FRONDE

men against the old French regiments, consented to depart with A few more manœuvres, and the royal army was able to hem in a money payment and the promise of two tiny Lorraine fortresses. the Frondeurs in the Faubourg St Antoine (2nd July 1652) with their backs to the closed gates of Paris. The royalists attacked all along the line and won a signal victory in spite of the knightly prowess of the prince and his great lords, but at the critical gates and to admit Condé's army. She herself turned the guns moment Gaston's daughter persuaded the Parisians to open the of the Bastille on the pursuers. general of the realm. Mazarin, feeling that public opinion was An insurrectional government was organized in the capital and proclaimed Monsieur lieutenantsolidly against him, left France again, and the bourgeois of Paris, quarrelling with the princes, permitted the king to enter the city February 1653. on the 21st of October 1652. Mazarin returned unopposed in

for reinforcements to be sent to subdue the rebellion in the | of the mercenaries, and their leader, not wishing to expend his south, and the royal general had to retire. Then, happily for France, the archduke decided that he had spent sufficient of the king of Spain's money and men in the French quarrel. The magnificent regular army withdrew into winter quarters, and left Turenne to deliver the princes with a motley host of Frondeurs and Lorrainers. Plessis-Praslin by force and bribery secured the surrender of Rethel on the 13th of December 1650, and Turenne, who had advanced to relieve the place, fell back hurriedly. But he was a terrible opponent, and Plessis-Praslin and Mazarin himself, who accompanied the army, had many misgivings as to the result of a lost battle. The marshal chose nevertheless to force Turenne to a decision, and the battle of Blanc-Champ (near Somme-Py) or Rethel was the consequence. Both sides were at a standstill in strong positions, Plessis-Praslin doubtful of the trustworthiness of his cavalry, Turenne too weak to attack, when a dispute for precedence arose between the Gardes françaises and the Picardie regiment. The royal infantry had to be rearranged in order of regimental seniority, and Turenne, seeing and desiring to profit by the attendant disorder, came out of his stronghold and attacked with the greatest vigour. The battle (December 15, 1650) was severe and for a time doubtful, but Turenne's Frondeurs gave way in the end, and his army, as an army, ceased to exist. Turenne himself, undeceived as to the part he was playing in the drama, asked and received the young king's pardon, and meantime the court, with the maison | du roi and other loyal troops, had subdued the minor risings without difficulty (March-April 1651). Condé, Conti and Longueville were released, and by April 1651 the rebellion had everywhere collapsed. Then followed a few months of hollow peace and the court returned to Paris. Mazarin, an object of hatred to all the princes, had already retired into exile. temps est un galant homme," he remarked, "laissons le faire!" "Le and so it proved. His absence left the field free for mutual jealousies, and for the remainder of the year anarchy reigned in France. In December 1651 Mazarin returned with a small army. The war began again, and this time Turenne and Condé were pitted against one another. After the first campaign, as we shall see, the civil war ceased, but for several other campaigns the two great soldiers were opposed to one another, Turenne as the defender of France, Condé as a Spanish invader. Their personalities alone give threads of continuity to these seven years of wearisome manœuvres, sieges and combats, though for a right understanding of the causes which were to produce the standing armies of the age of Louis XIV. and Frederick the Great the military student should search deeply into the material and moral factors that here decided the issue.

The début of the new Frondeurs took place in Guyenne (February-March 1652), while, their Spanish ally, the archduke Leopold William, captured various northern fortresses. On the Loire, whither the centre of gravity was soon transferred, the Frondeurs were commanded by intriguers and quarrelsome lords, until Condé's arrival from Guyenne. His bold trenchant leadership made itself felt in the action of Bléneau (7th April 1652), in which a portion of the royal army was destroyed, but fresh troops came up to oppose him, and from the skilful dispositions made by his opponents Condé felt the presence of Turenne and broke off the action. The royal army did likewise. Condé invited the commander of Turenne's rearguard to supper, chaffed him unmercifully for allowing the prince's men to surprise him in the morning, and by way of farewell remarked to his guest, "Quel dommage que des braves gens comme nous se coupent la gorge pour un faquin "-an incident and a remark that thoroughly justify the iron-handed absolutism of Louis XIV. There was no hope for France while tournaments on a large scale and at the public's expense were fashionable amongst the grands seigneurs. After Bléneau both armies marched to Paris to negotiate with the parlement, de Retz and Mlle de Montpensier, while the archduke took more fortresses in Flanders, and Charles IV., duke of Lorraine, with an army of plundering mercenaries, marched through Champagne to join Condé. As to the latter, Turenne manœuvred past Condé and planted himself in front

wearied of anarchy and disgusted with the princes, came to look The Fronde as a civil war was now over. The whole country, to the king's party as the party of order and settled government, and thus the Fronde prepared the way for the absolutism of Louis XIV. The general war continued in Flanders, Catalonia and Italy wherever a Spanish and a French garrison were face definitely entered the service of the king of Spain. The" Spanish to face, and Condé with the wreck of his army openly and Fronde" was almost purely a military affair and, except for a few outstanding incidents, a dull affair to boot. In 1653 France was so exhausted that neither invaders nor defenders were able to gather supplies to enable them to take the field till July. At disadvantage, but he could not galvanize the Spanish general one moment, near Péronne, Condé had Turenne at a serious master's soldiers than to establish Condé as mayor of the palace Count Fuensaldana, who was more solicitous to preserve his to the king of France, and the armies drew apart again without fighting. In 1654 the principal incident was the siege and relief of Arras. On the night of the 24th-25th August the lines of circumvallation drawn round that place by the prince were brilliantly stormed by Turenne's army, and Condé won equal credit for his safe withdrawal of the besieging corps under cover in hand. In 1655 Turenne captured the fortresses of Landrecies, of a series of bold cavalry charges led by himself as usual, sword Condé and St Ghislain. In 1656 the prince of Condé revenged himself for the defeat of Arras by storming Turenne's circumvallation around Valenciennes (16th July), but Turenne drew off his forces in good order. The campaign of 1657 was uneventful, and is only to be remembered because a body of 6000 British with Mazarin, took part in it. The presence of the English infantry, sent by Cromwell in pursuance of his treaty of alliance contingent and its very definite purpose of making Dunkirk a paign a character of certainty and decision which is entirely new Calais, to be held by England for ever, gave the next camwanting in the rest of the war. and in great force, and when Don Juan of Austria and Condé appeared with the relieving army from Furnes, Turenne advanced Dunkirk was besieged promptly boldly to meet him. The battle of the Dunes, fought on the 14th of June 1658, was the first real trial of strength since the battle of the Faubourg St Antoine. Successes on one wing were compromised by failure on the other, but in the end Condé drew off with heavy losses, the success of his own cavalry charges having entirely failed to make good the defeat of the Spanish right wing amongst the Dunes. Here the "red-coats" made leadership of Sir W. Lockhart, Cromwell's ambassador at Paris, their first appearance on a continental battlefield, under the and astonished both armies by the stubborn fierceness of their assaults, for they were the products of a war where passions tions than in the dégringolade of the feudal spirit in which they ran higher and the determination to win rested on deeper foundanow figured. Dunkirk fell, as a result of the victory, and flew the St George's cross till Charles II. sold it to the king of France. A last desultory campaign followed in 1659-the twenty-fifth year of the Franco-Spanish War-and the peace of the Pyrenees was signed on the 5th of November. On the 27th of January

Louis. Frontenac died on the 28th of November 1698 at the Château St-Louis after a brief illness, deeply mourned by the Canadian people. The faults of the governor were those of temperament, which had been fostered by early environment. His nature was turbulent, and from his youth he had been used to command; but underlying a rough exterior there was evidence of a kindly heart. He was fearless, resourceful and decisive, and triumphed as few men could have done over the difficulties and dangers of a most critical position.

See Count Frontenac, by W. D. Le Sueur (Toronto, 1906); Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV, by Francis Parkman (Boston, 1878); Le Comte de Frontenac, by Henri Lorin (Paris, 1895); Frontenac et ses amis, by Ernest Myrand (Quebec, (A. G. D.) FRONTINUS, SEXTUS JULIUS (c. A.D. 40-103), Roman

1902).

soldier and author. In 70 he was city praetor, and five years later was sent into Britain to succeed Petilius Cerealis as governor of that island. He subdued the Silures, and held the other native tribes in check till he was superseded by Agricola (78). In 97 he was appointed superintendant of the aqueducts (curator aquarum) at Rome, an office only conferred upon persons of very high standing. He was also a member of the college of augurs. His chief work is De aquis urbis Romae, in two books, containing a history and description of the water-supply of Rome, including the laws relating to its use and maintenance, and other matters of importance in the history of architecture. Frontinus also wrote a theoretical treatise on military science (De re militari) which is lost. His Strategematicon libri iii. is a collection of examples of military stratagems from Greek and Roman history, for the use of officers; a fourth book, the plan and style of which is different from the rest (more stress is laid on the moral aspects of war, e.g. discipline), is the work of another writer (best edition by G. Gundermann, 1888). Extracts from a treatise on landsurveying ascribed to Frontinus are preserved in Lachmann's Gromatici veteres (1848).

A valuable edition of the De aquis (text and translation) has been published by C. Herschel (Boston, Mass., 1899). It contains numerous illustrations; maps of the routes of the ancient aqueducts and the city of Rome in the time of Frontinus; a photographic reproduction of the only MS. (the Monte Cassino); several explanatory chapters, and a concise bibliography, in which special reference is made to P. d Tissot, Étude sur la condition des agrimensores (1879). There is a complete edition of the works by A. Dederich (1855), and an English translation of the Strategematica by R. Scott (1816).

does not speak well for Fronto's literary taste. The authors of the Augustan age are unduly depreciated, while Ennius, Plautus, Laberius, Sallust are held up as models of imitation. Till 1815 the only extant works ascribed (erroneously) to Fronto were two grammatical treatises, De nominum verborumque differentiis and Exempla elocutionum (the last being really by Arusianus Messius). In that year, however, Angelo Mai discovered in the Ambrosian library at Milan a palimpsest manuscript (and, later, some additional sheets of it in the Vatican), on which had been originally written some of Fronto's letters to his royal pupils and their replies. These palimpsests had originally belonged to the famous convent of St Columba at Bobbio, and had been written over by the monks with the acts of the first council of Chalcedon. The letters, together with the other fragments in the palimpsest, were published at Rome in 1823. The letters consist of correspondence with Antoninus Pius, Their contents falls far short of the writer's great reputation. Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, in which the character of in the affection they both seem to have retained for their old Fronto's pupils appears in a very favourable light, especially The collection also contains treatises on eloquence, some historical master; and letters to friends, chiefly letters of recommendation. fragments, and literary trifles on such subjects as the praise of smoke and dust, of negligence, and a dissertation on Arion.

His style is a laborious mixture of archaisms, a motley cento, with the aid of which he conceals the poverty of his knowledge and ideas." His chief merit consists in having preserved extracts from ancient writers which would otherwise have been lost. The best edition of his works is by S. A. Naber (1867), with an account of the palimpsest; see also G. Boissier, "Marc-Aurèle et les lettres de F.." in Revue des deux mondes (April 1868); R. Ellis, in Journal of Philology (1868) and Correspondence of Fronto and M. Aurelius (1904); and the full bibliography in the article by Brzoska tumswissenschaft, iv. pt. i. (1900). in the new edition of Pauly's Realencyclopadie der classischen Alter

FROSINONE (anc. Frusino), a town of Italy in the province of Rome, from which it is 53 m. E.S.E. by rail. Pop. (1901) town, 9530; commune, 11,029. The place is picturesquely situated on a hill of 955 ft. above sea-level, but contains no buildings of interest. Of the ancient city walls a small fragment alone is preserved, and no other traces of antiquity are visible, not even of the amphitheatre which it once possessed, for which a ticket (tessera) has been found (Th. Mommsen in Ber. d. Sächsischen Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaften, 1849, 286). It was a Volscian, not a Hernican, town; a part of its territory was taken from it about 306-303 B.C. by the Romans and sold. The town then became a praefectura, probably with the civitas sine suffragio, and later a colony, but we hear nothing important of it. It was situated just above the Via Latina. (T. As.)

FROSSARD, CHARLES AUGUSTE (1807-1875), French general, was born on the 26th of April 1807, and entered the army from the Ecole Polytechnique in 1827, being posted to the

FRONTISPIECE (through the French, from Med. Lat. frontispicium, a front view, frons, frontis, forehead or front, and specere, to look at; the English spelling is a mistaken adaptation to "piece "), an architectural term for the principal front of a building, but more generally applied to a richly decorated entrance doorway, if projecting slightly only in front of the main wall, otherwise portal or porch would be a more correct term. The word, however, is more used for a decorative design or the representation of some subject connected with the sub-engineers. He took part in the siege of Rome in 1849 and in stance of a book and placed as the first illustrated page. A design at the end of the chapter of a book is called a tail-piece. FRONTO, MARCUS CORNELIUS (c. A.D. 100-170), Roman grammarian, rhetorician and advocate, was born of an Italian family at Cirta in Numidia. He came to Rome in the reign of Hadrian, and soon gained such renown as an advocate and orator as to be reckoned inferior only to Cicero. He amassed a large fortune, erected magnificent buildings and purchased the famous gardens of Maecenas. Antoninus Pius, hearing of his fame, appointed him tutor to his adopted sons Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. In 143 he was consul for two months, but declined the proconsulship of Asia on the ground of ill-health. His latter years were embittered by the loss of all his children except one daughter. His talents as an orator and rhetorician were greatly admired by his contemporaries, a number of whom formed themselves into a school called after him Frontoniani, whose avowed object it was to restore the ancient purity and simplicity of the Latin language in place of the exaggerations of the Greek sophistical school. However praiseworthy the intention may have been, the list of authors specially recommended |

that of Sebastopol in 1855, after which he was promoted general of brigade. Four years later as general of division, and chief of engineers in the Italian campaign, he attracted the particular notice of the emperor Napoleon III., who made him in 1867 chief of his military household and governor to the prince imperial. He was one of the superior military authorities who in this period 1866-1870 foresaw and endeavoured to prepare for the inevitable war with Germany, and at the outbreak of war he was given by Napoleon the choice between a corps command and the post of chief engineer at headquarters. He chose the command of the II. corps On the 6th of August 1870 he held the position of Spicheren against the Germans until the arrival of reinforcements for the latter, and the non-appearance of the other French corps compelled him to retire. After this he took part in the battles around Metz, and was involved with his corps in the surrender of Bazaine's army. General Frossard published in 1872 a Rapport sur les opérations du 2 corps. He died at Château-Villain (Haute-Marne) on the 25th of August 1875.

FROST, WILLIAM EDWARD (1810-1877), English painter, was born at Wandsworth, near London, in September 1810. About

1825, through William Etty, R.A., he was sent to a drawing | and dry bulb thermometer by 2.5 and subtracting the result school in Bloomsbury, and after several years' study there, and in the sculpture rooms at the British Museum, Frost was in 1829 admitted as a student in the schools of the Royal Academy. He won medals in all the schools, except the antique, in which he was beaten by Maclise. During those years he maintained himself by portrait-painting. He is said to have painted about this time over 300 portraits. In 1839 he obtained the gold medal of the Royal Academy for his picture of "Prometheus bound by Force and Strength." At the cartoon exhibition at Westminster Hall in 1843 he was awarded a third-class prize of £100 for his cartoon of "Una alarmed by Fauns and Satyrs." He exhibited at the Academy "Christ crowned with Thorns "(1843)," Nymphs dancing" (1844)," Sabrina " (1845), "Diana and Actaeon " (1846). In 1846 he was elected Associate of the Royal Academy. His "Nymph disarming Cupid "was exhibited in 1847;" Una and the Wood-Nymphs" of the same year was bought by the queen. This was the time of Frost's highest popularity, which considerably declined after 1850. His later pictures are simply repetitions of earlier motives. Among them

FROUDE

was the first president of the National Free Religious Association | that can be said against the Irish, touches too lightly on English (1867) and an early and ardent disciple of Darwin and Spencer. To his radical views he was always faithful. It is a mistake to say that he grew more conservative in later years; but his judgment grew more generous and catholic. He was a greater orator than man of letters, and his sermons in New York were delivered to large audiences, averaging one thousand at the Masonic Temple, and were printed each week; in eloquence and in the charm of his spoken word he was probably surpassed in his day by none save George William Curtis. Personally he seemed cold and distant, partly because of his impressive appearance, and partly because of his own modesty, which made him backward in seeking friendships.

His principal published works are: Stories from the Life of the Teacher (1863), A Child's Book of Religion (1866), and other works of religious teaching for children; several volumes of sermons; Beliefs of Unbelievers (1876), The Cradle of the Christ: a Study in Primitive Christianity (1877), The Spirit of New Faith (1877), The Rising and the Setting Faith (1878), and other expositions of the "new faith" he preached; Life of Theodore Parker (1874), Transcendentalism in New England (1876), which is largely biographical, Gerrit Smith, a Biography (1878), George Ripley (1882), in the "American Men of Letters Henry Channing (1886), Boston Unitarianism, 1820-1850 (1890), series, Memoir of William really a biography of his father; and Recollections and Impressions, 1822-1890 (1891).

FROUDE, JAMES ANTHONY (1818-1894), English historian, son of R. H. Froude, archdeacon of Totnes, was born at Dartington, Devon, on the 23rd of April 1818. He was educated at Westminster and Oriel College, Oxford, then the centre of the ecclesiastical revival. He obtained a second class and the chancellor's English essay prize, and was elected a fellow of Exeter College (1842). Froude (1803-1836), had been one of the leaders of the High His elder brother, Richard Hurrell Church movement at Oxford. Froude joined that party and helped J. H. Newman, afterwards cardinal, in his Lives of the English Saints. He was ordained deacon in 1845. By that time his religious opinions had begun to change, he grew dissatisfied with the views of the High Church party, and came under the influence of Carlyle's teaching. Signs of this change first appeared publicly in his Shadows of the Clouds, a volume containing two stories of a religious sort, which he published in 1847 under the pseudonym of "Zeta," and his complete desertion of his party was declared a year later in his Nemesis of Faith, an heretical and unpleasant book, of which the earlier part seems to be autobiographical.

On the demand of the college he resigned his fellowship at Oxford, and mainly at least supported himself by writing, contributing largely to Fraser's Magazine and the Westminster Review. The excellence of his style was soon generally recognized. The first two volumes of his History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the Defeat of the Spanish Armada appeared in 1856, and the work was completed in 1870. As an historian he is chiefly remarkable for literary excellence, for the art with which he represents his conception of the past. He condemns a scientific treatment of history and disregards its philosophy. He held that its office was simply to record human actions and that it should be written as a drama. Accordingly he gives prominence to the personal element in history. His presentations of character and motives, whether truthful or not, are undeniably fine; but his doctrine that there should be " theorizing" about history tended to narrow his survey, and consequently he sometimes, as in his remarks on the foreign policy of Elizabeth, seems to misapprehend the tendencies of a period on which he is writing.

no

Froude's work is often marred by prejudice and incorrect statements. He wrote with a purpose. The keynote of his History is contained in his assertion that the Reformation was "the root and source of the expansive force which has spread the Anglo-Saxon race over the globe." Hence he overpraises Henry VIII. and others who forwarded the movement, and speaks too harshly of some of its opponents. So too, in his English in Ireland (1872-1874), which was written to show the futility of attempts to conciliate the Irish, he aggravates all

atrocities, and writes unjustly of the influence of Roman Catholi work generally, and is doubtless the result of the change in his cism. A strong anti-clerical prejudice is manifest in his historical views on Church matters and his abandonment of the clerical profession. Carlyle's influence on him may be traced both in his admiration for strong rulers and strong government, which led him to write as though tyranny and brutality were excusable, tion of Henry VIII. was a useful protest against the idea that and in his independent treatment of character. His rehabilitathe king was a mere sanguinary profligate, but his representation of him as the self-denying minister of his people's will is erroneous, of Henry's parliaments represented the opinions of the educated and is founded on the false theory that the preambles of the acts laymen of England. As an advocate he occasionally forgets that sobriety of judgment and expression become an historian. He was not a judge of evidence, and seems to have been unwilling statement which militated against his case. In his Divorce of Catherine of Aragon (1891) he made an unfortunate attempt to to admit the force of any argument or the authority of any show that certain fresh evidence on the subject, brought forward by Dr Gairdner, Dr Friedmann and others, was not inconsistent with the views which he had expressed in his History nearly authorities at Simancas, thecord Office and Hatfield House; but he used his materials cxtly, and evidently brought to his forty years before. He worked diligently at original manuscript investigation of them a mim ready made up as to their signifibetrays an imperfect acquaintance with Roman politics and the cance. His Life of Caesar (1879), a glorification of imperialism, life of Cicero; and of his two pleasant books of travel, The to master his subject, and Oceana (1886), the record of a tour in English in the West Indies (1888) shows that he made little effort Australia and New Zealand, among a multitude of other blunders, notes the prosperity of the working-classes in Adelaide at the date of his visit, when, in fact, owing to a failure in the wheatcrop, hundreds were then living on charity. He was constitutionally inaccurate, and seems to have been unable to represent the exact sense of a document which lay before him, or even to and Freeman, the most violent of his critics, never let slip a chance of hitting at him in the Saturday Review. Froude's copy from it correctly. Historical scholars ridiculed his mistakes, temperament was sensitive, and he suffered from these attacks, which were often unjust and always too savage in tone. The wrote in the Contemporary Review (1878-1879) on Froude's literary quarrel between him and Freeman excited general interest when it blazed out in a series of articles which Freeman Short Study of Thomas Becket.

price

achievement; it presents an important and powerful account Notwithstanding its defects, Froude's History is a great of the Reformation period in England, and lays before us a colours which will never lose their freshness and beauty. As with Froude's work generally, its literary merit is remarkable: picture of the past magnificently conceived, and painted in it is a well-balanced and orderly narrative, coherent in design and symmetrical in execution. Though it is perhaps needlessly long, the thread of the story is never lost amid a crowd of details; every incident is made subordinate to the general idea, appears in its appropriate place, and contributes its share to the perfection of its style, for Froude was a master of English prose. The most of the whole. The excellence of its form is matched by the beauty notable characteristic of his style is its graceful simplicity; it is never affected or laboured; his sentences are short and easy, never in doubt as to his own meaning, and never at a loss for the and follow one another naturally. He is always lucid. He was language is, it is dignified and worthy of its subject. Nowhere perhaps does his style appear to more advantage than in his four most appropriate words in which to express it. Simple as his series of essays entitled Short Studies on Great Subjects(1867–1882), for it is seen there unfettered by the obligations of narrative. Yet his narrative is admirably told. For the most part flowing easily along, it rises on fit occasions to splendour, picturesque beauty or pathos. Few more brilliant pieces of historical