Chapter 18

(J. Pa; W. P. P.)

FEATHERSTONE,an urban district in the Osgoldcross parliamentary division of the West Riding of Yorkshire, England, 6 m. E. of Wakefield on the Lancashire & Yorkshire railway. Pop. (1901) 12,093. The industrial population is employed in large collieries in the vicinity; and here, on the 7th of September 1893, serious riots during a strike resulted in the destruction of some of the colliery works belonging to Lord Masham, and were not quelled without military intervention and some bloodshed.

FEATLEY(orFairclough)DANIEL(1582-1645), English divine, was born at Charlton, Oxfordshire, on the 15th of March 1582. He was a scholar of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and probationer fellow in 1602, after which he went to France as chaplain to the English ambassador. For some years he was domestic chaplain to George Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, and held also the rectories of Lambeth (1619), Allhallows, Bread Street (c.1622), and Acton (1627), this last after leaving the archbishop’s service in 1625. His varied activities included a “scholastick duel” with James I. in 1625, and the publication of (1) the report of a conference with some Jesuits in 1624, (2) a devotional manual entitledAncilla Pietatis(1626), (3)Mystica Clavis, a Key opening divers Difficult Texts of Scripture in 70 Sermons(1636). He was appointed provost of Chelsea College in 1630, and in 1641 was one of the sub-committee “to settle religion.” In the course of this work he had a disputation with four Baptists at Southwark which he commemorated in his bookΚαταβαπτισταὶ καταπτυστοί,The Dippers dipt or the Anabaptists duckt and plunged over head and ears(1645). He sat in the Westminster Assembly 1643, and was the last of the Episcopal members to remain. For revealing its proceedings he was expelled and imprisoned. He died at Chelsea on the 17th of April 1645.

FEBRONIANISM,the name given to a powerful movement within the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, in the latter part of the 18th century, directed towards the “nationalizing” of Catholicism, the restriction of the monarchical power usurped by the papacy at the expense of the episcopate, and the reunion of the dissident churches with Catholic Christendom. It was thus, in its main tendencies, the equivalent of what in France is known as Gallicanism (q.v.). The name is derived from the pseudonym of “Justinus Febronius” adopted by Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim (q.v.), coadjutor bishop of Treves (Trier), in publishing his workDe statu ecclesiae et legitima potestate Romani pontificis. This book, which roused a vast amount of excitement and controversy at the time, exercised an immense influence on opinion within the Roman Catholic Church, and the principles it proclaimed were put into practice by the rulers of that Church in various countries during the latter part of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century.

The main propositions defended by “Febronius” were as follows. The constitution of the Church is not, by Christ’s institution, monarchical, and the pope, though entitled to a certain primacy, is subordinate to the universal Church. Though as the “centre of unity” he may be regarded as the guardian and champion of the ecclesiastical law, and though he mayproposelaws, and send legates on the affairs of his primacy, his sovereignty (principatus) over the Church is not one of jurisdiction, but of order and collaboration (ordinis et consociationis). The Roman (ultramontane) doctrine of papal infallibility is not accepted “by the other Catholic Churches” and, moreover, “has no practical utility.” The Church is based on the one episcopacy common to all bishops, the pope being onlyprimus inter pares. It follows that the pope is subject to general councils, in which the bishops are his colleagues (conjudices), not merely his consultors; nor has he the exclusive right to summon such councils. The decrees of general councils need not be confirmed by the pope nor can they be altered by him; on the other hand, appeal may be made from papal decisions to a general council. As for the rights of the popes in such matters as appeals, reservations, the confirmation, translation and deposition of bishops, these belong properly to the bishops in provincial synods, and were usurped by the papacy gradually as the result of a variety of causes, notably of the False Decretals. For the health of the Church it is therefore necessary to restore matters to their condition before the False Decretals, and to give to the episcopate its due authority. The main obstacle to this is not the pope himself, but the Curia, and this must be fought by all possible means, especially by thorough popular education (primum adversus abusum ecclesiasticae potestatis remedium), and by the assembling of national and provincial synods, the neglect of which is the main cause of the Church’s woes. If the pope will not move in the matter, the princes, and notably the emperor, must act in co-operation with the bishops, summon national councils even against the pope’s will, defy his excommunication, and in the last resort refuse obedience in those matters over which the papacy has usurped jurisdiction.

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

Whether this manifesto would have led to a reconstitution of the Roman Catholic Church on permanently Febronian lines must for ever remain doubtful. The French Revolution intervened; the German Church went down in the storm: and in1803 the secularizations carried out by order of the First Consul put an end to the temporal ambitions of its prelates. Febronianism indeed, survived. Karl Theodor von Dalberg, prince primate of the Confederation of the Rhine, upheld its principles throughout the Napoleonic epoch and hoped to establish them in the new Germany to be created by the congress of Vienna. He sent to this assembly, as representative of the German Church, Bishop von Wessenberg, who in his diocese of Constance had not hesitated to apply Febronian principles in reforming, on his own authority, the services and discipline of the Church. But the times were not favourable for such experiments. The tide of reaction after the Revolutionary turmoil was setting strongly in the direction of traditional authority, in religion as in politics; and that ultramontane movement which, before the century was ended, was to dominate the Church, was already showing signs of vigorous life. Moreover, the great national German Church of which Dalberg had a vision—with himself as primate—did not appeal to the German princes, tenacious of their newly acquired status as European powers. One by one these entered into concordats with Rome, and Febronianism from an aggressive policy subsided into a speculative opinion. As such it survived strongly, especially in the universities (Bonn especially had been, from its foundation in 1774, very Febronian), and it reasserted itself vigorously in the attitude of many of the most learned German prelates and professors towards the question of the definition of the dogma of papal infallibility in 1870. It was, in fact, against the Febronian position that the decrees of the Vatican Council were deliberately directed, and their promulgation marked the triumph of the ultramontane view (seeVatican Council,Ultramontanism,Papacy). In Germany, indeed, the struggle against the papal monarchy was carried on for a while by the governments on the so-calledKulturkampf, the Old Catholics representing militant Febronianism. The latter, however, since Bismarck “went to Canossa,” have sunk into a respectable but comparatively obscure sect, and Febronianism, though it still has some hold on opinion within the Church in the chapters and universities of the Rhine provinces, is practically extinct in Germany. Its revival under the guise of so-called Modernism drew from Pope Pius X. in 1908 the scathing condemnation embodied in the encyclicalPascendi gregis.

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

(W. A. P.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(H. St.)

FECHTER, CHARLES ALBERT(1824-1879), Anglo-French actor, was born, probably in London, on the 23rd of October 1824, of French parents, although his mother was of Piedmontese and his father of German extraction. The boy would probably have devoted himself to a sculptor’s life but for the accident of a striking success made in some private theatricals. The result was an engagement in 1841 to play in a travelling company that was going to Italy. The tour was a failure, and the company broke up; whereupon Fechter returned home and worked assiduously at sculpture. At the same time he attended classes at the Conservatoire with the view of gaining admission to the Comédie Française. Late in 1844 he won the grand medal of the Académie des Beaux-Arts with a piece of sculpture, and was admitted to make his debut at the Comédie Française as Seide in Voltaire’sMahometand Valère in Molière’sTartuffe. He acquitted himself with credit; but, tired of the small parts he found himself condemned to play, returned again to his sculptor’s studio in 1846. In that year he accepted an engagement to play with a French company in Berlin, where he made his first decisive success as an actor. On his return to Paris in the following year he married the actress Eléonore Rabut (d. 1895). Previously he had appeared for some months in London, in a season of French classical plays given at the St James’s theatre. In Paris for the next ten years he fulfilled a series of successful engagements at various theatres, his chief triumph being his creation at the Vaudeville on the 2nd of February 1852 of the part of Armand Duval inLa Dame aux camélias. For nearly two years (1857-1858) Fechter was manager of the Odéon, where he producedTartuffeand other classical plays. Having received tempting offers to act in English at the Princess’s theatre, London, he made a diligent study of the language, and appeared there on the 27th of October 1860 in an English version of Victor Hugo’s Ruy Blas. This was followed byThe Corsican BrothersandDon César de Bazan; and on the 20th of March 1861 he first attemptedHamlet. The result was an extraordinary triumph, the play running for 115 nights. This was followed byOthello, in which he played alternately the Moor and Iago. In 1863 he became lessee of the Lyceum theatre, which he opened withThe Duke’s Motto; this was followed byThe King’s Butterfly,The Mountebank(in which his son Paul, a boy of seven, appeared),The Roadside Inn,The Master of Ravenswood,The Corsican Brothers(in the original French version, in which he had created the parts of Louis and Fabian dei Franchi) andThe Lady of Lyons. After this he appeared at the Adelphi (1868) as Obenreizer inNo Thoroughfare, by Charles Dickens and Wilkie Collins, as Edmond Dantes inMonte Cristo, and as Count de Leyrac inBlack and White, a play in which the actor himself collaborated with Wilkie Collins. In 1870 he visited the United States, where (with the exception of a visit to London in 1872) he remained till his death. His first appearance in New York was at Niblo’s Garden in the title rôle ofRuy Blas. He played in the United States between 1870 and 1876 in most of the parts in which he had won his chief triumphs in England, making at various times attempts at management, rarely successful, owing to his ungovernable temper. The last three years of his life were spent in seclusion on a farm which he had bought at Rockland Centre, near Quakertown, Pennsylvania, where he died on the 5th of August 1879. A bust of the actor by himself is in the Garrick Club, London.

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

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

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

(E. Tn.)

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

Accounts of the explorations and discoveries of Fedchenko have been published by the Russian government,—hisJourneys in Turkestanin 1874,In the Khanat of Khokandin 1875, andBotanical Discoveriesin 1876. See Petermann’sMittheilungen(1872-1874).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to Index Next