Chapter 2

1A complete list, showing all individual contributors, appears in the final volume.

PRINCIPAL UNSIGNED ARTICLES

Franz Josef Land.

Free Church Federation.

French Guinea.

French West Africa.

Friedland.

Frisian Islands.

Frisians.

Fronde, The.

Fuero.

Furnace.

Galapagos Islands.

Galicia.

Galway.

Gambia.

Gawain.

Gelatin.

Genius.

Gentian.

Gentianaceae.

George, Saint.

George Junior Republic.

Georgia (U.S.A.).

Geraniaceae.

Geranium.

German Baptist Brethren.

German Catholics.

Gettysburg.

Geyser.

Ghazni.

Ghent.

Ghor.

Giant.

FRANCISCANS(otherwise called Friars Minor, or Minorites; also the Seraphic Order; and in England Grey Friars, from the colour of the habit, which, however, is now brown rather than grey), a religious order founded by St Francis of Assisi (q.v.). It was in 1206 that St Francis left his father’s house and devoted himself to a life of poverty and to the service of the poor, the sick and the lepers; and in 1209 that he felt the call to add preaching to his other ministrations, and to lead a life in the closest imitation of Christ’s life. Within a few weeks disciples began to join themselves to him; the condition was that they should dispose of all their possessions. When their number was twelve Francis led the little flock to Rome to obtain the pope’s sanction for their undertaking. Innocent III. received them kindly, but with some misgivings as to the feasibility of the proposed manner of life; these difficulties were overcome, and the pope accorded a provisional approval by word of mouth: they were to become clerics and to elect a superior. Francis was elected and made a promise of obedience to the pope, and the others promised obedience to Francis.

This formal inauguration of the institute was in 1209 or (as seems more probable) 1210. Francis and his associates were first known as “Penitents of Assisi,” and then Francis chose the title of “Minors.” On their return to Assisi they obtained from the Benedictine abbey on Mount Subasio the use of the little chapel of St Mary of the Angels, called the Portiuncula, in the plain below Assisi, which became the cradle and headquarters of the order. Around the Portiuncula they built themselves huts of branches and twigs, but they had no fixed abode; they wandered in pairs over the country, dressed in the ordinary clothes of the peasants, working in the fields to earn their daily bread, sleeping in barns or in the hedgerows or in the porches of the churches, mixing with the labourers and the poor, with the lepers and the outcasts, ever joyous—the “joculatores” or “jongleurs” of God—ever carrying out their mission of preaching to the lowly and to the wretched religion and repentance and the kingdom of God. The key-note of the movement was the imitation of the public life of Christ, especially the poverty of Christ. Francis and his disciples were to aim at possessing nothing, absolutely nothing, so far as was compatible with life; they were to earn their bread from day to day by the work of their hands, and only when they could not do so were they to beg; they were to make no provision for the morrow, lay by no store, accumulate no capital, possess no land; their clothes should be the poorest and their dwellings the meanest; they were forbidden to receive or to handle money. On the other hand they were bound only to the fast observed in those days by pious Christians, and were allowed to eat meat—the rule said they should eat whatever was set before them; no austerities were imposed, beyond those inseparable from the manner of life they lived.

Thus the institute in its original conception was quite different from the monastic institute, Benedictine or Canon Regular. It was a confraternity rather than an order, and there was no formal novitiate, no organization. But the number of brothers increased with extraordinary rapidity, and the field of work soon extended itself beyond the neighbourhood of Assisi and even beyond Umbria—within three or four years there were settlements in Perugia, Cortona, Pisa, Florence and elsewhere, and missions to the Saracens and Moors were attempted by Francis himself. About 1217 Franciscan missions set out for Germany, France, Spain, Hungary and the Holy Land; and in 1219 a number of provinces were formed, each governed by a provincial minister. These developments, whereby the little band of Umbrian apostles had grown into an institute spread all over Europe and even penetrating to the East, and numbering thousands of members, rendered impossible the continuance of the original free organization whereby Francis’s word and example were the sufficient practical rule of life for all: it was necessary as a condition of efficiency and even of existence and permanence that some kind of organization should be provided. From an early date yearly meetings or chapters had been held at the Portiuncula, at first attended by the whole body of friars; but as the institute extended this became unworkable, and after 1219 the chapter consisted only of the officials, provincial ministers and others. During Francis’s absence in the East (1219-1220) a deliberate movement was initiated by the two vicars whom he had left in charge of the order, towards assimilating it to the monastic orders. Francis hurried back, bringing with him Elias of Cortona, the provincial minister of Syria, and immediately summoned an extraordinary general chapter (September 1220). Before it met he had an interview on the situation with Cardinal Hugolino of Ostia (afterwards Gregory IX.), the great friend and supporter of both Francis and Dominic,and he went to Honorius III. at Orvieto and begged that Hugolino should be appointed the official protector of the order. The request was granted, and a bull was issued formally approving the order of Friars Minor, and decreeing that before admission every one must pass a year’s novitiate, and that after profession it was not lawful to leave the order. By this bull the Friars Minor were constituted an order in the technical sense of the word. When the chapter assembled, Francis, no doubt from a genuine feeling that he was not able to govern a great world-wide order, practically abdicated the post of minister-general by appointing a vicar, and the policy of turning the Friars Minor into a great religious order was consistently pursued, especially by Elias, who a year later became Francis’s vicar.

St Francis’s attitude towards this change is of primary importance for the interpretation of Franciscan history. There can be little doubt that his affections never altered from his first love, and that he looked back regretfully on the “Umbrian idyll” that had passed away; on the other hand, there seems to be no reason for doubting that he saw that the methods of the early days were now no longer possible, and that he acquiesced in the inevitable. This seems to be Professor Goetz’s view, who holds that Sabatier’s picture of Francis’s agonized sadness at witnessing the destruction of his great creation going on under his eyes, has no counterpart in fact, and who rejects the view that the changes were forced on Francis against his better judgment by Hugolino and Elias (see “Note on Sources” at end of articleFrancis of Assisi; alsoElias of Cortona); Goetz holds that the only conflict was the inevitable one between an unrealizable ideal and its practical working among average men. But there does seem to be evidence that Francis deplored tendencies towards a departure from the severe simplicity of life and from the strict observance of poverty which he considered the ground-idea of his institute. In the final redaction of his Rule made in 1223 and in his Testament, made after it, he again clearly asserts his mind on these subjects, especially on poverty; and in the Testament he forbids any glosses in the interpretation of the Rule, declaring that it is to be taken simply as it stands. Sabatier’s view as to the difference between the “First Rule” and that of 1223 is part of his general theory, and is, to say the least, a grave exaggeration. No doubt the First Rule, which is fully four times as long, gives a better picture of St Francis’s mind and character; the later Rule has been formed from the earlier by the elimination of the frequent scripture texts and the edificatory element; but the greater portion of it stood almost verbally in the earlier.

On Francis’s death in 1226 the government of the order rested in the hands of Elias until the chapter of 1227. At this chapter Elias was not elected minister-general; the building of the great basilica and monastery at Assisi was so manifest a violation of St Francis’s ideas and precepts that it produced a reaction, and John Parenti became St Francis’s first successor. He held fast to St Francis’s ideas, but was not a strong man. At the chapter of 1230 a discussion arose concerning the binding force of St Francis’s Testament, and the interpretation of certain portions of the Rule, especially concerning poverty, and it was determined to submit the questions to Pope Gregory IX., who had been St Francis’s friend and had helped in the final redaction of the Rule. He issued a bull,Quo elongati, which declared that as the Testament had not received the sanction of the general chapter it was not binding on the order, and also allowed trustees to hold and administer money for the order. John Parenti and those who wished to maintain St Francis’s institute intact were greatly disturbed by these relaxations; but a majority of the chapter of 1232, by a sort ofcoup d’etat, proclaimed Elias minister-general, and John retired, though in those days the office was for life. Under Elias the order entered on a period of extraordinary extension and prosperity: the number of friars in all parts of the world increased wonderfully, new provinces were formed, new missions to the heathen organized, the Franciscans entered the universities and vied with the Dominicans as teachers of theology and canon law, and as a body they became influential in church and state. With all this side of Elias’s policy the great bulk of the order sympathized; but his rule was despotic and tyrannical and his private life was lax—at least according to any Franciscan standard, for no charge of grave irregularity was ever brought against him. And so a widespread movement against his government arose, the backbone of which was the university element at Paris and Oxford, and at a dramatic scene in a chapter held in the presence of Gregory IX. Elias was deposed (1239).

The story of these first years after St Francis’s death is best told by Ed. Lempp,Frère Élie de Cortone(1901) (but see the warning at the end of the articleElias of Cortona).

At this time the Franciscans were divided into three parties: there were the Zealots, or Spirituals, who called for a literal observance of St Francis’s Rule and Testament; they deplored all the developments since 1219, and protested against turning the institute into an order, the frequentation of the universities and the pursuit of learning; in a word, they wished to restore the life to what it had been during the first few years—the hermitages and the huts of twigs, and the care of the lepers and the nomadic preaching. The Zealots were few in number but of great consequence from the fact that to them belonged most of the first disciples and the most intimate companions of St Francis. They had been grievously persecuted under Elias—Br. Leo and others had been scourged, several had been imprisoned, one while trying to escape was accidentally killed, and Br. Bernard, the “first disciple,” passed a year in hiding in the forests and mountains hunted like a wild beast. At the other extreme was a party of relaxation, that abandoned any serious effort to practise Franciscan poverty and simplicity of life. Between these two stood the great middle party of moderates, who desired indeed that the Franciscans should be really poor and simple in their manner of life, and really pious, but on the other hand approved of the development of the Order on the lines of other orders, of the acquisition of influence, of the cultivation of theology and other sciences, and of the frequenting of the universities.

The questions of principle at issue in these controversies is reasonably and clearly stated, from the modern Capuchin standpoint, in the “Introductory Essay” toThe Friars and how they came to England, by Fr. Cuthbert (1903).

The moderate party was by far the largest, and embraced nearly all the friars of France, England and Germany. It was the Moderates and not the Zealots that brought about Elias’s deposition, and the next general ministers belonged to this party. Further relaxations of the law of poverty, however, caused a reaction, and John of Parma, one of the Zealots, became minister-general, 1247-1257. Under him the more extreme of the Zealots took up and exaggerated the theories of the Eternal Gospel of the Calabrian Cistercian abbot Joachim of Fiore (Floris); some of their writings were condemned as heretical, and John of Parma, who was implicated in these apocalyptic tendencies, had to resign. He was succeeded by St Bonaventura (1257-1274), one of the best type of the middle party. He was a man of high character, a theologian, a mystic, a holy man and a strong ruler. He set himself with determination to effect a working compromise, and proceeded with firmness against the extremists on both sides. But controversy and recrimination and persecution had stiffened the more ardent among the Zealots into obstinate fanatics—some of them threw themselves into a movement that may best be briefly described as a recrudescence of Montanism (see Émile Gebhart’sItalie mystique, 1899, cc. v. and vi.), and developed into a number of sects, some on the fringe of Catholic Christianity and others beyond its pale. But the majority of the Zealot party, or Spirituals, did not go so far, and adopted as the principle of Franciscan poverty the formula “a poor and scanty use” (usus pauper et tenuis) of earthly goods, as opposed to the “moderate use” advocated by the less strict party. The question thus posed came before the Council of Vienne, 1312, and was determined, on the whole, decidedly in favour of the stricter view. Some of the French Zealots were not satisfied and formed a semi-schismatical body in Provence; twenty-five of them were tried before the Inquisition, and four were burned alive at Marseilles as obstinate heretics, 1318. After this the schism in the Order subsided. But the disintegrating forces produced by the Great Schism and by the other disorders of the 14th century caused among the Franciscans the same relaxations and corruptions, and also the same reactions and reform movements, as among the other orders.

The chief of these reforms was that of the Observants, which began at Foligno about 1370. The Observant reform was on the basis of the “poor and scanty use” of worldly goods, but it was organized as an order and its members freely pursuedtheological studies; thus it did not represent the position of the original Zealot party, nor was it the continuation of it. The Observant reform spread widely throughout Italy and into France, Spain and Germany. The great promoters of the movement were St Bernardine of Siena and St John Capistran. The council of Constance, 1415, allowed the French Observant friaries to be ruled by a vicar of their own, under the minister-general, and the same privilege was soon accorded to other countries. By the end of the middle ages the Observants had some 1400 houses divided into 50 provinces. This movement produced a “half-reform” among the Conventuals or friars of the mitigated observance; it also called forth a number of lesser imitations or congregations of strict observance.

After many attempts had been made to bring about a working union among the many observances, in 1517 Leo X. divided the Franciscan order into two distinct and independent bodies, each with its own minister-general, its own provinces and provincials and its own general chapter: (1) The Conventuals, who were authorized to use the various papal dispensations in regard to the observance of poverty, and were allowed to possess property and fixed income, corporately, like the monastic orders; (2) The Observants, who were bound to as close an observance of St Francis’s Rule in regard to poverty and all else as was practically possible.

At this time a great number of the Conventuals went over to the Observants, who have ever since been by far the more numerous and influential branch of the order. Among the Observants in the course of the sixteenth century arose various reforms, each striving to approach more and more nearly to St Francis’s ideal; the chief of these reforms were the Alcantarines in Spain (St Peter of Alcantara, St Teresa’s friend, d. 1562), the Riformati in Italy and the Recollects in France: all of these were semi-independent congregations. The Capuchins (q.v.), establishedc.1525, who claim to be the reform which approaches nearest in its conception to the original type, became a distinct order of Franciscans in 1619. Finally Leo XIII. grouped the Franciscans into three bodies or orders—the Conventuals; the Observants, embracing all branches of the strict observance, except the Capuchins; and the Capuchins—which together constitute the “First Order.” For the “Second Order,” or the nuns, seeClara, St, andClares, Poor; and for the “Third Order” seeTertiaries. Many of the Tertiaries live a fully monastic life in community under the usual vows, and are formed into Congregations of Regular Tertiaries, both men and women. They have been and are still very numerous, and give themselves up to education, to the care of the sick and of orphans and to good works of all kinds.

No order has had so stormy an internal history as the Franciscans; yet in spite of all the troubles and dissensions and strivings that have marred Franciscan history, the Friars Minor of every kind have in each age faithfully and zealously carried on St Francis’s great work of ministering to the spiritual needs of the poor. Always recruited in large measure from among the poor, they have ever been the order of the poor, and in their preaching and missions and ministrations they have ever laid themselves out to meet the needs of the poor. Another great work of the Franciscans throughout the whole course of their history has been their missions to the Mahommedans, both in western Asia and in North Africa, and to the heathens in China, Japan and India, and North and South America; a great number of the friars were martyred. The news of the martyrdom of five of his friars in Morocco was one of the joys of St Francis’s closing years. Many of these missions exist to this day. In the Universities, too, the Franciscans made themselves felt alongside of the Dominicans, and created a rival school of theology, wherein, as contrasted with the Aristotelianism of the Dominican school, the Platonism of the early Christian doctors has been perpetuated.

The Franciscans came to England in 1224 and immediately made foundations in Canterbury, London and Oxford; by the middle of the century there were fifty friaries and over 1200 friars in England; at the Dissolution there were some 66 Franciscan friaries, whereof some six belonged to the Observants (for list seeCatholic Dictionaryand F. A. Gasquet’sEnglish Monastic Life, 1904). Though nearly all the English houses belonged to what has been called the “middle party,” as a matter of fact they practised great poverty, and the commissioners of Henry VIII. often remark that the Franciscan Friary was the poorest of the religious houses of a town. The English province was one of the most remarkable in the order, especially in intellectual achievement; it produced Friar Roger Bacon, and, with the single exception of St Bonaventure, all the greatest doctors of the Franciscan theological school—Alexander Hales, Duns Scotus and Occam.

The Franciscans have always been the most numerous by far of the religious orders; it is estimated that about the period of the Reformation the Friars Minor must have numbered nearly 100,000. At the present day the statistics are roughly (including lay-brothers): Observants, 15,000, Conventuals, 1500; to these should be added 9500 Capuchins, making the total number of Franciscan friars about 26,000. There are various houses of Observants and Capuchins in England and Ireland; and the old Irish Conventuals survived the penal times and still exist.

There have been four Franciscan popes: Nicholas IV. (1288-1292), Sixtus IV. (1471-1484), Sixtus V. (1585-1590), Clement XIV. (1769-1774); the three last were Conventuals.

The great source for Franciscan history is Wadding’sAnnales; it has been many times continued, and now extends in 25 vols. fol. to the year 1622. The story is also told by Helyot,Hist. des ordres religieux(1714), vol. vii. Abridgments, with references to recent literature, will be found in Max Heimbucher,Orden und Kongregationen(1896), i. §§ 37-51; in Wetzer und Welte,Kirchenlexicon(2nd ed.), articles “Armut (III.),” “Franciscaner orden” (this article contains the best account of the inner history and the polity of the order up to 1886); in Herzog,Realencyklopädie(3rd ed.), articles “Franz von Assisi” (fullest references to literature up to 1899), “Fraticellen.” Of modern critical studies on Franciscan origins, K. Müller’sAnfänge des Minoritenordens und der Bussbruderschaften(1885), and various articles by F. Ehrle inArchiv für Litteratur- und Kirchengeschichte des MittelaltersandZeitschrift für Katholische Theologie, deserve special mention. Eccleston’s charming chronicle of “The Coming of the Friars Minor into England” has been translated into English by the Capuchin Fr. Cuthbert, who has prefixed an Introductory Essay giving by far the best account in English of “the Spirit and Genius of the Franciscan Friars” (The Friars and how they came to England, 1903). Fuller information on the English Franciscans will be found in A. G. Little’sGrey Friars in Oxford(Oxford Hist. Soc., 1892).

(E. C. B.)

FRANCK.The name of Franck has been given indiscriminately but improperly to painters of the school of Antwerp who belong to the families of Francken (q.v.) and Vrancx (q.v.). One artist truly entitled to be called Franck is Gabriel, who entered the gild of Antwerp in 1605, became its president in 1636 and died in 1639. But his works cannot now be traced.

FRANCK, CÉSAR(1822-1890), French musical composer, a Belgian by birth, who came of German stock, was born at Liége on the 10th of December 1822. Though one of the most remarkable of modern composers, César Franck laboured for many years in comparative obscurity. After some preliminary studies at Liége he came to Paris in 1837 and entered the conservatoire. He at once obtained the first prize for piano, transposing a fugue at sight to the astonishment of the professors, for he was only fifteen. He won the prize for the organ in 1841, after which he settled down in the French capital as teacher of the piano. His earliest compositions date from this period, and include four trios for piano and strings, besides several piano pieces.Ruth, a biblical cantata was produced with success at the Conservatoire in 1846. An opera entitledLe Valet de fermewas written about this time, but has never been performed. For many years Franck led a retired life, devoting himself to teaching and to his duties as organist, first at Saint-Jean-Saint-François, then at Ste Clotilde, where he acquired a great reputation as an improviser. He also wrote a mass, heard in 1861, and a quantity of motets, organ pieces and other works of a religious character.

Franck was appointed professor of the organ at the Paris conservatoire, in succession to Benoist, his old master, in 1872, and the following year he was naturalized a Frenchman. Until then he was esteemed as a clever and conscientious musician,but he was now about to prove his title to something more. A revival of his early oratorio,Ruth, had brought his name again before the public, and this was followed by the production ofRédemption, a work for solo, chorus and orchestra, given under the direction of M. Colonne on the 10th of April 1873. The unconventionality of the music rather disconcerted the general public, but the work nevertheless made its mark, and Franck became the central figure of an enthusiastic circle of pupils and adherents whose devotion atoned for the comparative indifference of the masses. His creative power now manifested itself in a series of works of varied kinds, and the name of Franck began gradually to emerge from its obscurity. The following is an enumeration of his subsequent compositions:Rebecca(1881), a biblical idyll for solo, chorus and orchestra; Les Béatitudes, an oratorio composed between 1870 and 1880, perhaps his greatest work; the symphonic poems,Les Éolides(1876),Le Chasseur maudit(1883),Les Djinns(1884), for piano and orchestra;Psyche(1888), for orchestra and chorus; symphonic variations for piano and orchestra (1885); symphony in D (1889); quintet for piano and strings (1880); sonata for piano and violin (1886); string quartet (1889); prelude, choral and fugue for piano (1884); prelude, aria and finale for piano (1889); various songs, notably “La Procession” and “Les Cloches du Soir.” Franck also composed two four-act operas,HuldaandGhiselle, both of which were produced at Monte Carlo after his death, which took place in Paris on the 8th of November 1890. The second of these was left by the master in an unfinished state, and the instrumentation was completed by several of his pupils.

César Franck’s influence on younger French composers has been very great. Yet his music is German in character rather than French. A more sincere, modest, self-respecting composer probably never existed. In the centre of the brilliant French capital he was able to lead a laborious existence consecrated to his threefold career of organist, teacher and composer. He never sought to gain the suffrages of the public by unworthy concessions, but kept straight on his path, ever mindful of an ideal to be reached and never swerving therefrom. A statue was erected to the memory of César Franck in Paris on the 22nd of October 1904, the occasion producing a panegyric from Alfred Bruneau, in which he speaks of the composer’s works as “cathedrals in sound.”

FRANCK,orFrank[latinizedFrancus],SEBASTIAN(c.1499-c.1543), German freethinker, was born about 1499 at Donauwörth, whence he constantly styled himself Franck von Wörd. He entered the university of Ingoldstadt (March 26, 1515), and proceeded thence to the Dominican College, incorporated with the university, at Heidelberg. Here he met his subsequent antagonists, Bucer and Frecht, with whom he seems to have attended the Augsburg conference (October 1518) at which Luther declared himself a true son of the Church. He afterwards reckoned the Leipzig disputation (June-July 1519) and the burning of the papal bull (December 1520) as the beginning of the Reformation. Having taken priest’s orders, he held in 1524 a cure in the neighbourhood of Augsburg, but soon (1525) went over to the Reformed party at Nuremberg and became preacher at Gustenfelden. His first work (finished September 1527) was a German translation with additions (1528) of the first part of theDiallage, orConciliatio locorum Scripturae, directed against Sacramentarians and Anabaptists by Andrew Althamer, then deacon of St Sebald’s at Nuremberg. On the 17th of March 1528 he married Ottilie Beham, a gifted lady, whose brothers, pupils of Albrecht Dürer, had got into trouble through Anabaptist leanings. In the same year he wrote a very popular treatise against drunkenness. In 1529 he produced a free version (Klagbrief der armen Dürftigen in England) of the famousSupplycacyon of the Beggers, written abroad (1528?) by Simon Fish. Franck, in his preface, says the original was in English; elsewhere he says it was in Latin; the theory that his German was really the original is unwarrantable. Advance in his religious ideas led him to seek the freer atmosphere of Strassburg in the autumn of 1529. To his translation (1530) of a LatinChronicle and Descriptionof Turkey, by a Transylvanian captive, which had been prefaced by Luther, he added an appendix holding up the Turks as in many respects an example to Christians, and presenting, in lieu of the restrictions of Lutheran, Zwinglian and Anabaptist sects, the vision of an invisible spiritual church, universal in its scope. To this ideal he remained faithful. At Strassburg began his intimacy with Caspar Schwenkfeld, a congenial spirit. Here, too, he published, in 1531, his most important work, theChronica, Zeitbuch und Geschichtsbibel, largely a compilation on the basis of the Nuremberg Chronicle (1493), and in its treatment of social and religious questions connected with the Reformation, exhibiting a strong sympathy with heretics, and an unexampled fairness to all kinds of freedom in opinion. It is too much to call him “the first of German historians”; he is a forerunner of Gottfried Arnold, with more vigour and directness of purpose. Driven from Strassburg by the authorities, after a short imprisonment in December 1531, he tried to make a living in 1532 as a soapboiler at Esslingen, removing in 1533 for a better market to Ulm, where (October 28, 1534) he was admitted as a burgess.

HisWeltbuch, a supplement to hisChronica, was printed at Tübingen in 1534; the publication, in the same year, of hisParadoxaat Ulm brought him into trouble with the authorities. An order for his banishment was withdrawn on his promise to submit future works for censure. Not interpreting this as applying to works printed outside Ulm, he published in 1538 at Augsburg hisGuldin Arch(with pagan parallels to Christian sentiments) and at Frankfort hisGermaniae chronicon, with the result that he had to leave Ulm in January 1539. He seems henceforth to have had no settled abode. At Basel he found work as a printer, and here, probably, it was that he died in the winter of 1542-1543. He had published in 1539 hisKriegbüchlein des Friedens(pseudonymous), hisSchrifftliche und ganz gründliche Auslegung des 64 Psalms, and hisDas verbütschierte mit sieben Siegeln verschlossene Buch(a biblical index, exhibiting the dissonance of Scripture); in 1541 hisSpruchwörter(a collection of proverbs, several times reprinted with variations); in 1542 a new edition of hisParadoxa; and some smaller works.

Franck combined the humanist’s passion for freedom with the mystic’s devotion to the religion of the spirit. His breadth of human sympathy led him to positions which the comparative study of religions has made familiar, but for which his age was unprepared. Luther contemptuously dismissed him as a “devil’s mouth.” Pastor Frecht of Nuremberg pursued him with bitter zeal. But his courage did not fail him, and in his last year, in a public Latin letter, he exhorted his friend John Campanus to maintain freedom of thought in face of the charge of heresy.

See Hegler, in Hauck’sRealencyklopädie(1899); C. A. Hase,Sebastian Franck von Wörd(1869); J. F. Smith, inTheological Review(April 1874); E. Tausch,Sebastian Franck von Donauwörth und seine Lehrer(1893).

(A. Go.*)

FRANCKE, AUGUST HERMANN(1663-1727), German Protestant divine, was born on the 22nd of March 1663 at Lübeck. He was educated at the gymnasium in Gotha, and afterwards at the universities of Erfurt, Kiel, where he came under the influence of the pietist Christian Kortholt (1633-1694), and Leipzig. During his student career he made a special study of Hebrew and Greek; and in order to learn Hebrew more thoroughly, he for some time put himself under the instructions of Rabbi Ezra Edzardi at Hamburg. He graduated at Leipzig, where in 1685 he became aPrivatdozent. A year later, by the help of his friend P. Anton, and with the approval and encouragement of P. J. Spener, he founded the Collegium Philobiblicum, at which a number of graduates were accustomed to meet for the systematic study of the Bible, philologically and practically. He next passed some months at Lüneburg as assistant or curate to the learned superintendent, C. H. Sandhagen (1639-1697), and there his religious life was remarkably quickened and deepened. On leaving Lüneburg he spent some time in Hamburg, where he became a teacher in a private school, and made the acquaintance of Nikolaus Lange (1659-1720). After a long visit to Spener,who was at that time a court preacher in Dresden, he returned to Leipzig in the spring of 1689, and began to give Bible lectures of an exegetical and practical kind, at the same time resuming the Collegium Philobiblicum of earlier days. He soon became popular as a lecturer; but the peculiarities of his teaching almost immediately aroused a violent opposition on the part of the university authorities; and before the end of the year he was interdicted from lecturing on the ground of his alleged pietism. Thus it was that Francke’s name first came to be publicly associated with that of Spener, and with pietism. Prohibited from lecturing in Leipzig, Francke in 1690 found work at Erfurt as “deacon” of one of the city churches. Here his evangelistic fervour attracted multitudes to his preaching, including Roman Catholics, but at the same time excited the anger of his opponents; and the result of their opposition was that after a ministry of fifteen months he was commanded by the civil authorities (27th of September 1691) to leave Erfurt within forty-eight hours. The same year witnessed the expulsion of Spener from Dresden.

In December, through Spener’s influence, Francke accepted an invitation to fill the chair of Greek and oriental languages in the new university of Halle, which was at that time being organized by the elector Frederick III. of Brandenburg; and at the same time, the chair having no salary attached to it, he was appointed pastor of Glaucha in the immediate neighbourhood of the town. He afterwards became professor of theology. Here, for the next thirty-six years, until his death on the 8th of June 1727, he continued to discharge the twofold office of pastor and professor with rare energy and success. At the very outset of his labours he had been profoundly impressed with a sense of his responsibility towards the numerous outcast children who were growing up around him in ignorance and crime. After a number of tentative plans, he resolved in 1695 to institute what is often called a “ragged school,” supported by public charity. A single room was at first sufficient, but within a year it was found necessary to purchase a house, to which another was added in 1697. In 1698 there were 100 orphans under his charge to be clothed and fed, besides 500 children who were taught as day scholars. The schools grew in importance and are still known as theFrancke’sche Stiftungen. The education given was strictly religious. Hebrew was included, while the Greek and Latin classics were neglected; theHomiliesof Macarius took the place of Thucydides. The same principle was consistently applied in his university teaching. Even as professor of Greek he had given great prominence in his lectures to the study of the Scriptures; but he found a much more congenial sphere when, in 1698, he was appointed to the chair of theology. Yet his first courses of lectures in that department were readings and expositions of the Old and New Testament; and to this, as also to hermeneutics, he always attached special importance, believing that for theology a sound exegesis was the one indispensable requisite. “Theologus nascitur in scripturis,” he used to say; but during his occupancy of the theological chair he lectured at various times upon other branches of theology also. Amongst his colleagues were Paul Anton (1661-1730), Joachim J. Breithaupt (1658-1732) and Joachim Lange (1670-1744),—men like-minded with himself. Through their influence upon the students, Halle became a centre from which pietism (q.v.) became very widely diffused over Germany.

His principal contributions to theological literature were:Manuductio ad lectionem Scripturae Sacrae(1693);Praelectiones hermeneuticae(1717);Commentatio de scopo librorum Veteris et Novi Testamenti(1724); andLectiones paraeneticae(1726-1736). TheManuductiowas translated into English in 1813, under the titleA Guide to the Reading and Study of the Holy Scriptures. An account of his orphanage, entitledSegensvolle Fussstapfen, &c. (1709), which subsequently passed through several editions, has also been partially translated, under the titleThe Footsteps of Divine Providence: or, The bountiful Hand of Heaven defraying the Expenses of Faith. See H. E. F. Guericke’sA. H. Francke(1827), which has been translated into English (The Life of A. H. Francke, 1837); Gustave Kramer’sBeiträge zur Geschichte A. H. Francke’s(1861), andNeue Beiträge(1875); A. Stein,A. H. Francke(3rd ed., 1894); article in Herzog-Hauck’sRealencyklopädie(ed. 1899); Knuth,Die Francke’schen Stiftungen(2nd ed., 1903).

FRANCKEN.Eleven painters of this family cultivated their art in Antwerp during the 16th and 17th centuries. Several of these were related to each other, whilst many bore the same Christian name in succession. Hence unavoidable confusion in the subsequent classification of paintings not widely differing in style or execution. When Franz Francken the first found a rival in Franz Francken the second, he described himself as the “elder,” in contradistinction to his son, who signed himself the “younger.” But when Franz the second was threatened with competition from Franz the third, he took the name of “the elder,” whilst Franz the third adopted that of Franz “the younger.”

It is possible, though not by any means easy, to sift the works of these artists. The eldest of the Franckens, Nicholas of Herenthals, died at Antwerp in 1596, with nothing but the reputation of having been a painter. None of his works remain. He bequeathed his art to three children. Jerom Francken, the eldest son, after leaving his father’s house, studied under Franz Floris, whom he afterwards served as an assistant, and wandered, about 1560, to Paris. In 1566 he was one of the masters employed to decorate the palace of Fontainebleau, and in 1574 he obtained the appointment of court painter from Henry III., who had just returned from Poland and visited Titian at Venice. In 1603, when Van Mander wrote his biography of Flemish artists, Jerom Francken was still in Paris living in the then aristocratic Faubourg St Germain. Among his earliest works we should distinguish a “Nativity” in the Dresden museum, executed in co-operation with Franz Floris. Another of his important pieces is the “Abdication of Charles V.” in the Amsterdam museum. Equally interesting is a “Portrait of a Falconer,” dated 1558, in the Brunswick gallery. In style these pieces all recall Franz Floris. Franz, the second son of Nicholas of Herenthals, is to be kept in memory as Franz Francken the first. He was born about 1544, matriculated at Antwerp in 1567, and died there in 1616. He, too, studied under Floris, and never settled abroad, or lost the hard and gaudy style which he inherited from his master. Several of his pictures are in the museum of Antwerp; one dated 1597 in the Dresden museum represents “Christ on the Road to Golgotha,” and is signed by him as D. õ (Den ouden) F. Franck. Ambrose, the third son of Nicholas of Herenthals, has bequeathed to us more specimens of his skill than Jerom or Franz the first. He first started as a partner with Jerom at Fontainebleau, then he returned to Antwerp, where he passed for his gild in 1573, and he lived at Antwerp till 1618. His best works are the “Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes” and the “Martyrdom of St Crispin,” both large and ambitious compositions in the Antwerp museum. In both these pieces a fair amount of power is displayed, but marred by want of atmosphere and shadow or by hardness of line and gaudiness of tone. There is not a trace in the three painters named of the influence of the revival which took place under the lead of Rubens. Franz Francken the first trained three sons to his profession, the eldest of whom, though he practised as a master of gild at Antwerp from 1600 to 1610, left no visible trace of his labours behind. Jerom the second took service with his uncle Ambrose. He was born in 1578, passed for his gild in 1607, and in 1620 produced that curious picture of “Horatius Cocles defending the Sublician Bridge” which still hangs in the Antwerp museum. The third son of Franz Francken the first is Franz Francken the second, who signed himself in pictures till 1616 “the younger,” from 1630 till his death “the elder” F. Francken. These pictures are usually of a small size, and are found in considerable numbers in continental collections. Franz Francken the second was born in 1581. In 1605 he entered the gild, of which he subsequently became the president, and in 1642 he died. His earliest composition is the “Crucifixion” in the Belvedere at Vienna, dated 1606. His latest compositions as “the younger” F. Francken are the “Adoration of the Virgin” (1616) in the gallery of Amsterdam, and the “Woman taken in Adultery” (1628) in Dresden. From 1616 to 1630 many of his pieces are signed F. Francken; then come the “Seven Works of Charity” (1630) at Munich, signed “the elder F. F.,” the “Prodigal Son”(1633) at the Louvre, and other almost countless examples. It is in F. Francken the second’s style that we first have evidence of the struggle which necessarily arose when the old customs, hardened by Van Orley and Floris, or Breughel and De Vos, were swept away by Rubens. But F. Francken the second, as before observed, always clung to small surfaces; and though he gained some of the freedom of the moderns, he lost but little of the dryness or gaudiness of the earlier Italo-Flemish revivalists. F. Francken the third, the last of his name who deserves to be recorded, passed in the Antwerp gild in 1639 and died at Antwerp in 1667. His practice was chiefly confined to adding figures to the architectural or landscape pieces of other artists. As Franz Pourbus sometimes put in the portrait figures for Franz Francken the second, so Franz Francken the third often introduced the necessary personages into the works of Pieter Neefs the younger (museums of St Petersburg, Dresden and the Hague). In a “Moses striking the Rock,” dated 1654, of the Augsburg gallery, this last of the Franckens signs D. õ (Den ouden) F. Franck. In the pictures of this artist we most clearly discern the effects of Rubens’s example.

FRANCO-GERMAN WAR(1870-1871). The victories of Prussia in 1866 over the Austrians and their German allies (seeSeven Weeks’ War) rendered it evident to the statesmen and soldiers of France that a struggle between the two nations could only be a question of time. Army reforms were at once undertaken, and measures were initiated in France to place the armament and equipment of the troops on a level with the requirements of the times. The chassepot, a new breech-loading rifle, immensely superior to the Prussian needle-gun, was issued; the artillery trains were thoroughly overhauled, and a new machine-gun, themitrailleuse, from which much was expected, introduced. Wide schemes of reorganization (due mainly to Marshal Niel) were set in motion, and, since these required time to mature, recourse was had to foreign alliances in the hope of delaying the impending rupture. In the first week of June 1870, General Lebrun, as a confidential agent of the emperor Napoleon III., was sent to Vienna to concert a plan of joint operations with Austria against Prussia. Italy was also to be included in the alliance, and it was agreed that in case of hostilities the French armies should concentrate in northern Bavaria, where the Austrians and Italians were to join them, and the whole immense army thus formed should march via Jena on Berlin. To what extent Austria and Italy committed themselves to this scheme remains uncertain, but that the emperor Napoleon believed in theirbona fidesis beyond doubt.

Whether the plan was betrayed to Prussia is also uncertain, and almost immaterial, for Moltke’s plans were based on an accurate estimate of the time it would take Austria to mobilize and on the effect of a series of victories on French soil. At any rate Moltke was not taken into Bismarck’s confidence in the affair of Ems in July 1870, and it is to be presumed that the chancellor had already satisfied himself that the schemes of operations prepared by the chief of the General Staff fully provided against all eventualities. These schemes were founded on Clausewitz’s view of the objects to be pursued in a war against France—in the first place the defeat of the French field armies and in the second the occupation of Paris. On these lines plans for the strategic deployment of the Prussian army were prepared by the General Staff and kept up to date year by year as fresh circumstances (e.g.the co-operation of the minor German armies) arose and new means of communication came into existence. The campaign was actually opened on a revise of 1868-1869, to which was added, on the 6th of May 1870, a secret memorandum for the General Staff.

Under the German organization then existing the preliminary to all active operations was of necessity full and complete mobilization. Then followed transport by road and rail to the line selected for the “strategic deployment,” and it was essential that no part of these operations should be disturbed by action on the part of the enemy. But no such delay imposed itself of necessity upon the French, and a vigorous offensive was so muchStrategic deployment of the German armies.in harmony with their traditions that the German plan had to be framed so as to meet such emergencies. On the whole, Moltke concluded that the enemy could not undertake this offensive before the eighth day after mobilization. At that date about five French army corps (150,000 men) could be collected near Metz, and two corps (70,000) near Strassburg; and as it was six days’ march from Metz to the Rhine, no serious attack could be delivered before the fourteenth day, by which day it could be met by superior forces near Kirchheimbolanden. Since, however, the transport of the bulk of the Prussian forces could not begin till the ninth day, their ultimate line of detrainment need not be fixed until the French plans were disclosed, and, as it was important to strike at the earliest moment possible, the deployment was provisionally fixed to be beyond the Rhine on the line Wittlich-Neunkirchen-Landau. Of the thirteen North German corps three had to be left behind to guard the eastern frontier and the coast, one other, the VIII., was practically on the ground already and could concentrate by road, and the remaining nine were distributed to the nine through railway lines available. These ten corps were grouped in three armies, and as the French might violate Belgian neutrality or endeavour to break into southern Germany, two corps (Prussian Guard and Saxon XII. corps) were temporarily held back at a central position around Mainz, whence they could move rapidly up or down the Rhine valley. If Belgian neutrality remained unmolested, the reserve would join the III. army on the left wing, giving it a two to one superiority over its adversary; all three armies would then wheel to the right and combine in an effort to force the French army into a decisive battle on the Saar on or about the twenty-third day. As in this wheel the army on the right formed the pivot and was required only to stand fast, two corps only were allotted to it; two corps for the present formed the III. army, and the remaining five were assigned to the II. army in the centre.

When (16th-17th July) the South German states decided to throw in their lot with the rest, their three corps were allotted to the III. army, the Guards and Saxons to the II. army, whilst the three corps originally left behind were finally distributed one to each army, so that up to the investment of Metz the order of battle was as follows:

On the French side no such plan of operations was in existence when on the night of the 15th of JulyKrieg mobilwas telegraphed all over Prussia. An outline scheme had indeed been prepared as a basis for agreement with Austria andPositions of the French forces.Italy, but practically no details were fixed, and the troops were without transport and supplies. Nevertheless, since speed was the essence of the contract, the troopswere hurried up without waiting for their reserves, and delivered, as Moltke had foreseen, just where the lie of the railways and convenience of temporary supply dictated, and the Prussian Intelligence Department was able to inform Moltke on the 22nd of July (seventh day of mobilization) that the French stood from right to left in the following order, on or near the frontier:

If therefore they began a forward movement on the 23rd (eighth day) the case foreseen by Moltke had arisen, and it became necessary to detrain the II. army upon the Rhine. Without waiting for further confirmation of this intelligence, Moltke, with the consent of the king, altered the arrangements accordingly, a decision which, though foreseen, exercised the gravest influence on the course of events. As it happened this decision was premature, for the French could not yet move. Supply trains had to be organized by requisition from the inhabitants, and even arms and ammunition procured for such reserves as had succeeded in joining. Nevertheless, by almost superhuman exertions on the part of the railways and administrative services, all essential deficiencies were made good, and by the 28th of July (13th day) the troops had received all that was absolutely indispensable and might well have been led against the enemy, who, thanks to Moltke’s premature action, were for the moment at a very serious disadvantage. But the French generals were unequal to their responsibilities. It is now clear that, had the great Napoleon and his marshals been in command, they would have made light of the want of cooking pots, cholera belts, &c., and, by a series of rapid marches, would have concentrated odds of at least three to one upon the heads of the Prussian columns as they struggled through the defiles of the Hardt, and won a victory whose political results might well have proved decisive.

To meet this pressing danger, which came to his knowledge during the course of the 29th, Moltke sent a confidential staff officer, Colonel v. Verdy du Vernois, to the III. army to impress upon the crown prince the necessity of an immediate advance to distract the enemy’s attention from the I. and II. armies; but, like the French generals, the crown prince pleaded that he could not move until his trains were complete. Fortunately for the Germans, the French intelligence service not only failed to inform the staff of this extraordinary opportunity, but it allowed itself to be hypnotized by the most amazing rumours. In imagination they saw armies of 100,000 men behind every forest, and, to guard against these dangers, the French troops were marched and counter-marched along the frontiers in the vain hope of discovering an ideal defensive position which should afford full scope to the power of their new weapons.

As these delays were exerting a most unfavourable effect on public opinion not only in France but throughout Europe, the emperor decided on the 1st of August to initiate a movement towards the Saar, chiefly as a guarantee of good faith to the Austrians and Italians.

On this day the French corps held the following positions from right to left:

The French 2nd corps was directed to advance on the following morning direct on Saarbrücken, supported on the flanks by two divisions from the 5th and 3rd corps. The order was duly carried out, and the Prussians (one battalion, two squadrons and aAction of Saarbrücken.battery), seeing the overwhelming numbers opposed to them, fell back fighting and vanished to the northward, having given a very excellent example of steadiness and discipline to their enemy.1The latter contented themselves by occupying Saarbrücken and its suburb St Johann, and here, as far as the troops were concerned, the incident closed. Its effect, however, proved far-reaching. The Prussian staff could not conceive that nothing lay behind this display of five whole divisions, and immediately took steps to meet the expected danger. In their excitement, although they had announced the beginning of the action to the king’s headquarters at Mainz, they forgot to notify the close and its results, so that Moltke was not in possession of the facts till noon on the 3rd of August. Meanwhile, Steinmetz, left without instructions and fearing for the safety of the II. army, the heads of whose columns were still in the defiles of the Hardt, moved the I. army from the neighbourhood of Merzig obliquely to his left front, so as to strike the flank of the French army if it continued its march towards Kaiserslautern, in which direction it appeared to be heading.

Whilst this order was in process of execution, Moltke, aware that the II. army was behind time in its march, issued instructions to Steinmetz for the 4th of August which entailed a withdrawal to the rear, the idea being that bothMoltke, Prince Frederick Charles and Steinmetz.armies should, if the French advanced, fight a defensive battle in a selected position farther back. Steinmetz obeyed, though bitterly resenting the idea of retreat. This movement, further, drew his left across the roads reserved for the right column of the II. army, and on receipt of a peremptory order from Prince Frederick Charles to evacuate the road, Steinmetz telegraphed for instructions direct to the king, over Moltke’s head. In reply he received a telegram from Moltke, ordering him to clear the road at once, and couched in terms which he considered as a severe reprimand. An explanatory letter, meant to soften the rebuke, was delayed in transmission and did not reach him till too late to modify the orders he had already issued. It must be remembered that Steinmetz at the front was in a better position to judge the apparent situation than was Moltke at Mainz, and that all through the day of the 5th of August he had received intelligence indicating a change of attitude in the French army.

The news of the German victory at Weissenburg on the 4th (see below) had in fact completely paralysed the French headquarters, and orders were issued by them during the course of the 5th to concentrate the whole army of theBattle of Spicheren.Rhine on the selected position of Cadenbronn. As a preliminary, Frossard’s corps withdrew from Saarbrücken and began to entrench a position on the Spicheren heights, 3000 yds. to the southward. Steinmetz, therefore, being quite unaware of the scheme for a great battle on the Saar about the 12th of August, felt that the situation would best be met, and the letter of his instructions strictly obeyed, by moving his whole command forward to the line of the Saar, and orders to this effect were issued on the evening of the 5th. In pursuance of these orders, the advance guard of the 14th division (Lieutenant General von Kameke) reached Saarbrücken about 9A.M.on the 6th, where the Germans found to their amazement that the bridges were intact. To secure this advantage was the obvious duty of the commander on the spot, and he at once ordered his troops to occupy a line of low heights beyond the town to serve as a bridge-head. As the leading troops deployed on the heights Frossard’s guns on the Spicheren Plateau opened fire, and the advanced guard battery replied. The sound of these guns unchained the whole fighting instinct carefully developed by a long course of Prussian manœuvre training. Everywhere, generals and troops hurried towards the cannon thunder. Kameke, even more in the dark than Steinmetz as to Moltke’s intentions and the strength of his adversaries, attacked at once, precisely as he would have done at manœuvres, and in half an hour his men were committed beyond recall. As each fresh unit reached the field it was hurried into action where its serviceswere most needed, and each fresh general as he arrived took a new view of the combat and issued new orders. On the other side, Frossard, knowing the strength of his position, called on his neighbours for support, and determined to hold his ground. Victory seemed certain. There were sufficient troops within easy reach to have ensured a crushing numerical superiority. But the other generals had not been trained to mutual support, and thought only of their own immediate security, and their staffs were too inexperienced to act upon even good intentions; and, finding himself in the course of the afternoon left to his own devices, Frossard began gradually to withdraw, even before the pressure of the 13th German division on his left flank (about 8P.M.) compelled his retirement. When darkness ended the battle the Prussians were scarcely aware of their victory. Steinmetz, who had reached the field about 6P.M., rode back to his headquarters without issuing any orders, while the troops bivouacked where they stood, the units of three army corps being mixed up in almost inextricable confusion. But whereas out of 42,900 Prussians with 120 guns, who in the morning lay within striking distance of the enemy, no fewer than 27,000, with 78 guns were actually engaged; of the French, out of 64,000 with 210 guns only 24,000 with 90 guns took part in the action.

Meanwhile on the German left wing the III. army had begun its advance. Early on the 4th of August it crossed the frontier and fell upon a French detachment under Abel Douay, which had been placed near Weissenburg, partly toAction of Weissenburg.cover the Pigeonnier pass, but principally to consume the supplies accumulated in the little dismantled fortress, as these could not easily be moved. Against this force of under 4000 men of all arms, the Germans brought into action successively portions of three corps, in all over 25,000 men with 90 guns. After six hours’ fighting, in which the Germans lost some 1500 men, the gallant remnant of the French withdrew deliberately and in good order, notwithstanding the death of their leader at the critical moment. The Germans were so elated by their victory over the enemy, whose strength they naturally overestimated, that they forgot to send cavalry in pursuit, and thus entirely lost touch with the enemy.

Next day the advance was resumed, the two Bavarian corps moving via Mattstall through the foothills of the Vosges, the V. corps on their left towards Preuschdorf, and the XI. farther to the left again, through the wooded plain of the Rhine valley. The 4th cavalry division scouted in advance, and army headquarters moved to Sulz. About noon the advanced patrols discovered MacMahon’s corps in position on the left bank of the Sauer (seeWörth:Battle of). As his army was dispersed over a wide area, the crown prince determined to devote the 6th to concentrating the troops, and, probably to avoid alarming the enemy, ordered the cavalry to stand fast.

At night the outposts of the I. Bavarians and V. corps on the Sauer saw the fires of the French encampment and heard the noise of railway traffic, and rightly conjectured the approach of reinforcements. MacMahon had in fact determined to stand in the very formidable position he had selected, and he counted on receiving support both from the 7th corps (two divisions of which were being railed up from Colmar) and from the 5th corps, which lay around Bitche. It was also quite possible, and the soundest strategy, to withdraw the bulk of the troops then facing the German I. and II. armies to his support, and these would reach him by the 8th. He was therefore justified in accepting battle, though it was to his interest to delay it as long as possible.

At dawn on the 6th of August the commander of the V. corps outposts noticed certain movements in the French lines, and to clear up the situation brought his guns into action. As at Spicheren, the sound of the guns set the wholeBattle of Wörth.machinery of battle in motion. The French artillery immediately accepted the Prussian challenge. The I. Bavarians, having been ordered to be ready to move if they heard artillery fire, immediately advanced against the French left, encountering presently such a stubborn resistance that parts of their line began to give way. The Prussians of the V. corps felt that they could not abandon their allies, and von Kirchbach, calling on the XI. corps for support, attacked with the troops at hand. When the crown prince tried to break off the fight it was too late. Both sides were feeding troops into the firing line, as and where they could lay hands on them. Up to 2P.M.the French fairly held their own, but shortly afterwards their right yielded to the overwhelming pressure of the XI. corps, and by 3.30 it was in full retreat. The centre held on for another hour, but in its turn was compelled to yield, and by 4.30 all organized resistance was at an end. The débris of the French army was hotly pursued by the German divisional squadrons towards Reichshofen, where serious panic showed itself. When at this stage the supports sent by de Failly from Bitche came on the ground they saw the hopelessness of intervention, and retired whence they had come. Fortunately for the French, the German 4th cavalry division, on which the pursuit should have devolved, had been forgotten by the German staff, and did not reach the front before darkness fell. Out of a total of 82,000 within reach of the battlefield, the Germans succeeded in bringing into action 77,500. The French, who might have had 50,000 on the field, deployed only 37,000, and these suffered a collective loss of no less than 20,100; some regiments losing up to 90% and still retaining some semblance of discipline and order.

Under cover of darkness the remnants of the French army escaped. When at length the 4th cavalry division had succeeded in forcing a way through the confusion of the battlefield, all touch with the enemy had been lost, and being without firearms the troopers were checked by the French stragglers in the woods and the villages, and thus failed to establish the true line of retreat of the French. Ultimately the latter, having gained the railway near Lunéville, disappeared from the German front altogether, and all trace of them was lost until they were discovered, about the 26th of August, forming part of the army of Châlons, whither they had been conveyed by rail via Paris. This is a remarkable example of the strategical value of railways to an army operating in its own country.

In the absence of all resistance, the III. army now proceeded to carry out the original programme of marches laid down in Moltke’s memorandum of the 6th of May, and marching on a broad front through a fertile district it reached the line of the Moselle in excellent order about the 17th of August, where it halted to await the result of the great battle of Gravelotte-St Privat.

We return now to the I. army at Saarbrücken. Its position on the morning of the 7th of August gave cause for the gravest anxiety. At daylight a dense fog lay over the country, and through the mist sounds of heavy firing cameMovements on the Saar.from the direction of Forbach, where French stragglers had rallied during the night. The confusion on the battlefield was appalling, and the troops in no condition to go forward. Except the 3rd, 5th and 6th cavalry divisions no closed troops were within a day’s march; hence Steinmetz decided to spend the day in reorganizing his infantry, under cover of his available cavalry. But the German cavalry and staff were quite new to their task. The 6th cavalry division, which had bivouacked on the battlefield, sent on only one brigade towards Forbach, retaining the remainder in reserve. The 5th, thinking that the 6th had already undertaken all that was necessary, withdrew behind the Saar, and the 3rd, also behind the Saar, reported that the country in its front was unsuited to cavalry movements, and only sent out a few officers’ patrols. These were well led, but were too few in number, and their reports were consequently unconvincing.

In the course of the day Steinmetz became very uneasy, and ultimately he decided to concentrate his army by retiring the VII. and VIII. corps behind the river on to the I. (which had arrived near Saarlouis), thus clearing the Saarbrücken-Metz road for the use of the II. army. But at this moment Prince Frederick Charles suddenly modified his views. During the 6th of August his scouts had reported considerable French forces near Bitche (these were the 5th, de Failly’s corps), and early in the morning of the 7th he received a telegram from Moltkeinforming him that MacMahon’s beaten army was retreating on the same place (the troops observed were in fact those which had marched to MacMahon’s assistance). The prince forthwith deflected the march of the Guards, IV. and X. corps, towards Rohrbach, whilst the IX. and XII. closed up to supporting distance behind them. Thus, as Steinmetz moved away to the west and north, Frederick Charles was diverging to the south and east, and a great gap was opening in the very centre of the German front. This was closed only by the III. corps, still on the battle-field, and by portions of the X. near Saargemünd,2whilst within striking distance lay 130,000 French troops, prevented only by the incapacity of their chiefs from delivering a decisive counter-stroke.

Fortunately for the Prussians, Moltke at Mainz took a different view. Receiving absolutely no intelligence from the front during the 7th, he telegraphed orders to the I. and II. armies (10.25P.M.) to halt on the 8th, and impressed on Steinmetz the necessity of employing his cavalry to clear up the situation. The I. army had already begun the marches ordered by Steinmetz. It was now led back practically to its old bivouacs amongst the unburied dead. Prince Frederick Charles only conformed to Moltke’s order with the III. and X. corps; the remainder executed their concentration towards the south and east.

During the night of the 7th of August Moltke decided that the French army must be in retreat towards the Moselle and forthwith busied himself with the preparation of fresh tables of march for the two armies, his object being to swing up the left wing to outflank the enemy from the south. This work, and the transfer of headquarters to Homburg, needed time, hence no fresh orders were issued to either army, and neither commander would incur the responsibility of moving without any. The I. army therefore spent a fourth night in bivouac on the battlefield. But Constantin von Alvensleben, commanding the III. corps, a man of very different stamp from his colleagues, hearing at first hand that the French had evacuated St Avold, set his corps in motion early in the morning of the 10th August down the St Avold-Metz road, reached St Avold and obtained conclusive evidence that the French were retreating.

During the 9th the orders for the advance to the Moselle were issued. These were based, not on an exact knowledge of where the French army actually stood, but on the opinionAdvance to the Moselle.Moltke had formed as to where it ought to have been on military grounds solely, overlooking the fact that the French staff were not free to form military decisions but were compelled to bow to political expediency.

Actually on the 7th of August the emperor had decided to attack the Germans on the 8th with the whole Rhine Army, but this decision was upset by alarmist reports from the beaten army of MacMahon. He then decided to retreat to the Moselle, as Moltke had foreseen, and there to draw to himself the remnants of MacMahon’s army (now near Lunéville). At the same time he assigned the executive command over the whole Rhine Army to Marshal Bazaine. This retreat was begun during the course of the 8th and 9th of August; but on the night of the 9th urgent telegrams from Paris induced the emperor to suspend the movement, and during the 10th the whole army took up a strong position on the French Nied.

Meanwhile the II. German army had received its orders to march in a line of army corps on a broad front in the general direction of Pont-à-Mousson, well to the south of Metz. The I. army was to follow by short marches in échelon on the right; only the III. corps was directed on Falkenberg, a day’s march farther towards Metz along the St Avold-Metz road. The movement was begun on the 10th, and towards evening the French army was located on the right front of the III. corps. This entirely upset Moltke’s hypothesis, and called for a complete modification of his plans, as the III. corps alone could not be expected to resist the impact of Bazaine’s five corps. The III. corps therefore received orders to stand fast for the moment, and the remainder of the II. army was instructed to wheel to the right and concentrate for a great battle to the east of Metz on the 16th or 17th.

Back to Index Next