The affinity between the hydrocarbon and oxygen at a high temperature is so great that, when the supply of oxygen is sufficient to carry the oxidation as far as the second stage, practically no decomposition of the monohydroxy molecule formed in the first stage occurs. This is especially the case with unsaturated hydrocarbons.
As a crucial test decisive against the hypothesis of preferential carbon oxidation, Bone cites the experiment of firing a mixture of equal volumes of ethane and oxygen sealed up in a glass bulb. In such a case a lurid flame fills the vessel, accompanied by a black cloud of carbon particles and considerable condensation of water. About 10% of methane is also found. It is impossible within the limits of this article to give a more extended account of these later researches on the oxidation of hydrocarbons. They make it evident that the relative oxidizability of carbon and hydrogen cannot form the basis of a general theory of the combustion of hydrocarbons, and that both the a priori view that hydrogen is the more oxidizable element, and the inference from the behaviour of ethylene when exploded with its own volume of oxygen, viz. that carbon is the more oxidizable element in hydrocarbons, are not in harmony with experimental facts.
The view that the bright luminosity of hydrocarbon flames is due “to the deposition of solid charcoal” was first put forward by Sir Humphry Davy in 1816. In explaining the origin of this charcoal, Davy used somewhat ambiguous language, stating that it “might be owing to a decomposition of a part of the gas towards the interior of the flame where the air was in smallest quantity.” This statement was interpreted commonly as implying that the charcoal became free by the preferential combustion of the hydrogen, and such an interpretation was given explicitly by Faraday. Whatever may have been Davy’s view with regard to this part of the theory, his conclusion that finely divided carbon was the cause of luminosity in hydrocarbon flames was not questioned until 1867, when E. Frankland, in connexion with researches already alluded to, maintained that the luminosity of such flames was not due in any important degree to solid particles of carbon, but to the incandescence of dense hydrocarbon vapours. Among the arguments adduced against this view the most decisive is furnished by the optical test first used by J.L. Soret. If the image of the sun be focussed upon the glowing part of a hydrocarbon flame the scattered light is found to be polarized, and it is indisputable that the luminous region is pervaded by a cloud of finely divided solid matter. The quantity of this solid (estimated by H.H.C. Bunte to be 0.1 milligram in a coal-gas flame burning 5 cub. ft. per hour) is sufficient to account for the luminosity, so that Davy’s original view may be said to be now universally accepted.
The remaining question with regard to the luminosity of a hydrocarbon flame relates to the manner in which the carbon is set free. The fact-that hydrocarbons when strongly heated in absence of air will deposit carbon has long been known and is daily evident in the operation of coal-gas making, when gas carbon accumulates as a hard deposit in the highly-heated crown of the retorts. There is no difficulty in supposing therefore that the carbon in a flame is separated from the hydrocarbon within it by the purely thermal action of the blue burning walls of the flame. Many experiments might be adduced to confirm this view. It is sufficient to name two. If a ring of metal wire be so disposed in a small flame as to make a girdle within the blue walls towards the base, the withdrawal of heat is rapid enough to prevent the maintenance of a temperature sufficient to cause a separation of carbon, and the bright luminosity disappears. Again, if the flame of a Bunsen burner be fed through the air-ports not with air but with some neutral gas such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide or steam, the dilution of the burning gas and the hydrocarbon within it becomes so great that the temperature of separation is not attained, no carbon is separated and the flame consists of a single blue shell.
Whilst it is thus easy to understand generally why carbon becomes separated as a solid within a flame, it is not easy to trace the processes by which the carbon becomes separated in the case of a given hydrocarbon. According to M.P.E. Berthelot, who made prolonged and elaborate researches on thepyrogenetic relationships of hydrocarbons, these compounds only liberate carbon by a process of the continual coalescence of hydrocarbon molecules with the elimination of hydrogen, until there is left the limiting solid hydrocarbon hardly distinguishable from carbon itself and constituting the glowing soot of flames.
V.B. Lewes, on the other hand, basing his conclusions on a study of the thermal decomposition of hydrocarbons, on temperature measurements of flames and analysis of their gases, has more recently developed a theory of flame luminosity in which the formation and sudden exothermic decomposition of acetylene are regarded as the essential incidents productive of carbon separation and luminosity. Smithells has disputed the evidence on which this theory is based and it appears to have gained no adherence from those who have worked in the same field; but as it has not been formally disavowed by the author and has found its way into some text-books, it is mentioned here.
W.A. Bone and H.F. Coward (Journ. Chem. Soc., 1908) published the results of a very careful study of the decomposition of hydrocarbons when heated in a stationary condition and when continually circulated through hot vessels. Their results disclose once more the great difficulty of tracing the processes of decomposition and of arriving at a generalization of wide applicability, but they appear to be conclusive against the views both of Berthelot and of Lewes.
They do not think that the decomposition of hydrocarbons can be adequately represented by ordinary chemical equations owing to the complexity of the changes which really take place. Methane, which is the most stable of the hydrocarbons, appears to be resolved at high temperatures directly into carbon and hydrogen, but the phenomenon is dependent mainly on surface action; ethane, ethylene and acetylene undergo decomposition throughout the body of the gas (loc. cit.p. 1197 et seq.).
“In the cases of ethane and ethylene it may be supposed that theprimaryeffect of high temperature is to cause an elimination of hydrogen with a simultaneous loosening or dissolution of the bond between the carbon atoms, giving rise to (in the event of dissolution) residues such as : CH2and ∶ CH. These residues, which can only have a very fugitive separate existence, may either (a) form H2C : CH2and HC ∶ CH, as the result of encounters with other similar residues, or (b) break down directly into carbon and hydrogen, or (c) be directly hydrogenized to methane in an atmosphere rich in hydrogen. These three possibilities may all be realized simultaneously in the same decomposing gas in proportions dependent on the temperature, pressure and amount of hydrogen present. The whole process may be represented by the following scheme, the dotted line indicating the tendency to dissolve a bond between the carbon atoms which becomes actually effective at higher temperatures:—“In the ease of acetylene, the main primary change may be either one of polymerization or of dissolution according to the temperature, and if the latter, it may be supposed that the molecule breaks down across the triple bond between the carbon atoms, giving rise to 2(∶ CH), and that these residues are subsequently either resolved into carbon and hydrogen or “hydrogenized” according to circumstances, thus:—“Acetylene is, moreover, distinguished by its power of polymerization at moderate temperatures so that whether it is the gas initially heated or whether it is a prominent product of the decomposition of another hydrocarbon polymerization will occur to an extent dependent on temperature.”
“In the cases of ethane and ethylene it may be supposed that theprimaryeffect of high temperature is to cause an elimination of hydrogen with a simultaneous loosening or dissolution of the bond between the carbon atoms, giving rise to (in the event of dissolution) residues such as : CH2and ∶ CH. These residues, which can only have a very fugitive separate existence, may either (a) form H2C : CH2and HC ∶ CH, as the result of encounters with other similar residues, or (b) break down directly into carbon and hydrogen, or (c) be directly hydrogenized to methane in an atmosphere rich in hydrogen. These three possibilities may all be realized simultaneously in the same decomposing gas in proportions dependent on the temperature, pressure and amount of hydrogen present. The whole process may be represented by the following scheme, the dotted line indicating the tendency to dissolve a bond between the carbon atoms which becomes actually effective at higher temperatures:—
“In the ease of acetylene, the main primary change may be either one of polymerization or of dissolution according to the temperature, and if the latter, it may be supposed that the molecule breaks down across the triple bond between the carbon atoms, giving rise to 2(∶ CH), and that these residues are subsequently either resolved into carbon and hydrogen or “hydrogenized” according to circumstances, thus:—
“Acetylene is, moreover, distinguished by its power of polymerization at moderate temperatures so that whether it is the gas initially heated or whether it is a prominent product of the decomposition of another hydrocarbon polymerization will occur to an extent dependent on temperature.”
We may describe briefly the view to which we are led as to the genesis of an ordinary luminous hydrocarbon flame:—
The gaseous hydrocarbon issues from the burner or wick, let us suppose, in a cylindrical column. This column is not sharply marked off from the air but is so penetrated by it that we must suppose a gradual transition from the pure hydrocarbon in the centre of column to the pure air on the outside. Let us take a thin transverse slice of the flame, near the lower part of the wick or close to the burner tube. At what lateral distance from the centre will combustion begin? Clearly, where enough oxygen has penetrated the column to give such partial combustion as takes place in the inner cone of a Bunsen burner. This then defines the blue region. Outside this the combustion of the carbon monoxide, hydrogen and any hydrocarbons which pass from the blue region takes place in a faintly luminous fringe. These two layers form a sheath of active combustion, surrounding and intensely heating the enclosed hydrocarbons in the middle of the column. These heated hydrocarbons rise and are heated to a higher temperature as they ascend. They are accordingly decomposed with separation of carbon in the higher parts of the flame, giving the region of bright yellow luminosity. There remains a central core in which neither is there any oxygen for combustion nor a sufficiently high temperature to cause carbon separation. This constitutes the dark interior region of the flame. We thus account for the different parts of the flame. It is to be noted, however, that the bright blue layer only surrounds the lower part of the flame, whilst the pale, faintly-luminous fringe surrounds the whole flame. The flame also is conical and not cylindrical. The foregoing explanation is therefore not quite complete. Let us suppose that the changes have gone on in the small section of the flame exactly as described and consider how the processes will differ in parts above this section. The central core of unburned gases will pass upwards and we may treat it as a new cylindrical column which will undergo changes just as the original one, leaving, however, a smaller core of unburned gases, or, in other words, each succeeding section of the flame will be of smaller diameter. This gives us the conical form of the flame. Again, the higher we ascend the flame the greater proportionally is the amount of separated carbon, for we have not only the heat of laterally outlying combustion to effect decomposition, but also that of the lower parts of the flame. The lower part of a luminous flame accordingly contains less separated carbon than the upper. Where the hydrocarbon is largely decomposed before combustion we have no longer the conditions of the Bunsen flame, and so in the upper parts of a luminous flame the bright blue part fades away. The luminous fringe would, however, be continued, for the separated hydrogen has still to burn. In this way then we may reasonably account for the existence, position and relative sizes of the four regions of an ordinary luminous flame.
(A. S.)
FLAMEL, NICOLAS(c.1330-1418), reputed French alchemist and scrivener to the university of Paris, was born in Paris or Pontoise about 1330, and died in Paris in 1418, bequeathing the bulk of his property to the church of Saint-Jacques-la-Boucherie, where he was buried. During his life he contributed freely to charitable and religious purposes from the considerable wealth he amassed either by the practice of his craft, or, as some surmise without definite proof, by fortunate speculation or money lending, or, as legend has it, by alchemy. According to a document purporting to be written by himself in 1413 (printed in Waite’sLives of the Alchemystical Philosophers, London, 1888), there fell into his hands in 1357, at the cost of two florins, a book on alchemy by Abraham the Jew, which taught in plain words the transmutation of metals. It did not, however, explain themateria prima, but merely figured or depicted it, and for more than 20 years Flamel strove in vain to find out the secret. Then, returning from a journey to Spain, he fell in with a Christian Jew, named Canches, who gave him the explanation, and after three more years’ work he succeeded in preparing themateria prima, thus being enabled in 1382 to transmute mercury into both silver and gold. But this fantastic story was disposed of by the facts, derived from parish records, set forth in Vilain’sEssai sur l’histoire de Saint-Jacques-la-Boucherie, 1758, and hisHistoire critique de Nicolas Flamel et de Pernelle sa femme, recueillie d’actes anciens qui justifient l’origine et la médiocrité de leur fortune contre les imputations des alchimistes, 1761.
A book on alchemy in the Paris Bibliothèque,Le Trésor de philosophie, professing to be written and illuminated by Flamel with hisown hand, is of very doubtful authenticity, and other treatises bearing his name, such as theSommaire philosophique de Nicolas Flamel, published in 1561 in a collection of alchemist treatises entitledTransformation métallique, are certainly spurious.
A book on alchemy in the Paris Bibliothèque,Le Trésor de philosophie, professing to be written and illuminated by Flamel with hisown hand, is of very doubtful authenticity, and other treatises bearing his name, such as theSommaire philosophique de Nicolas Flamel, published in 1561 in a collection of alchemist treatises entitledTransformation métallique, are certainly spurious.
FLAMEN(fromflare, “to blow up” the altar fire), a Roman sacrificial priest. The flamens were subject to the pontifex (q.v.) maximus, and were consecrated to the service of some particular deity. The highest in rank were theflamen Dialis,flamen Martialisandflamen Quirinalis, who were always selected from among the patricians. Their institution is generally ascribed to Numa. When the number of flamens was raised from three to fifteen, those already mentioned were entitledmajores, in contradistinction to the other twelve, who were calledminores, as connected with less important deities, and were chosen from the plebs. Towards the end of the republic the number of the lesser flamens seems to have diminished. The flamens were held to be elected for life, but they might be compelled to resign office for neglect of duty, or on the occurrence of some ill-omened event (such as the cap falling off the head) during the performance of their rites. The characteristic dress of the flamens in general was theapex, a white conical cap, thelaenaor mantle, and a laurel wreath. The official insignia of theflamen Dialis(of Jupiter), the highest of these priests, were the white cap (pileus, albogalerus), at the top of which was an olive branch and a woollen thread; thelaena, a thick woollentoga praetextawoven by his wife; the sacrificial knife; and a rod to keep the people from him when on his way to offer sacrifice. He was never allowed to appear without these emblems of office, every day being considered a holy day for him. By virtue of his office he was entitled to a seat in the senate and a curule chair. The sight of fetters being forbidden him, his toga was not allowed to be tied in a knot but was fastened by means of clasps, and the only kind of ring permitted to be worn on his finger was a broken one. If a person in fetters took refuge in his house he was immediately loosed from his bonds; and if a criminal on his way to the scene of his punishment met him and threw himself at his feet he was respited for that day. Theflamen Dialiswas not allowed to leave the city for a single night, to ride or even touch a horse (a restriction which incapacitated him for the consulship), to swear an oath, to look at an army, to touch anything unclean, or to look upon people working. His marriage, which was obliged to be performed with the ceremonies ofconfarreatio(q.v.), was dissoluble only by death, and on the death of his wife (calledflaminica Dialis) he was obliged to resign his office. Theflaminica Dialisassisted her husband at the sacrifices and other religious duties which he performed. She wore long woollen robes; a veil and a kerchief for the head, her hair being plaited up with a purple band in a conical form (tutulus); and shoes made of the leather of sacrificed animals; like her husband, she carried the sacrificial knife. The main duty of the flamens was the offering of daily sacrifices; on the 1st of October the three major flamens drove to the Capitol and sacrificed toFides Publica(the Honour of the People). Some of the municipal towns in Italy had flamens as well as Rome.
We may mention, as distinct from the above, theflamen curialis, who assisted the curio, the priest who attended to the religious affairs of each curia (q.v.); the flamens of various sacerdotal corporations, such as the Arval Brothers; theflamen Augustalis, who superintended the worship of the emperor in the provinces.
See Marquardt,Römische Staatsverwaltung, iii. (1885), pp. 326-336, 473; H. Dessau, inEphemeris epigraphica, iii. (1877); and the exhaustive article by C. Jullian in Daremberg and Saglio,Dictionnaire des antiquités.
See Marquardt,Römische Staatsverwaltung, iii. (1885), pp. 326-336, 473; H. Dessau, inEphemeris epigraphica, iii. (1877); and the exhaustive article by C. Jullian in Daremberg and Saglio,Dictionnaire des antiquités.
FLAMINGO(Port.Flamingo, Span.Flamenco), one of the tallest and most beautiful birds, conspicuous for the bright flame-coloured or scarlet patch upon its wings, and long known by its classical namePhoenicopterus, as an inhabitant of most of the countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea. Flamingos have a very wide distribution, and the sole genus comprises only a few species.Ph. roseusorantiquorum, white, with a rosy tinge above, and with scarlet wing-coverts, while the remiges are black (as in all species), ranges from the Cape Verde Islands to India and Ceylon, north as far as Lake Baikal; southwards through Africa and Madagascar, eventually asP. minor.P. ruber, entirely light vermilion, extends from Florida to Para and the Galapagos;P. chilensiss.ignipalliatus, from Peru to Patagonia, more resembles the classical species; whileP. andinus, the tallest of all, which lacks the hallux, inhabits the salt lakes of the elevated desert of Atacama, whence it extends into Chile and Argentina. Fossil remains of flamingos have been described from the Lower Miocene of France asP. croizeti, and from the Pliocene of Oregon. From the Mid-Miocene to the Oligocene of France are known several species ofPalaelodus,ElornisandAgnopterus, which have relatively shorter legs, longer toes and a complicated hypotarsus, and represent an earlier family, less specialized although not directly ancestral to the flamingos.PalaelodidaeandPhoenicopteridaetogether form the larger group Phoenicopteri. These are in many respects exactly intermediate between Anserine and stork-like birds, so much so in fact that T.H. Huxley preferred to keep them separate asAmphimorphae. However, if we carefully sift their characters, the flamingos obviously reveal themselves as much nearer related to theCiconiae, especially toPlataleaandIbis, than to the Anseres. This is the opinion arrived at by W.F.R. Weldon, M. Fuerbringer and Gadow, while others prefer the goose-like voice and the webbed toes as reliable characters. (For a detailed analysis of this instructive question see Bronn’sThierreich, Aves Syst. p. 146.)
The food of the flamingo seems to consist chiefly of small aquatic invertebrate animals which live in the mud of lagoons, for instance Mollusca, but also of Confervae and other low salt-water algae. Whilst feeding, the bird wades about, stirs up the mud with its feet, and, reversing the ordinary position of its head so as to hold the crown downwards and to look backwards, sifts the mud through its bill. This is abruptly bent down in the middle, as if broken; the upper jaw is rather flat and narrow, while the lower jaw is very roomy and furnished with numerous lamellae, which, together with the thick andlarge tongue, act like a sieve, an arrangement enhanced by the considerable movability of the upper jaw. Then the bird erects its long neck to swallow the selected food. When flying, flamingos present a striking and beautiful sight, with legs and neck stretched out straight, looking like white and rosy or scarlet crosses with black arms. Not less fascinating is a flock of these sociable birds when at rest, standing on one or both legs, with their long necks twisted or coiled upon the body in any conceivable position.
The nest is likewise peculiar. It is built of mud, a somewhat conical structure rising above the water according to the depth, of which the cone is from a few inches to 2 ft. in height. If, as often happens, the water-level sinks, the nests stand out higher. On the top is a shallow cup for the reception of the one or two eggs, which have a bluish-white shell with chalky incrustation. Of course the hen sits with her legs doubled up under her, as does any other long-legged bird. It seems strange that many ornithologists should have given credence to W. Dampier’s statement of the mode of incubation (New Voyage round the World, ed. 2, i. p. 71, London, 1699): “And when they lay their eggs, or hatch them, they stand all the while, not on the hillock, but close by it with their legs on the ground and in the water, resting themselves against the hillock, and covering the hollow nest upon it with their rumps,” &c. P.S. Pallas (Zoograph. Rosso-Asiatica, ii. p. 208) tried to improve upon this by stating that the standing bird leans upon the nest with its breast! The young, which are hatched after about four weeks’ incubation, look very different from the adult. The small bill is still quite straight and the legs are short. The whole body is covered with a thick coat of short nestling feathers, pure white in colour. Theseneossoptilesor first feathers bear no resemblance to those of the Anseriform birds, but agree in detail with those of spoonbills, the young of which the little flamingos resemble to a striking extent, but they leave the nest soon after their birth to shift for themselves like ducks and geese.
(H. F. G.)
FLAMINIA, VIA,an ancient high road of Italy, constructed by C. Flaminius during his censorship (220B.C.). It led from Rome to Ariminum, and was the most important route to the north. We hear of frequent improvements being made in it during the imperial period. Augustus, when he instituted a general restoration of the roads of Italy, which he assigned for the purpose among various senators, reserved the Flaminia for himself, and rebuilt all the bridges except the Pons Mulvius, by which it crosses the Tiber, 2 m. N. of Rome (built by M. Scaurus in 109B.C.), and an unknown Pons Minucius. Triumphal arches were erected in his honour on the former bridge and at Ariminum, the latter of which is still preserved. Vespasian constructed a new tunnel through the pass of Intercisa, modern Furlo, inA.D.77 (seeCales), and Trajan, as inscriptions show, repaired several bridges along the road.
The Via Flaminia runs due N. from Rome, considerable remains of its pavement being extant in the modern high road, passing slightly E. of the site of the Etruscan Falerii, through Ocriculi and Narnia. Here it crossed the Nar by a splendid four-arched bridge to which Martial alludes (Epigr.vii. 93, 8), one arch of which and all the piers are still standing; and went on, followed at first by the modern road to Sangemini which passes over two finely preserved ancient bridges, past Carsulae to Mevania, and thence to Forum Flaminii. Later on a more circuitous route from Narnia to Forum Flaminii was adopted, passing by Interamna, Spoletium and Fulginium (from which a branch diverged to Perusia), and increasing the distance by 12 m. The road thence went on to Nuceria (whence a branch road ran to Septempeda and thence either to Ancona or to Tolentinum and Urbs Salvia) and Helvillum, and then crossed the main ridge of the Apennines, a temple of Jupiter Apenninus standing at the summit of the pass. Thence it descended to Cales (where it turned N.E.), and through the pass of Intercisa to Forum Sempronii (Fossombrone) and Forum Fortunae, when it reached the coast of the Adriatic. Thence it ran N.W. through Pisaurum to Ariminum. The total distance from Rome was 210 m. by the older road and 222 by the newer. The road gave its name to a juridical district of Italy from the 2nd centuryA.D.onwards, the former territory of the Senones, which was at first associated with Umbria (with which indeed under Augustus it had formed the sixth region of Italy), but which after Constantine was always administered with Picenum.
(T. As.)
FLAMININUS, TITUS QUINCTIUS(c.228-174B.C.), Roman general and statesman. He began his public life as a military tribune under M. Claudius Marcellus, the conqueror of Syracuse. In 199 he was quaestor, and the next year, passing over the regular stages of aedile and praetor, he obtained the consulship.
Flamininus was one of the first and most successful of the rising school of Roman statesmen, the opponents of the narrow patriotism of which Cato was the type, the disciples of Greek culture, and the advocates of a wide imperial policy. His winning manners, his polished address, his knowledge of men, his personal fascination, and his intimate knowledge of Greek, all marked him out as the fittest representative of Rome in the East. Accordingly, the province of Macedonia, and the conduct of the war with Philip V. of Macedon, in which, after two years, Rome had as yet gained little advantage, were assigned to him. Flamininus modified both the policy and tactics of his predecessors. After an unsuccessful attempt to come to terms, he drove the Macedonians from the valley of the Aous by skilfully turning an impregnable position. Having thus practically made himself master of Macedonia, he proceeded to Greece, where Philip still had allies and supporters. The Achaean League (q.v.) at once deserted the cause of Macedonia, and Nabis, the tyrant of Sparta, entered into an alliance with Rome; Acarnania and Boeotia submitted in less than a year, and, with the exception of the great fortresses, Flamininus had the whole of Greece under his control. The demand of the Greeks for the expulsion of Macedonian garrisons from Demetrias, Chalcis and Corinth, as the only guarantee for the freedom of Greece, was refused, and negotiations were broken off. Hostilities were renewed in the spring of 197, and Flamininus took the field supported by nearly the whole of Greece. At Cynoscephalae the Macedonian phalanx and the Roman legion for the first time met in open fight, and the day decided which nation was to be master of Greece and perhaps of the world. It was a victory of superior tactics. The left wing of the Roman army was retiring in confusion before the Macedonian right led by Philip in person, when Flamininus, leaving them to their fate, boldly charged the left wing under Nicanor, which was forming on the heights. Before the left wing had time to form, Flamininus was upon them, and a massacre rather than a fight ensued. This defeat was turned into a general rout by a nameless tribune, who collected twenty companies and charged in the rear the victorious Macedonian phalanx, which in its pursuit had left the Roman right far behind. Macedonia was now at the mercy of Rome, but Flamininus contented himself with his previous demands. Philip lost all his foreign possessions, but retained his Macedonian kingdom almost entire. He was required to reduce his army, to give up all his decked ships except five, and to pay an indemnity of 1000 talents (£244,000). Ten commissioners arrived from Rome to regulate the final terms of peace, and at the Isthmian games a herald proclaimed to the assembled crowds that “the Roman people, and T. Quinctius their general, having conquered King Philip and the Macedonians, declare all the Greek states which had been subject to the king henceforward free and independent.” Flamininus’s last act before returning home was characteristic. Of the Achaeans, who vied with one another in showering upon him honours and rewards, he asked but one personal favour, the redemption of the Italian captives who had been sold as slaves in Greece during the Hannibalic War. These, to the number of 1200, were presented to him on the eve of his departure (spring, 194), and formed the chief ornament of his triumph.
In 192, on the rupture between the Romans and Antiochus III. the Great, Flamininus returned to Greece, this time as the civil representative of Rome. His personal influence and skilful diplomacy secured the wavering Achaean states, cemented the alliance with Philip, and contributed mainly to the Romanvictory at Thermopylae (191). In 183 he undertook an embassy to Prusias, king of Bithynia, to induce him to deliver up Hannibal, who forestalled his fate by taking poison. Nothing more is known of Flamininus, except that, according to Plutarch, his end was peaceful and happy.
There seems no doubt that Flamininus was actuated by a genuine love of Greece and its people. To attribute to him a Machiavellian policy, which foresaw the overthrow of Corinth fifty years later and the conversion of Achaea into a Roman province, is absurd and disingenuous. There is more force in the charge that his Hellenic sympathies prevented him from seeing the innate weakness and mutual jealousies of the Greek states of that period, whose only hope of peace and safety lay in submitting to the protectorate of the Roman republic. But if the event proved that the liberation of Greece was a political mistake, it was a noble and generous mistake, and reflects nothing but honour on the name of Flamininus, “the liberator of the Greeks.”
His life has been written by Plutarch, and in modern times by F.D. Gerlach (1871); see also Mommsen,Hist. of Rome(Eng. tr.), bk. iii. chs. 8, 9.
His life has been written by Plutarch, and in modern times by F.D. Gerlach (1871); see also Mommsen,Hist. of Rome(Eng. tr.), bk. iii. chs. 8, 9.
FLAMINIUS, GAIUS,Roman statesman and general, of plebeian family. During his tribuneship (232B.C.), in spite of the determined opposition of the senate and his own father, he carried a measure for distributing among the plebeians theager Gallicus Picenus, an extensive tract of newly-acquired territory to the south of Ariminum (Cicero,De senectute, 4,Brutus, 14). As praetor in 227, he gained the lasting gratitude of the people of his province (Sicily) by his excellent administration. In 223, when consul with P. Furius Philus, he took the field against the Gauls, who were said to have been roused to war by his agrarian law. Having crossed the Po to punish the Insubrians, he at first met with a severe check and was forced to capitulate. Reinforced by the Cenomani, he gained a decisive victory on the banks of the Addua. He had previously been recalled by the optimates, but ignored the order. The victory seems to have been due mainly to the admirable discipline and fighting qualities of the soldiers, and he obtained the honour of a triumph only after the decree of the senate against it had been overborne by popular clamour. During his censorship (220) he strictly limited the freedmen to the four city tribes (seeComitia). His name is further associated with two great works. He erected the Circus Flaminius on the Campus Martius, for the accommodation of the plebeians, and continued the military road from Rome to Ariminum, which had hitherto only reached as far as Spoletium (seeFlaminia, Via). He probably also instituted the “plebeian” games. In 218, as a leader of the democratic opposition, Flaminius was one of the chief promoters of the measure brought in by the tribune Quintus Claudius, which prohibited senators and senators’ sons from possessing sea-going vessels, except for the transport of the produce of their own estates, and generally debarred them from all commercial speculation (Livy xxi. 63). His effective support of this measure vastly increased the popularity of Flaminius with his own order, and secured his second election as consul in the following year (217), shortly after the defeat of T. Sempronius Longus at the Trebia. He hastened at once to Arretium, the termination of the western high road to the north, to protect the passes of the Apennines, but was defeated and killed at the battle of the Trasimene lake (seePunic Wars).
The testimony of Livy (xxi., xxii.) and Polybius (ii., iii.)—no friendly critics—shows that Flaminius was a man of ability, energy and probity. A popular and successful democratic leader, he cannot, however, be ranked among the great statesmen of the republic. As a general he was headstrong and self-sufficient and seems to have owed his victories chiefly to personal boldness favoured by good fortune.
His son,Gaius Flaminius, was quaestor under P. Scipio Africanus the elder in Spain in 210, and took part in the capture of New Carthage. Fourteen years later, when curule aedile, he distributed large quantities of grain among the citizens at a very low price. In 193, as praetor, he carried on a successful war against the insubordinate populations of his recently constituted province of Hispania Citerior. In 187 he was consul with M. Aemilius Lepidus, and subjugated the warlike Ligurian tribes. In the same year the branch of the Via Aemilia connecting Bononia with Arretium was constructed by him. In 181 he founded the colony of Aquileia. The chief authority for his life is the portion of Livy dealing with the history of the period.
FLAMSTEED, JOHN(1646-1719), English astronomer, was born at Denby, near Derby, on the 19th of August 1646. The only son of Stephen Flamsteed, a maltster, he was educated at the free school of Derby, but quitted it finally in May 1662, in consequence of a rheumatic affection of the joints, due to a chill caught while bathing. Medical aid having proved of no avail, he went to Ireland in 1665 to be “stroked” by Valentine Greatrakes, but “found not his disease to stir.” Meanwhile, he solaced his enforced leisure with astronomical studies. Beginning with J. Sacrobosco’sDe sphaera, he read all the books on the subject that he could buy or borrow; observed a partial solar eclipse on the 12th of September 1662; and attempted the construction of measuring instruments. A tract on the equation of time, written by him in 1667, was published by Dr John Wallis with thePosthumous Worksof J. Horrocks (1673); and a paper embodying his calculations of appulses to stars by the moon, which appeared in thePhilosophical Transactions(iv. 1099), signedIn Mathesi a sole fundes, an anagram of “Johannes Flamsteedius,” secured for him, from 1670, general scientific recognition.
On his return from a visit to London in 1670 he became acquainted with Isaac Newton at Cambridge, entered his name at Jesus college, and took, four years later, a degree of M.A. by letters-patent. An essay composed by him in 1673 on the true and apparent diameters of the planets furnished Newton with data for the third book of thePrincipia, and he fitted numerical elements to J. Horrocks’s theory of the moon. In 1674, and again in 1675, he was invited to London by Sir Jonas Moore, governor of the Tower, who proposed to establish him in a private observatory at Chelsea, but the plan was anticipated by the determination of Charles II. to have the tables of the heavenly bodies corrected, and the places of the fixed stars rectified “for the use of his seamen,” and Flamsteed was appointed “astronomical observator” by a royal warrant dated 4th of March 1675. His salary of £100 a year was cut down by taxation to £90; he had to provide his own instruments, and to instruct, into the bargain, two boys from Christ’s hospital. Sheer necessity drove him, in addition, to take many private pupils; but having been ordained in 1675, he was presented by Lord North in 1684 to the living of Burstow in Surrey; and his financial position was further improved by a small inheritance on his father’s death in 1688. He now ordered, at an expense of £120, a mural arc from Abraham Sharp, with which he began to observe systematically on the 12th of September 1689 (seeAstronomy:History). The latter part of Flamsteed’s life passed in a turmoil of controversy regarding the publication of his results. He struggled to withhold them until they could be presented in a complete form; but they were urgently needed for the progress of science, and the astronomer-royal was a public servant. Sir Isaac Newton, who depended for the perfecting of his lunar theory upon “places of the moon” reluctantly doled out from Greenwich, led the movement for immediate communication; whence arose much ill-feeling between him and Flamsteed. At last, in 1704, Prince George of Denmark undertook the cost of printing; a committee of the Royal Society was appointed to arrange preliminaries, and Flamsteed, protesting and exasperated, had to submit. The work was only partially through the press when the prince died, on the 28th of October 1708, and its completion devolved upon a board of visitors to the observatory endowed with ample powers by a royal order of the 12th of December 1712. As the upshot, theHistoria coelestis, embodying the first Greenwich star-catalogue, together with the mural arc observations made 1689-1705, was issued under Edmund Halley’s editorship in 1712. Flamsteed denounced the production as surreptitious; he committed tothe flames three hundred copies, of which he obtained possession through the favour of Sir Robert Walpole; and, in defiance of bodily infirmities, vigorously prosecuted his designs for the entire and adequate publication of the materials he continued to accumulate. They were but partially executed when he died on the 31st of December 1719. The preparation of his monumental work,Historia coelestis Britannica(3 vols. folio, 1725), was finished by his assistant, Joseph Crosthwait, aided by Abraham Sharp. The first two volumes included the whole of Flamsteed’s observations at Derby and Greenwich; the third contained theBritish Catalogueof nearly 3000 stars. Numerous errors in this valuable record having been detected by Sir William Herschel, Caroline Herschel drew up a list of 560 stars observed, but not catalogued, while 111 of those catalogued proved to have never been observed (Phil. Trans.lxxxvii. 293; see also F. Baily,Memoirs Roy. Astr. Society, iv. 129). The appearance of theAtlas coelestis, corresponding to theBritish Catalogue, was delayed until 1729. A portrait of Flamsteed, painted by Thomas Gibson in 1712, hangs in the rooms of the Royal Society. The extent and quality of his performance were the more remarkable considering his severe physical sufferings, his straitened means, and the antagonism to which he was exposed. Estimable in private life, he was highly susceptible in professional matters, and hence failed to keep on terms with his contemporaries.
Francis Baily’sAccount of the Rev. John Flamsteed(1835) is the leading authority for his life. It comprises an autobiographical narrative pieced together from various sources, a large collection of Flamsteed’s letters, a revised and enlarged edition of theBritish Catalogue, besides authoritative and detailed introductory discussions. Some clamour was raised by a publication in which blame for harsh dealings was freely imputed to Newton, but W. Whewell vindicated his character inFlamsteed and Newton(1836).See alsoGeneral Dictionary, vol. v. (1737), from materials supplied by James Hodgson, Flamsteed’s nephew-in-law;Biographia Britannica, iii. 1943 (1750); S. Rigaud’sCorrespondence of Scientific Men; Cunningham’sLives of Eminent Englishmen, iv. 366 (1835); Mark Noble’s Continuation of James Granger’s Biog.Hist. of England, ii. 132; R. Grant’sHist. of Phys. Astronomy, p. 467; W. Whewell’sHist. of the Inductive Sciences, ii. 162; J.S. Bailly’sHist. de l’astronomie moderne, ii. 423, 589, 650; J. Delambre’sHist. de l’astronomie au XVIIIesiècle, p. 93;Observatory, xv. 355, 379, 382.
Francis Baily’sAccount of the Rev. John Flamsteed(1835) is the leading authority for his life. It comprises an autobiographical narrative pieced together from various sources, a large collection of Flamsteed’s letters, a revised and enlarged edition of theBritish Catalogue, besides authoritative and detailed introductory discussions. Some clamour was raised by a publication in which blame for harsh dealings was freely imputed to Newton, but W. Whewell vindicated his character inFlamsteed and Newton(1836).
See alsoGeneral Dictionary, vol. v. (1737), from materials supplied by James Hodgson, Flamsteed’s nephew-in-law;Biographia Britannica, iii. 1943 (1750); S. Rigaud’sCorrespondence of Scientific Men; Cunningham’sLives of Eminent Englishmen, iv. 366 (1835); Mark Noble’s Continuation of James Granger’s Biog.Hist. of England, ii. 132; R. Grant’sHist. of Phys. Astronomy, p. 467; W. Whewell’sHist. of the Inductive Sciences, ii. 162; J.S. Bailly’sHist. de l’astronomie moderne, ii. 423, 589, 650; J. Delambre’sHist. de l’astronomie au XVIIIesiècle, p. 93;Observatory, xv. 355, 379, 382.
(A. M. C.)
FLANDERS(Flem.Vlaanderen), a territorial name for part of the Netherlands, Europe. Originally it applied only to Bruges and the immediate neighbourhood. In the 8th and 9th centuries it was gradually extended to the whole of the coast region from Calais to the Scheldt. In the middle ages this was divided into two parts, one looking to Bruges as its capital, and the other to Ghent. The name is retained in the two Belgian provinces of West and East Flanders.
1. West Flanders is the portion bordering the North Sea, and its coast-line extends from the French to the Dutch frontier for a little over 40 m. Its capital is Bruges, and the principal towns of the province are Ostend, Courtrai, Ypres and Roulers. Agriculture is the chief occupation of the population, and the country is under the most careful and skilful cultivation. The admiration of the foreign observer for the Belgian system of market gardening is not diminished on learning that the subsoil of most of this tract is the sand of the “dunes.” Fishing employs a large proportion of the coast population. The area of West Flanders is officially computed at 808,667 acres or 1263 sq. m. In 1904 the population was 845,732, giving an average of 669 to the sq. m.
2. East Flanders lies east and north-east of the western province, and extends northwards to the neighbourhood of Antwerp. It is still more productive and richer than Western Flanders, and is well watered by the Scheldt. The district of Waes, land entirely reclaimed within the memory of man, is supposed to be the most productive district of its size in Europe. The principal towns are Ghent (capital of the province), St Nicolas, Alost, Termonde, Eecloo and Oudenarde. The area is given at 749,987 acres or 1172 sq. m. In 1904 the population was 1,073,507, showing an average of 916 per sq. m.
History.—The ancient territory of Flanders comprised not only the modern provinces known as East and West Flanders, but the southernmost portion of the Dutch province of Zeeland and a considerable district in north-western France. In the time of Caesar it was inhabited by the Morini, Atrebates and other Celtic tribes, but in the centuries that followed the land was repeatedly overrun by German invaders, and finally became a part of the dominion of the Franks. On the break-up of the Carolingian empire the river Scheldt was by the treaty of Verdun (843) made the line of division between the kingdom of East Francia (Austrasia) under the emperor Lothaire, and the kingdom of West Francia (Neustria) under Charles the Bald. In virtue of this compact Flanders was henceforth attached to the West Frankish monarchy (France). It thus acquired a position unique among the provinces of the territory known in later times as the Netherlands, all of which were included in that northern part of Austrasia assigned on the death of the emperor Lothaire (855) to King Lothaire II., and from his name called Lotharingia or Lorraine.
The first ruler of Flanders of whom history has left any record is Baldwin, surnamedBras-de-fer(Iron-arm). This man, a brave and daring warrior under Charles the Bald, fell in love with the king’s daughter Judith, the youthful widow of two English kings, married her, and fled with his bride to Lorraine. Charles, though at first very angry, was at last conciliated, and made his son-in-law margrave (Marchio Flandriae) of Flanders, which he held as an hereditary fief. The Northmen were at this time continually devastating the coast lands, and Baldwin was entrusted with the possession of this outlying borderland of the west Frankish dominion in order to defend it against the invaders. He was the first of a line of strong rulers, who at some date early in the 10th century exchanged the title of margrave for that of count. His son, Baldwin II.—the Bald—from his stronghold at Bruges maintained, as did his father before him, a vigorous defence of his lands against the incursions of the Northmen. On his mother’s side a descendant of Charlemagne, he strengthened the dynastic importance of his family by marrying Aelfthryth, daughter of Alfred the Great. On his death in 918 his possessions were divided between his two sons Arnulf the Elder and Adolphus, but the latter survived only a short time and Arnulf succeeded to the whole inheritance. His reign was filled with warfare against the Northmen, and he took an active part in the struggles in Lorraine between the emperor Otto I. and Hugh Capet. In his old age he placed the government in the hands of Baldwin, his son by Adela, daughter of the count of Vermandois, and the young man, though his reign was a very short one, did a great deal for the commercial and industrial progress of the country, establishing the first weavers and fullers at Ghent, and instituting yearly fairs at Ypres, Bruges and other places.
On Baldwin III.’s death in 961 the old count resumed the control, and spent the few remaining years of his life in securing the succession of his grandson Arnulf II.—the Younger. The reign of Arnulf was terminated by his death in 989, and he was followed by his son Baldwin IV., namedBarbatusor the Bearded. This Baldwin fought successfully both against the Capetian king of France and the emperor Henry II. Henry found himself obliged to grant to Baldwin IV. in fief Valenciennes, the burgraveship of Ghent, the land of Waes, and Zeeland. The count of Flanders thus became a feudatory of the empire as well as of the French crown. The French fiefs are known in Flemish history as Crown Flanders (Kroon-Vlaanderen), the German fiefs as Imperial Flanders (Rijks-Vlaanderen). Baldwin’s son—afterwards Baldwin V.—rebelled in 1028 against his father at the instigation of his wife Adela, daughter of Robert II. of France; but two years later peace was sworn at Oudenaarde, and the old count continued to reign till his death in 1036. Baldwin V. proved a worthy successor, and acquired from the people the surname ofDébonnaire. He was an active enterprising man, and greatly extended his power by wars and alliances. He obtained from the emperor Henry IV. the territory between the Scheldt and the Dender as an imperial fief, and the margraviate of Antwerp. So powerful had he become that the Flemish count on the decease of Henry I. of France in 1060 was appointed regent during the minority of Philip I. (seeFrance). Before his death he saw his eldest daughter Matilda (d. 1083) sharing the English throne with William the Conqueror, his eldest son Baldwin of Mons in possession of Hainaut in right of his wife Richilde, heiress of Regnier V. (d. 1036) and widow of Hermann of Saxony (d. 1050/1) (seeHainaut), and his second son Robert the Frisian regent (voogd) of the county of Holland during the minority of Dirk V., whose mother, Gertrude of Saxony, widow of Floris I. of Holland (d. 1061), Robert had married (seeHolland). On his death in 1067 his son Baldwin of Mons, already count of Hainaut, succeeded to the countship of Flanders. Baldwin V. had granted to Robert the Frisian on his marriage in 1063 his imperial fiefs. His right to these was disputed by Baldwin VI., and war broke out between the two brothers. Baldwin was killed in battle in 1070. Robert now claimed the tutelage of Baldwin’s children and obtained the support of the emperor Henry IV., while Richilde, Baldwin’s widow, appealed to Philip I. of France. The contest was decided at Ravenshoven, near Cassel, on the 22nd of February 1071, where Robert was victorious. Richilde was taken prisoner and her eldest son Arnulf III. was slain. Robert obtained from Philip I. the investiture of Crown Flanders, and from Henry IV. the fiefs which formed Imperial Flanders.
The second son of Richilde was recognized as count of Hainaut (seeHainaut), which was thus after a brief union separated from Flanders. Robert died in 1093, and was succeeded by his son Robert II., who acquired great renown by his exploits in the first crusade, and won the name of the Lance and Sword of Christendom. His fame was second only to that of Godfrey of Bouillon. Robert returned to Flanders in 1100. He fought with his suzerain Louis the Fat of France against the English, and was drowned in 1111 by the breaking of a bridge. His son and successor, Baldwin VII., or Baldwin with the Axe, also fought against the English in France. He died at the age of twenty-seven from the wound of an arrow, in 1119, leaving no heir. He nominated as his successor his cousin Charles, son of Knut IV. of Denmark and of Adela, daughter of Robert the Frisian. Charles tried his utmost to put down oppression and to promote the welfare of his subjects, and obtained the surname of “the Good.” His determination to enforce the right made him many enemies, and he was foully murdered on Ash Wednesday, 1127, at Bruges. He died childless, and there were no less than six candidates to the countship. The contest lay between two of these, William Clito, son of Robert of Normandy and grandson of William the Conqueror and Matilda of Flanders, and Thierry or Dirk of Alsace, whose mother Gertrude was a daughter of Robert the Frisian. William Clito, through the support of Louis of France, was at first accepted by the Flemish nobles as count, but he gave offence to the communes, who supported Thierry. A struggle ensued and William was killed before Alost. Thierry then became count without further opposition. He married the widow of Charles the Good, Marguerite of Clermont, and proved himself at home a wise and prudent prince, encouraging the growth of popular liberty and of commerce. In 1146 he took part in the second crusade and distinguished himself by his exploits. In 1157 he resigned the countship to his son Philip of Alsace and betook himself once more to Jerusalem. On his return from the East twenty years later Thierry retired to a monastery to die in his own land.
Count Philip of Alsace was a strong and able man. He did much to promote the growth of the municipalities for which Flanders was already becoming famous. Ghent, Bruges, Ypres, Lille and Douai under him made much progress as flourishing industrial towns. He also conferred rights and privileges on a number of ports, Hulst, Nieuwport, Sluis, Dunkirk, Axel, Damme, Gravelines and others. But while encouraging the development of the communes and “free towns,” Philip sternly repressed any spirit of independence or attempted uprisings against his authority. This count was a powerful prince. He acted for a time as regent in France during the minority of his godson Philip Augustus, and married his ward to his niece Isabella of Hainaut (1180). Philip took part in the third crusade, and died in the camp before Acre of the pestilence in 1191.
As he had no children, the succession passed to Baldwin of Hainaut, who had married Philip’s sister Margaret. The countships of Flanders and Hainaut were thus united under the same ruler. Baldwin did not obtain possession of Flanders without strong opposition on the part of the French king, and he was obliged to cede Artois, St Omer, Lens, Hesdin and a great part of southern Flanders to France, and to allow Matilda of Portugal, the widow of Philip of Alsace, to retain certain towns in right of her dowry. Margaret died in 1194 and Baldwin the following year, and their eldest son Baldwin IX. succeeded to both countships. Baldwin IX. is famous in history as the founder of the Latin empire at Constantinople. He perished in Bulgaria in 1206. The emperor’s two daughters were both under age, and the government was carried on by their uncle Philip, marquess of Namur, whom Baldwin had appointed regent on his departure to Constantinople. Philip proved faithless to his charge, and he allowed his nieces to fall into the hands of Philip Augustus, who married the elder sister Johanna of Constantinople to his nephew Ferdinand of Portugal. The Flemings were averse to the French king’s supremacy, and Ferdinand, who acted as governor in the name of his wife, joined himself to the confederacy formed by Germany, England, and the leading states of the Netherlands against Philip Augustus. Ferdinand was, however, taken prisoner at the disastrous battle of Bouvines (1214) and was kept for twelve years a prisoner in the Louvre. The countess Johanna ruled the united countships with prudence and courage. On Ferdinand’s death she married Thomas of Savoy, but died in 1244, leaving no heirs. She was succeeded in her dignities by her younger sister Margaret of Constantinople, commonly known amongst her contemporaries as “Black Meg” (Zwarte Griet). Margaret had been twice married. Her first husband was (1212) Buchard of Avesnes, one of the first of Hainaut’s nobles and a man of knightly prowess, but originally destined for the church. On this ground he was excommunicated by Innocent III. and imprisoned by the countess Johanna, with the result that Margaret at last was driven to repudiate him. She married in second wedlock (1225) William of Dampierre. Two sons were the issue of the first marriage, three sons and three daughters of the second.
When Margaret in 1244 became countess of Flanders and Hainaut, she wished her son William of Dampierre to be acknowledged as her successor. John of Avesnes, her eldest son, strongly protested against this and was supported by the French king. A civil war ensued, which ended in a compromise (1246), the succession to Flanders being granted to William of Dampierre, that of Hainaut to John of Avesnes. Margaret, however, ruled with a strong hand for many years and survived both her sons, dying at the age of eighty in 1280. On her death her grandson, John II. of Avesnes, became count of Hainaut: Guy of Dampierre, her second son by her second marriage, count of Flanders.
The two counties were once more under separate dynasties. The government of Guy of Dampierre was unfortunate. It was the interest of the Flemish weavers to be on good terms with England, the wool-producing country, and Guy entered into an alliance with Edward I. against France. This led to an invasion and conquest of Flanders by Philip the Fair. Guy with his sons and the leading Flemish nobles were taken prisoners to Paris, and Flanders was ruled as a French dependency. But though in the principal towns, Ghent, Bruges and Ypres, there was a powerful French faction—known asLeliaerts(adherents of the lily)—the arbitrary rule of the French governor and officials stirred up the mass of the Flemish people to rebellion. The anti-French partisans (known asClauwaerts) were strongest at Bruges under the leadership of Peter de Conync, master of the cloth-weavers, and John Breydel, master of the butchers. The French garrison at Bruges were massacred (May 19th, 1302), and on the following 11th of July a splendid French army of invasion was utterly defeated near Courtray. Peace was concluded in 1305, but owing to Guy of Dampierre, and the leading Flemish nobles being in the hands of the French king, on termsvery disadvantageous to Flanders. Very shortly afterwards the aged count Guy died, as did also Philip the Fair. Robert of Bethune, his son and successor, had continual difficulties with France during the whole of his reign, the Flemings offering a stubborn resistance to all attempts to destroy their independence. Robert was succeeded in 1322 by his grandson Louis of Nevers. Louis had been brought up at the French court, and had married Margaret of France. His sympathies were entirely French, and he made use of French help in his contests with the communes.
Under Louis of Nevers Flanders was practically reduced to the status of a French province. In his time the long contest between Flanders and Holland for the possession of the island of Zeeland was brought to an end by a treaty signed on the 6th of March 1323, by which West Zeeland was assigned to the count of Holland, the rest to the count of Flanders. The latter part of the reign of Louis of Nevers was remarkable for the successful revolt of the Flemish communes, now rapidly advancing to great material prosperity under Jacob van Artevelde (seeArtevelde, Jacob van). Artevelde allied himself with Edward III. of England in his contest with Philip of Valois for the French crown, while Louis of Nevers espoused the cause of Philip. He fell at the battle of Crécy (1346). He was followed in the countship by his son Louis II. of Mâle. The reign of this count was one long struggle with the communes, headed by the town of Ghent, for political supremacy. Louis was as strong in his French sympathies as his father, and relied upon French help in enforcing his will upon his refractory subjects, who resented his arbitrary methods of government, and the heavy taxation imposed upon them by his extravagance and love of display. Had the great towns with their organized gilds and great wealth held together in their opposition to the count’s despotism, they would have proved successful, but Ghent and Bruges, always keen rivals, broke out into open feud. The power of Ghent reached its height under Philip van Artevelde (seeArtevelde, Philip van) in 1382. He defeated Louis, took Bruges and was maderuwardof Flanders. But the triumph of the White Hoods, as the popular party was called, was of short duration. On the 27th of November 1382 Artevelde suffered a crushing defeat from a large French army at Roosebeke and was himself slain. Louis of Male died two years later, leaving an only daughter Margaret, who had married in 1369 Philip the Bold, duke of Burgundy.
Flanders now became a portion of the great Burgundian domain, which in the reign of Philip the Good, Margaret’s grandson, had absorbed almost the whole of the Netherlands (seeBurgundy;Netherlands). The history of Flanders as a separate state ceases from the time of the acquisition of the countship by the Burgundian dynasty. There were revolts from time to time of great towns against the exactions even of these powerful princes, but they were in vain. The conquest and humiliation of Bruges by Philip the Good in 1440, and the even more relentless punishment inflicted on rebellious Ghent by the emperor Charles V. exactly a century later are the most remarkable incidents in the long-continued but vain struggle of the Flemish communes to maintain and assert their privileges. The Burgundian dukes and their successors of the house of Habsburg were fully alive to the value to them of Flanders and its rich commercial cities. It was Flanders that furnished to them no small part of their resources, but for this very reason, while fostering the development of Flemish industry and trade, they were the more determined to brook no opposition which sought to place restrictions upon their authority.
The effect of the revolt of the Netherlands and the War of Dutch Independence which followed was ruinous to Flanders. Albert and Isabel on their accession to the sovereignty of the southern Netherlands in 1599 found “the great cities of Flanders and Brabant had been abandoned by a large part of their inhabitants; agriculture hardly in a less degree than commerce and industry had been ruined.” In 1633 with the death of Isabel, Flanders reverted to Spanish rule (1633). By the treaty of Munster the north-western portion of Flanders, since known as States (or Dutch) Flanders, was ceded by Philip IV. to the United Provinces (1648). By a succession of later treaties—of the Pyrenees (1659), Aix-la-Chapelle (1668), Nijmwegen (1679) and others—a large slice of the southern portion of the old county of Flanders became French territory and was known as French Flanders.
From 1795 to 1814 Flanders, with the rest of the Belgic provinces, was incorporated in France, and was divided into two departments—département de l’Escautanddépartement de la Lys. This division has since been retained, and is represented by the two provinces of East Flanders and West Flanders in the modern kingdom of Belgium. The title of count of Flanders was revived by Leopold I. in 1840 in favour of his second son, Philip Eugene Ferdinand (d. 1905).