Fersen stood quite aloof from the revolution of 1809. (See SWEDEN:

_History_.) His sympathies were entirely with Prince Gustavus, son of

the unfortunate Gustavus IV., and he was generally credited with the

desire to see him king. When the newly elected successor to the throne,

the highly popular prince Christian Augustus of Augustenburg, died

suddenly in Skane in May 1810, the report spread that he had been

poisoned, and that Fersen and his sister, the countess Piper, were

accessories. The source of this equally absurd and infamous libel has

never been discovered. But it was eagerly taken up by the anti-Gustavian

press, and popular suspicion was especially aroused by a fable called

"The Foxes" directed against the Fersens, which appeared in _Nya

Posten_. When, then, on the 20th of June 1810, the prince's body was

conveyed to Stockholm, and Fersen, in his official capacity as

_Riksmarskalk_, received it at the barrier and led the funeral cortege

into the city, his fine carriage and his splendid robes seemed to the

people an open derision of the general grief. The crowd began to murmur

and presently to fling stones and cry "murderer!" He sought refuge in a

house in the Riddarhus Square, but the mob rushed after him, brutally

maltreated him and tore his robes to pieces. To quiet the people and

save the unhappy victim, two officers volunteered to conduct him to the

senate house and there place him in arrest. But he had no sooner mounted

the steps leading to the entrance than the crowd, which had followed him

all the way beating him with sticks and umbrellas, made a rush at him,

knocked him down, and kicked and trampled him to death. This horrible

outrage, which lasted more than an hour, happened, too, in the presence

of numerous troops, drawn up in the Riddarhus Square, who made not the

slightest effort to rescue the Riksmarskalk from his tormentors. In the

circumstances, one must needs adopt the opinion of Fersen's

contemporary, Baron Gustavus Armfelt, "One is almost tempted to say that

the government wanted to give the people a victim to play with, just as

when one throws something to an irritated wild beast to distract its

attention. The more I consider it all, the more I am certain that the

mob had the least to do with it.... But in God's name what were the

troops about? How could such a thing happen in broad daylight during a

procession, when troops and a military escort were actually present?"

The responsibility certainly rests with the government of Charles XIII.,

which apparently intended to intimidate the Gustavians by the removal of

one of their principal leaders. Armfelt escaped in time, so Fersen fell

the victim.

See R.M. Klinckowstrom, _Le Comte de Fersen et la cour de France_

(Paris, 1877; Eng. ed., London, 1902); _Historia om Axel von Fersens

mord_ (Stockholm, 1844); R.N. Bain, _Gustavus III._, vol. ii. (London,

1895); P. Gaulot, _Un Ami de la reine_ (Paris, 1892); F.F. Flach,

_Grefve Hans Axel von Fersen_ (Stockholm, 1896); E. Tegner, _Gustaf

Mauritz Armfelt_, vol. iii. (Stockholm, 1883-1887). (R. N. B.)

FESCA, FREDERIC ERNEST (1789-1826), German violinist and composer of

instrumental music, was born on the 15th of February 1789 at Magdeburg,

where he received his early musical education. He completed his studies

at Leipzig under Eberhard Muller, and at the early age of fifteen

appeared before the public with several concerti for the violin, which

were received with general applause, and resulted in his being appointed

leading violinist of the Leipzig orchestra. This position he occupied

till 1806, when he became concert-master to the duke of Oldenburg. In

1808 he was appointed solo-violinist by King Jerome of Westphalia at

Cassel, and there he remained till the end of the French occupation

(1814), when he went to Vienna, and soon afterwards to Carlsruhe, having

been appointed concert-master to the grand-duke of Baden. His failing

health prevented him from enjoying the numerous and well-deserved

triumphs he owed to his art, and in 1826 he died of consumption at the

early age of thirty-seven. As a virtuoso Fesca ranks amongst the best

masters of the German school of violinists, the school subsequently of

Spohr and of Joachim. Especially as leader of a quartet he is said to

have been unrivalled with regard to classic dignity and simplicity of

style. Amongst his compositions, his quartets for stringed instruments

and other pieces of chamber music are the most remarkable. His two

operas, _Cantemira_ and _Omar and Leila_, were less successful, lacking

dramatic power and originality. He also wrote some sacred compositions,

and numerous songs and vocal quartets.

FESCENNIA, an ancient city of Etruria, which is probably to be placed

immediately to the N. of the modern Corchiano, 6 m. N.W. of Civita

Castellana (see FALERII). The Via Amerina traverses it. G. Dennis

(_Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria_, London, 1883, i. 115) proposed to

place it at the Riserva S. Silvestro, 3 m. E. of Corchiano, nearer the

Tiber, where remains of Etruscan walls exist. At Corchiano itself,

however, similar walls may be traced, and the site is a strong and

characteristic one--a triangle between two deep ravines, with the third

(west) side cut off by a ditch. Here, too, remains of two bridges may be

seen, and several rich tombs have been excavated.

See A. Buglione, "Conte di Monale," in _Romische Mitteilungen_ (1887),

p. 21 seq.

FESCENNINE VERSES (_Fescennina carmina_), one of the earliest kinds of

Italian poetry, subsequently developed into the Satura and the Roman

comic drama. Originally sung at village harvest-home rejoicings, they

made their way into the towns, and became the fashion at religious

festivals and private gatherings--especially weddings, to which in later

times they were practically restricted. They were usually in the

Saturnian metre and took the form of a dialogue, consisting of an

interchange of extemporaneous raillery. Those who took part in them wore

masks made of the bark of trees. At first harmless and good-humoured, if

somewhat coarse, these songs gradually outstripped the bounds of

decency; malicious attacks were made upon both gods and men, and the

matter became so serious that the law intervened and scurrilous

personalities were forbidden by the Twelve Tables (Cicero, _De re

publica_, iv. 10). Specimens of the Fescennines used at weddings are the

Epithalamium of Manlius (Catullus, lxi. 122) and the four poems of

Claudian in honour of the marriage of Honorius and Maria; the first,

however, is distinguished by a licentiousness which is absent in the

latter. Ausonius in his _Cento nuptialis_ mentions the Fescennines of

Annianus Faliscus, who lived in the time of Hadrian. Various derivations

have been proposed for _Fescennine_. According to Festus, they were

introduced from Fescennia in Etruria, but there is no reason to assume

that any particular town was specially devoted to the use of such songs.

As an alternative Festus suggests a connexion with _fascinum_, either

because the Fescennina were regarded as a protection against evil

influences (see Munro, _Criticisms and Elucidations of Catullus_, p. 76)

or because _fascinum_ (= _phallus_), as the symbol of fertility, would

from early times have been naturally associated with harvest festivals.

H. Nettleship, in an article on "The Earliest Italian Literature"

(_Journal of Philology_, xi. 1882), in support of Munro's view,

translates the expression "verses used by charmers," assuming a noun

_fescennus_, connected with _fas fari_.

The _locus classicus_ in ancient literature is Horace, _Epistles_, ii.

1. 139; see also Virgil, _Georgics_, ii. 385; Tibullus ii. 1. 55; E.

Hoffmann, "Die Fescenninen," in _Rheinisches Museum_, li. p. 320

(1896); art. LATIN LITERATURE.

FESCH, JOSEPH (1763-1839), cardinal, was born at Ajaccio on the 3rd of

January 1763. His father, a Swiss officer in the service of the Genoese

Republic, had married the mother of Laetitia Bonaparte, after the

decease of her first husband. Fesch therefore stood almost in the

relation of an uncle to the young Bonapartes, and after the death of

Lucien Bonaparte, archdeacon of Ajaccio, he became for a time the

protector and patron of the family. In the year 1789, when the French

Revolution broke out, he was archdeacon of Ajaccio, and, like the

majority of the Corsicans, he felt repugnance for many of the acts of

the French government during that period; in particular he protested

against the application to Corsica of the act known as the "Civil

Constitution of the Clergy" (July 1790). As provost of the "chapter" in

that city he directly felt the pressure of events; for on the

suppression of religious orders and corporations, he was constrained to

retire into private life.

Thereafter he shared the fortunes of the Bonaparte family in the

intrigues and strifes which ensued. Drawn gradually by that family into

espousing the French cause against Paoli and the Anglophiles, he was

forced to leave Corsica and to proceed with Laetitia and her son to

Toulon, in the early part of the autumn of 1793. Failing to find

clerical duties at that time (the period of the Terror), he entered

civil life, and served in various capacities, until on the appointment

of Napoleon Bonaparte to the command of the French "Army of Italy" he

became a commissary attached to that army. This part of his career is

obscure and without importance. His fortunes rose rapidly on the

attainment of the dignity of First Consul by his former charge,

Napoleon, after the _coup d'etat_ of Brumaire (November 1799).

Thereafter, when the restoration of the Roman Catholic religion was in

the mind of the First Consul, Fesch resumed his clerical vocation and

took an active part in the complex negotiations which led to the signing

of the Concordat with the Holy See on the 15th of July 1801. His reward

came in the prize of the archbishopric of Lyons, on the duties of which

he entered in August 1802. Six months later he received a still more

signal reward for his past services, being raised to the dignity of

cardinal.

In 1804 on the retirement of Cacault from the position of French

ambassador at Rome, Fesch received that important appointment. He was

assisted by Chateaubriand, but soon sharply differed with him on many

questions. Towards the close of the year 1804 Napoleon entrusted to

Fesch the difficult task of securing the presence of Pope Pius VII. at

the forthcoming coronation of the emperor at Notre Dame, Paris (Dec.

2nd, 1804). His tact in overcoming the reluctance of the pope to be

present at the coronation (it was only eight months after the execution

of the duc d'Enghien) received further recognition. He received the

grand cordon of the Legion of Honour, became grand-almoner of the empire

and had a seat in the French senate. He was to receive further honours.

In 1806 one of the most influential of the German clerics, Karl von

Dalberg, then prince bishop of Regensburg, chose him to be his coadjutor

and designated him as his successor.

Events, however, now occurred which overclouded his prospects. In the

course of the years 1806-1807 Napoleon came into sharp collision with

the pope on various matters both political and religious. Fesch sought

in vain to reconcile the two potentates. Napoleon was inexorable in his

demands, and Pius VII. refused to give way where the discipline and

vital interests of the church seemed to be threatened. The emperor on

several occasions sharply rebuked Fesch for what he thought to be

weakness and ingratitude. It is clear, however, that the cardinal went

as far as possible in counselling the submission of the spiritual to the

civil power. For a time he was not on speaking terms with the pope; and

Napoleon recalled him from Rome.

Affairs came to a crisis in the year 1809, when Napoleon issued at

Vienna the decree of the 17th of May, ordering the annexation of the

papal states to the French empire. In that year Napoleon conferred on

Fesch the archbishopric of Paris, but he refused the honour. He,

however, consented to take part in an ecclesiastical commission formed

by the emperor from among the dignitaries of the Gallican Church, but in

1810 the commission was dissolved. The hopes of Fesch with respect to

Regensburg were also damped by an arrangement of the year 1810 whereby

Regensburg was absorbed in Bavaria.

In the year 1811 the emperor convoked a national council of Gallican

clerics for the discussion of church affairs, and Fesch was appointed to

preside over their deliberations. Here again, however, he failed to

satisfy the inflexible emperor and was dismissed to his diocese. The

friction between uncle and nephew became more acute in the following

year. In June 1812, Pius VII. was brought from his first place of

detention, Savona, to Fontainebleau, where he was kept under

surveillance in the hope that he would give way in certain matters

relating to the Concordat and in other clerical affairs. Fesch ventured

to write to the aged pontiff a letter which came into the hands of the

emperor. His anger against Fesch was such that he stopped the sum of

150,000 florins which had been accorded to him. The disasters of the

years 1812-1813 brought Napoleon to treat Pius VII. with more lenity and

the position of Fesch thus became for a time less difficult. On the

first abdication of Napoleon (April 11th, 1814) and the restoration of

the Bourbons, he, however, retired to Rome where he received a welcome.

The events of the Hundred Days (March-June, 1815) brought him back to

France; he resumed his archiepiscopal duties at Lyons and was further

named a member of the senate. On the second abdication of the emperor

(June 22nd, 1815) Fesch retired to Rome, where he spent the rest of his

days in dignified ease, surrounded by numerous masterpieces of art, many

of which he bequeathed to the city of Lyons. He died at Rome on the 13th

of May 1839.

See J.B. Monseigneur Lyonnet, _Le Cardinal Fesch_ (2 vols., Lyons,

1841); Ricard, _Le Cardinal Fesch_ (Paris, 1893); H. Welschinger, _Le

Pape et l'empereur_ (Paris, 1905); F. Masson, _Napoleon et sa famille_

(4 vols., Paris, 1897-1900).

FESSA, a town and district of Persia in the province of Fars. The town

is situated in a fertile plain in 29 deg. N. and 90 m. from Shiraz, and

has a population of about 5000. The district has forty villages and

extends about 40 m. north-south from Runiz to Nassirabad and 16 m.

east-west from Vasilabad to Deh Dasteh (Dastajah); it produces much

grain, dates, tobacco, opium and good fruit.

FESSENDEN, WILLIAM PITT (1806-1869), American statesman and financier,

was born in Boscawen, New Hampshire, on the 16th of October 1806. After

graduating at Bowdoin College in 1823, he studied law, and in 1827 was

admitted to the bar, eventually settling in Portland, Maine, where for

two years he was associated in practice with his father, Samuel

Fessenden (1784-1869), a prominent lawyer and anti-slavery leader. In

1832 and in 1840 Fessenden was a representative in the Maine

legislature, and in 1841-1843 was a Whig member of the national House of

Representatives. When his term in this capacity was over, he devoted

himself unremittingly and with great success to the law. He became well

known, also, as an eloquent advocate of slavery restriction. In

1845-1846 and 1853-1854 he again served in the state House of

Representatives, and in 1854 was chosen by the combined votes of Whigs

and Anti-Slavery Democrats to the United States Senate. Within a

fortnight after taking his seat he delivered a speech in opposition to

the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, which at once made him a force in the

congressional anti-slavery contest. From then on he was one of the most

eloquent and frequent debaters among his colleagues, and in 1859, almost

without opposition, he was re-elected to the Senate as a member of the

Republican party, in the organization of which he had taken an

influential part. He was a delegate in 1861 to the Peace Congress, but

after the actual outbreak of hostilities he insisted that the war should

be prosecuted vigorously. As chairman of the Senate Committee on

Finance, his services were second in value only to those of President

Lincoln and Secretary Salmon P. Chase in efforts to provide funds for

the defence of the Union; and in July 1864 Fessenden succeeded Chase as

secretary of the treasury. The finances of the country in the early

summer of 1864 were in a critical condition; a few days before leaving

office Secretary Chase had been compelled to withdraw from the market

$32,000,000 of 6% bonds, on account of the lack of acceptable bids; gold

had reached 285 and was fluctuating between 225 and 250, while the value

of the paper dollar had sunk as low as 34 cents. It was Secretary

Fessenden's policy to avoid a further increase of the circulating

medium, and to redeem or consolidate the temporary obligations

outstanding. In spite of powerful pressure the paper currency was not

increased a dollar during his tenure of the office. As the sales of

bonds and treasury notes were not sufficient for the needs of the

Treasury, interest-bearing certificates of indebtedness were issued to

cover the deficits; but when these began to depreciate the secretary,

following the example of his predecessors, engaged the services of the

Philadelphia banker Jay Cooke (q.v.) and secured the consent of Congress

to raise the balance of the $400,000,000 loan authorized on the 30th of

June 1864 by the sale of the so-called "seven-thirty" treasury notes

(i.e. notes bearing interest at 7.3% payable in currency in three years

or convertible at the option of the holder into 6% 5-20 year gold

bonds). Through Cooke's activities the sales became enormous; the notes,

issued in denominations as low as $50, appealed to the patriotic

impulses of the people who could not subscribe for bonds of a higher

denomination. In the spring of 1865 Congress authorized an additional

loan of $600,000,000 to be raised in the same manner, and for the first

time in four years the Treasury was able to meet all its obligations.

After thus securing ample funds for the enormous expenditures of the

war, Fessenden resigned the treasury portfolio in March 1865, and again

took his seat in the Senate, serving till his death. In the Senate he

again became chairman of the finance committee, and also of the joint

committee on reconstruction. He was the author of the report of this

last committee (1866), in which the Congressional plan of reconstruction

was set forth and which has been considered a state paper of remarkable

power and cogency. He was not, however, entirely in accord with the more

radical members of his own party, and this difference was exemplified in

his opposition to the impeachment of President Johnson and subsequently

in his voting for Johnson's acquittal. He bore with calmness the storm

of reproach from his party associates which followed, and lived to

regain the esteem of those who had attacked him. He died at Portland,

Maine, on the 6th of September 1869.

See Francis Fessenden, _Life and Public Services of William Pitt

Fessenden_ (2 vols., Boston, 1907).

FESSLER, IGNAZ AURELIUS (1756-1839), Hungarian ecclesiastic, historian

and freemason, was born on the 18th of May 1756 at the village of Zurany

in the county of Moson. In 1773 he joined the order of Capuchins, and in

1779 was ordained priest. He had meanwhile continued his classical and

philological studies, and his liberal views brought him into frequent

conflict with his superiors. In 1784, while at the monastery of Modling,

near Vienna, he wrote to the emperor Joseph II., making suggestions for

the better education of the clergy and drawing his attention to the

irregularities of the monasteries. The searching investigation which

followed raised up against him many implacable enemies. In 1784 he was

appointed professor of Oriental languages and hermeneutics in the

university of Lemberg, when he took the degree of doctor of divinity;

and shortly afterwards he was released from his monastic vows on the

intervention of the emperor. In 1788 he brought out his tragedy of

_Sidney_, an _expose_ of the tyranny of James II. and of the fanaticism

of the papists in England. This was attacked so violently as profane and

revolutionary that he was compelled to resign his office and seek refuge

in Silesia. In Breslau he met with a cordial reception from G.W. Korn

the publisher, and was, moreover, subsequently employed by the prince of

Carolath-Schonaich as tutor to his sons. In 1791 Fessler was converted

to Lutheranism and next year contracted an unhappy marriage, which was

dissolved in 1802, when he married again. In 1796 he went to Berlin,

where he founded a humanitarian society, and was commissioned by the

freemasons of that city to assist Fichte in reforming the statutes and

ritual of their lodge. He soon after this obtained a government

appointment in connexion with the newly-acquired Polish provinces, but

in consequence of the battle of Jena (1806) he lost this office, and

remained in very needy circumstances until 1809, when he was summoned to

St Petersburg by Alexander I., to fill the post of court councillor, and

the professorship of oriental languages and philosophy at the

Alexander-Nevski Academy. This office, however, he was soon obliged to

resign, owing to his alleged atheistic tendencies, but he was

subsequently nominated a member of the legislative commission. In 1815

he went with his family to Sarepta, where he joined the Moravian

community and again became strongly orthodox. This cost him the loss of

his salary, but it was restored to him in 1817. In November 1820 he was

appointed consistorial president of the evangelical communities at

Saratov and subsequently became chief superintendent of the Lutheran

communities in St Petersburg. Fessler's numerous works are all written

in German. In recognition of his important services to Hungary as a

historian, he was in 1831 elected a corresponding member of the

Hungarian Academy of Sciences. He died at St Petersburg on the 15th of

December 1839.

Fessler was a voluminous writer, and during his life exercised great

influence; but, with the possible exception of the history of Hungary,

none of his books has any value now. He did not pretend to any critical

treatment of his materials, and most of his historical works are

practically historical novels. He did much, however, to make the study

of history popular. His most important works are--_Die Geschichten der

Ungarn und ihrer Landsassen_ (10 vols. Leipzig, 1815-1825); _Marcus

Aurelius_ (3 vols., Breslau, 1790-1792; 3rd edition, 4 vols., 1799);

_Aristides und Themistokles_ (2 vols., Berlin, 1792; 3rd edition, 1818);

_Attila, Konig der Hunnen_ (Breslau, 1794); _Mathias Corvinus_ (2 vols.,

Breslau, 1793-1794); and _Die drei grossen Konige der Hungarn aus dem

Arpadischen Stamme_ (Breslau, 1808).

See Fessler's _Ruckblicke auf seine siebzigjahrige Pilgerschaft_

(Breslau, 1824; 2nd edition, Leipzig, 1851).

FESTA, CONSTANZO (c. 1495-1545), Italian singer and musical composer,

became a member of the Pontifical choir in Rome in 1517, and soon

afterwards _maestro_ at the Vatican. His motets and madrigals (the first

book of which appeared in 1537) excited Dr Burney's warm praise in his

_History of Music_; and, among other church music, his _Te Deum_

(published in 1596) is still sung at important services in Rome. His

madrigal, called in English "Down in a flow'ry vale," is well known.

FESTINIOG (or FFESTINIOG), a town of Merionethshire, North Wales, at the

head of the Festiniog valley, 600 ft. above the sea, in the midst of

rugged scenery, near the stream Dwyryd, 31 m. from Conway. Pop. of urban

district (1901), 11,435. There are many large slate quarries in this

parish, especially at Blaenau Festiniog, the junction of three railways,

London & North Western, Great Western and Festiniog, a narrow-gauge line

between Portmadoc and Duffws. This light railway runs at a considerable

elevation (some 700 ft.), commanding a view across the valley and lake

of Tan y Bwlch. Lord Lyttelton's letter to Mr Bower is a well-known

panegyric on Festiniog. Thousands of workmen are employed in the slate

quarries. The Cynfael falls are famous. Near are _Beddau gwyr Ardudwy_

(the graves of the men of Ardudwy), memorials of a fight to recover

women of the Clwyd valley from the men of Ardudwy. Near, too, is a rock

named "Hugh Lloyd's pulpit" (Lloyd lived in the time of Charles I.,

Cromwell and Charles II.).

FESTOON (from Fr. _feston_, Ital. _festone_, from a Late Lat. _festo_,

originally a "festal garland," Lat. _festum_, feast), a wreath or

garland, and so in architecture a conventional arrangement of flowers,

foliage or fruit bound together and suspended by ribbons, either from a

decorated knot, or held in the mouths of lions, or suspended across the

back of bulls' heads as in the Temple of Vesta at Tivoli. The "motif" is

sometimes known as a "swag." It was largely employed both by the Greeks

and Romans and formed the principal decoration of altars, friezes and

panels. The ends of the ribbons are sometimes formed into bows or

twisted curves; when in addition a group of foliage or flowers is

suspended it is called a "drop." Its origin is probably due to the

representation in stone of the garlands of natural flowers, &c., which

were hung up over an entrance doorway on fete days, or suspended round

the altar.

FESTUS (? RUFUS or RUFIUS), one of the Roman writers of _breviaria_

(epitomes of Roman history). The reference to the defeat of the Goths at

Noviodunum (A.D. 369) by the emperor Valens, and the fact that the

author is unaware of the constitution of Valentia as a province (which

took place in the same year) are sufficient indication to fix the date

of composition. Mommsen identifies the author with Rufius Festus,

proconsul of Achaea (366), and both with Rufius Festus Avienus (q.v.),

the translator of Aratus. But the absence of the name Rufius in the best

MSS. is against this. Others take him to be Festus of Tridentum,

_magister memoriae_ (secretary) to Valens and proconsul of Asia, where

he was sent to punish those implicated in the conspiracy of Theodorus, a

commission which he executed with such merciless severity that his name

became a byword. The work itself (_Breviarium rerum gestarum populi

Romani_) is divided into two parts--one geographical, the other

historical. The chief authorities used are Livy, Eutropius and Florus.

It is extremely meagre, but the fact that the last part is based on the

writer's personal recollections makes it of some value for the history

of the 4th century.

Editions by W. Forster (Vienna, 1873) and C. Wagener (Prague, 1886);

see also R. Jacobi, _De Festi breviarii fontibus_ (Bonn, 1874), and H.

Peter, _Die geschichtliche Litt. uber die romische Kaiserzeit_ ii. p.

133 (1897), where the epitomes of Festus, Aurelius Victor and

Eutropius are compared.

FESTUS, SEXTUS POMPEIUS, Roman grammarian, probably flourished in the

2nd century A.D. He made an epitome of the celebrated work _De verborum

significatu_, a valuable treatise alphabetically arranged, written by M.

Verrius Flaccus, a freedman and celebrated grammarian who flourished in

the reign of Augustus. Festus gives the etymology as well as the meaning

of every word; and his work throws considerable light on the language,

mythology and antiquities of ancient Rome. He made a few alterations,

and inserted some critical remarks of his own. He also omitted such

ancient Latin words as had long been obsolete; these he discussed in a

separate work now lost, entitled _Priscorum verborum cum exemplis_. Of

Flaccus's work only a few fragments remain, and of Festus's epitome only

one original copy is in existence. This MS., the Codex Festi Farnesianus

at Naples, only contains the second half of the work (M-V) and that not

in a perfect condition. It has been published in facsimile by Thewrewk

de Ponor (1890). At the close of the 8th century Paulus Diaconus

abridged the abridgment. From his work and the solitary copy of the

original attempts have been made with the aid of conjecture to

reconstruct the treatise of Festus.

Of the early editions the best are those of J. Scaliger (1565) and

Fulvius Ursinus (1581); in modern times, those of C.O. Muller (1839,

reprinted 1880) and de Ponor (1889); see J.E. Sandys, _History of

Classical Scholarship_, vol. i. (1906).

FETIS, FRANCOIS JOSEPH (1784-1871), Belgian composer and writer on

music, was born at Mons in Belgium on the 25th of March 1784, and was

trained as a musician by his father, who followed the same calling. His

talent for composition manifested itself at the age of seven, and at

nine years old he was an organist at Sainte-Waudru. In 1800 he went to

Paris and completed his studies at the conservatoire under such masters

as Boieldieu, Rey and Pradher. In 1806 he undertook the revision of the

Roman liturgical chants in the hope of discovering and establishing

their original form. In this year he married the granddaughter of the

Chevalier de Keralio, and also began his _Biographie universelle des

musiciens_, the most important of his works, which did not appear until

1834. In 1821 he was appointed professor at the conservatoire. In 1827

he founded the _Revue musicale_, the first serious paper in France

devoted exclusively to musical matters. Fetis remained in the French

capital till in 1833, at the request of Leopold I., he became director

of the conservatoire of Brussels and the king's chapel-master. He also

was the founder, and, till his death, the conductor of the celebrated

concerts attached to the conservatoire of Brussels, and he inaugurated a

free series of lectures on musical history and philosophy. He produced a

large quantity of original compositions, from the opera and the oratorio

down to the simple _chanson_. But all these are doomed to oblivion.

Although not without traces of scholarship and technical ability, they

show total absence of genius. More important are his writings on music.

They are partly historical, such as the _Curiosites historiques de la

musique_ (Paris, 1850), and the _Histoire universelle de musique_

(Paris, 1869-1876); partly theoretical, such as the _Methode des

methodes de piano_ (Paris, 1837), written in conjunction with Moscheles.

Fetis died at Brussels on the 26th of March 1871. His valuable library

was purchased by the Belgian government and presented to the Brussels

conservatoire. His work as a musical historian was prodigious in

quantity, and, in spite of many inaccuracies and some prejudice revealed

in it, there can be no question as to its value for the student.

FETISHISM, an ill-defined term, used in many different senses: (a) the

worship of inanimate objects, often regarded as peculiarly African; (b)

negro religion in general; (c) the worship of inanimate objects

conceived as the residence of spirits not inseparably bound up with, nor

originally connected with, such objects; (d) the doctrine of spirits

embodied in, or attached to, or conveying influence through, certain

material objects (Tylor); (e) the use of charms, which are not

worshipped, but derive their magical power from a god or spirit; (f) the

use as charms of objects regarded as magically potent in themselves. A

further extension is given by some writers, who use the term as

synonymous with the religions of primitive peoples, including under it

not only the worship of inanimate objects, such as the sun, moon or

stars, but even such phases of primitive philosophy as totemism. Comte

applied the term to denominate the view of nature more commonly termed

animism.

_Derivation._--The word fetish (or fetich) was first used in connexion

with Africa by the Portuguese discoverers of the last half of the 15th

century; relics of saints, rosaries and images were then abundant all

over Europe and were regarded as possessing magical virtue; they were

termed by the Portuguese _feiticos_ (_i.e._ charms). Early voyagers to

West Africa applied this term to the wooden figures, stones, &c.,

regarded as the temporary residence of gods or spirits, and to charms.

There is no reason to suppose that the word _feitico_ was applied either

to an animal or to the local spirit of a river, hill or forest.

_Feitico_ is sometimes interpreted to mean artificial, made by man, but

the original sense is more probably "magically active or artful." The

word was probably brought into general use by C. de Brosses, author of

_Du culte des dieux fetiches_ (1760), but it is frequently used by W.

Bosman in his _Description of Guinea_ (1705), in the sense of "the false

god, Bossum" or "Bohsum," properly a tutelary deity of an individual.

_Definition._--The term fetish is commonly understood to mean the

worship of or respect for material, inanimate objects, conceived as

magically active from a virtue inherent in them, temporarily or

permanently, which does not arise from the fact that a god or spirit is

believed to reside in them or communicate virtue to them. Taken in this

sense fetishism is probably a mark of decadence. There is no evidence

of any such belief in Africa or elsewhere among primitive peoples. It is

only after a certain grade of culture has been attained that the belief

in luck appears; the fetish is essentially a mascot or object carried

for luck.

_Ordinary Usage._--In the sense in which Dr Tylor uses the term the

fetish is (1) a "god-house" or (2) a charm derived from a tutelary deity

or spirit, and magically active in virtue of its association with such

deity or spirit. In the first of these senses the word is applied to

objects ranging from the unworked stone to the pot or the wooden figure,

and is thus hardly distinguishable from idolatry. (a) The _bohsum_ or

tutelary deity of a particular section of the community is derived from

the local gods through the priests by the performance of a certain

series of rites. The priest indicates into what object the _bohsum_ will

enter and proceeds to the abode of the local god to procure the object

in question. After making an offering the object is carried to an

appropriate spot and a "fetish" tree set up as a shade for it, which is

sacred so long as the _bohsum_ remains beneath it. The fall of the tree

is believed to mark the departure of the spirit. A _bohsum_ may also be

procured through a dream; but in this case, too, it is necessary to

apply to the priest to decide whether the dream was veridical. (b) The

_suhman_ or tutelary deity of an individual is not an object selected at

random to be the residence of the spirit. It is only procurable at the

residence of a Sasabonsum, a malicious non-human being. Various

ceremonies are performed, and a spirit connected with the Sasabonsum is

finally asked to enter an object. This is then kept for three days; if

no good fortune results it is concluded either that the spirit did not

enter the object selected, or that it is disinclined to extend its

protection. In either case the ceremonies must be commenced afresh.

Otherwise offerings and even human sacrifices in exceptional cases are

made to the _suhman_. It is commonly believed that the negro claims the

power of coercing his tutelary deity. This is denied by Colonel Ellis.

It is certain that coercion of deities is not unknown, but further

evidence is required that the negro uses it when his deity is

refractory.

The _suhman_ can, it is believed, communicate a part of his powers to

various objects in which he does not dwell; these are also termed

_suhman_ by the natives and may have given rise to the belief that the

practices commonly termed fetishism are not animistic. These charms are

many in number; offerings of food and drink are made, _i.e._ to the

portion of the power of the _suhman_ which resides in them. These charms

can only be made by the possessor of the _suhman_.

On the Guinea Coast the spirit implanted in the object is usually, if

not invariably, non-human. Farther south on the Congo the "fetish" is

inhabited by human souls also. The priest goes into the forest and cuts

an image; when a party enters a wood for this purpose they may not

mention the name of any living being unless they wish him to die and his

soul to enter the fetish. The right person having been selected, his

name is mentioned; and he is believed to die within ten days, his soul

passing into the _nkissi_. It is into these figures that the nails are

driven, in order to procure the vengeance of the indwelling spirit on

some enemy.

In many cases the fetish spirit is believed to leave the "god-house" and

pass for the time being into the body of the priest, who manifests the

phenomena of possession (q.v.). It is a common error to suppose that the

whole of African religion is embraced in the practices connected with

these tutelary deities; so far from this being the case, belief in

higher gods, not necessarily accompanied with worship or propitiation,

is common in many parts of Africa, and there is no reason to suppose

that it had been derived in every case, perhaps not in any case, from

Christian or Mahommedan missionaries.

See A.B. Ellis, _Tshi-speaking Peoples_, chs. vii., viii. and xii.;

Waitz, _Anthropologie der Naturvolker_, ii. 174; R.E. Dennett in

_Folklore_, vol. xvi.; R.H. Nassau, _Fetichism in West Africa_ (1904);

also Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii. 143, and M.H. Kingsley, _West

African Studies_ (2nd ed., 1901), where the term is used in a more

extended sense. (N. W. T.)

FETTERCAIRN, a burgh of barony of Kincardineshire, Scotland, 4-1/2 m.

N.W. of Laurencekirk. Pop. of parish (1901) 1390. The chief structures

include a public hall, library and reading-room, and the arch built to

commemorate the visit of Queen Victoria in 1861. The most interesting

relic, however, is the market cross, which originally belonged to the

extinct town of Kincardine. To the S.W. is Balbegno Castle, dating from

1509, and planned on a scale that threatened to ruin its projector. It

contains a lofty hall of fine proportions. Two miles N. is Fasque, the

estate of the Gladstones, which was acquired in 1831 by Sir John

Gladstone (1764-1851), the father of W.E. Gladstone. The castle, which

stands in beautiful grounds, was built in 1809. Sir John Gladstone's

tomb is in the Episcopal church of St Andrew, which he erected and

endowed. In the immediate vicinity are the ruins of the royal castle of

Kincardine, where, according to tradition, Kenneth III. was assassinated

in 1005, although he is more generally said to have been slain in battle

at Monzievaird, near Crieff in Perthshire.

FETTERS AND HANDCUFFS, instruments for securing the feet and hands of

prisoners under arrest, or as a means of punishment. The old names were

manacles, shackbolts or shackles, gyves and swivels. Until within recent

times handcuffs were of two kinds, the figure-8 ones which confined the

hands close together either in front or behind the prisoner, or the

rings from the wrists were connected by a short chain much on the model

of the handcuffs in use by the police forces of to-day. Much improvement

has been made in handcuffs of late. They are much lighter and they are

adjustable, fitting any wrist, and thus the one pair will serve a police

officer for any prisoner. For the removal of gangs of convicts an

arrangement of handcuffs connected by a light chain is used, the chain

running through a ring on each fetter and made fast at both ends by what

are known as _end-locks_. Several recently invented appliances are used

as handcuffs, e.g. snaps, nippers, twisters. They differ from handcuffs

in being intended for one wrist only, the other portion being held by

the captor. In the snap the smaller circlet is snapped to on the

prisoner's wrist. The nippers can be instantly fastened on the wrist.

The twister, not now used in England as being liable to injure prisoners

seriously, is a chain attached to two handles; the chain is put round

the wrist and the two handles twisted till the chain is tight enough.

Leg-irons are anklets of steel connected by light chains long enough to

permit of the wearer walking with short steps. An obsolete form was an

anklet and chain to the end of which was attached a heavy weight,

usually a round shot. The Spanish used to secure prisoners in bilboes,

shackles round the ankles secured by a long bar of iron. This form of

leg-iron was adopted in England, and was much employed in the services

during the 17th and 18th centuries. An ancient example is preserved in

the Tower of London. The French marine still use a kind of leg-iron of

the bilbo type.

FEU, in Scotland, the commonest mode of land tenure. The word is the

Scots variant of "fee" (q.v.). The relics of the feudal system still

dominate Scots conveyancing. That system has recognized as many as seven

forms of tenure--ward, socage, mortification, feu, blench, burgage,

booking. Ward, the original military holding, was abolished in 1747 (20

G. II. c. 20), as an effect of the rising of 1745. Socage and

mortification have long since disappeared. Booking is a conveyance

peculiar to the borough of Paisley, but does not differ essentially from

feu. Burgage is the system by which land is held in royal boroughs.

Blench holding is by a nominal payment, as of a penny Scots, or a red

rose, often only to be rendered upon demand. In feu holding there is a

substantial annual payment in money or in kind in return for the

enjoyment of the land. The crown is the first overlord or superior, and

land is held of it by crown vassals, but they in their turn may "feu"

their land, as it is called, to others who become _their_ vassals,

whilst they themselves are mediate overlords or superiors; and this

process of sub-infeudation may be repeated to an indefinite extent. The

Conveyancing Act of 1874 renders any clause in a disposition against

sub-infeudation null and void. In England on the other hand, since

1290, when the statute _Quia Emptores_ was passed, sub-infeudation is

impossible, as the new holder simply effaces the grantor, holding by the

same title as the grantor himself. Casualties, which are a feature of

land held in feu, are certain payments made to the superior, contingent

on the happening of certain events. The most important was the payment

of an amount equal to one year's feu-duty by a new holder, whether heir

or purchaser of the feu. The Conveyancing Act of 1874 abolished

casualties in all feus after that date, and power was given to redeem

this burden on feus already existing. If the vassal does not pay the

feu-duty for two years, the superior, among other remedies, may obtain

by legal process a decree of irritancy, whereupon _tinsel_ or forfeiture

of the feu follows. Previously to 1832 only the vassals of the crown had

votes in parliamentary elections for the Scots counties, and this made

in favour of sub-infeudation as against sale outright. In Orkney and

Shetland land is still largely possessed as udal property, a holding

derived or handed down from the time when these islands belonged to

Norway. Such lands may be converted into feus at the will of the

proprietor and held from the crown or Lord Dundas. At one time the

system of conveyancing by which the transfer of feus was effected was

curious and complicated, requiring the presence of parties on the land

itself and the symbolical handing over of the property, together with

the registration of various documents. But legislation since the middle

of the 19th century has changed all that. The system of feuing in

Scotland, as contrasted with that of long leaseholds in England, has

tended to secure greater solidity and firmness in the average buildings

of the northern country.

See Erskine's _Principles_; Bell's _Principles_; Rankine, _Law of

Landownership in Scotland_.

FEUCHERES, SOPHIE, BARONNE DE (1795-1840), Anglo-French adventuress, was

born at St Helens, Isle of Wight, in 1795, the daughter of a drunken

fisherman named Dawes. She grew up in the workhouse, went up to London

as a servant, and became the mistress of the duc de Bourbon, afterwards

prince de Conde. She was ambitious, and he had her well educated not

only in modern languages but, as her exercise books--still extant--show,

in Greek and Latin. He took her to Paris and, to prevent scandal and to

qualify her to be received at court, had her married in 1818 to Adrien

Victor de Feucheres, a major in the Royal Guards. The prince provided

her dowry, made her husband his aide-de-camp and a baron. The baroness,

pretty and clever, became a person of consequence at the court of Louis

XVIII. De Feucheres, however, finally discovered the relations between

his wife and Conde, whom he had been assured was her father, left

her--he obtained a legal separation in 1827--and told the king, who

thereupon forbade her appearance at court. Thanks to her influence,

however, Conde was induced in 1829 to sign a will bequeathing about ten

million francs to her, and the rest of his estate--more than sixty-six

millions--to the duc d'Aumale, fourth son of Louis Philippe. Again she

was in high favour. Charles X. received her at court, Talleyrand visited

her, her niece married a marquis and her nephew was made a baron. Conde,

wearied by his mistress's importunities, and but half pleased by the

advances made him by the government of July, had made up his mind to

leave France secretly. When on the 27th of August 1830 he was found

hanging dead from his window, the baroness was suspected and an inquiry

was held, but the evidence of death being the result of any crime

appearing insufficient, she was not prosecuted. Hated as she was alike

by legitimatists and republicans, life in Paris was no longer agreeable

for her, and she returned to London, where she died in December 1840.

FEUCHTERSLEBEN, ERNST, FREIHERR VON (1806-1849), Austrian physician,

poet and philosopher, was born in Vienna on the 29th of April 1806; of

an old Saxon noble family. He attended the "Theresian Academy" in his

native city, and in 1825 entered its university as a student of

medicine. In 1833 he obtained the degree of doctor of medicine, settled

in Vienna as a practising surgeon, and in 1834 married. The young doctor

kept up his connexion with the university, where he lectured, and in

1844 was appointed dean of the faculty of medicine. He cultivated the

acquaintance of Franz Grillparzer, Heinrich Laube, and other

intellectual lights of the Viennese world, interested himself greatly in

educational matters, and in 1848, while refusing the presidency of the

ministry of education, accepted the appointment of under secretary of

state in that department. His health, however, gave way, and he died at

Vienna on the 3rd of September 1849. He was not only a clever physician,

but a poet of fine aesthetical taste and a philosopher. Among his

medical works may be mentioned: _Uber das Hippokratische erste Buch von

der Diat_ (Vienna, 1835), _Arzte und Publicum_ (Vienna, 1848) and

_Lehrbuch der arztlichen Seelenkunde_ (1845). His poetical works include

_Gedichte_ (Stutt. 1836), among which is the well-known beautiful hymn,

which Mendelssohn set to music. "_Es ist bestimmt in Gottes Rat._" As a

philosopher he is best known by his _Zur Diatetik der Seele_ [Dietetics

of the soul] (Vienna, 1838), which attained great popularity, and the

tendency of which, in contrast to Hufeland's _Makrobiotik_ (On the Art

of Prolonging Life), is to show the true way of rendering life

harmonious and lovely. This work had by 1906 gone into fifty editions.

Noteworthy also is his _Beitrage zur Litteratur-, Kunst- und

Lebenstheorie_ (Vienna, 1837-1841), and an anthology, _Geist der

deutschen_ Klassiker (Vienna, 1851; 3rd ed. 1865-1866).

His collected works (with the exception of the purely medical ones)

were published in 7 vols. by Fr. Hebbel (Vienna, 1851-1853). See M.

Necker, "Ernst von Feuchtersleben, der Freund Grillparzers," in the

_Jahrbuch der Grillparzer Gesellschaft_, vol. iii. (Vienna, 1893).

FEUD, animosity, hatred, especially a permanent condition of hostilities

between persons, and hence applied to a state of private warfare between

tribes, clans or families, a "vendetta." The word appears in Mid. Eng.

as _fede_, which came through the O. Fr. from the O. High Ger. _fehida_,

modern _Fehde_. The O. Teutonic _faiho_, an adjective, the source of

_fehida_, gives the O. Eng. fah, foe. "Fiend," originally an enemy (cf.

Ger. _Feind_), hence the enemy of mankind, the devil, and so any evil

spirit, is probably connected with the same source. The word _fede_ was

of Scottish usage, but in the 16th century took the form _foode_, _fewd_

in English. The _New English Dictionary_ points out that "feud, fee

(Lat. _feudum_) could not have influenced the change, for it appears

fifty years later than the first instances of _foode_, &c., and was only

used by writers on feudalism." For the etymology of "feud" (_feudum_)

see FEE, and for its history see FEUDALISM.

FEUDALISM (from Late Lat. _feodum_ or _feudum_, a fee or fiel; see FEE).

In every case of institutional growth in history two things are to be

clearly distinguished from the beginning for a correct understanding of

the process and its results. One of these is the change of conditions in

the political or social environment which made growth necessary. The

other is the already existing institutions which began to be transformed

to meet the new needs. In studying the origin and growth of political

feudalism, the distinction is easy to make. The all-prevailing need of

the later Roman and early medieval society was protection--protection

against the sudden attacks of invading tribes or revolted peasants,

against oppressive neighbours, against the unwarranted demands of

government officers, or even against the legal but too heavy exactions

of the government itself. In the days of the decaying empire and of the

chaotic German settlement, the weak freeman, the small landowner, was

exposed to attack in almost every relation of life and on every side.

The protection which normally it is the business of government to

furnish he could no longer obtain. He must seek protection elsewhere

wherever he could get it, and pay the price demanded for it. This is the

great social fact--the failure of government to perform one of its most

primary duties, the necessity of finding some substitute in private

life--extending in greater or less degree through the whole formative

period of feudalism, which explains the transformation of institutions

that brought it into existence. Similar conditions have produced an

organization which may be called feudal, in various countries, and in

widely separated periods of history. While these different feudal

systems have shown a general similarity of organization, there has been

also great variation in their details, because they have started from

different institutions and developed in different ways. The feudal

system with which history most concerns itself is that of medieval

western Europe, and it is that which will be here described.

Roman origins.

The institutions which the need of protection seized upon when it first

began to turn away from the state were twofold. They had both long

existed in the private, not public, relations of the Romans, and they

had up to this time shown no tendency to grow. One of them related to

the person, to the man himself, without reference to property, the other

related to land. There are thus distinguished at the beginning those two

great sides of feudalism which remained to the end of its history more

or less distinct, the personal relation and the land relation. The

personal institution needs little description. It was the Roman patron

and client relationship which had remained in existence into the days of

the empire, in later times less important perhaps legally than socially,

and which had been reinforced in Gaul by very similar practices in use

among the Celts before their conquest. The description of this

institution which has come down to us from Roman sources of the days

when feudalism was beginning is not so detailed as we could wish, but we

can see plainly enough that it met a frequent need, that it was called

by a new name, the _patrocinium_, and that it was firmly enough

entrenched in usage to survive the German conquest, and to be taken up

and continued by the conquerors. In its new use, alike in the later

Roman and the early German state, the landless freeman who could not

support himself went to some powerful man, stated his need, and offered

his services, those proper to a freeman, in return for shelter and

support. This transaction, which was called commendation, gave rise in

the German state to a written contract which related the facts and

provided a penalty for its violation. It created a relationship of

protection and support on one side, and of free service on the other.

The other institution, relating to land, was that known to the Roman law

as the _precarium_, a name derived from one of its essential features

through all its history, the prayer of the suppliant by which the

relationship was begun. The _precarium_ was a form of renting land not

intended primarily for income, but for use when the lease was made from

friendship for example, or as a reward, or to secure a debt. Legally its

characteristic feature was that the lessee had no right of any kind

against the grantor. The owner could call in his land and terminate the

relation at any time, for any reason, or for none at all. Even a

definite understanding at the outset that the lease might be enjoyed to

a specified date was no protection.[1] It followed of course that the

heir had no right in the land which his father held in this way, nor was

the heir of the donor bound by his father's act. The legal character of

this transaction is summed up in a well-known passage in the

_Digest:--Interdictum de precariis merito introductum est, quia nulla eo

nomine juris civilis actio esset, magis enim ad donationes et beneficii

causam, quam ad negotii contracti spectat precarii conditio._[2] This

may be paraphrased as follows:--The _precarium_ tenant may employ the

interdict against a third party, because he cannot use the ordinary

civil action, his holding being not a matter of business but rather of

favour and kindness. It should be noted that from its very beginning the

land relationship of feudalism was not created primarily for the

grantor's income, but that it emphasized in the most striking way his

continued ownership.

As used for protection in later Roman days the _precarium_ gave rise to

what was called the commendation of lands, _patrocinium fundorum_. The

poor landowner, likely to lose all that he had from one kind of

oppression or another, went to the great landowner, his neighbour, whose

position gave him immunity from attack or the power to prevent official

abuses, and begged to be protected. The rich man answered, I can only

protect my own. Of necessity the poor man must surrender to his powerful

neighbour the ownership of his lands, which he then received back as a

_precarium_--gaining protection during his lifetime at the cost of his

children, who were left without legal claim and compelled to make the

best terms they could.[3] Applied to this use the _precarium_ found

extensive employment in the last age of the empire. The government

looked on the practice with great disfavour, because it transferred

large areas from the easy access of the state to an ownership beyond its

reach. The laws repeatedly forbade it under increasing penalties, but

clearly it could not be stopped. The motive was too strong on both

sides--the need of protection on one side, the natural desire to

increase large possessions and means of self-defence on the other.

Frankish development.

These practices the Frankish conquerors of Gaul found in full possession

of society when they entered into that province. They seem to have

understood them at once, and, like much else Roman, to have made them

their own without material change. The _patrocinium_ they were made

ready to understand by the existence of a somewhat similar institution

among themselves, the _comitatus_, described by Tacitus. In this

institution the chief of the tribe, or of some plainly marked division

of the tribe, gathered about himself a band of chosen warriors, who

formed a kind of private military force and body-guard. The special

features of the institution were the strong tie of faith and service

which bound the man, the support and rewards given by the lord, and the

pride of both in the relationship. The _patrocinium_ might well seem to

the German only a form of the _comitatus_, but it was a form which

presented certain advantages in his actual situation. The chief of these

was perhaps the fact that it was not confined to king or tribal chief,

but that every noble was able in the Roman practice to surround himself

with his organized private army. Probably this fact, together with the

more general fact of the absorption in most things of the German in the

Roman, accounts for the substitution of the _patrocinium_ for the

_comitatus_ which took place under the Merovingians.

This change did not occur, however, without some modification of the

Roman customs. The _comitatus_ made contributions of its own to future

feudalism, to some extent to its institutional side, largely to the

ideas and spirit which ruled in it. Probably the ceremony which grew

into feudal homage, and the oath of fealty, certainly the honourable

position of the vassal and his pride in the relationship, the strong tie

which bound lord and man together, and the idea that faith and service

were due on both sides in equal measure, we may trace to German sources.

But we must not forget that the origin of the vassal relationship, as an

institution, is to be found on Roman and not on German soil. The

_comitatus_ developed and modified, it did not originate. Nor was the

feudal system established in any sense by the settlement of the

_comitatus_ group on the conquered land. The uniting of the personal and

the land sides of feudalism came long after the conquest, and in a

different way.

To the _precarium_ German institutions offered no close parallel. The

advantages, however, which it afforded were obvious, and this side of

feudalism developed as rapidly after the conquest as the personal. The

new German noble was as eager to extend the size of his lands and to

increase the numbers of his dependants as the Roman had been. The new

German government furnished no better protection from local violence,

nor was it able any more effectively to check the practices which were

creating feudalism; indeed for a long time it made no attempt to do so.

_Precarium_ and _patrocinium_ easily passed from the Roman empire to the

Frankish kingdom, and became as firmly rooted in the new society as they

had ever been in the old. Up to this point we have seen only the small

landowner and the landless man entering into these relations. Feudalism

could not be established, however, until the great of the land had

adopted them for themselves, and had begun to enter the clientage of

others and to hold lands by the _precarium_ tenure. The first step

towards this result was easily and quickly taken. The same class

continued to furnish the king's men, and to form his household and

body-guard whether the relation was that of the _patrocinium_ or the

_comitatus_, and to be made noble by entering into it. It was later that

they became clients of one another, and in part at least as a result of

their adoption of the _precarium_ tenure. In this latter step the

influence of the Church rather than of the king seems to have been

effective. The large estates which pious intentions had bestowed on the

Church it was not allowed to alienate. It could most easily make them

useful to gain the influence and support which it needed, and to provide

for the public functions which fell to its share, by employing the

_precarium_ tenure. On the other side, the great men coveted the wide

estates of bishop and abbot, and were ready without persuasion to annex

portions of them to their own on the easy terms of this tenure, not

always indeed observed by the holder, or able to be enforced by the

Church. The employment of the _precarium_ by the Church seems to have

been one of the surest means by which this form of landholding was

carried over from the Romans to the Frankish period and developed into

new forms. It came to be made by degrees the subject of written

contract, by which the rights of the holder were more definitely defined

and protected than had been the case in Roman law. The length of time

for which the holding should last came to be specified, at first for a

term of years and then for life, and some payment to the grantor was

provided for, not pretending to represent the economic value of the

land, but only to serve as a mark of his continued ownership.

These changes characterize the Merovingian age of Frankish history. That

period had practically ended, however, before these two institutions

showed any tendency to join together as they were joined in later

feudalism. Nor had the king up to that time exerted any apparent

influence on the processes that were going forward. Grants of land of

the Merovingian kings had carried with them ownership and not a limited

right, and the king's _patrocinium_ had not widened in extent in the

direction of the later vassal relation. It was the advent of the

Carolingian princes and the difficulties which they had to overcome that

carried these institutions a stage further forward. Making their way up

from a position among the nobility to be the rulers of the land, and

finally to supplant the kings, the Carolingians had especial need of

resources from which to purchase and reward faithful support. This need

was greatly increased when the Arab attack on southern Gaul forced them

to transform a large part of the old Frankish foot army into cavalry.[4]

The fundamental principle of the Frankish military system, that the man

served at his own expense, was still unchanged. It had indeed begun to

break down under the strain of frequent and distant campaigns, but it

was long before it was changed as the recognized rule of medieval

service. If now, in addition to his own expenses, the soldier must

provide a horse and its keeping, the system was likely to break down

altogether. It was this problem which led to the next step. To solve it

the early Carolingian princes, especially Charles Martel, who found the

royal domains exhausted and their own inadequate, grasped at the land of

the Church. Here was enough to endow an army, if some means could be

devised to permit its use. This means was found in the _precarium_

tenure. Keeping alive, as it did, the fact of the grantor's ownership,

it did not in form deprive the Church of the land. Recognizing that

ownership by a small payment only, not corresponding to the value of the

land, it left the larger part of the income to meet the need which had

arisen. At the same time undoubtedly the new holder of the land, if not

already the vassal of the prince, was obliged to become so and to assume

an obligation of service with a mounted force when called upon.[5] This

expedient seems to have solved the problem. It gave rise to the numerous

_precariae verbo regis_, of the Church records, and to the condemnation

of Charles Martel in the visions of the clergy to worse difficulties in

the future life than he had overcome in this. The most important

consequences of the expedient, however, were not intended or perceived

at the time. It brought together the two sides of feudalism, vassalage

and benefice, as they were now commonly called, and from this age their

union into what is really a single institution was rapid;[6] it

emphasized military service as an essential obligation of the vassal;

and it spread the vassal relation between individual proprietors and the

sovereign widely over the state.

In the period that followed, the reign of Charlemagne and the later

Carolingian age, continued necessities, military and civil, forced the

kings to recognize these new institutions more fully, even when standing

in a position between the government and the subject, intercepting the

public duties of the latter. The incipient feudal baron had not been

slow to take advantage of the break-down of the old German military

system. As in the last days of the Roman empire the poor landowner had

found his only refuge from the exactions of the government in the

protection of the senator, who could in some way obtain exemptions, so

the poor Frank could escape the ruinous demands of military service only

by submitting himself and his lands to the count, who did not hesitate

on his side to force such submission. Charlemagne legislated with vigour

against this tendency, trying to make it easier for the poor freeman to

fulfil his military duties directly to the state, and to forbid the

misuse of power by the rich, but he was not more successful than the

Roman government had been in a like attempt. Finally the king found

himself compelled to recognize existing facts, to lay upon the lord the

duty of producing his men in the field and to allow him to appear as

their commander. This solved the difficulty of military service

apparently, but with decisive consequences. It completed the

transformation of the army into a vassal army; it completed the

recognition of feudalism by the state, as a legitimate relation between

different ranks of the people; and it recognized the transformation in a

great number of cases of a public duty into a private obligation.

In the meantime another institution had grown up in this Franco-Roman

society, which probably began and certainly assisted in another

transformation of the same kind. This is the immunity. Suggested

probably by Roman practices, possibly developed directly from them, it

received a great extension in the Merovingian period, at first and

especially in the interest of the Church, but soon of lay land-holders.

By the grant of an immunity to a proprietor the royal officers, the

count and his representatives, were forbidden to enter his lands to

exercise any public function there. The duties which the count should

perform passed to the proprietor, who now represented the government for

all his tenants free and unfree. Apparently no modification of the royal

rights was intended by this arrangement, but the beginning of a great

change had really been made. The king might still receive the same

revenues and the same services from the district held by the lord as

formerly, but for their payment a private person in his capacity as

overlord was now responsible. In the course of a long period

characterized by a weak central government, it was not difficult to

enlarge the rights which the lord thus obtained, to exclude even the

king's personal authority from the immunity, and to translate the duties

and payments which the tenant had once owed to the state into

obligations which he owed to his lord, even finally into incidents of

his tenure. The most important public function whose transformation into

a private possession was assisted by the growth of the immunity was the

judicial. This process had probably already begun in a small way in the

growth of institutions which belong to the economic side of feudalism,

the organization of agriculture on the great estates. Even in Roman days

the proprietor had exercised a jurisdiction over the disputes of his

unfree tenants. Whether this could by its own growth have been extended

over his free tenants and carried so far as to absorb a local court,

like that of the hundred, into private possession, is not certain. It

seems probable that it could. But in any case, the immunity easily

carried the development of private jurisdiction through these stages.

The lord's court took the place of the public court in civil, and even

by degrees in criminal cases. The plaintiff, even if he were under

another lord, was obliged to sue in the court of the defendant's lord,

and the portion of the fine for a breach of the peace which should have

gone to the state went in the end to the lord.

The transfer of the judicial process, and of the financial and

administrative sides of the government as well, into private possession,

was not, however, accomplished entirely by the road of the immunity. As

government weakened after the strong days of Charlemagne, and disorder,

invasion, and the difficulty of intercommunication tended to throw the

locality more and more upon its own resources, the officer who had once

been the means of centralization, the count, found success in the effort

for independence which even Charlemagne had scarcely overcome. He was

able to throw off responsibility to any central authority, and to

exercise the powers which had been committed to him as an agent of the

king, as if they were his own private possession. Nor was the king's aid

lacking to this method of dividing up the royal authority, any more than

to the immunity, for it became a frequent practice to make the

administrative office into a fief, and to grant it to be held in that

form of property by the count. In this way the feudal county, or duchy,

formed itself, corresponding in most cases only roughly to the old

administrative divisions of the state, for within the bounds of the

county there had often formed private feudal possessions too powerful to

be forced into dependence upon the count, sometimes the vice-comes had

followed the count's example, and often, on the other hand, the count

had attached to his county like private possessions of his own lying

outside its boundaries. In time the private lord, who had never been an

officer of the state, assumed the old administrative titles and called

himself count or viscount, and perhaps with some sort of right, for his

position in his territories, through the development of the immunity,

did not differ from that now held by the man who had been originally a

count.

In these two ways then the feudal system was formed, and took possession

of the state territorially, and of its functions in government. Its

earliest stage of growth was that of the private possession only. Under

a government too weak to preserve order, the great landowner formed his

estate into a little territory which could defend itself. His smaller

neighbours who needed protection came to him for it. He forced them to

become his dependants in return under a great variety of forms, but

especially developing thereby the _precarium_ land tenure and the

_patrocinium_ personal service, and organizing a private jurisdiction

over his tenants, and a private army for defence. Finally he secured

from the king an immunity which excluded the royal officers from his

lands and made him a quasi-representative of the state. In the meantime

his neighbour the count had been following a similar process, and in

addition he had enjoyed considerable advantages of his own. His right to

exact military, financial and judicial duties for the state he had used

to force men to become his dependants, and then he had stood between

them and the state, freeing them from burdens which he threw with

increased weight upon those who still stood outside his personal

protection. In ignorance of their danger, and later in despair of

getting public services adequately performed in any other way, the kings

first adopted for themselves some of the forms and practices which had

thus grown up, and by degrees recognized them as legally proper for all

classes. It proved to be easier to hold the lord responsible for the

public duties of all his dependants because he was the king's vassal and

by attaching them as conditions to the benefices which he held, than to

enforce them directly upon every subject.

When this stage was reached the formative age of feudalism may be

considered at an end. When the government of the state had entered into

feudalism, and the king was as much senior as king; when the vassal

relationship was recognized as a proper and legal foundation of public

duties; when the two separate sides of early feudalism were united as

the almost universal rule, so that a man received a fief because he owed

a vassal's duties, or looked at in the other and finally prevailing way,

that he owed a vassal's duties because he had received a fief; and

finally, when the old idea of the temporary character of the _precarium_

tenure was lost sight of, and the right of the vassal's heir to receive

his father's holding was recognized as the general rule--then the feudal

system may be called full grown. Not that the age of growth was really

over. Feudal history was always a becoming, always a gradual passing

from one stage to another, so long as feudalism continued to form the

main organization of society. But we may say that the formative age was

over when these features of the system had combined to be its

characteristic marks. What follows is rather a perfection of details in

the direction of logical completeness. To assign any specific date to

the end of this formative age is of course impossible, but meaning by

the end what has just been stated, we shall not be far wrong if we place

it somewhere near the beginning of the 10th century.

Before we leave the history of feudal origins another word is necessary.

We have traced a definite line of descent for feudal institutions from

Roman days through the Merovingian and Carolingian ages to the 10th

century. That line of descent can be made out with convincing clearness

and with no particular difficulty from epoch to epoch, from the

_precarium_ and the _patrocinium_, through the benefice and

commendation, to the fief and vassalage. But the definiteness of this

line should not cause us to overlook the fact that there was during

these centuries much confusion of custom and practice. All round and

about this line of descent there was a crowd of varying forms branching

off more or less widely from the main stem, different kinds of

commendation, different forms of _precarium_, some of which varied

greatly from that through which the fief descends, and some of which

survived in much the old character and under the old name for a long

time after later feudalism was definitely established.[7] The variety

and seeming confusion which reign in feudal society, under uniform

controlling principles, rule also in the ages of beginning. It is easy

to lose one's bearings by over-emphasizing the importance of variation

and exception. It is indeed true that what was the exception, the

temporary offshoot, might have become the main line. It would then have

produced a system which would have been feudal, in the wide sense of the

term, but it would have been marked by different characteristics, it

would have operated in a somewhat different way. The crowd of varying

forms should not prevent us from seeing that we can trace through their

confusion the line along which the characteristic traits and

institutions of European feudalism, as it actually was, were growing

constantly more distinct.[8] That is the line of the origin of the

feudal system. (See also FRANCE: _Law and Institutions_.)

Results in England.

The growth which we have traced took place within the Frankish empire.

When we turn to Anglo-Saxon England we find a different situation and a

different result. There _precarium_ and _patrocinium_ were lacking.

Certain forms of personal commendation did develop, certain forms of

dependent land tenure came into use. These do not show, however, the

characteristic marks of the actual line of feudal descent. They belong

rather in the varying forms around that line. Scholars are not yet

agreed as to what would have been their result if their natural

development had not been cut off by the violent introduction of Frankish

feudalism with the Norman conquest, whether the historical feudal

system, or a feudal system in the general sense. To the writer it seems

clear that the latter is the most that can be asserted. They were forms

which may rightly be called feudal, but only in the wider meaning in

which we speak of the feudalism of Japan, or of Central Africa, not in

the sense of 12th-century European feudalism; Saxon commendation may

rightly be called vassalage, but only as looking back to the early

Frankish use of the term for many varying forms of practice, not as

looking forward to the later and more definite usage of completed

feudalism; and such use of the terms feudal and vassalage is sure to be

misleading. It is better to say that European feudalism is not to be

found in England before the Conquest, not even in its beginnings. If

these had really been in existence it would require no argument to show

the fact. There is no trace of the distinctive marks of Frankish

feudalism in Saxon England, not where military service may be thought to

rest upon the land, nor even in the rare cases where the tenant seems to

some to be made responsible for it, for between these cases as they are

described in the original accounts, legally interpreted, and the feudal

conception of the vassal's military service, there is a great gulf.

The completed system.

In turning from the origin of feudalism to a description of the

completed system one is inevitably reminded of the words with which de

Quincey opens the second part of his essay on style. He says: "It is a

natural resource that whatsoever we find it difficult to investigate as

a result, we endeavour to follow as a growth. Failing analytically to

probe its nature, historically we seek relief to our perplexities by

tracing its origin.... Thus for instance when any feudal institution (be

it Gothic, Norman, or Anglo-Saxon) eludes our deciphering faculty from

the imperfect records of its use and operation, then we endeavour

conjecturally to amend our knowledge by watching the circumstances in

which that institution arose." The temptation to use the larger part of

any space allotted to the history of feudalism for a discussion of

origins does not arise alone from greater interest in that phase of the

subject. It is almost impossible even with the most discriminating care

to give a brief account of completed feudalism and convey no wrong

impression. We use the term "feudal system" for convenience sake, but

with a degree of impropriety if it conveys the meaning "systematic."

Feudalism in its most flourishing age was anything but systematic. It

was confusion roughly organized. Great diversity prevailed everywhere,

and we should not be surprised to find some different fact or custom in

every lordship. Anglo-Norman feudalism attained a logical completeness

and a uniformity of practice which, in the feudal age proper, can hardly

be found elsewhere through so large a territory; but in Anglo-Norman

feudalism the exception holds perhaps as large a place as the regular,

and the uniformity itself was due to the most serious of exceptions from

the feudal point of view--centralization under a powerful monarchy.

But too great emphasis upon variation conveys also a wrong impression.

Underlying all the apparent confusion of fact and practice were certain

fundamental principles and relationships, which were alike everywhere,

and which really gave shape to everything that was feudal, no matter

what its form might be. The chief of these are the following: the

relation of vassal and lord; the principle that every holder of land is

a tenant and not an owner, until the highest rank is reached, sometimes

even the conception rules in that rank; that the tenure by which a thing

of value is held is one of honourable service, not intended to be

economic, but moral and political in character; the principle of mutual

obligations of loyalty, protection and service binding together all the

ranks of this society from the highest to the lowest; and the principle

of contract between lord and tenant, as determining all rights,

controlling their modification, and forming the foundation of all law.

There was actually in fact and practice a larger uniformity than this

short list implies, because these principles tended to express

themselves in similar forms, and because historical derivation from a

common source in Frankish feudalism tended to preserve some degree of

uniformity in the more important usages.

The foundation of the feudal relationship proper was the fief, which was

usually land, but might be any desirable thing, as an office, a revenue

in money or kind, the right to collect a toll, or operate a mill. In

return for the fief, the man became the vassal of his lord; he knelt

before him, and, with his hands between his lord's hands, promised him

fealty and service; he rose to his feet and took the oath of fealty

which bound him to the obligations he had assumed in homage; he received

from his lord ceremonial investiture with the fief. The faithful

performance of all the duties he had assumed in homage constituted the

vassal's right and title to his fief. So long as they were fulfilled,

he, and his heir after him, held the fief as his property, practically

and in relation to all under tenants as if he were the owner. In the

ceremony of homage and investiture, which is the creative contract of

feudalism, the obligations assumed by the two parties were, as a rule,

not specified in exact terms. They were determined by local custom. What

they were, however, was as well known, as capable of proof, and as

adequate a check on innovation by either party, as if committed to

writing. In many points of detail the vassal's services differed widely

in different parts of the feudal world. We may say, however, that they

fall into two classes, general and specific. The general included all

that might come under the idea of loyalty, seeking the lord's interests,

keeping his secrets, betraying the plans of his enemies, protecting his

family, &c. The specific services are capable of more definite

statement, and they usually received exact definition in custom and

sometimes in written documents. The most characteristic of these was the

military service, which included appearance in the field on summons with

a certain force, often armed in a specified way, and remaining a

specified length of time. It often included also the duty of guarding

the lord's castle, and of holding one's own castle subject to the plans

of the lord for the defence of his fief. Hardly less characteristic was

court service, which included the duty of helping to form the court on

summons, of taking one's own cases to that court instead of to some

other, and of submitting to its judgments. The duty of giving the lord

advice was often demanded and fulfilled in sessions of the court, and in

these feudal courts the obligations of lord and vassal were enforced,

with an ultimate appeal to war. Under this head may be enumerated also

the financial duties of the vassal, though these were not regarded by

the feudal law as of the nature of the tenure, i.e. failure to pay them

did not lead to confiscation, but they were collected by suit and

distraint like any debt. They did not have their origin in economic

considerations, but were either intended to mark the vassal's tenant

relation, like the relief, or to be a part of his service, like the aid,

that is, he was held to come to the aid of his lord in a case of

financial as of military necessity. The relief was a sum paid by the

heir for the lord's recognition of his succession. The aids were paid on

a few occasions, determined by custom, where the lord was put to unusual

expense, as for his ransom when captured by the enemy, or for the

knighting of his eldest son. There was great variety regarding the

occasion and amount of these payments, and in some parts of the feudal

world they did not exist at all. The most lucrative of the lord's rights

were wardship and marriage, but the feudal theory of these also was

non-economic. The fief fell into the hands of the lord, and he enjoyed

its revenues during the minority of the heir, because the minor could

not perform the duties by which it was held. The heiress must marry as

the lord wished, because he had a right to know that the holder of the

fief could meet the obligations resting upon it. Both wardship and

marriage were, however, valuable rights which the lord could exercise

himself or sell to others. These were by no means the only rights and

duties which could be described as existing in feudalism, but they are

the most characteristic, and on them, or some of them, as a foundation,

the whole structure of feudal obligation was built, however detailed.

Ideally regarded, feudalism covered Europe with a network of these

fiefs, rising in graded ranks one above the other from the smallest, the

knight's fee, at the bottom, to the king at the top, who was the supreme

landowner, or who held the kingdom from God. Actually not even in the

most regular of feudal countries, like England or Germany, was there any

fixed gradation of rank, titles or size. A knight might hold directly of

the king, a count of a viscount, a bishop of an abbot, or the king

himself of one of his own vassals, or even of a vassal's vassal, and in

return his vassal's vassal might hold another fief directly of him. The

case of the count of Champagne, one of the peers of France, is a famous

example. His great territory was held only in small part of the king of

France. He held a portion of a foreign sovereign, the emperor, and other

portions of the duke of Burgundy, of two archbishops, of four bishops,

and of the abbot of St Denis. Frequently did great lay lords, as in this

case, hold lands by feudal tenure of ecclesiastics.

It is now possible perhaps to get some idea of the way in which the

government of a feudal country was operated. The early German

governments whose chief functions, military, judicial, financial,

legislative, were carried on by the freemen of the nation because they

were members of the body politic, and were performed as duties owed to

the community for its defence and sustenance, no longer existed. New

forms of organization had arisen in which indeed these conceptions had

not entirely disappeared, but in which the vast majority of cases a

wholly different idea of the ground of service and obligation prevailed.

Superficially, for example, the feudal court differed but little from

its Teutonic predecessor. It was still an assembly court. Its procedure

was almost the same as the earlier. It often included the same classes

of men. Saxon Witenagemot and Norman _Curia regis_ seem very much alike.

But the members of the feudal court met, not to fulfil a duty owed to

the community, but a private obligation which they had assumed in return

for the fiefs they held, and in the history of institutions it is

differences of this sort which are the determining principles. The

feudal state was one in which, as it has been said, private law had

usurped the place of public law. Public duty had become private

obligation. To understand the feudal state it is essential to make clear

to one's mind that all sorts of services, which men ordinarily owe to

the public or to one another, were translated into a form of rent paid

for the use of land, and defined and enforced by a private contract. In

every feudal country, however, something of the earlier conception

survived. A general military levy was occasionally made. Something like

taxation occasionally occurred, though the government was usually

sustained by the scanty feudal payments, by the proceeds of justice and

by the income of domain manors. About the office of king more of this

earlier conception gathered than elsewhere in the state, and gradually

grew, aided not merely by traditional ideas, but by the active influence

of the Bible, and soon of the Roman law. The kingship formed the nucleus

of new governments as the feudal system passed away.

Actual government in the feudal age was primitive and undifferentiated.

Its chief and almost only organ, for kingdom and barony alike, was the

_curia_--a court formed of the vassals. This acted at once and without

any consciousness of difference of function, as judiciary, as

legislature, in so far as there was any in the feudal period, and as

council, and it exercised final supervision and control over revenue and

administration. Almost all the institutions of modern states go back to

the _curia regis_, branching off from it at different dates as the

growing complexity of business forced differentiation of function and

personnel. In action it was an assembly court, deciding all questions by

discussion and the weight of opinion, though its decisions obtained

their legal validity by the formal pronunciation of the presiding

member, i.e. of the lord whose court it was. It can readily be seen that

in a government of this kind the essential operative element was the

baron. So long as the government remained dependent on the baron, it

remained feudal in its character. When conditions so changed that

government could free itself from its dependence on the baron, feudalism

disappeared as the organization of society; when a professional class

arose to form the judiciary, when the increased circulation of money

made regular taxation possible and enabled the government to buy

military and other services, and when better means of intercommunication

and the growth of common ideas made a wide centralization possible and

likely to be permanent. Feudalism had performed a great service, during

an age of disintegration, by maintaining a general framework of

government, while allowing the locality to protect and care for itself.

When the function of protection and local supervision could be resumed

by the general government the feudal age ended. In nearly all the states

of Europe this end was reached during, or by the close of, the 13th

century.

Decline and survivals.

At the moment, however, when feudalism was disappearing as the

organization of society, it gave rise to results which in a sense

continued it into after ages and even to our own day. One of these

results was the system of law which it created. As feudalism passed

from its age of supremacy into its age of decline, its customs tended to

crystallize into fixed forms. At the same time a class of men arose

interested in these forms for their own sake, professional lawyers or

judges, who wrote down for their own and others' use the feudal usages

with which they were familiar. The great age of these codes was the 13th

century, and especially the second half of it. The codes in their turn

tended still further to harden these usages into fixed forms, and we may

date from the end of the 13th century an age of feudal law regulating

especially the holding and transfer of land, and much more uniform in

character than the law of the feudal age proper. This was particularly

the case in parts of France and Germany where feudalism continued to

regulate the property relations of lords and vassals longer than

elsewhere, and where the underlying economic feudalism remained in large

part unchanged. In this later pseudo-feudalism, however, the political

had given way to the economic, and customs which had once had no

economic significance came to have that only.

Feudalism formed the starting-point also of the later social nobilities

of Europe. They drew from it their titles and ranks and many of their

regulative ideas, though these were formed into more definite and

regular systems than ever existed in feudalism proper. It was often the

policy of kings to increase the social privileges and legal exemptions

of the nobility while taking away all political power, so that it is

necessary in the history of institutions to distinguish sharply between

these nobilities and the feudal baronage proper. It is only in certain

backward parts of Europe that the terms feudal and baronage in any

technical sense can be used of the nobility of the 15th century.

(G. B. A.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--For more detailed information the reader is referred to

the articles ENGLISH LAW; FRANCE: _French Law and Institutions_,

VILLENAGE; MANOR; SCUTAGE; KNIGHT SERVICE; HIDE. For a general sketch

of Feudalism the chapters in tome ii. of the _Histoire generale_ of

Lavisse and Rambaud should be consulted. Other general works are J.T.

Abdy, _Feudalism_ (1890); Paul Roth, _Feudalitat und Unterthanverband_

(Weimar, 1863); and _Geschichte des Beneficialwesens_ (1850); M.M.

Kovalevsky, _Okonomische Entwickelung Europas_ (1902); E. de Laveleye,

_De la propriete et de ses formes primitives_ (1891); and _The Origin

of Property in Land_, a translation by M. Ashley from the works of

N.D. Fustel de Coulanges, with an introductory chapter by Professor

W.J. Ashley. Two other works of value are Sir H.S. Maine, _Village

Communities in the East and West_ (1876); and Leon Gautier, _La

Chevalerie_ (Paris, 1884; Eng. trans. by Henry Frith, _Chivalry_,

London, 1891).

For feudalism in England see the various constitutional histories,

especially W. Stubbs, _Constitutional History of England_, vol. i.

(ed. 1897). Very valuable also are the writings of Mr J.H. Round, of

Professor F.W. Maitland and of Professor P. Vinogradoff. Among Round's

works may be mentioned _Feudal England_ (1895); _Geoffrey de

Mandeville_ (1892); and _Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer_

(1898). Maitland's _Domesday Book and Beyond_ (Cambridge, 1897) is

indispensable; and the same remark applies to his _History of English

Law before the time of Edward I._ (Cambridge, 1895), written in

conjunction with Sir Frederick Pollock. Vinogradoff has illuminated

the subject in his _Villainage in England_ (1892) and his _English

Society in the 11th century_ (1908). See also J.F. Baldwin, _The

Scutage and Knight Service in England_ (Chicago, 1897); Rudolf Gneist,

_Adel und Ritterschaft in England_ (1853); and F. Seebohm, _The

English Village Community_ (1883).

For feudalism in France see N.D. Fustel de Coulanges, _Histoire des

institutions politiques de l'ancienne France_ (_Les Origines du

systeme feodal_, 1890; _Les Transformations de la royaute pendant

l'epoque carolingienne_, 1892); A. Luchaire, _Histoire des

institutions monarchiques de la France sous les premiers Capetiens,

987-1180_ (2nd ed., 1890); and _Manuel des institutions francaises:

periode des Capetiens directs_ (1892); J. Flach, _Les Origines de

l'ancienne France_ (1886-1893); Paul Viollet, _Droit public: Histoires

des institutions politiques et administratives de la France_

(1890-1898); and Henri See, _Les classes rurales et le regime

domanial_ (1901).

For Germany see G. Waitz, _Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte_ (Kiel and

Berlin, 1844 foll.); H. Brunner, _Grundzuge der deutschen

Rechtsgeschichte_ (Leipzig, 1901); V. Menzel, _Die Entstehung des

Lebenswesens_ (Berlin, 1890); and G.L. von Maurer's works on the early

institutions of the Germans.