VOLUME X SLICE II Fairbanks, Erastus to Fens (continued 10)

It will be seen that the views of Febronius had but little originality. In the main they were those that predominated in the great general councils of Constance and Basel in the 15th century; but they were backed by him with such a wealth of learning, and they fitted so well into the intellectual and political conditions of the time, that they found a widespread acceptance. The book, indeed, was at once condemned at Rome (February 1764), and by a brief of the 21st of May the pope commanded all the bishops of Germany to suppress it. The papal condemnation met with a very mixed reception; in some dioceses the order to prohibit the book was ignored, in others action upon it was postponed pending an independent examination, in yet others (nine in all) it was at once obeyed “for political reasons,” though even in these the forbidden book became the “breviary of the governments.” The Febronian doctrine, in fact, exactly fitted the views of the German bishops, which were by no means disinterested. It must be remembered that the bishops were at this time great secular princes rather than Catholic prelates; with rare exceptions, they made no pretence of carrying out their spiritual duties; they shared to the full in the somewhat shallow “enlightenment” of the age. As princes of the Empire they had asserted their practical independence of the emperor; they were irked by what they considered the unjustifiable interference of the Curia with their sovereign prerogatives, and wished to establish their independence of the pope also. In the ranks of the hierarchy, then, selfish motives combined with others more respectable to secure the acceptance of the Febronian position. Among secular rulers the welcome given to it was even less equivocal. Even so devout a sovereign as Maria Theresa refused to allow “Febronius” to be forbidden in the Habsburg dominions; her son, the emperor Joseph II., applied the Febronian principles with remorseless thoroughness. In Venice, in Tuscany, in Naples, in Portugal, they inspired the vigorous efforts of “enlightened despots” to reform the Church from above; and they gave a fresh impetus to the movement against the Jesuits, which, under pressure of the secular governments, culminated in the suppression of the Society by Pope Clement XIV. in 1773. “Febronius,” too, inspired the proceedings of two notable ecclesiastical assemblies, both held in the year 1786. The reforming synod which met at Pistoia under the presidency of the bishop, Scipione de’ Ricci, is dealt with elsewhere (see Pistoia). The other was the so-called congress of Ems, a meeting of the delegates of the four German archbishops, which resulted, on the 25th of August, in the celebrated “Punctation of Ems,” subsequently ratified and issued by the archbishops. This document was the outcome of several years of controversy between the archbishops and the papal nuncios, aroused by what was considered the unjustifiable interference of the latter in the affairs of the German dioceses. In 1769 the three archbishop-electors of Mainz, Cologne and Treves (Trier) had drawn up in thirty articles their complaints against the Curia, and after submitting them to the emperor Joseph II., had forwarded them to the new pope, Clement XIV. These articles, though “Febronius” was prohibited in the archdioceses, were wholly Febronian in tone; and, indeed, Bishop von Hontheim himself took an active part in the diplomatic negotiations which were their outcome. In drawing up the “Punctation” he took no active part, but it was wholly inspired by his principles. It consisted of XXIII. articles, which may be summarized as follows. Bishops have, in virtue of their God-given powers, full authority within their dioceses in all matters of dispensation, patronage and the like; papal bulls, briefs, &c., and the decrees of the Roman Congregations are only of binding force in each diocese when sanctioned by the bishop; nunciatures, as hitherto conceived, are to cease; the oath of allegiance to the pope demanded of bishops since Gregory VII.’s time is to be altered so as to bring it into conformity with episcopal rights; annates and the fees payable for the pallium and confirmation are to be lowered and, in the event of the pallium or confirmation being refused, German archbishops and bishops are to be free to exercise their office under the protection of the emperor; with the Church tribunals of first and second instance (episcopal and metropolitan) the nuncios are not to interfere, and, though appeal to Rome is allowed under certain “national” safe-guards, the opinion is expressed that it would be better to set up in each archdiocese a final court of appeal representing the provincial synod; finally the emperor is prayed to use his influence with the pope to secure the assembly of a national council in order to remove the grievances left unredressed by the council of Trent.

Whether this manifesto would have led to a reconstitution of the Roman Catholic Church on permanently Febronian lines must for ever remain doubtful. The French Revolution intervened; the German Church went down in the storm: and in 1803 the secularizations carried out by order of the First Consul put an end to the temporal ambitions of its prelates. Febronianism indeed, survived. Karl Theodor von Dalberg, prince primate of the Confederation of the Rhine, upheld its principles throughout the Napoleonic epoch and hoped to establish them in the new Germany to be created by the congress of Vienna. He sent to this assembly, as representative of the German Church, Bishop von Wessenberg, who in his diocese of Constance had not hesitated to apply Febronian principles in reforming, on his own authority, the services and discipline of the Church. But the times were not favourable for such experiments. The tide of reaction after the Revolutionary turmoil was setting strongly in the direction of traditional authority, in religion as in politics; and that ultramontane movement which, before the century was ended, was to dominate the Church, was already showing signs of vigorous life. Moreover, the great national German Church of which Dalberg had a vision—with himself as primate—did not appeal to the German princes, tenacious of their newly acquired status as European powers. One by one these entered into concordats with Rome, and Febronianism from an aggressive policy subsided into a speculative opinion. As such it survived strongly, especially in the universities (Bonn especially had been, from its foundation in 1774, very Febronian), and it reasserted itself vigorously in the attitude of many of the most learned German prelates and professors towards the question of the definition of the dogma of papal infallibility in 1870. It was, in fact, against the Febronian position that the decrees of the Vatican Council were deliberately directed, and their promulgation marked the triumph of the ultramontane view (see Vatican Council, Ultramontanism, Papacy). In Germany, indeed, the struggle against the papal monarchy was carried on for a while by the governments on the so-called Kulturkampf, the Old Catholics representing militant Febronianism. The latter, however, since Bismarck “went to Canossa,” have sunk into a respectable but comparatively obscure sect, and Febronianism, though it still has some hold on opinion within the Church in the chapters and universities of the Rhine provinces, is practically extinct in Germany. Its revival under the guise of so-called Modernism drew from Pope Pius X. in 1908 the scathing condemnation embodied in the encyclical Pascendi gregis.

Authorities.—See Justinus Febronius, De statu ecclesiae et legitima potestae Romani pontificis (Bullioni, 1765), second and enlarged edition, with new prefaces addressed to Pope Clement XIII., to Christian kings and princes, to the bishops of the Catholic Church, and to doctors of theology and canon law; three additional volumes, published in 1770, 1772 and 1774 at Frankfort, are devoted to vindications of the original work against the critics. In the Revue des deux mondes for July 1903 (tome xvi. p. 266) is an interesting article under the title of “L’Allemagne Catholique,” from the papal point of view, by Georges Goyau. For the congress of Ems see Herzog-Hauck, Realencyklopädie (Leipzig, 1898), s.v. “Emser Kongress.” Further references are given in the article on Hontheim (q.v.).

(W. A. P.)

FEBRUARY, the second month of the modern calendar. In ordinary years it contains 28 days; but in bissextile or leap year, by the addition of the intercalary day, it consists of 29 days. This month was not in the Romulian calendar. In the reign of Numa two months were added to the year, namely, January at the beginning, and February at the end; and this arrangement was continued until 452 B.C., when the decemvirs placed February after January. The ancient name of Februarius was derived from februare, to purify, or from Februa, the Roman festival of general expiation and lustration, which was celebrated during the latter part of this month. In February also the Lupercalia were held, and women were purified by the priests of Pan Lyceus at that festival. The Anglo-Saxons called this month Sprout-Kale from the sprouting of the cabbage at this season. Later it was known as Solmonath, because of the return of the sun from the low latitudes. The most generally noted days of February are the following:—the 2nd, Candlemas day, one of the fixed quarter days used in Scotland; the 14th, St Valentine’s day; and the 24th, St Matthias. The church festival of St Matthias was formerly observed on the 25th of February in bissextile years, but it is now invariably celebrated on the 24th.

FEBVRE, ALEXANDRE FRÉDÉRIC (1835- ), French actor, was born in Paris, and after the usual apprenticeship in the provinces and in several Parisian theatres in small parts, was called to the Comédie Française in 1866, where he made his début as Philip II. in Don Juan d’Autriche. He soon became the most popular leading man in Paris, not only in the classical répertoire, but in contemporary novelties. In 1894 he toured the principal cities of Europe, and, in 1895, of America. He was also a composer of light music for the piano, and published several books of varying merit. He married Mdlle Harville, daughter of one of his predecessors at the Comédie Française, herself a well-known actress.

FÉCAMP, a seaport and bathing resort of northern France, in the department of Seine-Inférieure, 28 m. N.N.E. of Havre on the Western railway. Pop. (1906) 15,872. The town, which is situated on the English Channel at the mouth of the small river Fécamp, consists almost entirely of one street upwards of 2 m. in length. It occupies the bottom and sides of a narrow valley opening out towards the sea between high cliffs. The most important building is the abbey church of La Trinité, dating for the most part from 1175 to 1225. The central tower and the south portal (13th century) are the chief features of its simple exterior; in the interior, the decorative work, notably the chapel-screens and some fine stained glass, is remarkable. The hotel-de-ville with a municipal museum and library occupy the remains of the abbey buildings (18th century). The church of St Étienne (16th century) and the Benedictine liqueur distillery,1 a modern building which also contains a museum, are of some interest. A tribunal and chamber of commerce, a board of trade-arbitrators and a nautical school, are among the public institutions. The port consists of an entrance channel nearly 400 yds. long leading to a tidal harbour and docks capable of receiving ships drawing 26 ft. at spring-tide, 19 ft. at neap-tide. Fishing for herring and mackerel is carried on and the town equips a large fleet for the codbanks of Newfoundland and Iceland. The chief exports are oil-cake, flint, cod and Benedictine liqueur. Imports include coal, timber, tar and hemp. Steam sawing, metal-founding, fish-salting, shipbuilding and repairing, and the manufacture of ship’s-biscuits and fishing-nets are among the industries.

The town of Fécamp grew up round the nunnery founded in 658 to guard the relic of the True Blood which, according to the legend, was found in the trunk of a fig-tree drifted from Palestine to this spot, and which still remains the most precious treasure of the church. The original convent was destroyed by the Northmen, but was re-established by Duke William Longsword as a house of canons regular, which shortly afterwards was converted into a Benedictine monastery. King Richard I. greatly enlarged this, and rebuilt the church. The town achieved some prosperity under the dukes of Normandy, who improved its harbour, but after the annexation of Normandy to France it was overshadowed by the rising port of Havre.

1 The liqueur is said to have been manufactured by the Benedictine monks of the abbey as far back as 1510; since the Revolution it has been produced commercially by a secular company. The familiar legend D.O.M. (Deo Optimo Maximo) on the bottles preserves the memory of its original makers.

FECHNER, GUSTAV THEODOR (1801-1887), German experimental psychologist, was born on the 19th of April 1801 at Gross-Särchen, near Muskau, in Lower Lusatia, where his father was pastor. He was educated at Sorau and Dresden and at the university of Leipzig, in which city he spent the rest of his life. In 1834 he was appointed professor of physics, but in 1839 contracted an affection of the eyes while studying the phenomena of colour and vision, and, after much suffering, resigned. Subsequently recovering, he turned to the study of mind and the relations between body and mind, giving public lectures on the subjects of which his books treat. He died at Leipzig on the 18th of November 1887. Among his works may be mentioned: Das Büchlein vom Leben nach dem Tode (1836, 5th ed., 1903), which has been translated into English; Nanna, oder über das Seelenleben der Pflanzen (1848, 3rd ed., 1903); Zendavesta, oder über die Dinge des Himmels und des Jenseits (1851, 2nd ed. by Lasswitz, 1901); Über die physikalische und philosophische Atomenlehre (1853, 2nd ed., 1864); Elemente der Psychophysik (1860, 2nd ed., 1889); Vorschule der Ästhetik (1876, 2nd ed., 1898); Die Tagesansicht gegenüber der Nachtansicht (1879). He also published chemical and physical papers, and translated chemical works by J.B. Biot and L.J. Thénard from the French. A different but essential side of his character is seen in his poems and humorous pieces, such as the Vergleichende Anatomie der Engel (1825), written under the pseudonym of “Dr Mises.” Fechner’s epoch-making work was his Elemente der Psychophysik (1860). He starts from the Spinozistic thought that bodily facts and conscious facts, though not reducible one to the other, are different sides of one reality. His originality lies in trying to discover an exact mathematical relation between them. The most famous outcome of his inquiries is the law known as Weber’s or Fechner’s law which may be expressed as follows:— “In order that the intensity of a sensation may increase in arithmetical progression, the stimulus must increase in geometrical progression.” Though holding good within certain limits only, the law has been found immensely useful. Unfortunately, from the tenable theory that the intensity of a sensation increases by definite additions of stimulus, Fechner was led on to postulate a unit of sensation, so that any sensation S might be regarded as composed of n units. Sensations, he argued, thus being representable by numbers, psychology may become an “exact” science, susceptible of mathematical treatment. His general formula for getting at the number of units in any sensation is S = C log R, where S stands for the sensation, R for the stimulus numerically estimated, and C for a constant that must be separately determined by experiment in each particular order of sensibility. This reasoning of Fechner’s has given rise to a great mass of controversy, but the fundamental mistake in it is simple. Though stimuli are composite, sensations are not. “Every sensation,” says Professor James, “presents itself as an indivisible unit; and it is quite impossible to read any clear meaning into the notion that they are masses of units combined.” Still, the idea of the exact measurement of sensation has been a fruitful one, and mainly through his influence on Wundt, Fechner was the father of that “new” psychology of laboratories which investigates human faculties with the aid of exact scientific apparatus. Though he has had a vast influence in this special department, the disciples of his general philosophy are few. His world-conception is highly animistic. He feels the thrill of life everywhere, in plants, earth, stars, the total universe. Man stands midway between the souls of plants and the souls of stars, who are angels. God, the soul of the universe, must be conceived as having an existence analogous to men. Natural laws are just the modes of the unfolding of God’s perfection. In his last work Fechner, aged but full of hope, contrasts this joyous “daylight view” of the world with the dead, dreary “night view” of materialism. Fechner’s work in aesthetics is also important. He conducted experiments to show that certain abstract forms and proportions are naturally pleasing to our senses, and gave some new illustrations of the working of aesthetic association. Fechner’s position in reference to predecessors and contemporaries is not very sharply defined. He was remotely a disciple of Schelling, learnt much from Herbart and Weisse, and decidedly rejected Hegel and the monadism of Lotze.

See W. Wundt, G. Th. Fechner (Leipzig, 1901); A. Elsas, “Zum Andenken G. Th. Fechners,” in Grenzbote, 1888; J.E. Kuntze, G. Th. Fechner (Leipzig, 1892); Karl Lasswitz, G. Th. Fechner (Stuttgart, 1896 and 1902); E.B. Titchener, Experimental Psychology (New York, 1905); G.F. Stout, Manual of Psychology (1898), bk. ii. ch. vii.; R. Falckenberg, Hist. of Mod. Phil. (Eng. trans., 1895), pp. 601 foll.; H. Höffding, Hist. of Mod. Phil. (Eng. trans., 1900), vol. ii. pp. 524 foll.; Liebe, Fechners Metaphysik, im Umriss dargestellt (1903).

(H. St.)

FECHTER, CHARLES ALBERT (1824-1879), Anglo-French actor, was born, probably in London, on the 23rd of October 1824, of French parents, although his mother was of Piedmontese and his father of German extraction. The boy would probably have devoted himself to a sculptor’s life but for the accident of a striking success made in some private theatricals. The result was an engagement in 1841 to play in a travelling company that was going to Italy. The tour was a failure, and the company broke up; whereupon Fechter returned home and worked assiduously at sculpture. At the same time he attended classes at the Conservatoire with the view of gaining admission to the Comédie Française. Late in 1844 he won the grand medal of the Académie des Beaux-Arts with a piece of sculpture, and was admitted to make his debut at the Comédie Française as Seide in Voltaire’s Mahomet and Valère in Molière’s Tartuffe. He acquitted himself with credit; but, tired of the small parts he found himself condemned to play, returned again to his sculptor’s studio in 1846. In that year he accepted an engagement to play with a French company in Berlin, where he made his first decisive success as an actor. On his return to Paris in the following year he married the actress Eléonore Rabut (d. 1895). Previously he had appeared for some months in London, in a season of French classical plays given at the St James’s theatre. In Paris for the next ten years he fulfilled a series of successful engagements at various theatres, his chief triumph being his creation at the Vaudeville on the 2nd of February 1852 of the part of Armand Duval in La Dame aux camélias. For nearly two years (1857-1858) Fechter was manager of the Odéon, where he produced Tartuffe and other classical plays. Having received tempting offers to act in English at the Princess’s theatre, London, he made a diligent study of the language, and appeared there on the 27th of October 1860 in an English version of Victor Hugo’s Ruy Blas. This was followed by The Corsican Brothers and Don César de Bazan; and on the 20th of March 1861 he first attempted Hamlet. The result was an extraordinary triumph, the play running for 115 nights. This was followed by Othello, in which he played alternately the Moor and Iago. In 1863 he became lessee of the Lyceum theatre, which he opened with The Duke’s Motto; this was followed by The King’s Butterfly, The Mountebank (in which his son Paul, a boy of seven, appeared), The Roadside Inn, The Master of Ravenswood, The Corsican Brothers (in the original French version, in which he had created the parts of Louis and Fabian dei Franchi) and The Lady of Lyons. After this he appeared at the Adelphi (1868) as Obenreizer in No Thoroughfare, by Charles Dickens and Wilkie Collins, as Edmond Dantes in Monte Cristo, and as Count de Leyrac in Black and White, a play in which the actor himself collaborated with Wilkie Collins. In 1870 he visited the United States, where (with the exception of a visit to London in 1872) he remained till his death. His first appearance in New York was at Niblo’s Garden in the title rôle of Ruy Blas. He played in the United States between 1870 and 1876 in most of the parts in which he had won his chief triumphs in England, making at various times attempts at management, rarely successful, owing to his ungovernable temper. The last three years of his life were spent in seclusion on a farm which he had bought at Rockland Centre, near Quakertown, Pennsylvania, where he died on the 5th of August 1879. A bust of the actor by himself is in the Garrick Club, London.

FECKENHAM, JOHN (c. 1515-1584), English ecclesiastic, last abbot of Westminster, was born at Feckenham, Worcestershire, of ancestors who, by their wills, seem to have been substantial yeomen. The family name was Howman, but, according to the English custom, Feckenham, on monastic profession, changed it for the territorial name by which he is always known. Learning his letters first from the parish priest, he was sent at an early age to the claustral school at Evesham and thence, in his eighteenth year, to Gloucester Hall, Oxford, as a Benedictine student. After taking his degree in arts, he returned to the abbey, where he was professed; but he was at the university again in 1537 and took his B.D. on the 11th of June 1539. Returning to Evesham he was there when the abbey was surrendered to the king (27th of January 1540); and then, with a pension of £10 a year, he once more went back to Oxford, but soon after became chaplain to Bishop Bell of Worcester and then served Bonner in that same capacity from 1543 to 1549. In 1544 Bonner gave him the living of Solihull; and Feckenham established a reputation as a preacher and a disputant of keen intellect but unvarying charity. About 1549 Cranmer sent him to the Tower of London, and while there “he was borrowed out of prison” to take part in seven public disputations against Hooper, Jewel and others. Released by Queen Mary (5th of September 1553), he returned to Bonner and became prebendary of St Paul’s, rector of Finchley, then of Greenford Magna, chaplain and confessor to the queen, and dean of St Paul’s (10th of March 1554). He took part, with much charity and mildness, in the Oxford disputes against Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley; but he had no liking for the fierce bigotry and bloody measures then in force against Protestants. Feckenham used all his influence with Mary “to procure pardon of the faults or mitigation of the punishment for poor Protestants” (Fuller), and he was sent by the queen to prepare Lady Jane Grey for death. When Elizabeth was sent to the Tower (18th of March 1554), Feckenham interceded for her life and liberty, even at the cost of displeasing the queen.

The royal abbey of Westminster having been restored to its primitive use, Feckenham was appointed abbot, and the old life began again within its hallowed walls on the 21st of November 1556. The abbey school was reopened and the shrine of St Edward restored. On the accession of Elizabeth Feckenham consistently opposed all the legislation for changes in religion, and, when the hour of trial came, he refused the oath of supremacy, rejecting also Elizabeth’s offer to remain with his monks at Westminster if he would conform to the new laws. The abbey was dissolved (12th of July 1559), and within a year Feckenham was sent by Archbishop Parker to the Tower (20th of May 1560), according to Jewel, “for having obstinately refused attendance on public worship and everywhere declaiming and railing against that religion which we now profess” (Parker Society, first series, p. 79). Henceforth, except for some brief periods when he was a prisoner at large, Feckenham spent the rest of his life in confinement either in some recognized prison, or in the more distasteful and equally rigorous keeping of the bishops of Winchester and Ely. After fourteen years’ confinement, he was released on bail and lived in Holborn, where his benevolence was shown by all manner of works of charity. “He relieved the poor wheresoever he came, so that flies flock not thicker to spilt honey than beggars constantly crowd about him” (Fuller). He set up a public aqueduct in Holborn, and a hospice for the poor at Bath; he distributed every day to the sick the milk of twelve cows, took care of orphans, and encouraged manly sports on Sundays among the youth of London by giving prizes. In 1577 he was committed to the care of Cox of Ely with strict rules for his treatment; and the bishop (1578) could find no fault with him except that “he was a gentle person but in the popish religion too, too obstinate.” In 1580 he was removed to Wisbeach Castle, and there exercised such an influence of charity and peace among his fellow-prisoners that was remembered when, in after years, the notorious Wisbeach Stirs broke out under the Jesuit Weston. Even here Feckenham found a means of doing public good; at his own cost he repaired the road and set up a market cross in the town. After twenty-four years of suffering for his conscience he died in prison and was buried in an unknown grave in the parish church at Wisbeach on the 16th of October 1584.

The fullest account of Feckenham is to be found in E. Taunton’s English Black Monks of St Benedict (London, 1897), vol. i. pp. 160-222.

(E. Tn.)

FEDCHENKO, ALEXIS PAVLOVICH (1844-1873), Russian naturalist and traveller, well known for his explorations in central Asia, was born at Irkutsk, in Siberia, on the 7th of February 1844; and, after attending the gymnasium of his native town, proceeded to the university of Moscow, for the study more especially of zoology and geology. In 1868 he travelled through Turkestan, the district of the lower Syr-Darya and Samarkand; and shortly after his return he set out for Khokand, where he visited a large portion of territory till then unknown. Soon after his return to Europe he perished on Mont Blanc while engaged in an exploring tour in Switzerland, on the 15th of September 1873.

Accounts of the explorations and discoveries of Fedchenko have been published by the Russian government,—his Journeys in Turkestan in 1874, In the Khanat of Khokand in 1875, and Botanical Discoveries in 1876. See Petermann’s Mittheilungen (1872-1874).

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (Lat. foedus, a league), a form of government of which the essential principle is that there is a union of two or more states under one central body for certain permanent common objects. In the most perfect form of federation the states agree to delegate to a supreme federal government certain powers or functions inherent in themselves in their sovereign or separate capacity, and the federal government, in turn, in the exercise of those specific powers acts directly, not only on the communities making up the federation, but on each individual citizen. So far as concerns the residue of powers unallotted to the central or federal authority, the separate states retain unimpaired their individual sovereignty, and the citizens of a federation consequently owe a double allegiance, one to the state, and the other to the federal government. They live under two sets of laws, the laws of the state and the laws of the federal government (J. Bryce, Studies in History and Jurisprudence, ii. 490). The word “confederation,” as distinct from “federation” has been sometimes, though not universally, used to distinguish from such a federal state (Bundesstaat) a mere union of states (Staatenbund) for mutual aid, and the promotion of interests common to all (see Confederation).

The history of federal government practically begins with Greece. This, however, is due to the fact that the Greek federations are the only ones of which we have any detailed information. The obvious importance, especially to scattered villages or tribes, of systematic joint action in the face of a common danger makes it reasonable to infer that federation in its elementary forms was a widespread device. This view is strengthened by what we can gather of the conditions obtaining in such districts as Aetolia, Acarnania and Samnium, as in modern times among primitive peoples and tribes. The relatively detailed information which we possess concerning the federal governments of Greece makes it necessary to pay special attention to them.

In ancient Greece the most striking tendency of political development was the maintenance of separate city states, each striving for absolute autonomy, though all spoke practically the same language and shared to some extent in the same traditions, interests and dangers. This centrifugal tendency is most marked in the cases of the more important states, Athens, Sparta, Argos, Corinth, but Greek history is full of examples of small states deliberately sacrificing what must have been obvious commercial advantage for the sake of a precarious autonomy. Such examples as existed of even semi-federal union were very loose in structure, and the selfishness of the component units was the predominant feature. Thus the Spartan hegemony in the Peloponnese was not really a federation except in the broadest sense. The states did, it is true, meet occasionally for discussion, but their relation, which had no real existence save in cases of immediate common danger, was really that between a paramount leader and unwilling and suspicious allies. The Athenian empire again was a thinly disguised autocracy. The synod (see Delian League) of the “allies” soon degenerated into a mere form; of comprehensive united policy there was none, at all events after the League had achieved its original purpose of expelling the Persians from Europe.

None the less it is possible, even in the early days of political development in Greece, to find some traces of a tendency towards united action. Thus the unions of individual villages, known as synoecisms, such as took place in Attica and Elis in early times were partly of a federal character: they resulted in the establishment of a common administration, and no doubt in some degree of commercial and military unity. On the other hand, it is likely that these unions lacked the characteristic of federation in that the units could hardly be described as having any sovereign power: at the most they had some municipal autonomy as in the case of the Cleisthenic demes. The union was rather national than federal. Again the Amphictyonic unions had one of the characteristic elements of federation, namely that they were free sovereign states combining for a particular purpose with an elaborate system of representation (see Amphictyony). But these unions, at all events in historic times, were mainly concerned with religion, and the authority of the councils did not seriously affect the autonomy of the individual states.

Thus among the city-states as well as among scattered villages the principle of cohesion was not unknown. On the other hand the golden mean between an easily dissoluble relationship, more like an alliance than a federation, and a national system resulting from synoecism was practically never attained in early Greek history. There are, however, examples in Greece proper, and one, Lycia in Asia Minor, of real federal unions. The chief Greek federations were those of Thessaly, Boeotia, Acarnania, Olynthus, Arcadia, Aetolia, Achaea, the most important as well as the most complete in respect of organization being the Aetolian League and the Achaean League.

1. The Thessalian League originated in the deliberate choice by village aristocracies of a single monarch who belonged from time to time to several of the so-called Heracleid families. Soon after the Persian War this monarchy (dynasty of the Aleuadae, Herod, v. 63 and vii. 6) disappeared, and in 424 we find Athens in alliance with a sort of democratic federal council representing τὸ κοινὸν Θετταλῶν (cf. Thuc. i. 102, ii. 22, iv. 78), and probably composed of delegates from the towns. The local feudal nobles, however, seem to have put an end to this government by council, and a dictator (tagus) was appointed, with authority over the whole military force of the federation. Three such officers, Lycophron, Jason and Alexander, all of Pherae, endeavoured vainly to administer the collective affairs of the federation, the last by means of a revived republican council. The final failure of this scheme coincided with the disappearance of Thessaly as a sovereign state (see Thessaly).

2. The form and the history of the Boeotian federation are treated fully under Boeotia (q.v.). It may probably have originated in religious associations, but the guiding power throughout was the imperial policy of Thebes, especially during its short-lived supremacy after 379 B.C.

3. The federation of Acarnania is of peculiar interest as being formed by scattered villages or tribes, without settled, still less fortified, habitation. In the early part of the 4th century a κοινὸν τῶν Ἀκαρνάνων met at Stratus (Xen. Hell. iv. 6. 4). Late in the same century towns began to form, without, however, disturbing the federation, which existed as late as the 2nd century B.C., governed by a representative council (βουλά), and a common assembly (κοινόν) at which any citizen might be present.

4. The foundation of the Olynthian federation was due to the need of protection against the northern invaders (see Olynthus). It was in many respects based on liberal principles, but Olynthus did not hesitate to exercise force against recalcitrants such as Acanthus.

5. The 4th century Arcadian league, which was no doubt a revival of an older federation, was the result of the struggle for supremacy between Thebes and Sparta. The defeat of Sparta at Leuctra removed the pressure which had kept separate the Arcadian tribes, and τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Ἀρκάδων was established in the new city, Megalopolis (q.v., also Arcadia).

6 and 7. The Aetolian and Achaean leagues (see Aetolia, and Achaean League) were in all respects more important than the preceding and constitute a new epoch in European politics. Both belong to a period in Greek history when the great city states had exhausted themselves in the futile struggle against Macedon and Rome, and both represent a conscious popular determination in the direction of systematic government. This characteristic is curious in the Aetolian tribes which were famous in all time for habitual brigandage; there was, however, among them the strong link of a racial feeling. The governing council (τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Αἰτωλῶν) was the permanent representative body; there was also a popular assembly (παναιτωλικόν), partly of a primary, partly of a representative kind, any one being free to attend, but each state having only one official representative and one vote. Of all the federal governments of Greece, this league was the most certainly democratic in constitution. There was a complete system of federal officers, at the head of whom was a Strategus entrusted with powers both military and civil. This officer was annually elected, and, though the chief executive authority, was strictly limited in the federal deliberations to presidential functions (cf. Livy xxxv. 25, “ne praetor, quum de bello consuluisset, ipse sententiam diceret”). The Achaean League was likewise highly organized; joint action was strictly limited, and the individual cities had sovereign power over internal affairs. There were federal officers, all the military forces of the cities were controlled by the league, and federal finance was quite separate from city finance.

8. Of the Lycian federation, its origin and duration, practically nothing is known. We know of it in 188-168 B.C. as dependent on Rhodes, and, from 168 till the time when the emperor Claudius absorbed it in the provincial system, as an independent state under Roman protection. The federation was a remarkable example of a typical Hellenic development among a non-Hellenic people. Strabo (p. 665) informs us that the federation, composed of twenty-three cities, was governed by a council (συνέδριον) which assembled from time to time at that city which was most convenient for the purpose in hand. The cities were represented according to size by one, two or three delegates, and bore proportionate shares in financial responsibility. The Lycian league was, therefore, in this respect rather national than federal.

Of ancient federal government outside Greece we know very little. The history of Italy supplies a few examples, of which the chief is perhaps the league of the cities of Latium (q.v.; see also Etruria).

See E.A. Freeman, Federal Government in Greece and Rome (2nd ed., 1893, J.B. Bury), and works quoted in the special articles.

Among the later European confederations the Swiss republic is one of the most interesting. As now constituted it consists of twenty-two sovereign states or cantons. The government is vested in two legislative chambers, a senate or council of state (Ständerat), and a national council (Nationalrat), constituting unitedly the federal assembly. The executive council (Bundesrat) of seven members elects the president and vice-president for a term of three years (see Switzerland: Government). Before the French Revolution the German empire was a complex confederation, with the states divided into electoral colleges, consisting—(1) of the ecclesiastical electors and of the secular electors, including the king of Bohemia; (2) of the spiritual and temporal princes of the empire next in rank to the electors; and (3) of the free imperial cities. The emperor was elected by the first college alone. This imposing confederation came to an end by the conquests of Napoleon; and the Confederation of the Rhine was established in 1806 with the French emperor as protector. But in 1815 the Germanic confederation (Deutscher Bund) was established by the congress of Vienna, which in its turn has been displaced by the present German empire. This, in its new organization, conferred on Germany the long-coveted unity and coherence the lack of which had been a source of weakness. The constitution dates, in its latest form, from the treaties entered into at Versailles in 1871. A federation was then organized with the king of Prussia as president, under the hereditary title of German emperor. Delegates of the various federated governments form the Bundesrath; the Reichstag, or popular assembly, is directly chosen by the people by universal suffrage; and the two assemblies constitute the federal parliament. This body has power to legislate for the whole empire in reference to all matters connected with the army, navy, postal service, customs, coinage, &c., all political laws affecting citizens, and all general questions of commerce, navigation, passports, &c. The emperor represents the federation in all international relations, with the chancellor as first minister of the empire, and has power, with consent of the Bundesrath, to declare war in name of the empire.

The United States of America more nearly resembles the Swiss confederacy, though retaining marks of its English origin. The original thirteen states were colonies wholly independent of each other. By the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union adopted by the Continental Congress in 1777, and in effect in 1781-1789, the states bound themselves in a league of common defence. By the written Constitution, drafted in 1787 and in operation since 1789, a stronger and more centralized union was established—in theory a federal republic formed by the voluntary combination of sovereign states. A common citizenship was recognized for the whole union; but the federal government was to exercise only such powers as were expressly delegated to it (Amendment of 1791). The powers of the central government are entrusted to three distinct authorities—executive, legislative and judicial. The president, elected for a term of four years by electors chosen for that purpose by each state, is the executive head of the republic. The vice-president, ex officio president of the Senate, assumes the presidency in case of resignation or death. Legislative power is vested in a Congress, consisting of two Houses: a Senate, composed of two members elected by each state for a term of six years; and a House of Representatives, consisting of representatives in numbers proportionate to the population of each state, holding their seats for two years. The supreme judicial authority is vested in a Supreme Court, which consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices, all appointed for life by the president, subject to confirmation by the Senate.

The extension of responsible constitutional government by Great Britain to her chief colonies, under a governor or viceregal representative of the crown, has been followed in British North America by the union of the Canadian, maritime and Pacific provinces under a federal government—with a senate, the members of which are nominated by the crown, and a house of commons elected by the different provinces according to their relative population. The governor-general is appointed by the crown for a term of five years, and represents the sovereign in all matters of federal government. The lieutenant-governors of the provinces are nominated by him; and all local legislation is carried on by the provincial parliaments. The remarkable federation of the Dominion of Canada which was thus originated presented the unique feature of a federal union of provinces practically exercising sovereign rights in relation to all local self-government, and sustaining a constitutional autonomy, while cherishing the colonial relationship to Great Britain.

The Commonwealth of Australia (q.v.), proclaimed in 1901, is another interesting example of self-governing states federating into a united whole. There is, however, a striking difference to be observed in the powers of the federal governments of Canada and Australia. The federal parliament of Canada has jurisdiction over all matters not specially assigned to the local legislatures, while the federal parliament of Australia has only such jurisdiction as is expressly vested in it or is not expressly withdrawn from the local legislatures. This jurisdiction is undoubtedly extensive, comprising among others, power to legislate concerning trade and industry, criminal law, taxation, quarantine, marriage and divorce, weights and measures, legal tender, copyrights and patents, and naturalization and aliens. There was also an early attempt to federate the South African colonies, and an act was passed for that purpose (South African Act 1877), but it expired on the 18th of August 1882, without having been brought into effect by the sovereign in council; in 1908, however, the Closer Union movement (see South Africa) ripened, and in 1909 a federating Act was successfully passed.

See also Bluntschli, The Theory of the State; W. Wilson, The State; Wheaton, International Law.

FEDERALIST PARTY, in American politics, the party that organized the national government of the United States under the constitution of 1787. It may be regarded as, in various important respects, the lineal predecessor of the American Whig and Republican parties. The name Federalists (see Anti-Federalists) was first given to those who championed the adoption of the Constitution. They brought to the support of that instrument “the areas of intercourse and wealth” (Libby), the influence of the commercial towns, the greater planters, the army officers, creditors and property-holders generally,—in short, of interests that had felt the evils of the weak government of the Confederation,—and also of some few true nationalists (few, because there was as yet no general national feeling), actuated by political principles of centralization independently of motives of expediency and self-interest. Most of the Federalists of 1787-1788 became members of the later Federalist Party.

The Federalist Party, which may be regarded as definitely organized practically from 1791, was led, leaving Washington aside, by Alexander Hamilton (q.v.) and John Adams. A nationalization of the new central government to the full extent warranted by a broad construction of the powers granted to it by the constitution, and a correspondingly strict construction of the powers reserved to the states and the citizens, were the basic principles of Hamilton’s policy. The friends of individual liberty and local government naturally found in the assumption by the central government of even the minimum of its granted powers constant stimulus to their fears (see Democratic Party); while the financial measures of Hamilton—whose wish for extreme centralization was nowise satisfied by the government actually created in 1787—were calculated to force an immediate and firm assumption by that government, to the limit, of every power it could be held to possess. To the Republicans (Democratic Republicans) they seemed intended to cause a usurpation of powers ungranted. Hence these measures became the issues on which the first American parties were formed. Their effect was supplemented by the division into French and British sympathizers; the Republicans approving the aims and condoning the excesses of the French Revolution, the Federalists siding with British reaction against French democracy. The Federalists controlled the government until 1801. They, having the great opportunity of initiative, organized it in all its branches, giving it an administrative machinery that in the main endures to-day; established the doctrine of national neutrality toward European conflicts (although the variance of Federalist and Republican opinion on this point was largely factitious); and fixed the practice of a liberal construction of the Constitution,1—not only by Congress, but above all by the United States Supreme Court, which, under the lead of John Marshall (who had been appointed chief-justice by Pres. John Adams), impressed enduringly on the national system large portions of the Federalist doctrine. These are the great claims of the party to memory. After 1801 it never regained power. In attempts to do so, alike in national and in state politics, it impaired its morale by internal dissension, by intrigues, and by inconsistent factious opposition to Democratic measures on grounds of ultra-strict construction. It took up, too, the Democratic weapon of states’ rights, and in New England carried sectionalism dangerously near secession in 1808, and in 1812-1814, during the movement, in opposition to the war of 1812, which culminated in the Hartford Convention (see Hartford). It lost, more and more, its influence and usefulness, and by 1817 was practically dead as a national party, although in Massachusetts it lingered in power until 1823. It is sometimes said that Federalism died because the Republicans took over its principles of nationality. Rather it fell because its great leaders, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, became bitter enemies; because neither was even distantly comparable to Jefferson as a party leader; because the party could not hold the support of its original commercial, manufacturing and general business elements; because the party opposed sectionalism to a growing nationalism on the issues that ended in the war of 1812; and, above all, because the principles of the party’s leaders (e.g. of Hamilton) were out of harmony, in various respects, with American ideals. Their conservatism became increasingly a reactionary fear of democracy; indeed, it is not a strained construction of the times to regard the entire Federalist period from the American point of view as reactionary—a reaction against the doctrines of natural rights, individualism, and states’ rights, and the financial looseness of the period of the War of Independence and the succeeding years of the Confederation. The Federalists were charged by the Republicans with being aristocrats and monarchists, and it is certain that their leaders (who were really a very remarkable body of men) distrusted democratic government; that their Sedition Law was outrageous in itself, and (as well as the Alien Law) bad as a party measure; that in disputes with Great Britain they were true English Tories when contrasted with the friendly attitude toward America held by many English Liberals; and that they persisted in New England as a pro-British, aristocratic social-cult long after they lost effective political influence. In short, the country was already thoroughly democratic in spirit, while Federalism stood for obsolescent social ideas and was infected with political “Toryism” fatally against the times.

Besides the standard general histories see O.G. Libby, Geographical Distribution of the Vote of the Thirteen States on the Federal Constitution, 1787-1788 (Madison, Wis., 1894); the Memoirs of Oliver Wolcott (ed. by Gibbs); C.D. Hazen, Contemporary American Opinion of the French Revolution (“J.H.U. Studies,” Baltimore, 1897); Henry Adams, Documents relating to New England Federalism, 1800-1815 (Boston, 1878); A.E. Morse, The Federalist Party in Massachusetts (Princeton, N.J., 1909); and the biographies and writings of George Cabot, Fisher Ames, Gouverneur Morris, John Jay, Rufus King, Timothy Pickering, Theodore Sedgwick, C.C. Pinckney and J.A. Bayard.

1 Even the Democratic party has generally been liberal; although less so in theory (hardly less so in practice) than its opponents.

FEDERICI, CAMILLO (1749-1802), Italian dramatist and actor, was born at Garessio, a small town in Piedmont, on the 9th of April 1749. His real name was Giovanni Battista Viassolo, and that by which he is now known and which he transmitted to his children was taken from the title of one of his first pieces, Camillo e Federico. He was educated at Turin, and showed at an early age a great fondness for literature and especially for the theatre. The praises bestowed on his early attempts determined his choice of a career, and he obtained engagements with several companies both as writer and actor. He made a happy marriage in 1777, and soon after left the stage and devoted himself entirely to composition. He settled at Padua, and the reputation of his numerous comedies rapidly spread in Italy, and for a time seemed to eclipse that of his predecessors. Most of his pieces were of the melodramatic class, and he too often resorted to the same means of exciting interest and curiosity. He caught, however, something of the new spirit which was manifesting itself in German dramatic literature in the works of Schiller, Iffland and Kotzebue, and the moral tone of his plays is generally healthy. Fortune did not smile upon him; but he found a helpful friend in a wealthy merchant of Padua, Francis Barisan, for whose private theatre he wrote many pieces. He was attacked in 1791 with a dangerous malady which disabled him for several years; and he had the misfortune to see his works, in the absence of any copyright law, published by others without his permission. At length, in 1802, he undertook to prepare a collected edition; but of this four volumes only were completed when he was again attacked with illness, and died at Padua (December 23).

The publication of his works was completed in 14 volumes in 1816. Another edition in 26 volumes was published at Florence in 1826-1827. A biographical memoir of Federici by Neymar appeared at Venice in 1838.

FEE, an estate in land held of a superior lord on condition of the performance of homage or service (see Feudalism). In English law “fee” signifies an estate of inheritance (i.e. an estate descendable to the heirs of the grantee so long as there are any in existence) as opposed to an estate for life. It is divisible into three species: (1) fee simple; (2) conditional fee; (3) fee tail. (See Estate.) A fee farm rent is the rent reserved on granting a fee farm, i.e. land in fee simple, to be held by the tenant and his heirs at a yearly rent. It is generally at least one-fourth of the value of the land at the time of its reservation. (See Rent.)

The word “fee” has also the sense of remuneration for services, especially the honorarium paid to a doctor, lawyer or member of any other profession. It is also used of a fixed sum paid for the right to enter for an examination, or on admission to membership of a university or other society. This sense of the word is taken by the New English Dictionary to be due to a use of “fee” in its feudal sense, and to represent a sum paid to the holder of an office “in fee.”

The etymology of the Med. Lat. feudum, feodum or feum, of its French equivalent fief, and English “fee,” in Scots law “feu” (q.v.), is extremely obscure. (See the New English Dictionary, s.v. “Fee.”) There is a common Teutonic word represented in Old English as feoh or féo, in Old High German as fehu, meaning property in the shape of cattle (cf. modern Ger. Vieh, Dutch vee). The old Aryan péku gives Sanskrit paçu, Lat. pecus, cattle, whence pecunia, money. The O. Eng. feoh, in the sense of money, possibly survives in “fee,” honorarium, though this is not the view of the New English Dictionary. The common explanation of the Med. Lat. feudum or feodum, of which Ducange (Glossarium, s.v.) gives an example from a constitution of the emperor Charles the Fat of the year 884, is that it is formed from the Teutonic fehu, property, and ôd, wealth (cf. Allodium and Udal). This would apparently restrict the original meaning to movable property, while the early applications of feudum are to the enjoyment of something granted in return for service (beneficium). Another theory takes the origin to be fehu alone, in a particular sense of wages, payment for services. This leaves the d- of feudum unexplained. Some have taken the origin to be a verbal form feudare = feum dare. Another theory finds the source in the O. High Ger. fehôn, to eat, feed upon, “take for one’s enjoyment.”

FEHLING, HERMANN VON (1812-1885), German chemist, was born at Lübeck on the 9th of June 1812. With the intention of taking up pharmacy he entered Heidelberg University about 1835, and after graduating went to Giessen as préparateur to Liebig, with whom he elucidated the composition of paraldehyde and metaldehyde. In 1839 on Liebig’s recommendation he was appointed to the chair of chemistry in the polytechnic at Stuttgart, and held it till within three years of his death, which happened at Stuttgart on the 1st of July 1885. His earlier work included an investigation of succinic acid, and the preparation of phenyl cyanide (benzonitrile), the simplest nitrile of the aromatic series; but later his time was mainly occupied with questions of technology and public health rather than with pure chemistry. Among the analytical methods worked up by him the best known is that for the estimation of sugars by “Fehling’s solution,” which consists of a solution of cupric sulphate mixed with alkali and potassium-sodium tartrate (Rochelle salt). He was a contributor to the Handwörterbuch of Liebig, Wöhler and Poggendorff, and to the Graham-Otto Textbook of Chemistry, and for many years was a member of the committee of revision of the Pharmacopoeia Germanica.

FEHMARN, an island of Germany, belonging to the Prussian province of Schleswig-Holstein, in the Baltic, separated from the north-east corner of Holstein by a strait known as the Fehmarn-Sund, less than a quarter of a mile in breadth. It is a gently undulating tract of country, about 120 sq. m. in area, bare of forest but containing excellent pasture-land, and rears cattle in considerable numbers. Pop. 10,000.

FEHMIC COURTS (Ger. Femgerichte, or Vehmgerichte, of disputed origin, but probably, according to J. Grimm, from O. High Ger. feme or feime, a court of justice), certain tribunals which, during the middle ages, exercised a powerful and sometimes sinister jurisdiction in Germany, and more especially in Westphalia. Their origin is uncertain, but is traceable to the time of Charlemagne and in all probability to the old Teutonic free courts. They were, indeed, also known as free courts (Freigerichte), a name due to the fact that all free-born men were eligible for membership and also to the fact that they claimed certain exceptional liberties. Their jurisdiction they owed to the emperor, from whom they received the power of life and death (Blutbann) which they exercised in his name. The sessions were often held in secret, whence the names of secret court (heimliches Gericht, Stillgericht, &c.); and these the uninitiated were forbidden to attend, on pain of death, which led to the designation forbidden courts (verbotene Gerichte). Legend and romance have combined to exaggerate the sinister reputation of the Fehmic courts; but modern historical research has largely discounted this, proving that they never employed torture, that their sittings were only sometimes secret, and that their meeting-places were always well known. They were, in fact, a survival of an ancient and venerable German institution; and if, during a certain period, they exercised something like a reign of terror over a great part of Germany, the cause of this lay in the sickness of the times, which called for some powerful organization to combat the growing feudal anarchy. Such an organization the Westphalian free courts, with their discipline of terror and elaborate system of secret service, were well calculated to supply. Everywhere else the power of life and death, originally reserved to the emperor alone, had been usurped by the territorial nobles; only in Westphalia, called “the Red Earth” because here the imperial blood-ban was still valid, were capital sentences passed and executed by the Fehmic courts in the emperor’s name alone.

The system, though ancient, began to become of importance only after the division of the duchy of Saxony on the fall of Henry the Lion, when the archbishop of Cologne, duke of Westphalia from 1180 onwards, placed himself as representative of the emperor at the head of the Fehme. The organization now rapidly spread. Every free man, born in lawful wedlock, and neither excommunicate nor outlaw, was eligible for membership. Princes and nobles were initiated; and in 1429 even the emperor Sigismund himself became “a true and proper Freischöffe of the Holy Roman Empire.” By the middle of the 14th century these Freischöffen (Latin scabini), sworn associates of the Fehme, were scattered in thousands throughout the length and breadth of Germany, known to each other by secret signs and pass-words, and all of them pledged to serve the summons of the secret courts and to execute their judgment.

The organization of the Fehme was elaborate. The head of each centre of jurisdiction (Freistuhl), often a secular or spiritual prince, sometimes a civic community, was known as the Stuhlherr, the archbishop of Cologne being, as stated above, supreme over all (Oberststuhlherr). The actual president of the court was the Freigraf (free count) chosen for life by the Stuhlherr from among the Freischöffen, who formed the great body of the initiated. Of these the lowest rank were the Fronboten or Freifronen, charged with the maintenance of order in the courts and the duty of carrying out the commands of the Freigraf. The immense development of the Fehme is explained by the privileges of the Freischöffen; for they were subject to no jurisdiction but those of the Westphalian courts, whether as accused or accuser they had access to the secret sessions, and they shared in the discussions of the general chapter as to the policy of the society. At their initiation these swore to support the Fehme with all their powers, to guard its secrets, and to bring before its tribunal anything within its competence that they might discover. They were then initiated into the secret signs by which members recognized each other, and were presented with a rope and with a knife on which were engraved the mystic letters S.S.G.G., supposed to mean Strick, Stein, Gras, Grün (rope, stone, grass, green).

The procedure of the Fehmic courts was practically that of the ancient German courts generally. The place of session, known as the Freistuhl (free seat), was usually a hillock, or some other well-known and accessible spot. The Freigraf and Schöffen occupied the bench, before which a table, with a sword and rope upon it, was placed. The court was held by day and, unless the session was declared secret, all freemen, whether initiated or not, were admitted. The accusation was in the old German form; but only a Freischöffe could act as accuser. If the offence came under the competence of the court, i.e. was punishable by death, a summons to the accused was issued under the seal of the Freigraf. This was not usually served on him personally, but was nailed to his door, or to some convenient place where he was certain to pass. Six weeks and three days’ grace were allowed, according to the old Saxon law, and the summons was thrice repeated. If the accused appeared, the accuser stated the case, and the investigation proceeded by the examination of witnesses as in an ordinary court of law. The judgment was put into execution on the spot if that was possible. The secret court, from whose procedure the whole institution has acquired its evil reputation, was closed to all but the initiated, although these were so numerous as to secure quasi-publicity; any one not a member on being discovered was instantly put to death, and the members present were bound under the same penalty not to disclose what took place. Crimes of a serious nature, and especially those that were deemed unfit for ordinary judicial investigation—such as heresy and witchcraft—fell within its jurisdiction, as also did appeals by persons condemned in the open courts, and likewise the cases before those tribunals in which the accused had not appeared. The accused if a member could clear himself by his own oath, unless he had revealed the secrets of the Fehme. If he were one of the uninitiated it was necessary for him to bring forward witnesses to his innocence from among the initiated, whose number varied according to the number on the side of the accuser, but twenty-one in favour of innocence necessarily secured an acquittal. The only punishment which the secret court could inflict was death. If the accused appeared, the sentence was carried into execution at once; if he did not appear, it was quickly made known to the whole body, and the Freischöffe who was the first to meet the condemned was bound to put him to death. This was usually done by hanging, the nearest tree serving for gallows. A knife with the cabalistic letters was left beside the corpse to show that the deed was not a murder.

That an organization of this character should have outlived its usefulness and issued in intolerable abuses was inevitable. With the growing power of the territorial sovereigns and the gradual improvement of the ordinary process of justice, the functions of the Fehmic courts were superseded. By the action of the emperor Maximilian and of other German princes they were, in the 16th century, once more restricted to Westphalia, and here, too, they were brought under the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, and finally confined to mere police duties. With these functions, however, but with the old forms long since robbed of their impressiveness, they survived into the 19th century. They were finally abolished by order of Jerome Bonaparte, king of Westphalia, in 1811. The last Freigraf died in 1835.

Authorities.—P. Wigand, Das Femgericht Westfalens (Hamm, 1825, 2nd ed., Halle, 1893); L. Tross, Sammlung merkwürdiger Urkunden für die Geschichte der Femgerichte (Hanover, 1826); F.P. Usener, Die frei- und heimlichen Gerichte Westfalens (Frankfort, 1832); K.G. von Wächter, Beiträge zur deutschen Gesch., insbesondere ... des deutschen Strafrechts (Tübingen, 1845); O. Wächter, Femgerichte und Hexenprozesse in Deutschland (Stuttgart, 1882); T. Lindner, Die Feme (Münster and Paderborn, 1888); F. Thudichum, Femgericht und Inquisition (Giessen, 1889) whose theory concerning the origin of the Fehme is combated in T. Lindner’s Der angebliche Ursprung der Femgerichte aus der Inquisition (Paderborn, 1890). For works on individual aspects see further Dahlmann-Waitz, Quellenkunde (ed. Leipzig, 1906), p. 401; also ib. supplementary vol. (1907), p. 78.

FEHRBELLIN, a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Prussia, on the Rhine, 40 m. N.W. from Berlin on the railway to Neu-Ruppin. Pop. (1905) 1602. It has a Protestant and a Roman Catholic church and some small industries, among them that of wooden shoes. Fehrbellin is memorable in history as the scene of the famous victory gained, on the 18th of June 1675, by the great elector, Frederick William of Prussia, over the Swedes under Field-Marshal Wrangel. A monument was erected in 1879 on the field of battle, near the village of Hakenberg, to commemorate this great feat of arms.

See A. von Witzleben and P. Hassel, Zum 200-jährigen Gedenktag von Fehrbellin (Berlin, 1875); G. Sello, “Fehrbellin,” in Deutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaften, vii.; M. Jähns, “Der Grosse Kurfürst bei Fehrbellin, &c.,” in Hohenzollern Jahrbuch, i.

FEIJÓO Y MONTENEGRO, BENITO JERÓNIMO (1676-1764), Spanish monk and scholar was born at Santa María de Melias, near Orense, on the 8th of October 1676. At the age of twelve he entered the Benedictine order, devoted himself to study, and waged war against the superstition and ignorance of his countrymen in the Teatro crí-tico (1726-1739) and the Cartas eruditas (1742-1760). These exposures of a retrograde system called forth embittered protests from narrow-minded patriots like Salvador José Maner, and others; but the opposition was futile, and Feijóo’s services to the cause of knowledge were universally recognized long before his death, which took place at Oviedo on the 26th of September 1764. He was not a great genius, nor a writer of transcendent merit; his name is connected with no important discovery, and his style is undistinguished. But he uprooted many popular errors, awakened an interest in scientific methods, and is justly regarded as the initiator of educational reform in Spain.

FEITH, RHIJNVIS (1753-1824), Dutch poet, was born of an aristocratic family at Zwolle, the capital of the province Overijssel, on the 7th of February 1753. He was educated at Harderwijk and at the university of Leiden, where he took his degree in 1770. In 1772 he settled at his birthplace, and married. In 1780, in his twenty-seventh year, he became burgomaster of Zwolle. He built a luxurious villa, which he named Boschwijk, in the outskirts of the town, and there he lived in the greatest comfort. His first important production was Julia, in 1783, a novel written in emulation of Werther, and steeped in Weltschmerz and despair. This was followed by the tragedy of Thirsa (1784); Ferdinand and Constantia (1785), another Werther novel; and The Patriots (1784), a tragedy. Bilderdijk and other writers attacked his morbid melancholy, and Johannes Kinker (1764-1845) parodied his novels, but his vogue continued. In 1791 he published a tragedy of Lady Jane Grey; in 1792 a didactic poem, The Grave, in four cantos; in 1793 Inez de Castro; in 1796 to 1814 five volumes of Odes and Miscellaneous Poems; and in 1802 Old Age, in six cantos. He died at Zwolle on the 8th of February 1824.

His works were collected (Rotterdam, 11 vols.) in 1824, with a biographical notice by N.G. van Kampen.

FEJÉR, GYORGY (1766-1851), Hungarian author, was born on the 23rd of April 1766, at Keszthely, in the county of Zala. He studied philosophy at Pest, and theology at Pressburg; eventually, in 1808, he obtained a theological professorship at Pest University. Ten years later (1818) he became chief director of the educational circle of Raab, and in 1824 was appointed librarian to the university of Pest. Fejér’s works, which are nearly all written either in Latin or Hungarian, exceed one hundred and eighty in number. His most important work, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, published from 1829 to 1844, in eleven so-called tomes, really exceeds forty volumes. It consists of old documents and charters from A.D. 104 to the end of 1439, and forms an extraordinary monument of patient industry. This work and many others relating to Hungarian national history have placed Fejér in the foremost rank of Hungarian historians. He died on the 2nd of July 1851. His latest works were A Kunok eredete (The Origin of the Huns), and A politikai forradalmak okai (The Causes of Political Revolutions), both published in 1850. The latter production, on account of its liberal tendencies, was suppressed by the Austrian government.

See Magyar Irók: Életrajz-gyüjtemény (Pest, 1856), and A Magyar nemzeti irodalomtörténet vázlata (Pest, 1861).

FELANITX, or Felaniche, a town of Spain, in the south-east of the island of Majorca, Balearic Islands; about 5 m. inland from its harbour, Puerto Colon. Pop. (1900) 11,294. A range of low hills intervenes between Felanitx and the Mediterranean; upon one summit, the Puig de San Sebastian, stands a Moorish castle with a remarkable series of subterranean vaults. From the 3rd century B.C., and possibly for a longer period, earthenware water-coolers and other pottery have been manufactured in the town, and many of the vessels produced are noteworthy for their beauty of form and antiquity of design. There is a thriving trade in wine, fruit, wheat, cattle, brandy, chalk and soap.

FELDKIRCH, a small town in the Austrian province of the Vorarlberg, some 20 m. S. of the S. end of the Lake of Constance. It is situated in a green hollow, on the Ill river, between the two narrow rocky gorges through which it flows out into the broad valley of the Rhine. Hence, though containing only about 4000 inhabitants (German-speaking and Romanist), the town is of great military importance, since it commands the entrance into Tirol from the west, over the Arlberg Pass (5912 ft.), and has been the scene of many conflicts, the last in 1799, when the French, under Oudinot and Masséna, were driven back by the Austrians under Hotze and Jellachich. It is a picturesque little town, overshadowed by the old castle of Schattenburg (now a poor-house), built about 1200 by the count of Montfort, whose descendant in 1375 sold it to the Habsburgs. The town contains many administrative offices, and is the residence of a suffragan bishop, who acts as vicar-general of the diocesan, the bishop of Brixen. Among the principal buildings are the parish church, dating from 1487, and possessing a “Descent from the Cross” (1521), which has been attributed to Holbein, the great Jesuit educational establishment called “Stella Matutina,” and a Capuchin convent and church. There is a considerable amount of transit trade at Feldkirch, which by rail is 11 m. from Buchs (Switzerland), through the principality of Liechtenstein, 24 m. from Bregenz, and 99½ m. from Innsbruck by tunnel beneath the Arlberg Pass. The town also possesses numerous industrial establishments, such as factories for cotton-spinning, weaving, bell-founding, dyeing, &c.

(W. A. B. C.)

FÉLIBIEN, ANDRÉ (1610-1695), sieur des Avaux et de Javercy, French architect and historiographer, was born at Chartres in May 1619. At the age of fourteen he went to Paris to continue his studies; and in 1647 he was sent to Rome in the capacity of secretary of embassy to the Marquis de Marueil. His residence at Rome he turned to good account by diligent study of its ancient monuments, by examination of the literary treasures of its libraries, and by cultivating the acquaintance of men eminent in literature and in art, with whom he was brought into contact through his translation of Cardinal Barberini’s Life of Pius V. Among his friends was Nicholas Poussin, whose counsels were of great value to him. On his return to France he married, and was ultimately induced, in the hope of employment and honours, to settle in Paris. Both Fouquet and Colbert in their turn recognized his abilities; and he was one of the first members (1663) of the Academy of Inscriptions. Three years later Colbert procured him the appointment of historiographer to the king. In 1671 he was named secretary to the newly-founded Academy of Architecture, and in 1673 keeper of the cabinet of antiques in the palace of Brion. To these offices was afterwards added by Louvois that of deputy controller-general of roads and bridges. Félibien found time in the midst of his official duties for study and research, and produced many literary works. Among these the best and the most generally known is the Entretiens sur les vies et sur les ouvrages des plus excellents peintres anciens et modernes, which appeared in successive livraisons, the first in 1666, and the fifth in 1688. It was republished with several additions at Amsterdam in 1706, and again at Trévoux in 1725. Félibien wrote also Origine de la peinture (1660), Principes de l’architecture, de la sculpture, de la peinture, &c. (1676-1690), and descriptions of Versailles, of La Trappe, and of the pictures and statues of the royal residences. Among other literary works, he edited the Conférences of the Academy of Painting, and translated the Castle of the Soul from the Spanish of St Theresa. His personal character commanded the highest esteem, agreeing with the motto which he adopted—Bene facere et vera dicere. He died in Paris on the 11th of June 1695.

His son, Jean François Félibien (c. 1658-1733), was also an architect who left a number of works on his subject; and a younger son, Michel Félibien (c. 1666-1719), was a Benedictine of Saint Germain-des-Prés whose fame rests on his Histoire de l’abbaye royale de S. Denys en France, and also his L’Histoire de la ville de Paris in 5 vols., a work indispensable to the student of Paris.

FELIX, the name of five popes.

Felix I., pope from January 269 until his death in January 274. He has been claimed as a martyr, and as such his name is given in the Roman calendar and elsewhere, but his title to this honour is by no means proved, and he has been probably confused with another bishop of the same name. He appears in connexion with the dispute in the church of Antioch between Paul of Samosata, who had been deprived of his bishopric by a council of bishops for heresy, and his successor Domnus. Paul refused to give way, and in 272 the emperor Aurelian was asked to decide between the rivals. He ordered the church building to be given to the bishop who was “recognized by the bishops of Italy and of the city of Rome” (Felix). See Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. vii. 30.

Felix II., antipope, was in 356 raised from the archdeaconate of Rome to the papal chair, when Liberius was banished by the emperor Constantius for refusing to subscribe the sentence of condemnation against Athanasius. His election was contrary to the wishes both of the clergy and of the people, and the consecration ceremony was performed by certain prelates belonging to the court. In 357 Constantius, at the urgent request of an influential deputation of Roman ladies, agreed to the release of Liberius on condition that he signed the semi-Arian creed. Constantius also issued an edict to the effect that the two bishops should rule conjointly, but Liberius, on his entrance into Rome in the following year, was received by all classes with so much enthusiasm that Felix found it necessary to retire at once from Rome. Regarding the remainder of his life little is known, and the accounts handed down are contradictory, but he appears to have spent the most of it in retirement at his estate near Porto. He died in 365.

Felix III., pope, was descended from one of the most influential families of Rome, and was a direct ancestor of Gregory the Great. He succeeded Simplicius in the papal chair on the 2nd of March 483. His first act was to repudiate the Henoticon, a deed of union, originating, it is supposed, with Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, and published by the emperor Zeno with the view of allaying the strife between the Monophysites and their opponents in the Eastern church. He also addressed a letter of remonstrance to Acacius; but the latter proved refractory, and sentence of deposition was passed against him. As Acacius, however, had the support of the emperor, a schism arose between the Eastern and Western churches, which lasted for 34 years. Felix died in 492.

Felix IV., pope, a native of Beneventum, was, on the death of John in 526, raised to the papal chair by the emperor Theodoric in opposition to the wishes of the clergy and people. His election was followed by serious riots. To prevent a recrudescence of these, Felix, on his death-bed, thought it advisable to nominate his own successor. His choice fell upon the archdeacon Boniface (pope as Boniface II.). But this proceeding was contrary to all tradition and roused very serious opposition. Out of two old buildings adapted by him to Christian worship, Felix made the church of SS. Cosimo and Damiano, near the Via Sacra. He died in September 530.

Felix V., the name taken by Amadeus (1383-1451), duke of Savoy, when he was elected pope in opposition to Eugenius IV. in 1439. Amadeus was born at Chambéry on the 4th of December 1383, and succeeded his father, Amadeus VII., as count of Savoy in 1391. Having added largely to his patrimonial possessions he became very powerful, and in 1416 the German king Sigismund erected Savoy into a duchy; after this elevation Amadeus added Piedmont to his dominions. Then suddenly, in 1434, the duke retired to a hermitage at Ripaille, near Thonon, resigning his duchy to his son Louis (d. 1465), although he seems to have taken some part in its subsequent administration. It is said, but some historians doubt the story, that, instead of leading a life of asceticism, he spent his revenues in furthering his own luxury and enjoyment. In 1439, when Pope Eugenius IV. was deposed by the council of Basel, Amadeus, although not in orders, was chosen as his successor, and was crowned in the following year as Felix V. In the stormy conflict between the rival popes which followed, the German king, Frederick IV., after some hesitation sided with Eugenius, and having steadily lost ground Felix renounced his claim to the pontificate in 1449 in favour of Nicholas V., who had been elected on the death of Eugenius. He induced Nicholas, however, to appoint him as apostolic vicar-general in Savoy, Piedmont and other parts of his own dominions, and to make him a cardinal. Amadeus died at Geneva on the 7th of January 1451.

FELIX, a missionary bishop from Burgundy, sent into East Anglia by Honorius of Canterbury (630-631). Under King Sigebert his mission was successful, and he became first bishop of East Anglia, with a see at Dunwich, where he died and was buried, 647-648. It is noteworthy that the Irish monk Furseus preached in East Anglia at the same time, and Bede notices the admiration of Felix for Aidan.

See Bede, Hist. Eccl. (Plummer), ii. 15, iii. 18, 20, 25; Saxon Chronicle (Earle and Plummer), s.a. 636.

FELIX, of Urgella (fl. 8th century), Spanish bishop, the friend of Elipandus and the propagator of his views in the great Adoptian Controversy (see Adoptianism).

FELIX, of Valois (1127-1212), one of the founders of the monastic order of Trinitarians or Redemptionists, was born in the district of Valois, France, on the 19th of April 1127. In early manhood he became a hermit in the forest of Galeresse, where he remained till his sixty-first year, when his disciple Jean de Matha (1160-1213) suggested to him the idea of establishing an order of monks who should devote their lives to the redemption of Christian captives from the Saracens. They journeyed to Rome about the end of 1197, obtained the sanction of the pope, and on their return to France founded the monastery of Cerfroi in Picardy. Felix remained to govern and propagate the order, while Jean de Matha superintended the foreign journeys. A subordinate establishment was also founded by Felix in Paris near a chapel dedicated to St Mathurin, on which account his monks were also called St Mathurins. He died at Cerfroi on the 4th of November 1212, and was canonized.

FELIX, ANTONIUS, Roman procurator of Judaea (A.D. 52-60), in succession to Ventidius Cumanus. He was a freedman either of the emperor Claudius—according to which theory Josephus (Antiq. xx. 7) calls him Claudius Felix—or more probably of the empress Antonia. On entering his province he induced Drusilla, wife of Azizus of Homs (Emesa), to leave her husband and live with him as his wife. His cruelty and licentiousness, coupled with his accessibility to bribes, led to a great increase of crime in Judaea. To put down the Zealots he favoured an even more violent sect, the Sicarii (“Dagger-men”), by whose aid he contrived the murder of the high-priest Jonathan. The period of his rule was marked by internal feuds and disturbances, which he put down with severity. The apostle Paul, after being apprehended in Jerusalem, was sent to be judged before Felix at Caesarea, and kept in custody for two years (Acts xxiv.). On returning to Rome, Felix was accused of having taken advantage of a dispute between the Jews and Syrians of Caesarea to slay and plunder the inhabitants, but through the intercession of his brother, the freedman Pallas, who had great influence with the emperor Nero, he escaped unpunished.

See Tacitus, Annals, xx. 54, Hist. v. 9; Suetonius, Claudius, 28; E. Schürer, History of the Jewish People (1890-1891); article in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible (A. Robertson); commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles; Sir W.M. Ramsay, St Paul the Traveller; Carl v. Weizsäcker, Apostolic Age (Eng. trans., 1894); art. Jews.

FÉLIX, LIA (1830- ), French actress, was the third sister and the pupil of the great Rachel. She had hardly been given any trial when, by chance, she was called on to create the leading woman’s part in Lamartine’s Toussaint Louverture at the Porte St Martin on the 6th of April 1850. The play did not make a hit, but the young actress was favourably noticed, and several important parts were immediately entrusted to her. She soon came to be recognized as one of the best comediennes in Paris. Rachel took Lia to America with her to play second parts, and on returning to Paris she played at several of the principal theatres, although her health compelled her to retire for several years. When she reappeared at the Gaiété in the title-rôle of Jules Barbier’s Jeanne d’Arc she had an enormous success.

FELIXSTOWE, a seaside resort of Suffolk, England; fronting both to the North Sea and to the estuary of the Orwell, where there are piers. Pop. of urban district of Felixstowe and Walton (1901), 5815. It is 85 m. N.E. by E. from London by a branch line from Ipswich of the Great Eastern railway; and is in the Woodbridge parliamentary division of the county. It has good golf links, and is much frequented by visitors for its bracing climate and sea-bathing. There is a small dock, and phosphate of lime is extensively dug in the neighbourhood and exported for use as manure. The neighbouring village of Walton, a short distance inland, receives many visitors. The vicinity has yielded numerous Roman remains, and there was a Roman fort in the neighbourhood (now destroyed by the sea), forming part of the coast defence of the Litus Saxonicum in the 4th century.

FELL, JOHN (1625-1686), English divine, son of Samuel Fell, dean of Christ Church, Oxford, was born at Longworth in Berkshire and received his first education at the free school at Thame in Oxfordshire. In 1636 he obtained a studentship at Christ Church, and in 1640 he was specially allowed by Archbishop Laud on account of his “known desert,” when wanting one term’s residence, to proceed to his degree of B.A. He obtained his M.A. in 1643 and took holy orders (deacon 1647, priest 1649). During the Civil War he bore arms for the king and held a commission as ensign. In 1648 he was deprived of his studentship by the parliamentary visitors, and during the next few years he resided chiefly at Oxford with his brother-in-law, Dr T. Willis, at whose house opposite Merton College he and his friends Allestree and Dolben kept up the service of the Church of England through the Commonwealth.

At the Restoration Fell was made prebendary of Chichester, canon of Christ Church (July 27, 1660), dean (Nov. 30), master of St Oswald’s hospital, Worcester, chaplain to the king, and D.D. He filled the office of vice-chancellor from 1666 to 1669, and was consecrated bishop of Oxford, in 1676, retaining his deanery in commendam. Some years later he declined the primacy of Ireland. Fell showed himself a most capable and vigorous administrator in his various high employments, and a worthy disciple of Archbishop Laud. He restored in the university the good order instituted by the archbishop, which in the Commonwealth had given place to anarchy and a general disregard of authority. He ejected the intruders from his college or else “fixed them in loyal principles.” “He was the most zealous man of his time for the Church of England,” says Wood, “and none that I yet know of did go beyond him in the performance of the rules belonging thereunto.” He attended chapel four times a day, restored to the services, not without some opposition, the organ and surplice, and insisted on the proper academical dress which had fallen into disuse. He was active in recovering church property, and by his directions a children’s catechism was drawn up by Thomas Marshall for use in his diocese. “As he was among the first of our clergy,” says Burnet, “that apprehended the design of bringing in popery, so he was one of the most zealous against it.” He was forward in making converts from the Roman Catholics and Nonconformists. On the other hand, it is recorded to his honour that he opposed successfully the incorporation of Titus Oates as D.D. in the university in October 1679; and according to the testimony of William Nichols, his secretary, he disapproved of the Exclusion Bill. He excluded the undergraduates, whose presence had been irregularly permitted, from convocation. He obliged the students to attend lectures, instituted reforms in the performances of the public exercises in the schools, kept the examiners up to their duties, and himself attended the examinations. He encouraged the students to act plays. He entirely suppressed “coursing,” i.e. disputations in which the rival parties “ran down opponents in arguments,” and which commonly ended in blows and disturbances. He was an excellent disciplinarian and possessed a special talent for the education of young men, many of whom he received into his own family and watched over their progress with paternal care. Tom Browne, author of the Dialogues of the Dead, about to be expelled from Oxford for some offence, was pardoned by Fell on the condition of his translating extempore the 33rd epigram from Martial:—

“Non amo te, Sabidi, nec possum dicere quare; Hoc tantum possum dicere, non amo te.”

To which he immediately replied with the well-known lines:—

“I do not love you, Dr Fell, But why, I cannot tell, But this I know full well, I do not love you, Dr Fell.”1

Delinquents, however, were not always treated thus mildly by Fell, and Acton Cremer, for the crime of courting a wife while only a bachelor of arts, was set as an imposition the translation into English of the whole of Scheffer’s history of Lapland. As vice-chancellor, Fell himself visited the drinking taverns and ordered out the students. In the university elections he showed great energy in suppressing corruption.

Fell’s building operations almost rivalled the plans of the great ecclesiastical architects of the middle ages. In his own college he completed in 1665 the north side of Wolsey’s great quadrangle, already begun by his father but abandoned during the Commonwealth; he rebuilt in 1672 the east side of the Chaplain’s quadrangle “with a straight passage under it leading from the cloister into the field,” occupied now by the new Meadow Buildings; the lodgings of the canon of the 3rd stall in the passage uniting the Tom and Peckwater quadrangles (c. 1674); a long building joining the Chaplain’s quadrangle on the east side in 1677-1678; and lastly the great tower gate, begun in June 1681 on the foundation laid by Wolsey and finished in November 1682, to which the bell “great Tom,” after being recast, was transferred from the cathedral in 1683. In 1670 he planted and laid out the Broad Walk. He spent large sums of his own on these works, gave £500 for the restoration of Banbury church, erected a church at St Oswald’s, Worcester, and the parsonage house at Woodstock at his own expense, and rebuilt Cuddesdon palace. Fell disapproved of the use of St Mary’s church for secular purposes, and promoted the building of the Sheldonian theatre by Archbishop Sheldon. He was treasurer during its construction, presided at the formal opening on the 9th of July 1669, and was nominated with Wren curator in July 1670. In the theatre was placed the University Press, the establishment of which had been a favourite project of Laud, which now engaged a large share of Fell’s energy and attention, and which as curator he practically controlled. “Were it not you ken Mr Dean extraordinarily well,” writes Sir L. Jenkins to J. Williamson in 1672, “it were impossible to imagine how assiduous and drudging he is about his press.”2 He sent for type and printers from Holland, declaring that “the foundation of all success must be laid in doing things well, which I am sure will not be done with English letters.” Many works, including a Bible, editions of the classics and of the early fathers, were produced under his direction and editing, and his press became noted not only in England but abroad. He published annually one work, generally a classical author annotated by himself, which he distributed to all the students of his college on New Year’s day. On one occasion he surprised the Press in printing surreptitiously Aretino’s Postures, when he seized and destroyed the plates and impressions. Ever “an eager defender and maintainer of the university and its privileges,” he was hostile to the Royal Society, which he regarded as a possible rival, and in 1686 he gave an absolute refusal to Obadiah Walker, afterwards the Roman Catholic master of University College, though licensed by James II., to print books, declaring he would as soon “part with his bed from under him” as his press. He conducted it on strict business principles, and to the criticism that more great works were not produced replied that they would not sell. He was, however, not free from fads, and his new spelling (of which one feature was the substitution of i for y in such words as eies, daies, maiest) met with great disapproval.

Fell also did much to encourage learning in the university. While still a young man at Christ Church he had shown both his zeal and his charity by reading gratuitously with the poor and neglected students of the college. He bore himself a high reputation as a Grecian, a Latinist and a philologist, and he found time, in spite of his great public employments, to bring out with the collaboration of others his great edition of St Cyprian in 1682, an English translation of The Unity of the Church in 1681, editions of Nemesius of Emesa (1671), of Aratus and of Eratosthenes (1672), Theocritus (1676), Alcinous on Plato (1677), St Clement’s Epistles to the Corinthians (1677), Athenagoras (1682), Clemens Alexandrinus (1683), St Theophilus of Antioch (1684), Grammatica rationis sive institutiones logicae (1673 and 1685), and a critical edition of the New Testament in 1675. The first volumes of Rerum Anglicarum scriptores and of Historiae Britannicae, &c. were compiled under his patronage in 1684. He had the MSS. of St. Augustine in the Bodleian and other libraries at Oxford generously collated for the use of the Benedictines at Paris, then preparing a new edition of the father.

Fell spent such large sums in his building, in his noble patronage of learning, and in charities, that sometimes there was little left for his private use. Occasionally in his schemes he showed greater zeal than prudence. He was the originator of a mission to India which was warmly taken up by the East India Company. He undertook himself to train as missionaries four scholars at Oxford, procured a set of Arabic types, and issued from these the Gospels and Acts in the Malay language in 1677. But this was scarcely the best method of communicating the gospel to the natives of India, and the mission collapsed. He affected to despise public opinion, and was masterful and despotic in his dealings with others, especially with those upon whom he was conferring favours. Having generously undertaken at his own charge to publish a Latin version of Wood’s History and Antiquities of the University of Oxford, with the object of presenting the history of the university in a manner worthy of the great subject to European readers, and of extending its fame abroad, he arrogated to himself the right of editing the work. “He would correct, alter, dash out what he pleased.... He was a great man and carried all things at his pleasure.” In particular he struck out all the passages which Wood had inserted in praise of Hobbes, and substituted some disparaging epithets. He called the philosopher’s Leviathan “monstrosissimus” and “publico damno notissimus.” To the printed remonstrance of Hobbes, Fell inserted an insulting reply in the History to “irritabile illud et vanissimum Malmesburiense animal,” and to the complaint of Wood at this usage answered only that Hobbes “was an old man, had one foot in the grave; that he should mind his latter end, and not trouble the world any more with his papers.” In small things as in great he loved to rule and direct. “Let not Fell,” writes R. South to R. Bathurst, “have the fingering and altering of them (i.e. his Latin verses), for I think that, bating the want of siquidems and quinetiams, they are as good as his Worship can make.” Wood styles him “a valde vult person.” He was not content with ruling his own college, but desired to govern the whole university. He prevented Gilbert Ironside, who “was not pliable to his humour,” from holding the office of vice-chancellor. He “endeavoured to carry all things by a high hand; scorn’d in the least to court the Masters when he had to have anything pass’d the convocation. Severe to other colleges, blind as to his own, very partiall and with good words, and flatterers and tell-tales could get anything out of him.” According to Bishop Burnet, who praises his character and his administration, Fell was “a little too much heated in the matter of our disputes with the dissenters.” “He had much zeal for reforming abuses, and managed it perhaps with too much heat and in too peremptory a way.” “But,” he adds, “we have so little of that among us that no wonder if such men are censured by those who love not such patterns nor such severe task-masters.” And Wood, whose adverse criticism must be discounted a little on account of the personal dispute,—after declaring that Fell “was exceeding partial in his government even to corruption; went thro’ thick and thin; grasped at all yet did nothing perfect or effectually; cared not what people said of him, was in many things very rude and in most pedantic and pedagogical,”—concludes with the acknowledgment, “yet still aimed at the public good.” Roger North, who paid Fell a visit at Oxford, speaks of him in terms of enthusiasm:—“The great Dr Fell, who was truly great in all his circumstances, capacities, undertakings and learning, and above all for his superabundant public spirit and goodwill.... O the felicity of that age and place when his authority swayed!”

In November 1684, at the command of the king, Fell deprived Locke, who had incurred the royal displeasure by his friendship with Shaftesbury, and was suspected as the author of certain seditious pamphlets, of his studentship at Christ Church, summarily and without hearing his defence. Fell had in former years cultivated Locke’s friendship, had kept up a correspondence with him, and in 1663 had written a testimonial in his favour; and the ready compliance of one who could on occasion offer a stout resistance to any invasion of the privileges of the university has been severely criticised. It must, however, be remembered in extenuation that the legal status of a person on the foundation of a collegiate body had not then been decided in the law-courts. With regard to the justice of the proceeding Fell had evidently some doubts, and he afterwards expressed his regret for the step which he was now compelled to take. But such scruples, however strong, would, with a man of Fell’s political and religious opinions, yield immediately to an order from the sovereign, who possessed special authority in this case as a visitor to the college; and such subservience, however strange to modern notions, would probably only be considered natural and proper at that period.