type undertaken with James Ralph, whose poem of “Night” is made notorious in the Dunciad. That the Champion was not without merit is undoubted; but the essay-type was for the moment out-worn, and neither Fielding nor his coadjutor could lend it fresh vitality. Fielding contributed papers from the 15th of November 1739 to the 19th of June 1740. On the 20th of June he was called to the bar, and occupied chambers in Pump Court. It is further related that, in the diligent pursuit of his calling, he travelled the Western Circuit, and attended the Wiltshire sessions.

Although, with the Champion, he professed, for the time, to have relinquished periodical literature, he still wrote at intervals, a fact which, taken in connexion with his past reputation as an effective satirist, probably led to his being “unjustly censured” for much that he never produced. But he certainly wrote a poem “Of True Greatness” (1741); a first book of a burlesque epic, the Vernoniad, prompted by Vernon’s expedition of 1739; a vision called the Opposition, and, perhaps, a political sermon entitled the Crisis (1741). Another piece, now known to have been attributed to him by his contemporaries (Hist. MSS. Comm., Rept. 12, App. Pt. ix., p. 204), is the pamphlet entitled An Apology for the Life of Mrs Shamela Andrews, a clever but coarse attack upon the prurient side of Richardson’s Pamela, which had been issued in 1740, and was at the height of its popularity. Shamela followed early in 1741. Richardson, who was well acquainted with Fielding’s four sisters, at that date his neighbours at Hammersmith, confidently attributed it to Fielding (Corr. 1804, iv. 286, and unpublished letter at South Kensington); and there are suggestive points of internal evidence (such as the transformation of Pamela’s “MR B.” into “Mr Booby”) which tend to connect it with the future Joseph Andrews. Fielding, however, never acknowledged it, or referred to it; and a great deal has been laid to his charge that he never deserved (“Preface” to Miscellanies, 1743).

But whatever may be decided in regard to the authorship of Shamela, it is quite possible that it prompted the more memorable 326 Joseph Andrews, which made its appearance in February 1742, and concerning which there is no question. Professing, on his title-page, to imitate Cervantes, Fielding set out to cover Pamela with Homeric ridicule by transferring the heroine’s embarrassments to a hero, supposed to be her brother. Allied to this purpose was a collateral attack upon the slipshod Apology of the playwright Colley Cibber, with whom, for obscure reasons, Fielding had long been at war. But the avowed object of the book fell speedily into the background as its author warmed to his theme. His secondary speedily became his primary characters, and Lady Booby and Joseph Andrews do not interest us now as much as Mrs Slipslop and Parson Adams—the latter an invention that ranges in literature with Sterne’s “Uncle Toby” and Goldsmith’s “Vicar.” Yet more than these and others equally admirable in their round veracity, is the writer’s penetrating outlook upon the frailties and failures of human nature. By the time he had reached his second volume, he had convinced himself that he had inaugurated a new fashion of fiction; and in a “Preface” of exceptional ability, he announced his discovery. Postulating that the epic might be “comic” or “tragic,” prose or verse, he claimed to have achieved what he termed the “Comic Epos in Prose,” of which the action was “ludicrous” rather than “sublime,” and the personages selected from society at large, rather than the restricted ranks of conventional high life. His plan, it will be observed, was happily adapted to his gifts of humour, satire, and above all, irony. That it was matured when it began may perhaps be doubted, but it was certainly matured when it ended. Indeed, except for the plot, which, in his picaresque first idea, had not preceded the conception, Joseph Andrews has all the characteristics of Tom Jones, even (in part) to the initial chapters.

Joseph Andrews had considerable success, and the exact sum paid for it by Andrew Millar, the publisher, according to the assignment now at South Kensington, was £183:11s., one of the witnesses being the author’s friend, William Young, popularly supposed to be the original of Parson Adams. It was with Young that Fielding undertook what, with exception of “a very small share” in the farce of Miss Lucy in Town (1742), constituted his next work, a translation of the Plutus of Aristophanes, which never seems to have justified any similar experiments. Another of his minor works was a Vindication of the Dowager Duchess of Marlborough (1742), then much before the public by reason of the Account of her Life which she had recently put forth. Later in the same year, Garrick applied to Fielding for a play; and a very early effort, The Wedding Day, was hastily patched together, and produced at Drury Lane in February 1743 with no great success. It was, however, included in Fielding’s next important publication, the three volumes of Miscellanies issued by subscription in the succeeding April. These also comprised some early poems, some essays, a Lucianic fragment entitled a Journey from this World to the Next, and, last but not least, occupying the entire final volume, the remarkable performance entitled the History of the Life of the late Mr Jonathan Wild the Great.

It is probable that, in its composition, Jonathan Wild preceded Joseph Andrews. At all events it seems unlikely that Fielding would have followed up a success in a new line by an effort so entirely different in character. Taking for his ostensible hero a well-known thief-taker, who had been hanged in 1725, he proceeds to illustrate, by a mock-heroic account of his progress to Tyburn, the general proposition that greatness without goodness is no better than badness. He will not go so far as to say that all “Human Nature is Newgate with the Mask on”; but he evidently regards the description as fairly applicable to a good many so-called great people. Irony (and especially Irony neat) is not a popular form of rhetoric; and the remorseless pertinacity with which Fielding pursues his demonstration is to many readers discomforting and even distasteful. Yet—in spite of Scott—Jonathan Wild has its softer pages; and as a purely intellectual conception it is not surpassed by any of the author’s works.

His actual biography, both before and after Jonathan Wild, is obscure. There are evidences that he laboured diligently at his profession; there are also evidences of sickness and embarrassment. He had become early a martyr to the malady of his century—gout, and the uncertainties of a precarious livelihood told grievously upon his beautiful wife, who eventually died of fever in his arms, leaving him for the time so stunned and bewildered by grief that his friends feared for his reason. For some years his published productions were unimportant. He wrote “Prefaces” to the David Simple of his sister Sarah in 1744 and 1747; and, in 1745-1746 and 1747-1748, produced two newspapers in the ministerial interest, the True Patriot and the Jacobite’s Journal, both of which are connected with, or derive from, the rebellion of 1745, and were doubtless, when they ceased, the pretext of a pension from the public service money (Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon, “Introduction”). In November 1747 he married his wife’s maid, Mary Daniel, at St Bene’t’s, Paul’s Wharf; and in December 1748, by the interest of his old school-fellow, Lyttelton, he was made a principal justice of peace for Middlesex and Westminster, an office which put him in possession of a house in Bow Street, and £300 per annum “of the dirtiest money upon earth” (ibid.), which might have been more had he condescended to become what was known as a “trading” magistrate.

For some time previously, while at Bath, Salisbury, Twickenham and other temporary resting-places, he had intermittently occupied himself in composing his second great novel, Tom Jones; or, the History of a Foundling. For this, in June 1748, Millar had paid him £600, to which he added £100 more in 1749. In the February of the latter year it was published with a dedication to Lyttelton, to whose pecuniary assistance to the author during the composition it plainly bears witness. In Tom Jones Fielding systematically developed the “new Province of Writing” he had discovered incidentally in Joseph Andrews. He paid closer attention to the construction and evolution of the plot; he elaborated the initial essays to each book which he had partly employed before, and he compressed into his work the flower and fruit of his forty years’ experience of life. He has, indeed, no character quite up to the level of Parson Adams, but his Westerns and Partridges, his Allworthys and Blifils, have the inestimable gift of life. He makes no pretence to produce “models of perfection,” but pictures of ordinary humanity, rather perhaps in the rough than the polished, the natural than the artificial, and his desire is to do this with absolute truthfulness, neither extenuating nor disguising defects and shortcomings. One of the results of this unvarnished naturalism has been to attract more attention to certain of the episodes than their inventor ever intended. But that, in the manners of his time, he had chapter and verse for everything he drew is clear. His sincere purpose was, he declared, “to recommend goodness and innocence,” and his obvious aversions are vanity and hypocrisy. The methods of fiction have grown more sophisticated since his day, and other forms of literary egotism have taken the place of his once famous introductory essays, but the traces of Tom Jones are still discernible in most of our manlier modern fiction.

Meanwhile, its author was showing considerable activity in his magisterial duties. In May 1749, he was chosen chairman of quarter sessions for Westminster; and in June he delivered himself of a weighty charge to the grand jury. Besides other pamphlets, he produced a careful and still readable Enquiry into the Causes of the late Increase of Robbers, &c. (1751), which, among its other merits, was not ineffectual in helping on the famous Gin Act of that year, a practical result to which the “Gin Lane” and “Beer Street” of his friend Hogarth also materially contributed. These duties and preoccupations left their mark on his next fiction, Amelia (1752), which is rather more taken up with social problems and popular grievances than its forerunners. But the leading personage, in whom, as in the Sophia Western of Tom Jones, he reproduced the traits of his first wife, is certainly, as even Johnson admitted, “the most pleasing heroine of all the romances.” The minor characters, too, especially Dr Harrison and Colonel Bath, are equal to any in Tom Jones. The book nevertheless shows signs, not of failure but of fatigue, perhaps 327 of haste—a circumstance heightened by the absence of those “prolegomenous” chapters over which the author had lingered so lovingly in Tom Jones. In 1749 he had been dangerously ill, and his health was visibly breaking. The £1000 which Millar is said to have given for Amelia must have been painfully earned.

Early in 1752 his still indomitable energy prompted him to start a third newspaper, the Covent Garden Journal, which ran from the 4th of January to the 25th of November. It is an interesting contemporary record, and throws a good deal of light on his Bow Street duties. But it has no great literary value, and it unhappily involved him in harassing and undignified hostilities with Smollett, Dr John Hill, Bonnell Thornton and other of his contemporaries. To the following year belong pamphlets on “Provision for the Poor,” and the case of the strange impostor, Elizabeth Canning (1734-1773).1 By 1754 his own case, as regards health, had grown desperate; and he made matters worse by a gallant and successful attempt to break up a “gang of villains and cut-throats,” who had become the terror of the metropolis. This accomplished, he resigned his office to his half-brother John (afterwards Sir John) Fielding. But it was now too late. After fruitless essay both of Dr Ward’s specifics and the tar-water of Bishop Berkeley, it was felt that his sole chance of prolonging life lay in removal to a warmer climate. On the 26th of June 1754 he accordingly left his little country house at Fordhook, Ealing, for Lisbon, in the “Queen of Portugal,” Richard Veal master. The ship, as often, was tediously wind-bound, and the protracted discomforts of the sick man and his family are narrated at length in the touching posthumous tract entitled the Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon, which, with a fragment of a comment on Bolingbroke’s then recently issued essays, was published in February 1755 “for the Benefit of his [Fielding’s] Wife and Children.” Reaching Lisbon at last in August 1754, he died there two months later (8th October), and was buried in the English cemetery, where a monument was erected to him in 1830. Luget Britannia gremio non dari fovere natum is inscribed upon it.

His estate, including the proceeds of a fair library, only covered his just debts (Athenaeum, 25th Nov. 1905); but his family, a daughter by his first, and two boys and a girl by his second wife, were faithfully cared for by his brother John, and by his friend Ralph Allen of Prior Park, Bath, the Squire Allworthy of Tom Jones. His will (undated) was printed in the Athenaeum for the 1st of February 1890. There is but one absolutely authentic portrait of him, a familiar outline by Hogarth, executed from memory for Andrew Millar’s edition of his works in 1762. It is the likeness of a man broken by ill-health, and affords but faint indication of the handsome Harry Fielding who in his salad days “warmed both hands before the fire of life.” Far too much stress, it is now held, has been laid by his first biographers upon the unworshipful side of his early career. That he was always profuse, sanguine and more or less improvident, is as probable as that he was always manly, generous and sympathetic. But it is also plain that, in his later years, he did much, as father, friend and magistrate, to redeem the errors, real and imputed, of a too-youthful youth.

As a playwright and essayist his rank is not elevated. But as a novelist his place is a definite one. If the Spectator is to be credited with foreshadowing the characters of the novel, Defoe with its earliest form, and Richardson with its first experiments in sentimental analysis, it is to Henry Fielding that we owe its first accurate delineation of contemporary manners. Neglecting, or practically neglecting, sentiment as unmanly, and relying chiefly on humour and ridicule, he set out to draw life precisely as he saw it around him, without blanks or dashes. He was, it may be, for a judicial moralist, too indulgent to some of its frailties, but he was merciless to its meaner vices. For reasons which have been already given, his high-water mark is Tom Jones, which has remained, and remains, a model in its way of the kind he inaugurated.

FIELDING, WILLIAM STEVENS (1848-  ), Canadian journalist and statesman, was born in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on the 24th of November 1848. From 1864 to 1884 he was one of the staff of the Morning Chronicle, the chief Liberal paper of the province, and worked at all departments of newspaper life. In 1882 he entered the local legislature as Liberal member for Halifax, and from 1884 to 1896 was premier and provincial secretary of the province, but in the latter year became finance minister in the Dominion administration of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and was elected to the House of Commons for Shelburne and Queen’s county. He opposed Confederation in 1864-1867, and as late as 1886 won a provincial election on the promise to advocate the repeal of the British North America Act. His administration as finance minister of Canada was important, since in 1897 he introduced a new tariff, granting to the manufactures of Great Britain a preference, subsequently increased; and later he imposed a special surtax on German imports owing to unfriendly tariff legislation by that country. In 1902 he represented Canada at the Colonial Conference in London.

FIELD-MOUSE, the popular designation of such mouse-like British rodents as are not true or “house” mice. The term thus includes the long-tailed field mouse, Mus (Micromys) sylvaticus, easily recognized by its white belly, and sometimes called the wood-mouse; and the two species of short-tailed field-mice, Microtus agrestis and Evotomys glareolus, together with their representatives in Skomer island and the Orkneys (see Mouse and Vole).