Chapter 8

(O. M.)

1Manilius,Astronomica, lib. v., 438-443.2Vopiscus,Carus, Numerianus et Carinus, ch. xix.3Claudianus,De consulatu Manlii Theodori, 325-330.4Vanuzzio Biringuccio,Pyrotechnia.5Strutts,Sports and Pastimes of the English People.6De Frezier,Traité des feux d’artifice(1707 and 1747).7Notes and Queries, series 5, vol. ix. p. 140, and series 8, vol. ii. pp. 145 and 254.8J.B. Nichols & Sons,London Pageants.9Hall’sChronicles.10J. Bate,Mysteries of Nature and Art(1635). This contains a picture of a green man.11Geschichte des Feuerwerkswesen(Berlin, 1887). The Jubilee pamphlet of the Brandenburg Artillery.12See “Fairholts’ Collection” bequeathed to the Royal Society of Antiquaries.13Journalof the Royal Artillery, vol. xxxii. No. 11.14Somers’Tracts, vol. iii.15De Frezier.16Diego Ufano,Artillery, in Spanish (1614); Master Gunner Norton,The GunnerandThe Gunner’s Dialogue(1628); F. de Malthe (Malthus),Artificial Fireworks, in French and English (1628); “Hanzelet,”Recueil de plusieurs machines militaires et feux artificiels pour la guerre et récréation(1620 and 1630); Furttenback, master gunner of Bavaria,Halinitro Pyrobolio, in German (1627); (John Babington Matross,Pyrotechnia, 1635); Nye, master gunner of Worcester,Art of Gunnery(Worcester, 1648); Casimir Siemienowitz, lieut.-general of the Ordnance to the king of Poland,The Great Art of Artillery, in French (1650).17Translated by George Shelvocke, 1727, by order of the surveyor-general of the Ordnance.18“Crace Collection” in the print-room; the King’s Prints and Drawings in the library. See also “The Connection of the Ordnance Department with National and Royal Fireworks,”R. A. Journal, vol. xxii. No. 11.

1Manilius,Astronomica, lib. v., 438-443.

2Vopiscus,Carus, Numerianus et Carinus, ch. xix.

3Claudianus,De consulatu Manlii Theodori, 325-330.

4Vanuzzio Biringuccio,Pyrotechnia.

5Strutts,Sports and Pastimes of the English People.

6De Frezier,Traité des feux d’artifice(1707 and 1747).

7Notes and Queries, series 5, vol. ix. p. 140, and series 8, vol. ii. pp. 145 and 254.

8J.B. Nichols & Sons,London Pageants.

9Hall’sChronicles.

10J. Bate,Mysteries of Nature and Art(1635). This contains a picture of a green man.

11Geschichte des Feuerwerkswesen(Berlin, 1887). The Jubilee pamphlet of the Brandenburg Artillery.

12See “Fairholts’ Collection” bequeathed to the Royal Society of Antiquaries.

13Journalof the Royal Artillery, vol. xxxii. No. 11.

14Somers’Tracts, vol. iii.

15De Frezier.

16Diego Ufano,Artillery, in Spanish (1614); Master Gunner Norton,The GunnerandThe Gunner’s Dialogue(1628); F. de Malthe (Malthus),Artificial Fireworks, in French and English (1628); “Hanzelet,”Recueil de plusieurs machines militaires et feux artificiels pour la guerre et récréation(1620 and 1630); Furttenback, master gunner of Bavaria,Halinitro Pyrobolio, in German (1627); (John Babington Matross,Pyrotechnia, 1635); Nye, master gunner of Worcester,Art of Gunnery(Worcester, 1648); Casimir Siemienowitz, lieut.-general of the Ordnance to the king of Poland,The Great Art of Artillery, in French (1650).

17Translated by George Shelvocke, 1727, by order of the surveyor-general of the Ordnance.

18“Crace Collection” in the print-room; the King’s Prints and Drawings in the library. See also “The Connection of the Ordnance Department with National and Royal Fireworks,”R. A. Journal, vol. xxii. No. 11.

FIRM,an adjective originally indicating a dense or close consistency, hence steady, unshaken, unchanging or fixed. This word, in M. Eng.ferme, is derived through the French, from Lat.firmus. The medieval Latin substantivefirmameant a fixed payment, either in the way of rent, composition for periodic payments, &c.; and this word, often represented by “firm” in translations of medieval documents, has produced the English “farm” (q.v.). From a late Latin use offirmare, to confirm by signature,firmaoccurs in many Romanic languages for a signature, and the English “firm” was thus used till the 18th century. From a transferred use came the meaning of a business house. In the Partnership Act 1890, persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called collectively a firm, and the name under which their business is carried on is called the firm-name.

FIRMAMENT,the sky, the heavens. In the Vulgate the wordfirmamentum, which means in classical Latin a strengthening or support (firmare, to make firm or strong) was used as the equivalent ofστερέωμα(στερεόειν, to make firm or solid) in the LXX., which translates the Heb. rāqīya‘. The Hebrew probably signifies literally “expanse,” and is thus used of the expanse or vault of the sky, the verb from which it is derived meaning “to beat out.” In Syriac the verb means “to make firm,” and is the direct source of the Gr.στερέωμαand the Lat.firmamentum. In ancient astronomy the firmament was the eighth sphere containing the fixed stars surrounding the seven spheres of the planets.

FIRMAN(an adaptation of the Per.fermān, a mandate or patent, cognate with the Sanskritpramāna, a measure, authority), an edict of an oriental sovereign, used specially to designate decrees, grants, passports, &c., issued by the sultan of Turkey and signed by one of his ministers. A decree bearing the sultan’s sign-manual and drawn up with special formalities is termed ahatti-sherif, Arabic words meaning a line, writing or command, and lofty, noble. A written decree of an Ottoman sultan is also termed anirade, the word being taken from the Arab.irādā, will, volition, order.

FIRMICUS, MATERNUS JULIUS,a Latin writer, who lived in the reign of Constantine and his successors. About the year 346 he composed a work entitledDe erroribus profanarum religionum, which he inscribed to Constantius and Constans, the sons of Constantine, and which is still extant. In the first part (chs. 1-17) he attacks the false objects of worship among the Oriental cults; in the second (chs. 18-29) he discusses a number of formulae and rites connected with the mysteries. The whole tone of the work is fanatical and declamatory rather than argumentative, and is thus in such sharp contrast with the eight books on astronomy (Libri VIII.Matheseos) bearing the same author’s name, that the two works have usually been attributed to different writers. Mommsen (Hermesvol. 29, pp. 468-472) has, however, shown that the astronomy—a work interfused with an urbane Neoplatonic spirit—was composed about 336 and not in 354 as was formerly held. When we add to this the similarity of style, and the fact that each betrays a connexion with Sicily, there is the strongest reason for claiming the same author for the two books, though it shows that in the 4th century acceptance of Christianity did not always mean an advance in ethical standpoint.

The Christian work is preserved in a Palatine MS. in the Vatican library. It was first printed at Strassburg in 1562, and has been reprinted several times, both separately and along with the writings of Minucius Felix, Cyprian or Arnobius. The most correct editions are those by Conr. Bursian (Leipzig, 1856), and by C. Halm, in hisMinucius Felix(Corp. Scr. Eccl. Lat.ii.), (Vienna, 1867). The Neoplatonist work was first printed by Aldus Manutius in 1501, and has often been reprinted. For full discussions see G. Ebert,Gesch. der chr. lat. Litt., ed. 1889, p. 129 ff.; O. Bardenhewer,Patrologie, ed. 1901, p. 354.

FIRMINY,a town of central France in the department of Loire, 8 m. S.W. of St Etienne by rail. Pop. (1906) 15,778. It has important coal mines known since the 14th century and extensive manufactures of iron and steel goods, including railway material, machinery and cannon. Fancy woollen hosiery is also manufactured.

FIRST-FOOT,in British folklore, especially that of the north and Scotland, the first person who crosses the threshold on Christmas or New Year’s Eve. Good or ill luck is believed to be brought the house by First-Foot, and a female First-Foot is regarded with dread. In Lancashire a light-haired man is as unlucky as a woman, and it became a custom for dark-haired males to hire themselves out to “take the New Year in.” In Worcestershire luck is ensured by stopping the first carol-singer who appears and leading him through the house. In Yorkshire it must always be a male who enters the house first, but his fairness is no objection. In Scotland first-footing was always more elaborate than in England, involving a subsequent entertainment.

FIRST OF JUNE,Battle of the. By this name we call the great naval victory won by Lord Howe over the French fleet of Admiral Villaret-Joyeuse, on the 1st of June 1794. No place name can be given to it, because the battle was fought 429 m. to the west of Ushant.

The French people were suffering much distress from the bad harvest of the previous year, and a great convoy of merchant ships laden with corn was expected from America. Admiral Vanstabel of the French navy had been sent to escort it with two ships of the line in December of 1793. He sailed with his charge from the Chesapeake on the 11th of April 1794. On the previous day six French ships of the line left Brest to meet Vanstabel in mid ocean. The British force designed to intercept the convoy was under Lord Howe, then in command of the channel fleet. He sailed from Spithead on the 2nd of May with 34 sail of the line and 15 smaller vessels, having under his charge nearly a hundred merchant ships which were to be seen clear of the Channel. On the 4th, when off the Lizard, the convoy was sent on its way protected by 8 line of battle ships and 6 or 7 frigates. Two of the line of battle ships were to accompany them throughout the voyage. The other six under Rear-admiral Montagu were to go as far as Cape Finisterre, and were then to cruise on the look-out for the French convoy between Cape Ortegal and Belle Isle. These detachments reduced the force under Lord Howe’s immediate command to 26 of the line and 7 frigates. On the 5th of May he was off Ushant, and sent frigates to reconnoitre the harbour of Brest. They reported to him that the main French fleet, which was under the command of Villaret-Joyeuse, and was of 25 sail of the line, was lying at anchor in the roads. Howe then sailed to the latitude on which the convoy was likely to be met with, knowing that if the French admiral came out it would be to meet the ships with the food and cover them from attack. To seek the convoy was therefore the most sure way of forcing Villaret-Joyeuse to action. Till the 18th the British fleet continued cruising in the Bay of Biscay. On the 19th Lord Howe returned to Ushant and again reconnoitred Brest. It was then seen that Villaret-Joyeuse had gone to sea. He had sailed with his whole force on the 16th and had passed close to the British fleet on the 17th, unseen in a fog. On the 19th the French admiral was informed by the “Patriote” (74) that Nielly had fallen in with, and had captured, the British frigate “Castor” (32), under Captain Thomas Troubridge, together with a convoy from Newfoundland. On the same day Villaret-Joyeuse captured part of a Dutch convoy of 53 sail from Lisbon. On the 19th a frigate detached by Admiral Montagu joined Howe. It brought information that Montagu had recaptured part of the Newfoundland convoy, and had learnt that Nielly was to join Vanstabel at sea, and that their combined force would be 9 sail of the line. Montagu himself had steered to cruise on the route of the convoy between the 45th and 47th degrees of north latitude. Howe now steered to meet his subordinate who, he considered, would be in danger from the main French fleet. On the 21st he recaptured some of the Dutch ships taken by Villaret-Joyeuse. From them he learnt that on the 19th the French fleet had been in latitude 47° 46′ N. and in longitude 11° 22′ N. and was steering westward. Judging that Montagu was too far to the south to be in peril from Villaret-Joyeuse, and considering him strong enough to perform the duty of intercepting the convoy, Lord Howe decided to pursue the main French fleet. The wind was changeable and the weather hazy. It was not till the 28th of May at 6.30A.M.that the British fleet caught sight of the enemy in 47° 34′ N. and 13° 39′ W.

The wind was from the south-east, and the French were to windward. Villaret-Joyeuse bore down to a distance of 10 m. from the British, and then hauled to the wind on the port tack. It was difficult for the British fleet to force an action from leeward if the French were unwilling to engage. Lord Howe detached a light squadron of four ships, the “Bellerophon” (74), “Russel” (74), “Marlborough” (74), and “Thunderer” (74) under Rear-admiral Thomas Pasley, to attack the rear of the French line. Villaret-Joyeuse stood on and endeavoured to work to windward. In the course of the afternoon Rear-admiral Pasley’s ships began to come up with the last of the French line, the “Révolutionnaire” (110). A partial action took place which went on till after dark; other British vessels joined. The “Révolutionnaire” was so damaged that she was compelled to leave her fleet, and the British “Audacious” (74) was also crippled and compelled to return to port. The “Révolutionnaire” was accompanied by another liner. During the night the two fleets continued on the same course, and next day Howe renewed his attempts to force an action from leeward. He tacked his fleet in succession—his first ship tacking first and the rest in order—in the hope that he would be able to cut through the French rear and gain the weather-gage. Villaret-Joyeuse then turned all his ships together and again headed in the same direction as the British. This movement brought him nearer the British fleet, and another partial action took place between the van of each force. Seeing that the French admiral was not disposed to charge home, Howe at noon once more ordered his fleet to tack in succession. His signal was poorly obeyed by the van, and his object, which was to cut through the French line, was not at once achieved. But the admiral himself finally set an example by tacking his flagship, the “Queen Charlotte” (100), and passing through the French, two ships from the end of their line. He was followed by his fleet, and Villaret-Joyeuse, seeing the peril of the ships in his rear, wore all his ships together to help them. Both forces had been thrown into considerable confusion by these movements, but the British had gained the weather-gage. Villaret-Joyeuse was able to save the two ships cut off, but he had fallen to leeward and the power to force on a battle had passed to Lord Howe. During the 30th the fleets lost sight of one another for a time. The French, who had four ships crippled, had been joined by four others, and were again 26 in number, including the “Patriote.”

The 31st of May passed without a hostile meeting and in thick weather, but by the evening the British were close to windward of the French. As Howe, who had not full confidence in all his captains, did not wish for a night battle, he waited till the following morning, keeping the French under observation by frigates. On the 1st of June they were in the same relative positions, and at about a quarter past eight Howe bore down on the French, throwing his whole line on them at once from end to end, with orders to pass through from windward to leeward, and so to place the British ships on the enemy’s line of retreat. It was a very bold departure from the then established methods of fighting, and most honourable in a man of sixty-eight, who had been trained in the old school. Its essential merit was that it produced a closemêlée, in which the better average gunnery and seamanship of the British fleet would tell. Lord Howe’s orders were not fully obeyed by all his captains, but a signal victory was won,—six of the French line of battle ships were taken, and one, the “Vengeur,” sunk. The convoy escaped capture, having passed over the spot on which the action of the 20th May was fought, on the following day, and it anchored atBrest on the 3rd of June. Its safe arrival went far to console the French for their defeat. The failure to stop it was forgotten in England in the pleasure given by the victory.

See James’sNaval History, vol. i. (1837); and Tronde,Batailles navales de la France(1867).

(D. H.)

FIRTH, CHARLES HARDING(1857- ), British historian, was born at Sheffield on the 16th of March 1857, and was educated at Clifton College and at Balliol College, Oxford. At his university he took the Stanhope prize for an essay on the marquess Wellesley in 1877, became lecturer at Pembroke College in 1887, and fellow of All Souls College in 1901. He was Ford’s lecturer in English history in 1900, and became regius professor of modern history at Oxford in succession to F. York Powell in 1904. Firth’s historical work was almost entirely confined to English history during the time of the Great Civil War and the Commonwealth; and although he is somewhat overshadowed by S.R. Gardiner, a worker in the same field, his books are of great value to students of this period. The chief of them are:Life of the Duke of Newcastle(1886);Scotland and the Commonwealth(1895);Scotland and the Protectorate(1899);Narrative of General Venables(1900);Oliver Cromwell(1900);Cromwell’s Army(1902); and the standard edition ofLudlow’s Memoirs(1894). He also edited theClarke Papers(1891-1901), and Mrs Hutchinson’sMemoirs of Colonel Hutchinson(1885), and wrote an introduction to theStuart Tracts(1903), besides contributions to theDictionary of National Biography. In 1909 he publishedThe Last Years of the Protectorate.

FIRTH, MARK(1819-1880), English steel manufacturer and philanthropist, was born at Sheffield on the 25th of April 1819, the son of a steel smelter. At the age of fourteen Mark, with his brother, left school to join their father in the foundry where he was employed, and ten years later the three together started a six-hole furnace of their own. The venture proved successful, and besides an extensive home business, they soon established a large American connexion. Their huge Norfolk works were erected at Sheffield in 1849, and still greater were afterwards acquired at Whittington in Derbyshire and others at Clay Wheels near Wadsley. The manufacture of steel blocks for ordnance was the principal feature of their business, and they produced also shot and heavy forgings. They also installed a plant for the production of steel cores for heavy guns, and for some time they supplied nearly all the metal used for gun making by the British government and a large proportion of that used by the French. On the death of his father in 1848 Mark Firth became the head of the firm. In 1869 he built and endowed “Mark Firth’s Almshouses” at Ranmoor near Sheffield, and in 1875, when mayor, he presented to his native place a freehold park of thirty-six acres. He founded and endowed Firth College, for lectures and classes in connexion with the extension of university education, which was opened in 1879. He died on the 28th of November 1880, and was accorded a public funeral.

FIRŪZABAD,a town of Persia, in the province of Fars, 72 m. S. of Shiraz, in 28° 51′ N. Pop. about 3000. It is situated in a fertile plain, 15 m. long and 7 m. broad, well watered by the river Khoja which flows through it from north to south. The town is surrounded by a mud wall and ditch. Three or four miles north-west of the town are the ruins of the ancient city and of a large building popularly known as the fire-temple of Ardashir, and beyond them on the face of the rock in the gorge through which the river enters the plain are two Sassanian bas-reliefs.

The river leaves the plain by a narrow gorge at the southern end, and according to Persian history it was there that Alexander the Great, when unable to capture the ancient city, built a dike across the gorge, thus damming up the water of the river and turning the plain into a lake and submerging the city and villages. The lake remained until the beginning of the 3rd century, when Ardashir, the first Sassanian monarch, drained it by destroying the dike. He built a new city, called it Gūr, and made it the capital of one of the five great provinces or divisions of Fars. Firuz (or Peroz,q.v.), one of Ardashir’s successors, called the district after his name Firūzabad (“the abode of Firuz”), but the name of the city remained Gūr until Azud ed Dowleh (Adod addaula) (949-982) changed it to its present name. He did this because he frequently resided at Gūr, and the name meaning also “a grave” gave rise to unpleasant allusions, for instance, “People who go to Gūr (grave) never return alive; our king goes to Gūr (the town) several times a year and is not dead yet.”

The district has twenty villages and produces much wheat and rice. It is said that the rice of Firūzabad bears sixty-fold.

(A. H.-S.)

FIRŪZKŪH,a small province of Persia, with a population of about 5000, paying a yearly revenue of about £500. Its chief place is a village of the same name picturesquely situated in a valley of the Elburz, about 90 m. east of Teheran, at an elevation of 6700 ft. and in 35° 46′ N. and 52° 48′ E. It has post and telegraph offices and a population of 2500. A precipitous cliff on the eastern side of the valley is surmounted by the ruins of an ancient fort popularly ascribed to Alexander the Great.

FISCHART, JOHANN(c.1545-1591), German satirist and publicist, was born, probably at Strassburg (but according to some accounts at Mainz), in or about the year 1545, and was educated at Worms in the house of Kaspar Scheid, whom in the preface to hisEulenspiegelhe mentions as his “cousin and preceptor.” He appears to have travelled in Italy, the Netherlands, France and England, and on his return to have taken the degree ofdoctor jurisat Basel. From 1575 to 1581, within which period most of his works were written, he lived with, and was probably associated in the business of, his sister’s husband, Bernhard Jobin, a printer at Strassburg, who published many of his books. In 1581 Fischart was attached, as advocate to the Reichskammergericht (imperial court of appeal) at Spires, and in 1583, when he married, was appointedAmtmann(magistrate) at Forbach near Saarbrücken. Here he died in the winter of 1590-1591. Fischart wrote under various feigned names, such as Mentzer, Menzer, Reznem, Huldrich Elloposkleros, Jesuwalt Pickhart, Winhold Alkofribas Wüstblutus, Ulrich Mansehr von Treubach, and Im Fischen Gilt’s Mischen; and it is partly owing to this fact that there is doubt whether some of the works attributed to him are really his. More than 50 satirical works, however, both in prose and verse, remain authentic, among which are—Nachtrab oder Nebelkräh(1570), a satire against one Jakob Rabe, who had become a convert to the Roman Catholic Church;Von St Dominici des Predigermönchs und St Francisci Barfüssers artlichem Leben(1571), a poem with the expressive motto “Sie haben Nasenundriechen’s nit” (Ye have noses and smell it not), written to defend the Protestants against certain wicked accusations, one of which was that Luther held communion with the devil;Eulenspiegel Reimensweis(written 1571, published 1572);Aller Praktik Grossmutter(1572), after Rabelais’sPrognostication Pantagrueline;Flöh Haz, Weiber Traz(1573), in which he describes a battle between fleas and women;Affentheuerliche und ungeheuerliche Geschichtschrift vom Leben, Rhaten und Thaten der ... Helden und Herren Grandgusier Gargantoa und Pantagruel, also after Rabelais (1575, and again under the modified title,Naupengeheurliche Geschichtklitterung, 1577);Neue künstliche Figuren biblischer Historien(1576);Anmahnung zur christlichen Kinderzucht(1576);Das glückhafft Schiff von Zürich(1576, republished 1828, with an introduction by the poet Ludwig Uhland), a poem commemorating the adventure of a company of Zürich arquebusiers, who sailed from their native town to Strassburg in one day, and brought, as a proof of this feat, a kettleful ofHirsebrei(millet), which had been cooked in Zürich, still warm into Strassburg, and intended to illustrate the proverb “perseverance overcomes all difficulties”;Podagrammisch Trostbüchlein(1577);Philosophisch Ehzuchtbüchlein(1578); the celebratedBienenkorb des heiligen römischen Immenschwarms, &c., a modification of the DutchDe roomsche Byen-Korf, by Philipp Marnix of St Aldegonde, published in 1579 and reprinted in 1847;Der heilig Brotkorb(1580), after Calvin’sTraité des reliques;Das vierhörnige Jesuiterhütlein, a rhymed satire against the Jesuits (1580); and a number of smaller poems.To Fischart also have been attributed some “Psalmen und geistliche Lieder” which appeared in a Strassburg hymn-book of 1576.

Fischart had studied not only the ancient literatures, but also those of Italy, France, the Netherlands and England. He was a lawyer, a theologian, a satirist and the most powerful Protestant publicist of the counter-reformation period; in politics he was a republican. Above all, he is a master of language, and was indefatigable with his pen. His satire was levelled mercilessly at all perversities in the public and private life of his time—at astrological superstition, scholastic pedantry, ancestral pride, but especially at the papal dignity and the lives of the priesthood and the Jesuits. He indulged in the wildest witticisms, the most abandoned caricature; but all this he did with a serious purpose. As a poet, he is characterized by the eloquence and picturesqueness of his style and the symbolical language he employed. Thirty years after Fischart’s death his writings, once so popular, were almost entirely forgotten. Recalled to the public attention by Johann Jakob Bodmer and Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, it is only recently that his works have come to be a subject of investigation, and his position in German literature to be fully understood.

Freiherr von Meusebach, whose valuable collection of Fischart’s works has passed into the possession of the royal library in Berlin, deals in hisFischartstudien(Halle, 1879) with the great satirist. Fischart’s poetical works were published by Hermann Kurz in three volumes (Leipzig, 1866-1868); and selections by K. Goedeke (Leipzig, 1800) and by A. Hauffen in Kürschner’sDeutsche Nationalliteratur(Stuttgart, 1893);Die Geschichtklitterungand some minor writings appeared in Scheible’sKloster, vols. 7 and 10 (Stuttgart, 1847-1848).Das glückhafft Schiffhas been frequently reprinted, critical edition by J. Baechtold (1880). See for further biographical details, Erich Schmidt in theAllgemeine deutsche Biographie, vol. 7; A.F.C. Vilmar in Ersch and Gruber’sEncyclopaedie; W. Wackernagel,Johann Fischart von Strassburg und Basels Anteil an ihm(2nd ed., Basel, 1875); P. Besson,Étude sur Jean Fischart(Paris, 1889); and A. Hauffen, “Fischart-Studien” (inEuphorion, 1896-1909).

FISCHER, EMIL(1852- ), German chemist, was born at Euskirchen, in Rhenish Prussia, on the 9th of October 1852, his father being a merchant and manufacturer. After studying chemistry at Bonn, he migrated to Strassburg, where he graduated as Ph.D. in 1874. He then acted as assistant to Adolf von Baeyer at Munich for eight years, after which he was appointed to the chair of chemistry successively at Erlangen (1882) and Würzburg (1885). In 1892 he succeeded A.W. von Hofmann as professor of chemistry at Berlin. Emil Fischer devoted himself entirely to organic chemistry, and his investigations are characterized by an originality of idea and readiness of resource which make him the master of this branch of experimental chemistry. In his hands no substance seemed too complex to admit of analysis or of synthesis; and the more intricate and involved the subjects of his investigations the more strongly shown is the conspicuous skill in pulling, as it were, atom from atom, until the molecule stood revealed, and, this accomplished, the same skill combined atom with atom until the molecule was regenerated. Hisfortewas to enter fields where others had done little except break the ground; and his researches in many cases completely elucidated the problem in hand, and where the solution was not entire, his methods and results almost always contained the key to the situation.

In 1875, the year following his engagement with von Baeyer, he published his discovery of the organic derivatives of a new compound of hydrogen and nitrogen, which he named hydrazine (q.v.). He investigated both the aromatic and aliphatic derivatives, establishing their relation to the diazo compounds, and he perceived the readiness with which they entered into combination with other substances, giving origin to a wealth of hitherto unknown compounds. Of such condensation products undoubtedly the most important are the hydrazones, which result from the interaction with aldehydes and ketones. His observations, published in 1886, that such hydrazones, by treatment with hydrochloric acid or zinc chloride, yielded derivatives of indol, the pyrrol of the benzene series and the parent substance of indigo, were a valuable confirmation of the views advanced by his master, von Baeyer, on the subject of indigo and the many substances related to it. Of greater moment was his discovery that phenyl hydrazine reacted with the sugars to form substances which he named osazones, and which, being highly crystalline and readily formed, served to identify such carbohydrates more definitely than had been previously possible. He next turned to the rosaniline dyestuffs (the magenta of Sir W.H. Perkin), and in collaboration with his cousin Otto Fischer (b. 1852), then at Munich and afterwards professor at Erlangen, who has since identified himself mainly with the compounds of this and related groups, he published papers in 1878 and 1879 which indubitably established that these dyestuffs were derivatives of triphenyl methane. Fischer’s next research was concerned with compounds related to uric acid. Here the ground had been broken more especially by von Baeyer, but practically all our knowledge of the so-called purin group (the wordpurinappears to have been suggested by the phrasepurum uricum) is due to Fischer. In 1881-1882 he published papers which established the formulae of uric acid, xanthine, caffeine, theobromine and some other compounds of this group. But his greatest work in this field was instituted in 1894, when he commenced his great series of papers, wherein the compounds above mentioned were all referred to a nitrogenous base, purin (q.v.). The base itself was obtained, but only after much difficulty; and an immense series of derivatives were prepared, some of which were patented in view of possible therapeutical applications.1These researches were published in a collected form in 1907 with the titleUntersuchungen in der Puringruppe(1882-1906). The first stage of his purin work successfully accomplished, he next attacked the sugar group. Here the pioneer work was again of little moment, and Fischer may be regarded as the prime investigator in this field. His researches may be taken as commencing in 1883; and the results are unparalleled in importance in the history of organic chemistry. The chemical complexity of these carbohydrates, and the difficulty with which they could be got into a manageable form—they generally appeared as syrups—occasioned much experimental difficulty; but these troubles were little in comparison with the complications due to stereochemical relations. However, Fischer synthesized fructose, glucose and a great number of other sugars, and having showed how to deduce, for instance, the formulae of the 16 stereoisomeric glucoses, he prepared several stereoisomerides, thereby completing a most brilliant experimental research, and simultaneously confirming the van’t Hoff theory of the asymmetric carbon atom (seeStereo-Isomerism). The study of the sugars brought in its train the necessity for examining the nature, properties and reactions of substances which bring about the decomposition known as fermentation (q.v.). Fischer attacked the problem presented by ferments and enzymes, and although we as yet know little of this complex subject, to Fischer is due at least one very important discovery, viz. that there exists some relation between the chemical constitution of a sugar and the ferment and enzyme which breaks it down. The magnitude of his researches in this field may be gauged by his collected papers,Untersuchungen über Kohlenhydrate und Fermente(1884-1908), pp. viii. + 912 (Berlin, 1909).From the sugars and ferments it is but a short step to the subject of the proteins, substances which are more directly connected with life processes than any others. The chemistry of the proteins, a subject which bids fair to be Fischer’s great lifework, presents difficulties which are probably without equal in the whole field of chemistry, partly on account of the extraordinary chemical complexity of the substances involved, and partly upon the peculiar manner in which chemical reactions are brought about in the living organism. But by the introduction of new methods, Fischer succeeded in breaking down the complex albuminoid substances into amino acids and other nitrogenous compounds, the constitutions of most of which have been solved; and by bringing about the recombination of these units, appropriately chosen, he prepared synthetic peptides which approximate to the natural products. His methods led to the preparation of an octadeca-peptide of the molecular weight 1213, exceeding that of any other synthetic compound; but even this compound falls far short of the simplest natural peptide, which has a molecular weight of from 2000 to 3000. He considers, however, that the synthesis of more complex products is only a matter of trouble and cost. His researches made from 1899 to 1906 have been published with the titleUntersuchungen über Aminosauren, Polypeptides und Proteine(Berlin, 1907). The extraordinary merit of his many researches has been recognized by all the important scientific societies in the world, and he was awarded the Nobel prize for chemistry in 1902. Under his control the laboratory at Berlin became one of the most important in existence, and has attracted to it a constant stream of brilliant pupils, many of whom are to be associated with much of the experimental work indissolubly connected with Fischer.

From the sugars and ferments it is but a short step to the subject of the proteins, substances which are more directly connected with life processes than any others. The chemistry of the proteins, a subject which bids fair to be Fischer’s great lifework, presents difficulties which are probably without equal in the whole field of chemistry, partly on account of the extraordinary chemical complexity of the substances involved, and partly upon the peculiar manner in which chemical reactions are brought about in the living organism. But by the introduction of new methods, Fischer succeeded in breaking down the complex albuminoid substances into amino acids and other nitrogenous compounds, the constitutions of most of which have been solved; and by bringing about the recombination of these units, appropriately chosen, he prepared synthetic peptides which approximate to the natural products. His methods led to the preparation of an octadeca-peptide of the molecular weight 1213, exceeding that of any other synthetic compound; but even this compound falls far short of the simplest natural peptide, which has a molecular weight of from 2000 to 3000. He considers, however, that the synthesis of more complex products is only a matter of trouble and cost. His researches made from 1899 to 1906 have been published with the titleUntersuchungen über Aminosauren, Polypeptides und Proteine(Berlin, 1907). The extraordinary merit of his many researches has been recognized by all the important scientific societies in the world, and he was awarded the Nobel prize for chemistry in 1902. Under his control the laboratory at Berlin became one of the most important in existence, and has attracted to it a constant stream of brilliant pupils, many of whom are to be associated with much of the experimental work indissolubly connected with Fischer.

1For a brief review of the pharmacology of purin derivatives see F. Francis and J.M. Fortescue-Brinkdale,The Chemical Basis of Pharmacology(1908).

FISCHER, ERNST KUNO BERTHOLD(1824-1907), German philosopher, was born at Sandewalde in Silesia, on the 23rd of July 1824. After studying philosophy at Leipzig and Halle, he became a privat-docent at Heidelberg in 1850. The Baden government in 1853 laid an embargo on his teaching owing tohis Liberal ideas, but the effect of this was to rouse considerable sympathy for his views, and in 1856 he obtained a professorship at Jena, where he soon acquired great influence by the dignity of his personal character. In 1872, on Zeller’s removal to Berlin, Fischer succeeded him as professor of philosophy and the history of modern German literature at Heidelberg, where he died on the 4th of July 1907. His part in philosophy was that of historian and commentator, for which he was especially qualified by his remarkable clearness of exposition; his point of view is in the main Hegelian. HisGeschichte der neuern Philosophie(1852-1893, new ed. 1897) is perhaps the most accredited modern book of its kind, and he made valuable contributions to the study of Kant, Bacon, Shakespeare, Goethe, Spinoza, Lessing, Schiller and Schopenhauer.

Some of his numerous works have been translated into English:Francis Bacon of Verulam, by J. Oxenford (1857);The Life and Character of Benedict Spinoza, by Frida Schmidt (1882);A Commentary on Kant’s Kritik of Pure Reason, by J.P. Mahaffy (1866);Descartes and his School, by J.P. Gordy (1887);A Critique of Kant, by W.S. Hough (1888); see also H. Falkenheim,Kuno Fischer und die litterar-historische Methode(1892); and bibliography in J.M. Baldwin’sDictionary of Philosophy and Psychology(1905).

FISH, HAMILTON(1808-1893), American statesman, was born in New York City on the 3rd of August 1808. His father, Nicholas Fish (1758-1833), served in the American army during the War of American Independence, rising to the rank of lieutenant-colonel. The son graduated at Columbia College in 1827, and in 1830 was admitted to the bar, but practised only a short time. In 1843-1845 he was a Whig representative in Congress. He was the Whig candidate for lieutenant-governor of New York in 1846, and was defeated by Addison Gardner (Democrat); but when in 1847 Gardner was appointed a judge of the state court of appeals, Fish was elected (November 1847) to complete the term (to January 1849). He was governor of New York state from 1849 to 1851, and was United States senator in 1851-1857, acting with the Republicans during the last part of his term. In 1861-1862 he was associated with John A. Dix, William M. Evarts, William E. Dodge, A.T. Stewart, John Jacob Astor, and other New York men, on the Union Defence Committee, which (from April 22, 1861, to April 30, 1862) co-operated with the municipal government in the raising and equipping of troops, and disbursed more than a million dollars for the relief of New York volunteers and their families. Fish was secretary of state during President Grant’s two administrations (1869-1877). He conducted the negotiations with Great Britain which resulted in the treaty of the 8th of May 1871, under which (Article 1) the “Alabama claims” were referred to arbitration, and the same disposition (Article 34) was made of the “San Juan Boundary Dispute,” concerning the Oregon boundary line. In 1871 Fish presided at the Peace Conference at Washington between Spain and the allied republics of Peru, Chile, Ecuador and Bolivia, which resulted in the formulation (April 12) of a general truce between those countries, to last indefinitely and not to be broken by any one of them without three years’ notice given through the United States; and it was chiefly due to his restraint and moderation that a satisfactory settlement of the “Virginius Affair” was reached by the United States and Spain (1873). Fish was vice-president-general of the Society of the Cincinnati from 1848 to 1854, and president-general from 1854 until his death. He died in Garrison, New York, on the 7th of September 1893.

His son,Nicholas Fish(1846-1902), was appointed second secretary of legation at Berlin in 1871, became secretary in 1874, and waschargé d’affairesat Berne in 1877-1881, and minister to Belgium in 1882-1886, after which he engaged in banking in New York City.

FISH(O. Eng.fisc, a word common to Teutonic languages, cf. Dutchvisch, Ger.Fisch, Goth.fisks, cognate with the Lat.piscis), the common name of that class of vertebrate animals which lives exclusively in water, breathes through gills, and whose limbs take the form of fins (seeIchthyology). The articleFisheriesdeals with the subject from the economic and commercial point of view, andAnglingwith the catching of fish as a sport. The constellation and sign of the zodiac known as “the fishes” is treated underPisces.

The fish was an early symbol of Christ in primitive and medieval Christian art. The origin is to be found in the initial letters of the names and titles of Jesus in Greek, viz.Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Ὑιός, Σώτηρ, Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour, which together spell the Greek word for “fish,”ἰχθύς. The fish is also said to be represented in the oval-shaped figure, pointed at both ends, and formed by the intersection of two circles. This figure, also known as thevesica piscis, is common in ecclesiastical seals and as a glory or aureole in paintings of sculpture, surrounding figures of the Trinity, saints, &c. The figure is, however, sometimes referred to the almond, as typifying virginity; the French name for the symbol isAmande mystique.

The word “fish” is used in many technical senses. Thus it is used of the purchase used in raising the flukes of an anchor to the bill-board; of a piece of wood or metal used to strengthen a sprung mast or yard; and of a plate of metal used, as in railway construction, for the strengthening of the meeting-place of two rails. This word is of doubtful origin, but it is probably an adaptation of the Fr.fiche, that which “fixes,” a peg. This word also appears in the English form “fish,” in the metal, pearl or bone counters, sometimes made in the form of fish, used for scoring points, &c., in many games.

FISHER, ALVAN(1792-1863), American portrait-painter, was born at Needham, Massachusetts, on the 9th of August 1792. At the age of eighteen he was a clerk in a country shop, and subsequently was employed by the village house painter, but at the age of twenty-two he began to paint portrait heads, alternating with rural scenes and animals, for which he found patrons at modest prices. In ten years he had saved enough to go to Europe, studying at the Paris schools and copying in the galleries of the Louvre. Upon his return he became one of the recognized group of Massachusetts portrait-painters. Along with Doughty, Harding and Alexander, in 1831, he held an exhibition of his work in Boston—perhaps the first joint display by painters ever held in that city. Though he had considerable talent for landscape, a lack of patronage for such work caused him to confine himself to portraiture, in which he was moderately successful. He died at Dedham, Mass., on the 16th of February 1863.

FISHER, GEORGE PARK(1827-1909), American theologian, was born at Wrentham, Massachusetts, on the 10th of August 1827. He graduated at Brown University in 1847, and at the Andover Theological Seminary in 1851, spent three years in study in Germany, was college preacher and professor of divinity at Yale College in 1854-1861, and was Titus Street professor of ecclesiastical history in the Yale Divinity School in 1861-1901, when he was made professoremeritus. He was president of the American Historical Association in 1897-1898. His writings have given him high rank as an authority on ecclesiastical history. They includeEssays on the Supernatural Origin of Christianity(1865);History of the Reformation(1873), republished in several revisions;The Beginnings of Christianity(1877);Discussions in History and Theology(1880);Outlines of Universal History(1886);History of the Christian Church(1887);The Nature and Method of Revelation(1890);Manual of Natural Theology(1893);A History of Christian Doctrine, in the “International Theological Library” (1896); andA Brief History of Nations(1896). He died on the 20th of December 1909.

FISHER, JOHN(c.1469-1535), English cardinal and bishop of Rochester, born at Beverly, received his first education at the collegiate church there. In 1484 he went to Michael House, Cambridge, where he took his degrees in arts in 1487 and 1491, and, after filling several offices in the university, became master of his college in 1499. He took orders; and his reputation for learning and piety attracted the notice of Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII., who made him her confessor and chaplain. In 1501 he became vice-chancellor; and later on, when chancellor, he was able to forward, if not to initiate entirely, the beneficent schemes of his patroness in the foundations of St. John’s and Christ’s colleges, in addition to two lectureships, in Greekand Hebrew. His love for Cambridge never waned, and his own benefactions took the form of scholarships, fellowships and lectures. In 1503 he was the first Margaret professor at Cambridge; and the following year was raised to the see of Rochester, to which he remained faithful, although the richer sees of Ely and Lincoln were offered to him. He was nominated as one of the English prelates for the Lateran council (1512), but did not attend. A man of strict and simple life, he did not hesitate at the legatine synod of 1517 to censure the clergy, in the presence of the brilliant Wolsey himself, for their greed of gain and love of display; and in the convocation of 1523 he freely opposed the cardinal’s demand for a subsidy for the war in Flanders. A great friend of Erasmus, whom he invited to Cambridge, whilst earnestly working for a reformation of abuses, he had no sympathy with those who attacked doctrine; and he preached at Paul’s Cross (12th of May 1521) at the burning of Luther’s books. Although he was not the author of Henry’s book against Luther, he joined with his friend, Sir Thomas More, in writing a reply to the scurrilous rejoinder made by the reformer. He retained the esteem of the king until the divorce proceedings began in 1527; and then he set himself sternly in favour of the validity of the marriage. He was Queen Catherine’s confessor and her only champion and advocate. He appeared on her behalf before the legates at Blackfriars; and wrote a treatise against the divorce that was widely read.

Recognizing that the true aim of the scheme of church reform brought forward in parliament in 1529 was to put down the only moral force that could withstand the royal will, he energetically opposed the reformation of abuses, which doubtless under other circumstances he would have been the first to accept. In convocation, when the supremacy was discussed (11th of February 1531), he declared that acceptance would cause the clergy “to be hissed out of the society of God’s holy Catholic Church”; and it was his influence that brought in the saving clause,quantum per legem Dei licet. By listening to the revelations of the “Holy Maid of Kent,” the nun Elizabeth Barton (q.v.), he was charged with misprision of treason, and was condemned to the loss of his goods and to imprisonment at the king’s will, penalties he was allowed to compound by a fine of £300 (25th of March 1534). Fisher was summoned (13th of April) to take the oath prescribed by the Act of Succession, which he was ready to do, were it not that the preamble stated that the offspring of Catherine were illegitimate, and prohibited all faith, trust and obedience to any foreign authority or potentate. Refusing to take the oath, he was committed (15th of April) to the Tower, where he suffered greatly from the rigours of a long confinement. On the passing of the Act of Supremacy (November 1534), in which the saving clause of convocation was omitted, he was attainted and deprived of his see. The council, with Thomas Cromwell at their head, visited him on the 7th of May 1535, and his refusal to acknowledge Henry as supreme head of the church was the ground of his trial. The constancy of Fisher, while driving Henry to a fury that knew no bounds, won the admiration of the wholeChristianworld, where he had been long known as one of the most learned and pious bishops of the time. Paul III., who had begun his pontificate with the intention of purifying the curia, was unaware of the grave danger in which Fisher lay; and in the hope of reconciling the king with the bishop, created him (20th of May 1535) cardinal priest of St Vitalis. When the news arrived in England it sealed his fate. Henry, in a rage, declared that if the pope sent Fisher a hat there should be no head for it. The cardinal was brought to trial at Westminster (17th of June 1535) on the charge that he did “openly declare in English that the king, our sovereign lord, is not supreme head on earth of the Church of England,” and was condemned to a traitor’s death at Tyburn, a sentence afterwards changed. He was beheaded on Tower Hill on the 22nd of June 1535, after saying theTe Deumand the psalmIn te Domine speravi. His body was buried first at All Hallows, Barking, and then removed to St. Peter’sad vinculain the Tower, where it lies beside that of Sir Thomas More. His head was exposed on London Bridge and then thrown into the river. As a champion of the rights of conscience, and as the only one of the English bishops that dared to resist the king’s will, Fisher commends himself to all. On the 9th of December 1886 he was beatified by Pope Leo XIII.

Back to Index Next