5. That a special jury cannot be empanelled to try a felony.

6. That peers charged with felony are tried in a special manner. (See

PEERAGE.)

7. That the costs of prosecuting all felonies (except treason felony)

are paid out of public funds: and that a felon may be condemned to pay

the costs of his prosecution and to compensate up to L100 for any loss

of property suffered by any person through or by means of the felony. In

the Criminal Code Bills of 1878-1880 it was proposed to abolish the term

felony altogether: and in the Queensland Criminal Code 1899 the term

"crime" is substituted, and within its connotation are included not only

treason and piracy but also perjury.

8. That a sentence of a felon to death, or to penal servitude or

imprisonment with hard labour or for over twelve months, involves loss

of and disqualification for certain offices until the sentence has been

served or a free pardon obtained. (Forfeiture Act 1870.)

It is a misdemeanour (i.) to compound a felony or to agree for valuable

consideration not to prosecute or to show favour in such prosecution;

(ii.) to omit to inform the authorities of a felony known to have been

committed (see MISPRISION), and, (iii.) not to assist in the arrest of a

felon at the call of an officer of the law. (See CRIMINAL LAW;

MISDEMEANOUR; MISPRISION.)

FELSITE, in petrology, a term which has long been generally used by

geologists, especially in England, to designate fine-grained igneous

rocks of acid (or subacid) composition. As a rule their ingredients are

not determinable by the unaided eye, but they are principally felspar

and quartz as very minute particles. The rocks are pale-coloured

(yellowish or reddish as a rule), hard, splintery, much jointed and

occasionally nodular. Many felsites contain porphyritic crystals of

clear quartz in rounded blebs, more or less idiomorphic felspar, and

occasionally biotite. Others are entirely fine-grained and micro- or

crypto-crystalline. Occasionally they show a fluxional banding; they may

also be spherulitic or vesicular. Those which carry porphyritic quartz

are known as quartz-felsites; the term soda-felsites has been applied to

similar fine-grained rocks rich in soda-felspar.

Although there are few objections to the employment of felsite as a field

designation for rocks having the above characters, it lacks definiteness,

and has been discarded by many petrologists as unsuited for the exact

description of rocks, especially when their microscopic characters are

taken into consideration. The felsites accordingly are broken up into

"granite-porphyries," "orthophyres" and "orthoclase-porphyries,"

"felsitic-rhyolites," "keratophyres," "granophyres," "micro-granites,"

&c. But felsite or microfelsite is still the generally accepted

designation for that very fine-grained, almost crypto-crystalline

substance which forms the ground-mass of so many rhyolites, dacites and

porphyries.

In the hand specimen it is a dull, lustreless, stony-looking aggregate.

Under the microscope even with high powers and the very thinnest modern

sections, it often cannot be resolved into its components. In places it

may contain determinable minute crystals of quartz; less commonly it may

show grains which can be proved to be felspar, but usually it consists

of an ultra-microscopic aggregate of fibres, threads and grains, which

react to polarized light in a feeble and indefinite manner. Spherulitic,

spotted, streaky and fluidal structures may appear in it, and many

different varieties have been established on such characters as these

but without much validity.

Its association with the acid rocks, its hardness, method of weathering

and chemical composition, indicate that it is an intermixture of quartz

and acid felspar, and the occasional presence of these two minerals in

well-defined grains confirms this. Moreover, in many dikes, while the

ground-mass is microcrystalline and consists of quartz and felspar near

the centre of the mass, towards the margins, where it has been rapidly

chilled by contact with the cold surrounding rocks, it is felsitic. The

very great viscosity of acid magmas prevents their molecules, especially

when cooling takes place suddenly, from arranging themselves to form

discrete crystals, and is the principal cause of the production of

felsitic ground-masses. In extreme cases these conditions hinder

crystallization altogether, and glassy rocks result. Some rocks are

felsitic in parts but elsewhere glassy; and it is not always clear

whether the felsite is an original substance or has arisen by the

devitrification of primary glass. The presence of perlitic structure in

some of these felsites points to the latter conclusion, and the results

of an examination of ancient glasses and of artificial glass which has

been slowly cooled are in accordance with this view. It has been argued

that felsite is a eutectic mixture of quartz and felspar, such that when

solidification takes place and the excess of felspar (or quartz) has

crystallized out it remains liquid till the temperature has fallen to

its freezing point, and then consolidates simultaneously. This may be

so, but analyses show that it has not always the same composition and

consequently that the conditions which determine its formation are not

quite simple. Felsitic rocks are sometimes silicified and have their

matrix replaced by granular aggregates of cloudy quartz. (J. S. F.)

FELSPAR, or FELDSPAR, a name applied to a group of mineral silicates of

much importance as rock-constituents. The name, taken from the Ger.

_Feldspath_, was originally written with a "d" but in 1794 it was

written "felspar" by R. Kirwan, on the assumption that it denoted a

mineral of the "fels" rather than of the "field," and this corrupted

form is now in common use in England. By some of the earlier

mineralogists it was written "feltspar," from the Swedish form

_faltspat_.

The felspar-group is divided into two subgroups according to the

symmetry of the crystals. Although the crystals of all felspars present

a general resemblance in habit, they are usually regarded as belonging

to two systems, some felspars being monoclinic and others anorthic.

Figures of the crystals are given in the articles on the different

species. Two cleavages are generally well marked. In the monoclinic or

monosymmetric felspars these, being parallel to the basal pinacoid and

clinopinacoid, necessarily make an angle of 90 deg., whence the name

orthoclase applied to these minerals; whilst in the anorthic or

asymmetric felspars the corresponding angle is never exactly 90 deg.,

and from this obliquity of the principal cleavages they are termed

plagioclase (see ORTHOCLASE and PLAGIOCLASE). There are consequently two

series of felspars, one termed orthoclastic or orthotomous, and the

other plagioclastic or clinotomous. F.E. Mallard suggested that all

felspars are really asymmetric, and that orthoclase presents only a

pseudo-monosymmetric habit, due to twinning. Twin-crystals are very

common in all the felspars, as explained under their respective

headings.

The two divisions of the felspar-group founded on differences of

crystalline symmetry are subdivided according to chemical composition.

All the felspars are silicates containing aluminium with some other

metallic base or bases, generally potassium, sodium or calcium, rarely

barium, but never magnesium or iron. The monoclinic series includes

common potash-felspar or orthoclase (KAlSi3O8) and hyalophane, a rare

felspar containing barium (K2BaAl4Si8O24). The anorthic series includes

at one end the soda-felspar albite (NaAlSi3O8) and at the other

extremity the lime-felspar anorthite (CaAl2Si2O8). It was suggested by

G. Tschermak in 1864 that the other plagioclastic felspars are

isomorphous mixtures in various proportion of albite (Ab) and anorthite

(An). These intermediate members are the lime-soda felspars known as

oligoclase, andesine, labradorite and bytownite. There are also placed

in the anorthic class a potash-felspar called microcline, and a rare

soda-potash-felspar known as anorthoclase.

The specific gravity of the felspars has been shown by G. Tschermak and

V. Goldschmidt to vary according to their chemical composition, rising

steadily from 2.57 in orthoclase to 2.75 in anorthite. All the felspars

have a hardness of 6 to 6.5, being therefore rather less hard than

quartz. Pure felspar is colourless, but the mineral is usually white,

yellow, red or green. Certain felspars are used as ornamental stones on

account of their colour (see AMAZON STONE). Other felspars are prized

for their pearly opalescence (see MOONSTONE), or for their play of

iridescent colours (see LABRADORITE), or for their spangled appearance,

like aventurine (see SUN-STONE).

Felspar is much used in the manufacture of porcelain by reason of its

fusibility. In England the material employed is mostly orthoclase from

Scandinavia, often known as "Swedish spar." The high translucency of

"ivory porcelain" depends on the large proportion of felspar in the

body. The mineral is also an important constituent of most ceramic

glazes. The melting points of felspars have been investigated by Prof.

J. Joly, Prof. C. A. Doelter y Cisterich and especially by A.L. Day and

E.T. Allen in the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institute at

Washington.

Among the applications of felspar is that of pure orthoclase in the

manufacture of artificial teeth.

Felspar readily suffers chemical alteration, yielding kaolin (q.v.). The

turbidity of orthoclase is usually due to partial kaolinization.

Secondary mica is also a common result of alteration, and among other

products are pinite, epidote, saussurite, chlorite, wollastonite and

various zeolites.

See ALBITE, AMAZON STONE, ANDESINE, ANORTHITE, BYTOWNITE, LABRADORITE,

MICROCLINE, MOONSTONE, OLIGOCLASE, ORTHOCLASE, PLAGIOCLASE, SUN-STONE.

FELSTED, or FELSTEAD, a village of Essex, England, between Dunmow and

Braintree, and 10 m. from Chelmsford; with a station on the Great

Eastern railway. Felsted is only noteworthy by reason of its important

public school, dating back to its foundation as a grammar school in 1564

by Richard 1st Baron Rich, who as lord chancellor and chancellor of the

court of augmentations had enriched himself with the spoil of the

adjoining abbey and priory of Little Leez at the dissolution of the

monasteries. It became a notable educational centre for Puritan families

in the 17th century, numbering a hundred or more pupils, under Martin

Holbeach (1600-1670), headmaster from 1627-1649, and his successors C.

Glasscock (from 1650 to 1690), and Simon Lydiatt (1690 to 1702). John

Wallis and Isaac Barrow were educated here, and also four sons of Oliver

Cromwell, Robert, Oliver, Richard (the Protector), and Henry. Another

era of prosperity set in under the headmastership of William Trivett

(1745-1830) between 1778 and 1794; but under his successors W.J. Carless

(from 1794 to 1813) and E. Squire (from 1813 to 1829) the numbers

dwindled. As the result of the discovery by T. Surridge (headmaster

1835-1850), from research among the records, that a larger income was

really due to the foundation, a reorganization took place by act of

parliament, and in 1851, under the headmastership of Rev. A.H.

Wratislaw, the school was put under a new governing body (a revised

scheme coming into operation in 1876). The result under Rev. W.S.

Grignon (1823-1907), the headmaster from 1856 to 1875, who may be

considered almost the second founder, was the rapid development of

Felsted into one of the regular public schools of the modern English

type. New buildings on an elaborate scale arose, the numbers increased

to more than 200, and a complete transformation took place, which was

carried on under his successors D.S. Ingram (from 1875 to 1890), H.A.

Dalton (to 1906), and F. Stephenson, under whom large extensions to the

buildings and playing-fields were made.

See John Sargeaunt, _History of Felsted School_ (1889); and _Alumni

Felstedienses_, by R.J. Beevor, E.T. Roberts and others (1903).

FELT (cognate with Ger. _Filz_, Du. _vilt_, Swed. and Dan. _filt_; the

root is unknown; the word has given Med. Lat. _filtrum_, "filter"), a

fabric produced by the "matting" or "felting" together of fibrous

materials such as wools, hairs, furs, &c. Most textile fibres (see

FIBRES) possess the quality of matting to some extent, but wools, furs

and some few hairs are the only fibres which can be felted

satisfactorily. It is probable that the quality of felting must be

attributed to the scale structure and waviness of the wools, furs and

hairs referred to. When it is desired to incorporate non-felting fibres

in felt cloths, wool must be employed to "carry" them.

There are two distinct classes of felts, viz. woven or

"thread-structure" felts, and "fibre" or true felts. In the manufacture

of thread-structure felts, wools possessing the quality of felting in a

high degree are naturally selected, carefully scoured so that the

felting quality is not seriously damaged, spun into woollen yarn

possessing the necessary fibre arrangement and twist, woven into cloth

of such a character that subsequently satisfactory shrinking or felting

may be effected, and finally scoured, milled in the stocks of machine of

both, dyed and finished on the lines of an ordinary woven fabric. The

lighter styles of woven felts may be composed of a single cloth only,

but for the heavier styles two or more cloths are woven, one on top of

the other, at one and the same time, arrangements being made to stitch

the cloths together during the weaving operation.

Fibre felts are exceedingly interesting from the historical point of

view. It is now generally admitted that the art of weaving preceded

that of spinning, and it must further be conceded that the art of

felting preceded that of weaving, so that the felt fabric is probably

one of the oldest of the various styles of recognized fabrics. The

inhabitants of the middle and northern regions of Asia seem to have

employed felt from time immemorial, as clothing and also as a covering

for their habitations. Most of the classical writers refer to it and

some of them actually describe its manufacture. Felt was also largely

employed by the ancients for their hats, outer garments, and sometimes

as a species of armour.

Fibre felts may be divided into three classes, viz. ordinary felts; hat

felts; and impregnated felts. As all felts are based upon the ordinary

felt, the process of manufacture of this will first be described. Of the

wools employed the principal are:--East Indian, German or mid-European,

New Zealand cross-breds, and Australian, Cape and Buenos Aires merinos.

Vegetable fibres and silk are also employed, but wool must be used to

"carry" them; thus a good felting wool may be made to carry its own

weight of cotton, hemp, &c. Hairs and furs are principally used in the

hat felts. The average loss upon the wool from the raw state to the

finished felt is 40 to 50%. The order of the manufacturing processes is

as follows:--mixing, willowing, teasing, scribbling and carding. It is

interesting to note that it is not usual to scour felting wools. This is

not because they are really clean--some are dirty--but because the

felting property is liable to be interfered with in the scouring

operation. Some wools, however, must be scoured to ensure satisfactory

working in the machines. From the card the wool is delivered as a

gossamer-like film from 50 to 60 in. wide on to an endless sheet from 30

to 60 yds. long, upon which the felt is built up film upon film until

the required thickness--perhaps 4 in.--is obtained. To harden this

somewhat tender sheet of felt it is now passed through an ironing

process, effected by either steam-heated rollers--to which a rotatory

and vibratory motion is given--playing upon the continually

drawn-through cloth; or a huge vibrating flat-iron, to which the cloth

is automatically fed, held in position and then wound up while the

following length to be treated is drawn under the iron. Soaping, fulling

or "felting" and the ordinary finishing operations--including dyeing and

printing if desirable--now follow, so that ultimately a strong firm

fabric is turned out. It must be admitted, however, that the strength is

much greater lengthwise than cross-wise, owing to the parallelization of

the fibres induced in the scribbling and carding operations. Of course,

the true felting or contraction occurs in the fulling or felting stock,

the fabric being perpetually "hammered" in the presence of fulling

agents such as soap, fuller's earth, &c., for a considerable time. The

reduction in width, length and thickness is remarkable. This may be

controlled within certain limits. The principal styles of ordinary

fibre-felts are--linings for coats, furniture and rubber shoes;

saddlery; seatings for carriages and pews; carpets, surrounds and

under-felts for carpets; mantles, dresses and table-cloths;

felt-slippers; mattress felts; chest-preservers, and shoulder-pads;

steam-engine packing, motor-car and anti-vibration felts, shipbuilding

felts; drawing-roller felts and gun-wad felts.

Hat felts may be divided into two classes, viz. those made from wool and

fur respectively. Wool "bodies" used for the lower quality hats are

manufactured in the same way as ordinary felts, but the "shape" upon

which the film issuing from the carder is built up takes the form of a

double cone and thus approximates to the shape of the two hats

ultimately formed. The shape is further controlled and developed in the

fulling or felting operation. In the fur hat felts an air-blast is

employed to carry the finely separated fibres on to the shape required,

upon which shape the fibres are held in position by suction until the

required thickness is obtained. The structure is then further developed

and "stiffened," i.e. impregnated with certain stiffening agents

according to requirements. If desirable the exterior fibres blown on to

any shape may be of a different material from the body fabric.

Impregnated felts are simply felts made in the ordinary way but

subsequently impregnated with certain agents which give a special

quality to the fabric. Messrs McNeill & Co., of London, were the

originators of "asphalted-felt" for roofing and, among other styles,

place on the market sheathing felt, inodorous felt, dry hair felt,

foundation felt, &c., &c. A later development, however, is the

impregnated iron-felt manufactured by Messrs Mitchells, Ashworth,

Stansfield & Co., of Waterfoot, near Manchester, who not only produce

from 70 to 80% of the ordinary felts manufactured in Great Britain, but

also place on the market several specialties of which this "iron-felt"

is largely used in the construction of bridges, &c., and as a substitute

for rubber, it being apparently more durable. (A. F. B.)

FELTHAM, or FELLTHAM, OWEN (d. 1668), English moralist, was the son of

Thomas Feltham or Felltham of Mutford in Suffolk. The date of his birth

is given variously as 1602 and 1609. He is famous chiefly as the author

of a volume entitled _Resolves, Divine, Moral and Political_, containing

one hundred short and pithy essays. To later issues of the _Resolves_

Feltham appended _Lusoria_, a collection of forty poems. Hardly anything

is known of his life except that T. Randolph, the adopted "son" of Ben

Jonson, addressed a poem of compliment to him, and became his friend,

and that Feltham attacked Ben Jonson in an ode shortly before the aged

poet's death, but contributed a flattering elegy to the _Jonsonus

Virbius_ in 1638. Early in life Feltham visited Flanders, and published

observations in 1652 under the title of _A Brief Character of the Low

Countries_. He was a strict high-churchman and a royalist; he even

described Charles I. as "Christ the Second." Hallam stigmatized Feltham

as one of our worst writers. He has not, indeed, the elegance of Bacon,

whom he emulated, and he is often obscure and affected; but his copious

imagery and genuine penetration give his reflections a certain charm. To

the middle classes of the 17th century he seemed a heaven-sent

philosopher and guide, and was only less popular than Francis Quarles

the poet.

Eleven editions of the _Resolves_ appeared before 1700. Later.

editions by James Cumming (London, 1806; much garbled; has account of

Feltham's life and writings), and O. Smeaton in "Temple Classics"

series (London, 1904).

FELTON, CORNELIUS CONWAY (1807-1862), American classical scholar, was

born on the 6th of November 1807, in West Newbury, Massachusetts. He

graduated at Harvard College in 1827, having taught school in the winter

vacations of his sophomore and junior years. After teaching in the

Livingstone high school of Geneseo, New York, for two years, he became

tutor at Harvard in 1829, university professor of Greek in 1832, and

Eliot professor of Greek literature in 1834. In 1860 he succeeded James

Walker as president of Harvard, which position he held until his death,

at Chester, Pennsylvania, on the 26th of February 1862. Dr Felton edited

many classical texts. His annotations on Wolf's text of the _Iliad_

(1833) are especially valuable. _Greece, Ancient and Modern_ (2 vols.,

1867), forty-nine lectures before the Lowell Institute, is scholarly,

able and suggestive of the author's personality. Among his miscellaneous

publications are the American edition of Sir William Smith's _History of

Greece_ (1855); translations of Menzel's _German Literature_ (1840), of

Munk's _Metres of the Greeks and Romans_ (1844), and of Guyot's _Earth

and Man_ (1849); and _Familiar Letters from Europe_ (1865).

FELTON, JOHN (c. 1595-1628), assassin of the 1st duke of Buckingham, was

a member of an old Suffolk family established at Playford. The date of

his birth and the name of his father are unknown, but his mother was

Eleanor, daughter of William Wright, mayor of Durham. He entered the

army, and served as lieutenant in the expedition to Cadiz commanded by

Sir Edward Cecil in 1625. His career seems to have been ill-starred and

unfortunate from the beginning. His left hand was early disabled by a

wound, and a morose temper rendered him unpopular and prevented his

advancement. Every application made to Buckingham for his promotion was

refused, on account of an enmity, according to Sir Simonds D'Ewes, which

existed between Felton and Sir Henry Hungate, a favourite of Buckingham.

To his personal application that he could not live without a captaincy

Buckingham replied harshly "that he might hang." Whether he took part

in the expedition to Rhe in 1627 is uncertain, but there is no doubt

that he continued to be refused promotion, and that even his scanty pay

earned during the Cadiz adventure was not received. Exasperated by his

ill-treatment, his discontent sharpened by poverty, and his hatred of

Buckingham intensified by a study of the Commons "Remonstrances" of the

previous June, and by a work published by Eglesham, the physician of

James I., in which Buckingham was accused of poisoning the king, Felton

determined to effect his assassination. He bought a tenpenny knife on

Tower Hill, and on his way through Fleet Street he left his name in a

church to be prayed for as "a man much discontented in mind." He arrived

at Portsmouth at 9 o'clock in the morning of the 23rd of August 1628,

and immediately proceeded to No. 10 High Street, where Buckingham was

lodged. Here mingling with the crowd of applicants and unnoticed he

stabbed the duke, who immediately fell dead. Though escape would have

been easy he confessed the deed and was seized and conveyed to the

Tower, his journey thither, such was the unpopularity of the duke, being

accompanied by cries of "God bless thee" from the people. Charles and

Laud desired he should be racked, but the illegal torture was prevented

by the judges. He was tried before the king's bench on the 27th of

November, pleaded guilty, and was hanged the next day, his body being

exposed in chains subsequently at Portsmouth.

FELTRE, MORTO DA, Italian painter of the Venetian school, who worked at

the close of the 15th century and beginning of the 16th. His real name

appears to have been Pietro Luzzo; he is also known by the name Zarato

or Zarotto, either from the place of his death or because his father, a

surgeon, was in Zara during the son's childhood: whether he was termed

Morto (dead) from his joyless temperament is a disputed point. He may

probably have studied painting first in Venice, but under what master is

uncertain. At an early age he went to Rome, and investigated the

ancient, especially the subterranean remains, and thence to Pozzuoli,

where he painted from the decorations of antique crypts or "grotte." The

style of fanciful arabesque which he formed for himself from these

studies gained the name of "grottesche," whence comes the term

"grotesque"; not, indeed, that Morto was the first painter of arabesque

in the Italian Renaissance, for art of this kind had, apart from his

influence, been fully developed, both in painting and in sculpture,

towards 1480, but he may have powerfully aided its diffusion southwards.

His works were received with much favour in Rome. He afterwards went to

Florence, and painted some fine grotesques in the Palazzo Pubblico.

Returning to Venice towards 1505, he assisted Giorgione in painting the

Fondaco dei Tedeschi, and seems to have remained with him till 1511. If

we may trust Ridolfi, Morto eloped with the mistress of Giorgione, whose

grief at this transaction brought him to the grave; the allegation,

however, is hardly reconcilable with other accounts. It may have been in

1515 that Morto returned to his native Feltre, then in a very ruinous

condition from the ravages of war in 1509. There he executed various

works, including some frescoes, still partly extant, and considered to

be almost worthy of the hand of Raphael, in the loggia beside San

Stefano. Towards the age of forty-five, Morto, unquiet and dissatisfied,

abandoned painting and took to soldiering in the service of the Venetian

republic. He was made captain of a troop of two hundred men; and

fighting valorously, he is said to have died at Zara in Dalmatia, in

1519. This story, and especially the date of it, are questionable: there

is some reason to think that Morto was painting as late as 1522. One of

his pictures is in the Berlin museum, an allegorical subject of "Peace

and War." Andrea Feltrini was his pupil and assistant as a decorative

painter.

FELTRE (anc. _Feltria_), a town and episcopal see of Venetia, Italy, in

the province of Belluno, 20 m. W.S.W. of it by rail, situated on an

isolated hill, 885 ft. above sea-level. Pop. (1901) 5468 (town), 15,243

(commune). The cathedral has a fine polygonal apse of the 16th century.

The Palazzo del Consiglio, now a theatre, is attributed to Palladio. At

one end of the chief square of the town, the Piazza Maggiore, is the

cistern by which the town is supplied with water, and a large fountain.

There are some remains of the medieval castle. The ancient Feltria,

which lay on the road (Via Claudia) from Opitergium to Tridentum, does

not seem to have been a place of any importance under the Romans.

Vittorino dei Rambaldoni da Feltre (1378-1446) was a famous educator and

philosopher of his time.

FELUCCA (an Italian word; in forms like the Span. _faluca_, Fr.

_felouque_, it appears in other languages; it is probably of Arabic

origin, cf. _fulk_, a ship, and _falaka_, to be round; the modern Arabic

form is _falukah_), a type of vessel used in the Mediterranean for

coasters or fishing-boats. It is a long, low and narrow undecked vessel,

built for speed, and propelled by oars or sails. The sails are

lateen-shaped and carried on one or two masts placed far forward (see

BOAT).

FEMALE, the correlative of "male," the sex which performs the function

of conceiving and bearing as opposed to the begetting of young. The word

in Middle English is _femelle_, adopted from the French from the Lat.

_femella_, which is a diminutive, and in classical Latin used strictly

as such, of _femina_, a woman. The present termination in English is due

to a connexion in ideas with "male." In various mechanical devices,

where two corresponding parts work within the other, the receiving part

is often known as the "female," as for example in the "male" and "female

screw." The O. Fr. _feme_, modern _femme_, occurs in legal phraseology

in _feme covert_, a married woman, i.e. one protected or covered by a

husband, and in _feme sole_, one not so protected, a widow or spinster

(see WOMEN and HUSBAND AND WIFE).

FEMERELL, properly FUMERELL (from O. Fr. _fumeraille_, Lat. _fumus_,

smoke), the old English term given to the lantern in the ridge of a hall

roof for the purpose of letting out the smoke of the fire kindled on a

central hearth.

FENCING. If by "fencing"--the art of fence, i.e. of defence or

offence--were meant generally the dexterous use of the sword, the

subject would be wide indeed; as wide, in fact, as the history of the

sword (q.v.) itself. But, in its modern acceptation, the meaning of the

word has become considerably restricted. The scope of investigation must

therefore be confined to one kind of swordsmanship only: to that which

depends on the regulated, artificial conditions of "single combat." It

is indeed this play, hemmed in by many restrictions, which we have come

to mean more specially by "fencing." It differs, of course, in many

respects, from what may be called the art of fighting in the light of

nature. But as its restrictions are among the very elements which work

to the perfection of the play, it is undoubtedly in the history of

swordsmanship as applied to duelling (see DUEL) that we shall trace the

higher development of the art.

It may be said that the history of fencing, therefore, would be

tantamount to the history of private duelling. Now, this is an ethical

subject; one, again, which would carry the investigation too far; and it

need not be taken up farther back than the middle of the 16th century,

when, on the disuse of the medieval wager of battle, the practice of

_private duelling_ began to take an assured footing in a warlike

society. It is curious to mark that the first cultivation of refined

cunning in fence dates from that period, which corresponds

chronologically with the general disuse of armour, both in battle and in

more private encounters. It is still more curious to note that, in order

to fit himself to meet what was an illegal but aristocratic obligation,

the gallant of those days had to appeal to a class of men hitherto

little considered: to those plebeian adepts, in fact, who for

generations had cultivated skill in the use of hand weapons, on foot and

without armour. Thus it came to pass that the earliest masters of fence

in all countries, namely, the masters of the art of conducting skilfully

what was essentially considered as an honourable encounter, were almost

invariably to be found among a somewhat dishonoured gentry--gladiators,

free companions, professional champions, more or less openly recognized,

or bravoes of the most uncompromising character.

In Germany, which may be considered the cradle of systematic

swordsmanship, these teachers of the sword had, as early as the 15th

century, formed themselves into gilds; among which the best known were

the _Marxbruder_, or the Associates of St Marcus of Lowenberg, who had

their headquarters at Frankfort, and branches in all the more important

towns. Similarly, in Spain and in northern Italy, professional swordsmen

were at various times allowed to form themselves into recognized or at

least tolerated associations.

In England "swordmen" had been looked upon with especial disfavour by

the powers that were, until Henry VIII., who was a great lover of all

manly exercises, found it likewise advisable to turn their obnoxious

existence to a disciplined and profitable channel by regularizing their

position. The most redoubtable masters were allowed to form themselves

into a company, with powers to increase their numbers with suitable and

duly tried men, in imitation of the world-famed German _Marxbruder_ or

_Marcusbruder_. Under these conditions they were granted the lucrative

monopoly of teaching the art of fight in England. The enormous

privileges that the king, in course of time, conferred on his

Corporation of Masters of Defence very soon enabled it to put down or

absorb all the more ferocious of independent swashbucklers, and thereby

to impart to the profession a moderate degree of respectability under

the coat of arms granted by the royal heralds: gules a sword pendant

argent.

It was in the midst of such corporations and in the fighting dens of

independent swordsmen, therefore, that sprouted the first buds of

systematic swordsmanship. Among the professional fencers, curiously and

happily for the historian, there seem to have been a few with a literary

turn of mind.

The oldest manuscripts of fence belong to Italy and Germany. They deal

with the methods of carrying out single combats on foot, with any of the

most generally accepted weapons--long sword and short sword, dagger and

every kind of knives, mace, long and short staff, axes, &c.,--and with

the tricks of wrestling recommendable therefor. Among the most

comprehensive in their scope may be mentioned _Il Fior di battaglia di

Maestro Fiore dei Liberi da Premariaco_; a work which, although

illustrated with truly Italian taste and grace, shows, as far as its

fighting style is concerned, unmistakable marks of German influence. The

text of the MS. bears the date 1410, but the writer was known to be

flourishing as a master of fence as early as 1383. A reprint of this

invaluable codex has been published, under the care of Francesco Donati,

by the _Istituto Italiano d' Arti Grafiche_. Another is the better known

_Thalhofer's Fecht Buch, gerichtliche und andere Zweykampfe darstellend_

(1467), a reprint of which, with its 268 plates in facsimile, was

brought out by Gustave Hergsell in Prague. The oldest printed book is

likewise German: _Ergrundung der ritterlicher Kunst der Fechterei, von

Andreas Paurnfeindt, Freifechter zu Wien_ (1516). This work, which is

exceedingly rare, is a very complete exponent of the ways of wielding

long and short blades to the utmost of their lethal capacity. It was

reproduced (under various titles, very confusing to the bibliographer)

in Frankfort, Augsburg, Strassburg, and finally done into French under

the name of _La Noble science des joueurs d'epee_, published in Paris

and Antwerp, 1535.

Following the Germans, the oldest printed books of fence are Italian.

The first French book on the sword is known to be a translation from the

German. Curiously enough, the second, and one of the most notable, _Le

Traite de l'epee seule, mere de toutes armes_, of the Sieur de St

Didier, published in Paris in 1573, can be shown to be a transparent

adaptation of two Italian treatises, the _Trattato di scienza d' arme_

of Camillo Agrippa, and Grassi's _Ragione di adoperar sicuramente

l'arme_, &c.

It is about this time, namely, the latter half of the 16th century, that

swordsmanship pure and simple may be said to find its origin; for then a

great change is perceptible in the nature and tendency of fence books:

they dissociate themselves from indecorous wrestling tricks, and

approximate more and more to the consideration of what we understand by

swordsmanship. The older works expounded the art of fighting generally;

taught the reader a number of valuable, if not "gentlemanlike," dodges

for overcoming an adversary _at all manner of weapons_: now the

lucubrations of fence-masters deal almost exclusively with the walking

sword, that is, the duelling weapon--with the rapier in fact, both with

and without its lieutenant, the dagger.

It must be remembered that at this period private duelling and cavalier

quarrelsomeness amounted to a perfect mania. The fencing master was no

longer merely a teacher of efficacious, if rascally, tricks; he was

becoming a model of gallant deportment; in many cases he was even a

recognized arbiter on matters of honour. He was often a gentleman

himself: at all events he posed as such.

Although the Germans were always redoubtable adepts at the rougher games

of swordsmanship, it is in Italy that is to be found development of that

nimbler, more regulated, more cunning, better controlled, kind of play

which we have learned to associate with the term "fencing." It was from

Italy that the art of fence first spread over Europe: not from Spain, as

it has been asserted by many writers. The Italians--if we take their

early books as evidence, and the fact that their phraseology was adopted

by all Europe--were the first to perceive (as soon as the problem of

armour-breaking ceased to be the most important one in fight) the

superior efficiency of the point. They accordingly reduced the breadth

of their sword, modified the hilt portion thereof to admit of readier

thrust action, and relegated the cut to quite a secondary position in

their system. With this lighter weapon they devised in course of time

that brilliant cunning play known as rapier fence.

The rapier was ultimately adopted everywhere by men of courtly habit;

but, in England at least, it was not accepted without murmur and

vituperation from the older fighting class of swordsmen, especially from

the members and admirers of the English Corporation of Defence Masters.

As a body Englishmen were as conservative then as they are now. They

knew the value of what they had as their own, and distrusted

innovations, especially from foreign quarters. The old sword and the

buckler were reckoned as your true English weapons: they always went

together--in fact sword and buckler play in the 16th century was

evidently held to be as national a game as boxing came to be in a later

age. Many are the allusions in contemporary dramatic literature to this

characteristic national distrust of continental innovations. There is

the well-known passage in Porter's play, _The Two Angry Women of

Abingdon_, for instance: "Sword and buckler fight," says a sturdy Briton

(in much the same tone of disgust as a British lover of fisticuffs might

now assume when talking of a French "Mounseer's" foil play), "begins to

grow out of use. I am sorry for it. I shall never see good manhood

again. If it be once gone, this poking fight with rapier and dagger will

come up. Then the tall man (that is, a courageous man and a good

sword-and-buckler man) will be spitted like a cat or a rabbit!" The

long-sword, that is, the two-hander, was also an essentially national

weapon. It was a right-down pleasing and sturdy implement, recalling in

good steel the vernacular quarter-staff of old. It required thews and

sinews, and, incidentally, much beef and ale. The long-sword man looked

perhaps with even greater disfavour than the smaller swashbuckler upon

the new-fangled "bird-spit." "Tut, man," says Justice Shallow, typical

_laudator_ of the good bygone days, on hearing of the ridiculous

Frenchman's skill with his rapier, "I could have told you more. In these

times you stand on distance, your passes, stoccadoes, and I know not

what; 'tis the heart, Master Page; 'tis here, 'tis here. I have seen the

time, with my long-sword, I would have made you four tall fellows skip

like rats."

Now, sword-and-buckler and long-sword play was no doubt a manly pursuit

and a useful. But, as an every-day companion, the long-sword was

incongruous to a fastidious cavalier; and, again, the buckler,

indispensable adjunct to the broad swashing blade of home production,

was hardly more suitable. In Elizabethan days it soon became obvious

that the buckler was inadmissible as an item of gentlemanly attire. It

was accordingly left to the body attendant; and the gallant took kindly

to the fine rapier of Milanese or Toledan make. On the other hand, it is

not difficult to understand the rapid popularity gained among the gentry

by this nimble rapier, so much reviled by the older fighting men. The

rapier, in fact, came in with the taste for "cavaliero" style, and may

be looked upon as its fit outward symbol already in the days of Queen

Mary. In Elizabeth's reign it was firmly established as your only

gentlemanlike weapon.

The rapier was decidedly a foreigner; yet it suited the Elizabethan age,

for it was decorative as well as practical. Its play was picturesque,

fantastic--almost euphuistic, one might say--in comparison with the

matter-of-fact hanger of older days. Its phraseology had a quaint, rich,

southern smack, which connoted outlandish experience and gave those

conversant with its intricate distinctions that marvellous character, at

once precious and ruffling, which was so highly appreciated by the

cavalier youth of the time. The rapier in its heyday was an admirable

weapon to look at, a delicious one to wield. And, besides, in proper

hands, it was undoubtedly one that was most conclusive. It was, in

short, as elegant and deadly as its predecessors were sturdy and brutal.

By the time that the most perfect, namely, the Italian, rapier fence

came to be generally taught in England--that is, during the last third

of Elizabeth's reign--the theory of swordsmanship, as applied to a

single combat, after having passed through many phases of imperfection,

was already tolerably simple and practical. (The exact story of its

evolution may be found in a work now included in Bohn's Libraries,

_Schools and Masters of Fence_.) What may be considered as one of the

cardinal actions of regulated sword-play on foot, namely, the lunge, had

already been discovered. Although a great many movements which,

according to modern notions, would be considered not only unnecessary

but actually pernicious, still formed part of the system, it may be

doubted whether, considering the character of the weapon, anything very

much better could be devised, even in our present state of knowledge.

For it must be remembered that the evolution of the forms of the sword

and of the theories concerning its most efficient use are closely

connected. It is, in fact, sometimes difficult to decide whether the

change in the shape of the weapon was the result of a development of a

theory; or whether new theories were elaborated to fit alterations in

these shapes due to fashion or any other reason.

When systematic fence came over to England it was already much

simplified (it should be noted that improvement in the art, from its

earliest days down to the present time, seems always to have been in the

direction of simplification); yet, for more than a century from the

appearance of the first real treatise, simplification never reached that

point which would render impossible a belief in the undoubted efficacy

of those "secret thrusts," of that "universal parry," of those

ineluctable passes, which every master professed to teach. These

precious secrets remain long, among a certain shady class of swordsmen,

an object of untiring study, carried on with much the same faith and

zest as the quest of the alchemist for his powder of projection, or of

the Merchant Adventurer for El Dorado. There can, of course, be no such

thing as an insuperable pass, a secret thrust or parry; every attack

_can_ be parried, every parry can be deceived by suitable movements. Yet

there was some justification for the belief in the existence of secrets

of swordsmanship in days when, as a rule, lessons of fence were given in

jealous privacy; constant practice at one particular pass, especially

with the long rapier, which required a great deal of muscular strength,

might render any peculiarly fierce, sudden and audacious stroke

excessively dangerous to one who did not happen to have opposed that

stroke before. Undoubtedly there was little in Elizabethan

fencing-schools of what we understand in modern days by loose-play

between the pupils; practice was almost invariably conducted between

scholar and teacher in private; and thus the opportunities for watching

or testing any particular fencer's play were few. Such an opportunity

would, as a rule, only occur on occasions of an earnest fight; and the

possessor of a specially handy thrust (if it came off at all) would of

course take good care that his opponent should not live to ponder over

the secret. The secret, such as it was, remained. In this guise it was

inevitable that an almost superstitious belief in "secret foynes," in

the _botte secrete_ of certain practised duellists, should arise.

Be that as it may, there is no doubt that towards the end of the 16th

century there were many free-lances in the field of arms who professed

to teach, in exchange for much gold, strokes that were not to be

parried. From one truculent personage, whom Brantome mentions, Tappa the

Milanese, you could learn how to cut (if it so took your fancy) both

eyes out of your adversary's face with a _rinverso tondo_, or circular

"reverse of the point." From Caizo, another Italian teacher, at one time

much favoured by the French court, lessons were to be had in the special

art of ham-stringing. Caizo's _botte secrete_ seems to have been nothing

more nor less than a _falso manco_, that is, a left-handed drawing cut,

at the inside of the knee. But, as practised and taught by him, it was

infallible. This stroke has come down to us as _le coup de Jarnac_--a

stroke, be it said, which, notwithstanding its bad name, was quite as

fair as any in rapier fence. One Le Flamand, a French master in Paris,

was reputed the inventor of a jerky time-thrust at the adversary's

brows, which was a certainty. This special foyne, which was merely an

_imbrocata_ at the head, has become legendary in the fencing world as

_la botte de Nevers_. English fencers have their own legends about "the

very butcher of a silk button," and this brings us to the first writer

on the rapier in England, Vincenzio Saviolo, the great expounder of that

Italianated fence which was so obnoxious to the old masters, withal so

much admired of Elizabethan courtiers; the man, in short, who--there

seems to be much internal evidence to show it--was Shakespeare's fencing

master.

Vincenzio was not the only foreign master of note established in London

during the latter part of Elizabeth's reign. One, Signor Rocco, had, we

hear, a very gorgeously appointed academy in Warwick Lane, near St

Paul's, where he coined money rapidly at the expense of gulls and

gallants alike. But this man came to grief ultimately in an encounter

with the long-sword with an old-fashioned English master of defence.

Another popular teacher was a certain "Geronimo"; but he also met with a

melancholy and premature end by the hands of one Cheefe, "a tall man in

his fight and natural English," says George Silver, the champion of the

Corporation of Masters of Defence. Saviolo, however, seems to have

remained unconquered. In his work (_Vincentio Saviolo, his practise, in

two bookes, the first intreating of the use of the Rapier and Dagger,

the second of Honor and honorable quarrels._ London. Printed by John

Wolfe, 1595) are expounded in a most typical manner the principles of

rapier play.

The fencing phraseology of Elizabethan times is highly picturesque, but

with difficulty intelligible in the absence of practical demonstration.

Without going into technical details it may be pointed out that the long

Elizabethan rapier, however admirably balanced it might otherwise be,

was still too heavy to admit of quick parries with the blade itself.

Thrusts, as a rule, had to be avoided by body movements, by ducking, or

by a vault aside (_incartata_), or beaten away with the left hand, the

hand being protected with a gauntlet or armed with a dagger. In fact,

one may say that the chief characteristic of Elizabethan sword-play was

the concerted action of the left hand parrying while the right delivered

the attack. Benvolio's description of Tybalt's fight is graphic:--

"With piercing steel he tilts at bold Mercutio's breast,

Who, all as hot, turns deadly point to point,

And with a martial scorn, with one hand beats

Cold death aside, and with the other

Sends it back to Tybalt, whose dexterity

Retorts it...."

Of these body movements, in Saviolo's days, the most approved were: the

_incartata_, just mentioned; the pass (the "passado," in the ruffling

Anglo-Italian jargon), that is, passing of one foot in front of the

other whilst delivering the attack; the _botta lunga_, or lunge; and the

_caricado_, which was a far-reaching combination of the two. Of

systematic sword movements there were six: _stocata_, a thrust delivered

with nails upwards; _imbrocata_, with nails down; _punta-reversa_, any

thrust delivered from the left side of the body; _mandritto_, a cut from

the right; _rinverso_, one from the left; _stramazone_, a right-down

blow with the point of the sword.

The new art of fence, as systematized by the principles of rapier play,

was on the whole already accepted in England during the last decade of

the 16th century, and was, as we know, destined to endure. Nevertheless,

there were still many partisans of the older school: lovers of the

national short-sword and the buckler. Their tenets are to be found

embodied, in very strenuous language, by the George Silver mentioned

above, a member, it would seem, of the now dwindling company of Masters

of Defence, in his small work: _Paradoxe of Defence, wherein is proved

the true ground of fight to be in the short ancient weapons, etc._

Printed in London, 1599. (The work has been reprinted by Messrs George

Bell & Sons.)

The Italians were undoubtedly the leaders in sword-play; but, towards

the beginning of the 17th century, the Spaniards developed a peculiar

school of their own, which for a short while was all the mode in England

as well as in France. The last trace, be it stated, of that school is

now extinct. Yet the Spaniard of cavalier days was undoubtedly a

formidable duellist; that was no doubt owing to the quality of the man,

not of his art. The Italian's fence was artistic; the Spaniard's

dexterity was essentially scientific. In Spain were to be found

typically those "Captains of Complements," who not only understood in

their most intricate mazes the proper "dependencies" for the cartel, but

also the mathematical certainties for the "reason demonstrative." These

Spanish books are marvellously pedantic; one may as well say it, frankly

ridiculous. Spanish masters instructed their scholars on mathematical

lines, with the help of diagrams drawn on the floor within a circle, the

radius of which bore certain cryptic proportions to length of human arms

and Spanish swords. The circle was inscribed in squares and intersected

by sundry chords bearing occult but, it was held, incontrovertible

relations to probabilities of strokes and parries. The scholar was to

step from certain intersections to certain others. If this stepping was

correctly done the result was a foregone victory. "A villain," exclaims

Mercutio, indignantly, "who fights by the book of arithmetic."

Elizabethan comedies bring us many an echo of its great expounder of

mathematical swordsmanship, the magnificent Carranza, the _primer

inventor de la Ciencia de las Armas_, the writer of treatises so

abstruse on "the first and second cause," in questions of honour and

swording, that they have never been quite understood to this day.

Perhaps the most curious matter in connexion with the Spanish fence is

that the most splendid treatise of the sword published in the French

language is in reality purely Spanish (we have seen that the first was

German, and the second an adaptation of Italian treatises). This third

work, _Academie de l'epee de Girard Thibault, d'Anvers, etc._, is indeed

a monument; one of the biggest books ever printed, and beyond compare

the biggest book of fence. It was issued in 1628 by the Leiden Elzevirs,

and took fifteen years to complete. Nine reigning princes and a vast

number of private gentlemen subscribed to meet its stupendous expenses.

This work was spoken of as a "monument." It may, in some respects, be

looked upon as the funeral monument of the old rapier fence; for soon

after that period rose an entirely new school, one adapted to the use of

a less portentous weapon, the small-sword of French pattern; a school

destined to endure, and to lead to the perfection of our modern

_escrime_.

The evolution of this new school is an instance of the influence of

fashion upon the shape of the sword, and hence upon theories concerning

its use. The French school of fencing may be said to owe its origin to

the adoption, under Louis XIV., of the short court-sword in place of the

over-long wide-hilted rapier of the older style. With a weapon of such

reduced dimensions, of such reduced weight, the advantage of the dagger

as a fencing adjunct at once ceased to be felt. The dagger, last Gothic

remnant, disappeared accordingly; and there arose rapidly a new system

of play, in which most of the defensive actions were performed by the

blade alone; in which, at the same time (the reduction in the size and

weight of the weapon rendering the efficiency of the edge almost

nugatory in comparison with that of the point), all cutting action was

ultimately discarded.

It is from that date, namely, from the last third of the 17th century,

that the sword, as a fighting implement, becomes differentiated into two

very different directions. The military weapon becomes the back-sword or

sabre; the walking companion and duelling weapon becomes what we now

understand by the small-sword. Two utterly different kinds of fence are

practised: one, that of the back-sword; the other, what we would now

call foil-play.

The magnificent old cut and thrust rapier still flourished, it is true,

in parts of Italy and Spain; but by the end of the 17th century it had

already become an object of ridicule in the eyes of all persons addicted

to _bon ton_--and it must be remembered that _bon ton_, on the Continent

everywhere and even in England, at that time, was French _ton_. The

walking sword, fit for a gentleman's side, was therefore the small-sword

of Versailles pattern. Its use had to be learnt from French masters of

deportment; the old magniloquent Italo-Spanish rapier jargon was

forgotten; French terms, barbarized into _carte_, _tierce_, _sagoon_,

_flanquonade_, and so forth, were alone understood. In fact, French

fencing became as indispensable an accomplishment to the Georgian

gentlemen as the fine Italianated foyning had been to the Elizabethan.

The new French sword-play was, it must be owned, very neat, quiet,

precise, and, if anything, even more deadly than the old fence. It was

perfect as a decorous mode of fight, and as well suited to the lace

ruffles, to the high perruque and the red heels of the "beau" as the

long cup-hilted rapier had been to the booted and spurred "cavalier."

The essence of its play was nimbleness of wrist; it required quickness

of spirit rather than muscular vigour. It is to be noted, however, that

the same sort of popular opposition met the invasion of French fencing,

in post-Restoration days, that had been offered to the new-fangled

Italian rapier a century earlier. During the Parliamentary period the

rapier and its attendant dagger had practically disappeared; they were

not true warlike weapons, their chief virtue was for duelling or sudden

encounters. But the stout English back-sword survived; and with it a

very definite school of back-sword play. Under Charles II., the

amusement of stage or prize-fighting with swords had become _a la mode_.

Courteous assaults at many weapons, of course rebated, had been frequent

functions under the auspices of the Corporation of Masters of Defence

during the second half of the 16th century; it is (be it remarked) in

such sword-matches on the scaffold that we find the origin of our modern

prize-fights at fisticuffs. The first instance known of a challenge at

sharps on the fighting stage is seen in a cartel sent by George Silver

and Toby his son, as champions of the Corporation of Masters of Defence,

to the obnoxious "Signors" Saviolo and Geronimo. As a matter of fact,

the latter, having apparently no wish to improve their excellent social

position or to risk forfeiting it, declined this invitation to a public

trial of skill. But the idea was right martial and pleasing to the

English mind, and the fashion of prize-fighting took the firm hold it

retained on English minds till stringent legislation, not so very long

ago, was brought to bear upon it. Be it as it may, this prize-fighting

with swords endured until middle Georgian days; when, under the impetus

given to fistic displays then by the renowned Figg (who was at one and

the same time the most formidable of English fencers and the first on

the long list of English pugilistic champions), back-swording became

relegated to the provinces, and ultimately dwindled into our bastard

"single-stick."

Fencing, in its restricted sense of purely thrusting play, was always an

"academic" art in England. The first great advocate and exponent of the

new small-sword fence, as taught by the new French school, was Sir

William Hope of Balcomy, at one time deputy governor of Edinburgh

Castle, who wrote a great number of quaint treatises of great interest

to the "operative" as well as to the "speculative" fencer. Yet, oddly

enough, Sir William Hope was instrumental in endeavouring to push

through parliament a bill for the establishment of a court of honour,

the office of which was to have been the deciding of honourable

quarrels, whenever possible, without appeal to fencing skill. The House,

however, being at the time excited and busy on the question of the

union of Scotland and England, the bill never became act.

To resume: since it began to be practised as a regulated art one may say

broadly that sword play has already passed through four main phases. The

first belongs to the early Tudor days of sword and buckler encounters,

whereof, if the best theoretical treatises appeared in Italy, the

sturdiest practical exponents were most probably found in the British

Isles. Then came the age of the rapier, coeval with the general disuse

of the buckler. There may be discerned the dawn of fencing proper, which

will fully arise when, in Caroline times, the outrageous length of the

tucke will at last be sufficiently reduced no longer to require the

dagger as a helpmate. The third was the age of the small-sword. With its

light, elegant and deadly practice we enter a new atmosphere, so to

speak, on fencing ground. Suppleness of wrist and precision of fingering

replace the ramping and traversing, the heavy forcing play, of the

Elizabethan. If the rapier age was well exemplified by Vincent Saviolo,

this one was typified, albeit perhaps at a time when it was already

somewhat on the wane, by the admirable Angelo Tremamondo Malevolti.

In the early days of the small-sword age men still fenced in play as

they fought in earnest. But presently there appeared on the scene

(during the last years of the 18th century) an implement destined to

revolutionize the art and hopelessly to divide the practice of the

school from that of the field: that was the fencing mask. Before this

invention, small-sword play in the master's room was perforce

comparatively cautious, correct, sure and above all deliberate. The

long, excited, argumentative phrases of modern assaults were unknown;

and so was the almost inevitably consequent scrimmage. But under the

protection of the fencing mask a new school of foil-play was evolved,

one in which swiftness and inveteracy of attack and parry, of _riposte_,

_remise_, _counter-riposte_ and _reprise_, assumed an all-important

character. With the new style began to assert itself that utter

recklessness of "chance hits" which in our days so markedly

differentiates foil-practice from actual duelling. And this brings us to

the fourth phase, the fencing art, to what may be called the age of the

foil.

If anything were required to demonstrate that foil-play has nowadays

passed into the state of what may be called fine art in athleticism, it

would be found in the rise of the method which French masters

particularize as _le jeu du terrain_, as duelling play in fact; a play

which differs as completely from academic foil-fencing as cross-country

riding in an unknown district from the _haute ecole_ of horsemanship in

the _manege_. By fencing, nowadays, that is by foil-play, we have come

to mean not simply fighting for hits, but a strictly regulated game

which, being quite conventional, does not take accidental hits into

consideration at all. This game requires for its perfect display a

combination of artificial circumstances, such as even floors,

featherweight weapons, and an unconditional acceptance of a number of

traditional conventions. Now, for the more utilitarian purposes of

duelling, the major part of the foil fencer's special achievement and

brilliancy has to be uncompromisingly sacrificed in the presence of the

brutal fact that thrusts in the face, or below the waist, _do_ count,

insomuch as they may kill; that _accidental_ hits in the arm or the leg

cannot be disregarded, for they may, and generally do, put a premature

stop to the bout. The "rub on the green" must be accepted, perforce, and

indeed often plays as important a part in the issue of the game as the

player's skill. The fact, however, that in earnest encounters all

conventionalities which determine the value of a hit vanish, does not in

any way justify the notion, prevalent among many, that a successful hit

justifies any method of planting the same; and that the mere discarding

of all convention in practical sword-play is sufficient to convert a bad

fencer into a dangerous duellist.

It is the recognition of this fact (which, oddly enough, only came to be

generally admitted, and not without reluctance, by the masters of the

art during the last quarter of the 19th century) which has led to the

elaboration of the modified system of small-sword fence now known as

_epee_ play. The new system, after passing through various rather

extravagant phases of its own, gradually returned to the main principle

of sound foil-play, but shorn of all futile conventions as to the

relative values of hits. In _epee_ play a hit is a hit, whether

correctly delivered or reckless, whether intentional or the result of

mere chance, and must, at the cost of much caution and patience, be

guarded against.

_Per contra_ the elaboration by the devotees of the _epee_ of a really

practical system of fence, that is, one applicable to trials in earnest,

has reacted upon the teaching of foil-play by the best masters of the

present day--a teaching which, without ceasing to be academical up to a

certain point, takes now cognisance of the necessity of defending every

part of the body as sedulously as the target of the breast, and,

moreover, of warding the many possibilities of chance hits in

_contretemps_.

In both plays--in the highly refined, complicated and brilliant fence of

the first-class "foil," as well as in the simpler and more cautious

operations of the practised duellist--the one golden rule remains, that

one so quaintly expressed by M. Jourdain's _maitre d'armes_ in Moliere's

comedy: "Tout le secret des armes ne consiste qu'en deux choses, a

donner et a ne point recevoir."

The point most usually lost sight of by sanguine and self-reliant

scorners of conventionalities is that, although with the sword it may be

comparatively easy at any time "to give," it is by no means easy to make

sure of "giving without receiving." The mutual simultaneous hit--the

_coup-double_--is, in fact, the dread pitfall of all sword-play. For

this reason, in courteous bouts, a hit has no real value, not only when

it is actually cancelled by a counter, but when it is delivered in such

a way as to admit of a counter. In short, the experience of ages and the

careful consideration of probabilities have given birth to the various

make-believes and restrictions that go to make sound foil-play. These

restrictions are destined to act in the same direction as the warning

presence of a sharp point instead of a button; and thus, as far as

possible, to prevent those mutual hits--the _contretemps_ of the old

masters--which mar the greater number of assaults. The proper observance

of those conventions, other things being equal, distinguishes the good

from the indifferent swordsman, the man who uses his head from him who

rushes blindly where angels fear to tread. So much for foil-play.

In modern sword-play, on the other hand, is seen the usual tendency of

arts which have reached their climax of complication to return to

comparative simplicity. With reference to actual duelling, it is a

recognized thing that it would be the height of folly to attempt, sword

in hand, the complex attacks, the full-length lunges, the neat but

somewhat weak parries of the foil; so much so, that many have been led

to assert that, for its ultimate practical purpose (which logically is

that of duelling), the refined art of the foil, requiring so many years

of assiduous and methodical work, is next to useless. It is alleged, as

a proof, that many successful duellists have happened to be indifferent

performers on the fencing floor. Some even maintain that a few weeks'

special work in that restricted--very restricted--play, which alone can

be considered safe on the field of honour, will produce as good a

practical swordsman as any who have walked the schools for years.

Nothing can be further from the truth: were it but on the ground that

the greater includes the less; that the foil-fencer of standing who can

perform with ease and accuracy all the intricate movements of the

assault, who has trained his hand and eye to the lightning speed of the

well-handled foil, must logically prove more than a match for the more

purely practical but less trained devotees of the _epee de combat_. The

only difference for him in the two plays is that the latter is

incomparably slower in action, simpler; that it demands above all things

patience and caution; and especially that, instead of protecting his

breast only, the _epee_ fencer must beware of the wily attack, or the

chance hit, at _every_ part of his body, especially at his sword-hand.

The difference which still exists between the French and Italian schools

of small-sword fence--by no means so wide, in point of theory, as

popularly supposed--is mainly due to the dissimilarity of the weapons

favoured by the two countries. The quillons, which are retained to this

day in the Italian _fioretto_ and _spada_, conduce to a freer use of

wrist-play and a straight arm. The French, on the other hand, having

long ago adopted the plain grip both for _fleuret_ and _epee_, have come

to rely more upon finger-play and a semi-bent arm. Both schools have

long laid claims to an overwhelming superiority, on theoretical ground,

over their rivals--claims which were unwarrantable. Indeed, of later

days, especially since the evolution of a special "duelling play," the

two schools show a decided tendency, notwithstanding the difference in

the grip of the weapons, towards a mutual assimilation of principles.

As a duelling weapon--as one, that is to say, the practice of which

under the restrictive influence of conventions could become elaborated

into an art--the sabre (see SABRE-FENCING) returned to favour in some

countries at the close of the Napoleonic wars. Considered from the

historical point of view, the modern sabre, albeit now a very distant

cousin of the small-sword, is as direct a descendant as the latter

itself of the old cut-and-thrust rapier. It is curious, therefore, to

note that, just as the practice of the "small" or thrusting sword gave

rise to two rival schools, the French and the Italian, that of the sabre

or cutting sword (it can hardly be called the broadsword, the blade, for

the purposes of duelling play, having been reduced to slenderest

proportions) became split up into two main systems, Italian and German.

And further it is remarkable that the leading characteristics of the

latter should still be, in a manner, "severity" and steadfastness; and

that the former, the Italian, should rely, as of yore, specially upon

agility and insidious cunning.

Concerning the latter-day evolution of that special and still more

conventional system of fence, the _Schlager_ or _Hau-rapier_ play

favoured by the German student, from that of the ancestral rapier, the

curious will find a critical account in an article entitled

"_Schlagerei_" which appeared in the _Saturday Review_, 5th of December

1885.

See also the separate articles on CANE-FENCING (_canne_);

EPEE-DE-COMBAT; FOIL-FENCING; SABRE-FENCING; and SINGLE-STICK.

AUTHORITIES.--The bibliography of fencing is a copious subject; but it

has been very completely dealt with in the following works:

_Bibliotheca dimicatoria_, in the "Fencing, Boxing and Wrestling"

volume of the Badminton library (Longmans); _A Bibliography of Fencing

and Duelling_, by Carl A. Thimm (John Lane). For French works more

especially: _La Bibliographie de l'escrime_, by Vigeant (Paris,

Motteroz); and _Ma Collection d'escrime_, by the same (Paris,

Quantin). For Italian books: _Bibliografia generale della scherma_, by

Gelli (Firenza, Niccolai). For Spain and Portugal: _Libros de esgrima

espanoles y portugueses_, by Leguina (Madrid, Los Huerfanos). Both M.

Vigeant's and Cav. Gelli's works deal with the subject generally; but

their entries are only critical, or even tolerably accurate, in the

case of books belonging to their own countries. Concerning the history

of the art, Egerton Castle's _Schools and Masters of Fence_ (George

Bell); Hutton's _The Sword and the Centuries_ (Grant Richards); and

Letainturier-Fradin's _Les Joueurs d'epee a travers les ages_ (Paris,

Flammarion) cover the ground, technically and ethically. As typical

exponents of the French and Italian schools respectively may be

mentioned here: _La Theorie de l'escrime_, by Prevost (Paris, de

Brunhof) (this is the work which was adopted in the Badminton volume

on Fencing), and _Trattato teorico-pratico della scherma_, by Parise

(Rome, Voghera). (E. Ca.)

FENDER, a metal guard or defence (whence the name) for a fire-place.

When the open hearth with its logs burning upon dogs or andirons was

replaced by the closed grate, the fender was devised as a finish to the

smaller fire-places, and as a safeguard against the dropping of cinders

upon the wooden floor, which was now much nearer to the fire. Fenders

are usually of steel, brass or iron, solid or pierced. Those made of

brass in the latter part of the 18th and the earlier part of the 19th

centuries are by far the most elegant and artistic. They usually had

three claw feet, and the pierced varieties were often cut into

arabesques or conventional patterns. The lyre and other motives of the

Empire style were much used during the prevalence of that fashion. The

modern fender is much lower and is often little more than a kerb; it is

now not infrequently of stone or marble, fixed to the floor.

FENELON, BERTRAND DE SALIGNAC, seigneur de la Mothe (1523-1589), French

diplomatist, came of an old family of Perigord. After serving in the

army he was sent ambassador to England in 1568. At the request of

Charles IX. he endeavoured to excuse to Elizabeth the massacre of St.

Bartholomew as a necessity caused by a plot which had been laid against

the life of the king of France. For some time after the death of Charles

IX. Fenelon was continued in his office, but he was recalled in 1575

when Catherine de' Medici wished to bring about a marriage between

Elizabeth and the duke of Alencon, and thought that another ambassador

would have a better chance of success in the negotiation. In 1582

Fenelon was charged with a new mission to England, then to Scotland, and

returned to France in 1583. He opposed the Protestants until the end of

the reign of Henry III., but espoused the cause of Henry IV. He died in

1589. His nephew in the sixth degree was the celebrated archbishop of

Cambrai.

Fenelon is the author of a number of writings, among which those of

general importance are _Memoires touchant l'Angleterre et la Suisse,

ou Sommaire de la negociation faite en Angleterre, l'an 1571_

(containing a number of the letters of Charles and his mother,

relating to Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mary and the Bartholomew massacre),

published in the _Memoires_ of Castelnau (Paris, 1659); _Negociations

de la Mothe Fenelon et de Michel, sieur de Mauvissiere, en

Angleterre_; and _Depeches de M. de la Mothe Fenelon, Instructions au

sieur de la Mauvissiere_, both contained in the edition of Castelnau's

_Memoires_, published at Brussels in 1731. The correspondence of

Fenelon was published at Paris in 1838-1841, in 7 vols. 8vo.

See "Lettres de Catherine de' Medicis," edited by Hector de la

Ferriere (1880 seq.) in the _Collection de documents inedits sur

l'histoire de France_.

FENELON, FRANCOIS DE SALIGNAC DE LA MOTHE (1651-1715), French writer and

archbishop of Cambrai, was born at the chateau of Fenelon in Perigord on

the 6th of August 1651. His father, Pons, comte de Fenelon, was a

country gentleman of ancient lineage, large family and small estate.

Owing to his delicate health the boy's early education was carried on at

home; though he was able to spend some time at the neighbouring

university of Cahors. In 1666 he came to Paris, under charge of his

father's brother, Antoine, marquis de Fenelon, a retired soldier of

distinction, well known for his religious zeal. Three years later he

entered the famous theological college of Saint Sulpice. Here, while

imbibing the somewhat mystical piety of the house, he had an excellent

chance of carrying on his beloved classical studies; indeed, at one time

he proposed to couple sacred and profane together, and go on a

missionary journey to the Levant. "There I shall once more make the

Apostle's voice heard in the Church of Corinth. I shall stand on that

Areopagus where St. Paul preached to the sages of this world an unknown

God. But I do not scorn to descend thence to the Piraeus, where Socrates

sketched the plan of his republic. I shall mount to the double summit of

Parnassus; I shall revel in the joys of Tempe." Family opposition,

however, put an end to this attractive prospect. Fenelon remained at

Saint Sulpice till 1679, when he was made "superior" of a "New Catholic"

sisterhood in Paris--an institution devoted to the conversion of

Huguenot ladies. Of his work here nothing is known for certain.

Presumably it was successful; since in the winter of 1685, just after

the revocation of the edict of Nantes, Fenelon was put at the head of a

number of priests, and sent on a mission to the Protestants of

Saintonge, the district immediately around the famous Huguenot citadel

of La Rochelle. To Fenelon such employment was clearly uncongenial; and

if he was rather too ready to employ unsavoury methods--such as bribery

and espionage--among his proselytes, his general conduct was kindly and

statesmanlike in no slight degree. But neither in his actions nor in his

writings is there the least trace of that belief in liberty of

conscience ascribed to him by 18th-century philosophers. Tender-hearted

he might be in practice; but toleration he declares synonymous with

"cowardly indulgence and false compassion."

Meanwhile the marquis de Fenelon had introduced his nephew into the

devout section of the court, dominated by Mme de Maintenon. He became a

favourite disciple of Bossuet, and at the bishop's instance undertook to

refute certain metaphysical errors of Father Malebranche. Followed

thereon an independent philosophical _Treatise on the Existence of God_,

wherein Fenelon rewrote Descartes in the spirit of St Augustine. More

important were his _Dialogues on Eloquence_, wherein he entered an

eloquent plea for greater simplicity and naturalness in the pulpit, and

urged preachers to take the scriptural, natural style of Bossuet as

their model, rather than the coldly analytic eloquence of his great

rival, Bourdaloue. Still more important was his _Treatise on the

Education of Girls_, being the first systematic attempt ever made to

deal with that subject as a whole. Hence it was probably the most

influential of all Fenelon's books, and guided French ideas on the

question all through the 18th century. It holds a most judicious balance

between the two opposing parties of the time. On the one side were the

_precieuses_, enthusiasts for the "higher" education of their sex; on

the other were the heavy Philistines, so often portrayed by Moliere, who

thought that the less girls knew the better they were likely to be.

Fenelon sums up in favour of the cultivated house-wife; his first object

was to persuade the mothers to take charge of their girls themselves,

and fit them to become wives and mothers in their turn.

The book brought its author more than literary glory. In 1689 Fenelon

was gazetted tutor to the duke of Burgundy, eldest son of the dauphin,

and eventual heir to the crown. The character of this strange prince has

been drawn once for all by Saint-Simon. Shortly it may be said that he

was essentially a mass of contradictions--brilliant, passionate to the

point of mania, but utterly weak and unstable, capable of developing

into a saint or a monster, but quite incapable of becoming an ordinary

human being. Fenelon assailed him on the religious side, and managed to

transform him into a devotee, exceedingly affectionate, earnest and

religious, but woefully lacking in tact and common sense. In justice,

however, it should be added that his health was being steadily

undermined by a mysterious internal complaint, and that Fenelon's

tutorship came to an end on his disgrace in 1697, before the pupil was

fifteen. The abiding result of his tutorship is a code of carefully

graduated moral lessons--the _Fables_, the _Dialogues of the Dead_ (a

series of imaginary conversations between departed heroes), and finally

_Telemaque_, where the adventures of the son of Ulysses in search of a

father are made into a political novel with a purpose. Not, indeed, that

Fenelon meant his book to be the literal paper Constitution some of his

contemporaries thought it. Like other Utopias, it is an easy-going

compromise between dreams and possibilities. Its one object was to

broaden Burgundy's mind, and ever keep before his eyes the "great and

holy maxim that kings exist for the sake of their subjects, not subjects

for the sake of kings." Here and there Fenelon carries his philanthropy

to lengths curiously prophetic of the age of Rousseau--fervid

denunciation of war, belief in nature and fraternity of nations. And he

has a truly 18th-century belief in the all-efficiency of institutions.

Mentor proposes to "change the tastes and habits of the whole people,

and build up again from the very foundations." Fenelon is on firmer

ground when he leads a reaction against the "mercantile system" of

Colbert, with its crushing restrictions on trade; or when he sings the

praises of agriculture, in the hope of bringing back labour to the land,

and thereby ensuring the physical efficiency of the race. Valuable and

far-sighted as were these ideas, they fitted but ill into the scheme of

a romance. Seldom was Voltaire wider of the mark than when he called

_Telemaque_ a Greek poem in French prose. It is too _motive_, too full

of ingenious contrivances, to be really Greek. As, in Fenelon's own

opinion, the great merit of Homer was his "amiable simplicity," so the

great merit of _Telemaque_ is the art that gives to each adventure its

hidden moral, to each scene some sly reflection on Versailles. Under

stress of these preoccupations, however, organic unity of structure went

very much to the wall, and _Telemaque_ is a grievous offender against

its author's own canons of literary taste. Not that it altogether lost

thereby. There is a curious richness in this prose, so full of rhythm

and harmony, that breaks at every moment into verse, as it drags itself

along its slow and weary way, half-fainting under an overload of

epithets. And although no single feature of the book is Greek, there

hangs round it a moral fragrance only to be called forth by one who had

fulfilled the vow of his youth, and learnt to breathe, as purely as on

"the double summit of Parnassus," the very essence of the antique.

_Telemaque_ was published in 1699. Four years before, Fenelon had been

appointed archbishop of Cambrai, one of the richest benefices in France.

Very soon afterwards, however, came the great calamity of his life. In

the early days of his tutorship he had met the Quietist apostle, Mme

Guyon (q.v.), and had been much struck by some of her ideas. These he

developed along lines of his own, where Christian Neoplatonism curiously

mingles with theories of chivalry and disinterestedness, borrowed from

the _precieuses_ of his own time. His mystical principles are set out at

length in his _Maxims of the Saints_, published in 1697 (see QUIETISM).

Here he argues that the more love we have for ourselves, the less we can

spare for our Maker. Perfection lies in getting rid of self-hood

altogether--in never thinking of ourselves, or even of the relation in

which God stands to us. The saint does not love Christ as _his_

Redeemer, but only as _the_ Redeemer of the human race. Bossuet (q.v.)

attacked this position as inconsistent with Christianity. Fenelon

promptly appealed to Rome, and after two years of bitter controversy his

book was condemned by Innocent XII. in 1699. As to the merits of the

controversy opinion will always be divided. On the point of doctrine all

good judges agree that Fenelon was wrong; though many still welcome the

_obiter dictum_ of Pope Innocent, that Fenelon erred by loving God too

much, and Bossuet by loving his neighbour too little. Of late years,

however, Bossuet has found powerful defenders; and if they have not

cleared his character from reproach, they have certainly managed to

prove that Fenelon's methods of controversy were not much better than

his. One of the results of the quarrel was Fenelon's banishment from

court; for Louis XIV. had ardently taken Bossuet's side, and brought all

the batteries of French influence to bear on the pope. Immediately on

the outbreak of the controversy, Fenelon was exiled to his diocese, and

during the last eighteen years of his life he was only once allowed to

leave it.

To Cambrai, accordingly, all his energies were now directed. Even

Saint-Simon allows that his episcopal duties were perfectly performed.

Tours of inspection, repeated several times a year, brought him into

touch with every corner of his diocese. It was administered with great

strictness, and yet on broad and liberal lines. There was no

bureaucratic fussiness, no seeking after popularity; but every man,

whether great or small, was treated exactly as became his station in the

world. And Saint-Simon bears the same witness to his government of his

palace. There he lived with all the piety of a true pastor, yet with all

the dignity of a great nobleman, who was still on excellent terms with

the world. But his magnificence made no one angry, for it was kept up

chiefly for the sake of others, and was exactly proportionate to his

place. With all its luxuries and courtly ease, his house remained a true

bishop's palace, breathing the strictest discipline and restraint. And

of all this chastened dignity the archbishop was himself the

ever-present, ever-inimitable model--in all that he did the perfect

churchman, in all the high-bred noble, in all things, also, the author

of _Telemaque_.

The one great blot on this ideal existence was his persecution of the

Jansenists (see JANSENISM). His theories of life were very different

from theirs; and they had taken a strong line against his _Maxims of the

Saints_, holding that visionary theories of perfection were ill-fitted

for a world where even the holiest could scarce be saved. To suppress

them, and to gain a better market for his own ideas, he was even ready

to strike up an alliance with the Jesuits, and force on a reluctant

France the doctrine of papal infallibility. His time was much better

employed in fitting his old pupil, Burgundy, for a kingship that never

came. Louis XIV. seldom allowed them to meet, but for years they

corresponded; and nothing is more admirable than the mingled tact and

firmness with which Fenelon spoke his mind about the prince's faults.

This exchange of letters became still more frequent in 1711, when the

wretched dauphin died and left Burgundy heir-apparent to the throne.

Fenelon now wrote a series of memorable criticisms on the government of

Louis XIV., accompanied by projects of reform, not always quite so wise.

For his practical political service was to act as an alarm-bell. Much

more clearly than most men, he saw that the Bourbons were tottering to

their fall, but how to prevent that fall he did not know.

Not that any amount of knowledge would have availed. In 1712 Burgundy

died, and with him died all his tutor's hopes of reform. From this

moment his health began to fail, though he mustered strength enough to

write a remarkable _Letter to the French Academy_ in the autumn of 1714.

This is really a series of general reflections on the literary movement

of his time. As in his political theories, the critical element is much

stronger than the constructive. Fenelon was feeling his way away from

the rigid standards of Boileau to "a Sublime so simple and familiar that

all may understand it." But some of his methods were remarkably erratic;

he was anxious, for instance, to abolish verse, as unsuited to the

genius of the French. In other respects, however, he was far before his

age. The 17th century has treated literature as it treated politics and

religion; each of the three was cooped up in a water-tight compartment

by itself. Fenelon was one of the first to break down these

partition-walls, and insist on viewing all three as products of a single

spirit, seen at different angles.

A few weeks after the _Letter_ was written, Fenelon met with a

carriage-accident, and the shock proved too much for his enfeebled

frame. On the 7th of January 1715 he died at the age of 63. Ever since,

his character has been a much-discussed enigma. Bossuet can only be

thought of as the high-priest of authority and common-sense; but Fenelon

has been made by turns into a sentimentalist, a mystical saint, an

18th-century _philosophe_, an ultramontane churchman and a hysterical

hypocrite. And each of these views, except the last, contains an element

of truth. More than most men, Fenelon "wanders between two worlds--one

dead, the other powerless to be born." He came just at a time when the

characteristic ideas of the 17th century--the ideas of Louis XIV., of

Bossuet and Boileau--had lost their savour, and before another creed

could arise to take their place. Hence, like most of those who break

away from an established order, he seems by turns a revolutionist and a

reactionary. Such a man expresses his ideas much better by word of mouth

than in the cold formality of print; and Fenelon's contemporaries

thought far more highly of his conversation than his books. That

downright, gossiping German princess, the duchess of Orleans, cared

little for the _Maxims_; but she was enraptured by their author, and his

"ugly face, all skin and bone, though he laughed and talked quite

unaffectedly and easily." An observer of very different mettle, the

great lawyer d'Aguesseau, dwells on the "noble singularity, that gave

him an almost prophetic air. Yet he was neither passionate nor

masterful. Though in reality he governed others, it was always by

seeming to give way; and he reigned in society as much by the attraction

of his manners as by the superior virtue of his parts. Under his hand

the most trifling subjects gained a new importance; yet he treated the

gravest with a touch so light that he seemed to have invented the

sciences rather than learnt them, for he was always a creator, always

original, and himself was imitable of none." Still better is

Saint-Simon's portrait of Fenelon as he appeared about the time of his

appointment to Cambrai--tall, thin, well-built, exceedingly pale, with a

great nose, eyes from which fire and genius poured in torrents, a face

curious and unlike any other, yet so striking and attractive that, once

seen, it could not be forgotten. There were to be found the most

contradictory qualities in perfect agreement with each other--gravity

and courtliness, earnestness and gaiety, the man of learning, the noble

and the bishop. But all centred in an air of high-bred dignity, of

graceful, polished seemliness and wit--it cost an effort to turn away

one's eyes.

AUTHORITIES.--The best complete edition of Fenelon was brought out by

the abbe Gosselin of Saint Sulpice (10 vols., Paris, 1851). Gosselin

also edited the _Histoire de Fenelon_, by Cardinal Bausset (4 vols.,

Paris, 1850). Modern authorities are _Fenelon a Cambrai_ (Paris,

1885), by Emmanuel de Broglie; _Fenelon_, by Paul Janet (Paris, 1892);

_Bossuet et Fenelon_, by L. Crousle (2 vols., Paris, 1894); J.

Lemaitre, _Fenelon_ (1910). In English there are: _Fenelon, his

Friends and Enemies_, by E.K. Sanders (1901); and _Francois de

Fenelon_, by Lord St Cyres (1906); see also the _Quarterly Review_ for

January 1902, and M. Masson, _Fenelon et Madame Guyon_ (1907).

(St. C.)

FENESTELLA, Roman historian and encyclopaedic writer, flourished in the

reign of Tiberius. If the notice in Jerome be correct, he lived from 52

B.C. to A.D. 19 (according to others 35 B.C.-A.D. 36). Taking Varro for

his model, Fenestella was one of the chief representatives of the new

style of historical writing which, in the place of the brilliant

descriptive pictures of Livy, discussed curious and out-of-the-way

incidents and customs of political and social life, including literary

history. He was the author of an _Annales_, probably from the earliest

times down to his own days. The fragments indicate the great variety of

subjects discussed: the origin of the appeal to the people

(_provocatio_); the use of elephants in the circus games; the wearing of

gold rings; the introduction of the olive tree; the material for making

the toga; the cultivation of the soil; certain details as to the lives

of Cicero and Terence. The work was very much used (mention is made of

an abridged edition) by Pliny the elder, Asconius Pedianus (the

commentator on Cicero), Nonius, and the philologists.

Fragments in H. Peter, _Historicorum Romanorum fragmenta_ (1883); see

also monographs by L. Mercklin (1844) and J. Poeth (1849); M. Schanz,

_Geschichte der rom. Litt._ ed. 2 (1901); Teuffel, _Hist. of Roman

Literature_, p. 259. A work published under the name of L. Fenestella

(_De magistratibus et sacerdotiis Romanorum_, 1510) is really by A.D.

Fiocchi, canon and papal secretary, and was subsequently published as

by him (under the latinized form of his name, Floccus), edited by

Aegidius Witsius (1561).

FENESTRATION (from O. Fr. _fenestre_, modern _fenetre_, Lat. _fenestra_,

a window, connected with Gr. [Greek: phainein], to show), an

architectural term applied to the arrangement of windows on the front of

a building, more especially when, in the absence of columns or pilasters

separating them, they constitute its chief architectural embellishment.

The term "fenestral" is given to a frame or "chassis" on which oiled

paper or thin cloth was strained to keep out wind and rain when the

windows were not glazed.

FENIANS, or FENIAN BROTHERHOOD, the name of a modern Irish-American

revolutionary secret society, founded in America by John O'Mahony

(1816-1877) in 1858. The name was derived from an anglicized version of

_fiann_, _feinne_, the legendary band of warriors in Ireland led by the

hero Find Mac Cumaill (see FINN MAC COOL; and CELT: _Celtic Literature:

Irish_); and it was given to his organization of conspirators by

O'Mahony, who was a Celtic scholar and had translated Keating's _History

of Ireland_ in 1857. After the collapse of William Smith O'Brien's

attempted rising in 1848, O'Mahony, who was concerned in it, escaped

abroad, and since 1852 had been living in New York. James Stephens,

another of the "men of 1848," had established himself in Paris, and was

in correspondence with O'Mahony and other disaffected Irishmen at home

and abroad. A club called the Phoenix National and Literary Society,

with Jeremiah Donovan (afterwards known as O'Donovan Rossa) among its

more prominent members, had recently been formed at Skibbereen; and

under the influence of Stephens, who visited it in May 1858, it became

the centre of preparations for armed rebellion. About the same time

O'Mahony in the United States established the "Fenian Brotherhood,"

whose members bound themselves by an oath of "allegiance to the Irish

Republic, now virtually established," and swore to take up arms when

called upon and to yield implicit obedience to the commands of their

superior officers. The object of Stephens, O'Mahony and other leaders of

the movement was to form a great league of Irishmen in all parts of the

world against British rule in Ireland. The organization was modelled on

that of the French Jacobins at the Revolution; there was a "Committee of

Public Safety" in Paris, with a number of subsidiary committees, and

affiliated clubs; its operations were conducted secretly by unknown and

irresponsible leaders; and it had ramifications in every part of the

world, the "Fenians," as they soon came to be generally called, being

found in Australia, South America, Canada, and above all in the United

States, as well as in the large centres of population in Great Britain

such as London, Manchester and Glasgow. It is, however, noteworthy that

Fenianism never gained much hold on the tenant-farmers or agricultural

labourers in Ireland, although the scurrilous press by which it was

supported preached a savage vendetta against the landowners, who were to

be shot down "as we shoot robbers and rats."[1] The movement was

denounced by the priests of the Catholic Church.

It was, however, some few years after the foundation of the Fenian

Brotherhood before it made much headway, or at all events before much

was heard of it outside the organization itself, though it is probable

that large numbers of recruits had enrolled themselves in its "circles."

The Phoenix Club conspiracy in Kerry was easily crushed by the

government, who had accurate knowledge from an informer of what was

going on. Some twenty ringleaders were put on trial, including Donovan,

and when they pleaded guilty were, with a single exception, treated with

conspicuous leniency. But after a convention held at Chicago under

O'Mahony's presidency in November 1863 the movement began to show signs

of life. About the same time the _Irish People_, a revolutionary journal

of extreme violence, was started in Dublin by Stephens, and for two

years was allowed without molestation by the government to advocate

armed rebellion, and to appeal for aid to Irishmen who had had military

training in the American Civil War. At the close of that war in 1865

numbers of Irish who had borne arms flocked to Ireland, and the plans

for a rising matured. The government, well served as usual by informers,

now took action. In September 1865 the _Irish People_ was suppressed,

and several of the more prominent Fenians were sentenced to terms of

penal servitude; Stephens, through the connivance of a prison warder,

escaped to France. The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended in the beginning

of 1866, and a considerable number of persons were arrested. Stephens

issued a bombastic proclamation in America announcing an imminent

general rising in Ireland; but he was himself soon afterwards deposed by

his confederates, among whom dissension had broken out. A few

Irish-American officers, who landed at Cork in the expectation of

commanding an army against England, were locked up in gaol; some petty

disturbances in Limerick and Kerry were easily suppressed by the police.

In the United States, however, the Fenian Brotherhood, now under the

presidency of W.R. Roberts, continued plotting. They raised money by the

issue of bonds in the name of the "Irish Republic," which were bought by

the credulous in the expectation of their being honoured when Ireland

should be "a nation once again." A large quantity of arms was purchased,

and preparations were openly made for a raid into Canada, which the

United States government took no steps to prevent. It was indeed

believed that President Andrew Johnson was not indisposed to turn the

movement to account in the settlement of the Alabama claims. The Fenian

"secretary for war" was General T.W. Sweeny (1820-1892), who temporarily

(Jan. 1865-Nov. 1866) was struck off the American army list. The command

of the expedition was entrusted to John O'Neill, who crossed the Niagara

river at the head of some 800 men on the 1st of June 1866, and captured

Fort Erie. But large numbers of his men deserted, and at Ridgeway the

Fenians were routed by a battalion of Canadian volunteers. On the 3rd of

June the remnant surrendered to the American warship "Michigan"; and the

tardy issue of President Johnson's proclamation enforcing the laws of

neutrality brought the raid to an ignominious end; the prisoners were

released, and the arms taken from the raiders were, according to Henri

Le Caron, "returned to the Fenian organization, only to be used for the

same purpose some four years later." In December 1867, John O'Neill

became president of the Brotherhood in America, which in the following

year held a great convention in Philadelphia attended by over 400

properly accredited delegates, while 6000 Fenian soldiers, armed and in

uniform, paraded the streets. At this convention a second invasion of

Canada was determined upon; while the news of the Clerkenwell explosion

in London (see below) was a strong incentive to a vigorous policy. Le

Caron (q.v.), who, while acting as a secret agent of the English

government, held the position of "inspector-general of the Irish

Republican Army," asserts that he "distributed fifteen thousand stands

of arms and almost three million rounds of ammunition in the care of

the many trusted men stationed between Ogdensburg and St Albans," in

preparation for the intended raid. It took place in April 1870, and

proved a failure not less rapid or complete than the attempt of 1866.

The Fenians under O'Neill's command crossed the Canadian frontier near

Franklin, Vt., but were dispersed by a single volley from Canadian

volunteers; while O'Neill himself was promptly arrested by the United

States authorities acting under the orders of President Grant.

Meantime in Ireland, after the suppression of the _Irish People_,

disaffection had continued to smoulder, and during the latter part of

1866 Stephens endeavoured to raise funds in America for a fresh rising

planned for the following year. A bold move on the part of the Fenian

"circles" in Lancashire had been concerted in co-operation with the

movement in Ireland. An attack was to be made on Chester, the arms

stored in the castle were to be seized, the telegraph wires cut, the

rolling stock on the railway to be appropriated for transport to

Holyhead, where shipping was to be seized and a descent made on Dublin

before the authorities should have time to interfere. This scheme was

frustrated by information given to the government by the informer John

Joseph Corydon, one of Stephens's most trusted agents. Some

insignificant outbreaks in the south and west of Ireland brought "the

rebellion of 1867" to an ignominious close. Most of the ringleaders were

arrested, but although some of them were sentenced to death none was

executed. On the 11th of September 1867, Colonel Thomas J. Kelly,

"deputy central organizer of the Irish Republic," one of the most

dangerous of the Fenian conspirators, was arrested in Manchester,

whither he had gone from Dublin to attend a council of the English

"centres," together with a companion, Captain Deasy. A plot to effect

the rescue of these prisoners was hatched by Edward O'Meaher Condon with

other Manchester Fenians; and on the 18th of September, while Kelly and

Deasy were being conveyed through the city from the court-house, the

prison van was attacked by Fenians armed with revolvers, and in the

scuffle police-sergeant Brett, who was seated inside the van, was shot

dead. Condon, Allen, Larkin, Maguire and O'Brien, who had taken a

prominent part in the rescue, were arrested. All five were sentenced to

death; but Condon, who was an American citizen, was respited at the

request of the United States government, his sentence being commuted to

penal servitude for life, and Maguire was granted a pardon. Allen,

Larkin, and O'Brien were hanged on the 23rd of November for the murder

of Brett. Attempts were made at the time, and have since been repeated,

to show that these men were unjustly sentenced, the contention of their

sympathizers being, first, that as "political offenders" they should not

have been treated as ordinary murderers; and, secondly, that as they had

no deliberate intention to kill the police-sergeant, the shot that

caused his death having been fired for the purpose of breaking open the

lock of the van, the crime was at worst that of manslaughter. But even

if these pleas rest on a correct statement of the facts they have no

legal validity, and they afford no warrant for the title of the

"Manchester martyrs" by which these criminals are remembered among the

more extreme nationalists in Ireland and America. Kelly and Deasy

escaped to the United States, where the former obtained employment in

the New York custom-house.

In the same month, November 1867, one Richard Burke, who had been

employed by the Fenians to purchase arms in Birmingham, was arrested and

lodged in Clerkenwell prison in London. While he was awaiting trial a

wall of the prison was blown down by gunpowder, the explosion causing

the death of twelve persons, and the maiming of some hundred and twenty

others. This outrage, for which Michael Barrett suffered the death

penalty, powerfully influenced W.E. Gladstone in deciding that the

Protestant Church of Ireland should be disestablished as a concession to

Irish disaffection. In 1870, Michael Davitt (q.v.) was sentenced to

fifteen years' penal servitude for participation in the Fenian

conspiracy; and before he was released on ticket of leave the name

Fenian had become practically obsolete, though the "Irish Republican

Brotherhood" and other organizations in Ireland and abroad carried on

the same tradition and pursued the same policy in later years. In 1879,

John Devoy, a member of the Fenian Brotherhood, promoted a "new

departure" in America, by which the "physical force party" allied itself

with the "constitutional movement" under the leadership of C.S. Parnell

(q.v.); and the political conspiracy of the Fenians was combined with

the agrarian revolution inaugurated by the Land League.

See William O'Connor Morris, _Ireland from 1798 to 1898_ (London,

1898); _Two Centuries of Irish History, 1601-1870_, edited by R. Barry

O'Brien (London, 1907); Henri Le Caron, _Twenty-five Years in the

Secret Service_ (London, 1892); Patrick J.P. Tynan, _The Irish

National Invincibles and their Times_ (London, 1896); Justin M'Carthy,

_A History of our own Times_ (4 vols., London, 1880). (R. J. M.)