v. 14 with its difficult reference to Artaxerxes now seems to presuppose

the decree in iv. 21 and looks forward to the time of Ezra or Nehemiah. As regards this section (Ezr. i.-vi.) as a whole, there is little doubt that i. iii. 1-iv. 5, vi. 15-22 are from the chronicler, whose free treatment of his material is seen in the use he has made of ch. ii. Notwithstanding the unimpeachable evidence for the tolerant attitude of Persian kings and governors towards the religion of subject races, it is probable that the various decrees incorporated in the book (cf. also 1 Esdr. iv. 42 sqq.) have been reshaped from a Jewish standpoint. A noteworthy example appears in the account of the unique powers entrusted to Ezra (vii. 11-26), the introduction to whose memoirs, at all events, is quite in the style of the chronicler.

4. _Memoirs of Nehemiah and Ezra._--The memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah do not appear to have been incorporated without some adjustment. The lapse of time between Neh. i. 1 and ii. 1 is noteworthy, and with the prayer in i. 5-11 cf. Ezr. ix. 6-15, Dan. ix. 4 sqq. (also parallels in Deuteronomy); chap. i. in its present form may be a compiler's introduction. The important topographical list in ch. iii. is probably from another source; the styie is different, Nehemiah is absent, and the high-priest is unusually prominent.[5] Chap, v., where Nehemiah reviews his _past_ conduct as governor, turns aside to economic reforms and scarcely falls within the fifty-two days of the building of the walls. The chapter is closely associated with the contents of xiii. and breaks the account of the opposition. Anticipated already in ii. 10, the hostility partly arises from the repudiation of Samaritan religious claims (ii. 20; cf. Ezr. iv. 3) and is partly political. It is difficult to follow its progress clearly, and the account ceases abruptly in. vi. 17-19 with the notice of the conspiracy of Tobiah and the nobles of Judah. The chronicler's style can be recognized in vii. 1-5 (in its present form), where steps are taken to protect and to people Jerusalem; the older sequel is now found in ch. xi. Whilst the account of the dedication of the walls is marked by the use of the pronoun "I" (xii. 31, 38, 40), it is probably now due as a whole to the chronicler, and when the more trustworthy memoirs of Nehemiah are resumed (xiii. 4 sqq.) the episodes, although placed twelve years later (ver. 6), are intimately connected with the preceding reforms (cf. xii. 44-xiii. 3 with xiii. 10 sqq., 23 sqq.).[6] Nehemiah's attitude towards intermarriage is markedly moderate in contrast to the drastic measures of Ezra, whose mission and work the simpler and perhaps earlier narratives of Nehemiah originally ignored, and the relation between the two is complicated further by the literary character of the memoir of Ezra.

To the last mentioned are prefixed (a) the scribe's genealogy, which traces him back to Aaron and names as his immediate ancestor, Seraiah, who had been slain 130 years previously (Ezr. vii. 1-5), and (b) an independent account of the return (_vv._ 6-10) with a reference to Ezra's renown, obviously not from the hand of Ezra himself. Whatever the original prelude to Ezra's thanksgiving may have been (vii. 27 seq.), we now have the essentially Jewish account of the letter of Artaxerxes with its unusual concessions.[7] The list of those who returned amounts to the moderate total of 1496 males (viii., but 1690 in 1 Esdr. viii. 30 sqq.). Ezra's mission was obviously concerned with the Law and Temple service (vii. 6, 10, 14 sqq., 25; viii. 17, 24-30, 33 sq.), but four months elapse between his return in the fifth month (vii. 9) and the preparations for the marriage reforms in the ninth (x. 9), and there is a delay of twelve years before the Law is read (Neh. viii.). The Septuagint version (1 Esdr. ix.; cf. Josephus, _Antiq._ xi. 5. 5 and some modern scholars) would place the latter after Ezr. x., but more probably this event (dated in the seventh month) should precede the great undertaking in Ezr. ix.[8] That the adjustment was attended with considerable revision of the passages appears from a careful comparison of Neh. viii. sq. with Ezr. ix. sq. With Ezra's confession (ix. 6 sqq.) compare the prayer in Neh. ix. 5 sqq., which the Septuagint ascribes to him. In Ezr. x. (written in the third person) the number of those that had intermarried with the heathen is relatively small considering the general trend of the preliminaries, and the list bears a marked resemblance to that in ch. ii. It ends abruptly and obscurely (x. 44; cf. 1 Esdr. ix. 36), and whilst as a whole the memoirs of Ezra point to ideas later than those of Nehemiah, the present close literary connexion between them is seen in the isolated reference to Johanan the son of Eliashib in Ezra x. 6, which seems to be connected with Neh. xiii. 7, and (after W.R. Smith) in the suitability of _ib._ xiii. 1, 2 between Ezr. x. 9 and 10. The list of signatories in Neh. x. 1-27 should be compared with the names in xii. and 1 Chron. xxiv.; the true connexion of ix. 38 is very obscure, and the relation to Ezr. ix. seq. is complicated by the reference to the separation from the heathen in Neh. ix. 2. The description of the covenant (Neh. x. 28 sqq., marked by the use of "we") is closely connected with xii. 43-xiii. 3 (from the same or an allied source), and anticipates the parallel though somewhat preliminary measures detailed in the more genuine memoirs (Neh. xiii. 4 sqq.). Finally, the specific allusion in xiii. 1-3 to Ammon and Moab is possibly intended as an introduction to the references to Tobiah and Sanballat respectively (_vv._ 4 seq., 28).

5. _Summary._--The literary and historical criticism of Ezra-Nehemiah is closely bound up with that of Chronicles, whose characteristic features it shares. Although the three formed a unit at one stage it may seem doubtful whether two so closely related chapters as 1 Chron. ix. and Neh. xi. would have appeared in one single work, while the repetition of Neh. vii. 6-viii. 1 in Ezr. ii.-iii. 1 is less unnatural if they had originally appeared in distinct sources. Thus other hands apart from the compiler of Chronicles may have helped to shape the narratives, either before their union with that book or after their separation.[9] The present intricacy is also due partly to specific historical theories regarding the post-exilic period. Here the recension in 1 Esdras especially merits attention for its text, literary structure and for its variant traditions.[10] Its account of a return in the time of Darius scarcely arose _after_ Ezr. i.-iii. (Cyrus); the reverse seems more probable, and the possibility of some confusion or of an intentional adjustment to the earlier date is emphasized by the relation between the popular feeling in Ezr. iii. 12 (Cyrus) and Hag. ii. 3 (Darius), and between the grant by Cyrus in iii. 7 (it is not certain that he held Phoenicia) and the permit of Darius in 1 Esdr. iv. 47-57 (see v. 48). To the latter context belongs the list of names which reappears in Ezr. ii. (Cyrus). But from the independent testimony of Haggai and Zechariah it is doubtful whether the chronicler's account of the return under Cyrus is at all trustworthy. The list in 1 Esdr. v., Ezr. ii., as already observed, appears to be in its more original context in Neh. vii., i.e. in the time of Artaxerxes, and it is questionable whether the earliest of the surviving detailed traditions in Ezra-Nehemiah went back before this reign. It is precisely at this age that there is evidence for a return, apparently other than that of Ezra or Nehemiah (see Ezr. iv. 12), yet no account seems to be preserved unless the records were used for the history of earlier periods (cf. generally Ezr. iii. 12 sq. with Neh. viii. 9-11; Ezr. iii. 7 with the special favour enlisted on behalf of the Jews in vi. 7 sq., 13, vii. 21; Neh. ii. 7 sq.). But the account of the events in the reign of Artaxerxes is extremely perplexing. Since the building of the walls of Jerusalem must have begun early in the fifth month (Neh. vi. 15), an allowance of three days (ii. 11) makes the date of Nehemiah's arrival practically the anniversary of Ezra's return (Ezr. vii. 9, viii. 32). Considering the close connexion between the work of the two men this can hardly be accidental. The compiler, however, clearly intends Neh. vi. 15 (25th of sixth month) to be the prelude to the events in Neh. vii. 73, viii. (seventh month), but the true sequence of Neh. vi. sqq. is uncertain, and the possibility of artificiality is suggested by the unembellished statement of Josephus that the building of the walls occupied, not fifty-two days, but two years four months (_Ant_. xi. 5. 8). The present chronological order of Nehemiah's work is confused (cf. S4, n. 3), and the obscure interval of twelve years in his work corresponds very closely to that which now separates the records of Ezra's labours. However, both the recovery of the compilers' aims and attempted reconstructions are precluded from finality by the scantiness of independent historical evidence. (See further JEWS: _History_, S21 seq.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--S.R. Driver, _Lit. of the O.T._ (1909), pp. 540 sqq. and the commentaries of H.E. Ryle (_Camb. Bible_, 1893), C. Siegfried (1901), A. Bertholet (1902), and T.W. Davies (_Cent. Bible_, 1909). Impetus to recent criticism of these books starts with Van Hoonacker (_Neh. et Esd_. [1890]; see also _Expos. Times_ [1897], pp. 351-354, and M.-J. Lagrange, _Rev. biblique_, iii. 561-585 [1894], iv. 186-202 [1895]) and W.H. Kosters (Germ. ed., _Wiederherstellung Israels_, 1895). The latter's important conclusions (for which see his article with Cheyne's additions in _Ency. Bib_. col. 1473 sqq., 3380 sqq.) have been adversely criticized, especially by J. Wellhausen (_Nachrichten_ of the Univ. of Gottingen, 1895, pp. 166-186), E. Meyer (_Entstehung d. Judentums_, 1896), J. Nikel (_Wiederherstellung d. jud. Gemein._, 1900), and S. Jampel in _Monatsschrift f. Gesch. u. Wissens. d. Judentums_, vols. xlvi.-xlvii. (1902-1903). The negative criticisms of Kosters have, however, been strengthened by his replies (in the Dutch _Theolog. Tijdschrift_), and by the discussions of C.C. Torrey and C.F. Kent (op. cit) and of G. Jahn (_Esra u. Neh._ pp. i-lxxviii; 1909), and his general position appears to do more justice to the biblical evidence as a whole. (S. A. C.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] References to 1 Esdras in this article are to the book discussed above as EZRA, THIRD BOOK OF.

[2] With Neh. xi. 4-19 cf. 1 Chron. ix. 3-17; with the list xii. 1-7 cf. _vv._ 12-21 and x. 3-9; and with xii. 10 sq. cf. 1 Chron. vi. 3-13 (to which it forms the sequel). See further Smend, _Listen d. Esra u. Neh._ (1881).

[3] Sometimes wrongly styled Chaldee (q.v.); see SEMITIC LANGUAGES.

[4] Its real position in the history of this period is not certain. Against the supposition that the names refer to Cambyses and Pseudo-Smerdis who reigned after Cyrus and before Darius, see H.E. Ryle, _Camb. Bible_, "Ezra and Neh.," p. 65 sq. Against the view that Darius is D. ii. Nothus of 423-404 B.C., see G.A. Smith, _Minor Prophets_, ii. 191 sqq. The ignorance of the compiler regarding the sequence of the kings finds a parallel in that of the author of the book of Daniel (q.v.); see C.C. Torrey, _Amer. Journ. of Sem. Lang._ (1907), p. 178, n. 1.

[5] See further H.G. Mitchell, _Journ. of Bibl. Lit._ (1903), pp. 88 sqq.

[6] The chronological difficulties will be seen from xiii. 6 ("before this"), which would imply that the dedication of the walls was on the occasion of Nehemiah's later visit (see G.A. Smith, _Expositor_, July 1906, p. 12). His previous departure is perhaps foreshadowed in vii. 2.

[7] See _Ency. Bib._ col. 1480. Papyri from a Jewish colony in Elephantine (407 B.C.) clearly show the form which royal permits could take, and what the Jews were prepared to give in return; the points of resemblance are extremely interesting, but compared with the biblical documents the papyri reveal some striking differences.

[8] C.C. Torrey, _Comp. and Hist. Value of Ezra-Neh._ (Beihefte of _Zeit. f. alttest. Wissens._, 1896), pp. 30-34; C.F. Kent, _Israel's Hist. and Biog. Narratives_, pp. 32, 369. Since Neh. vii. 70-73 is closely joined to viii., the suggested transposition would place its account of the contributions to the temple in a more appropriate context (cf. Ezr. viii. 24-30, 33 sq.).

[9] For linguistic evidence reference should be made to J. Geissler, _Die litterarischen Beziehungen d. Esramemoiren_ (Chemnitz, 1899).

[10] See especially Sir Henry Howorth, _Proc. of Society of Bibl. Arch._ (1901-1904), _passim_; C.C. Torrey, _Ezra Studies_ (Chicago, 1910). For the text, see A. Klostermann, _Real-Ency. f. prot. Theol._ v. 501 sqq.; H. Guthe in Haupt's _Sacred Books of Old Testament_ (1899); and S.A. Cook in R.H. Charles, _Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha_.

EZZO, or EHRENFRIED (c. 954-1024), count palatine in Lorraine, was the son of a certain Hermann (d. c. 1000), also a count palatine in Lorraine who had possessions in the neighbourhood of Bonn. Having married Matilda (d. 1025), a daughter of the emperor Otto II., Ezzo came to the front during the reign of his brother-in-law, the emperor Otto III. (983-1002); his power was increased owing to the liberal grant of lands in Thuringia and Franconia which he received with his wife, and some time later his position as count palatine was recognized as an hereditary dignity. Otto's successor, the emperor Henry II., was less friendly towards the powerful count palatine, though there was no serious trouble between them until 1011; but some disturbances in Lorraine quickly compelled the emperor to come to terms, and the assistance of Ezzo was purchased by a gift of lands. Henceforward the relations between Henry and his vassal appear to have been satisfactory. Very little is known about Ezzo's later life, but we are told that he died at a great age at Saalfeld on the 21st of March 1024. He left three sons, among them being Hermann, who was archbishop of Cologne from 1036 to 1056, and Otto, who was for a short time duke of Swabia; and seven daughters, six of whom became abbesses. Ezzo founded a monastery at Brauweiler near Cologne, the place where his marriage had been celebrated. This was dedicated in 1028 by Piligrim, archbishop of Cologne, and here both Ezzo and his wife were buried.

EZZOLIED, or ANEGENGE, an old German poem, written by Ezzo, a scholar of Bamberg. It was written about 1060, but not, as one authority asserts, composed while the author was making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The subject of the poem is the life of Christ. Very popular during the later middle ages, the _Ezzolied_ had a great influence on the poetry of south Germany, and is valuable as a monument of the poetical literature of the time.

The text is printed in the _Denkmaler deutscher Poesie und Prosa aus dem 8-12. Jahrhundert_ (Berlin, 1892) of C.V. Mullenhoff and W. Scherer.

F This is the sixth letter of the English alphabet as it was of the Latin. In the ordinary Greek alphabet the symbol has disappeared, although it survived far into historical times in many Greek dialects as F, the digamma, the use of which in early times was inductively proved by Bentley, when comparatively little was known of the local alphabets and dialects of Greece. The so-called _stigma_ [symbol], which serves for the numeral 6, is all that remains to represent it. This symbol derives its name from its resemblance in medieval MSS. to the abbreviation for [Greek: st]. The symbol occupying the same position in the Phoenician alphabet was Vau ([symbol] [symbol]), which seems to be represented by the Greek [Upsilon], the Latin V, at the end of the early alphabet. Many authorities therefore contend that F is only a modification of the preceding symbol E and has nothing to do with the symbol Vau. In some early Latin inscriptions F is represented by [symbol], as E is by [symbol]. It must be admitted that the resemblance between the sixth symbol of the Phoenician alphabet and the corresponding symbol of the European alphabet is not striking. But the position of the limbs of symbols in early alphabets often varies surprisingly. In Greek, besides F we find for _f_ in Pamphylia (the only Greek district in Asia which possesses the symbol) [symbol], and in Boeotia, Thessaly, Tarentum, Cumae and on Chalcidian vases of Italy the form [symbol], though except at Cumae and on the vases the form F exists contemporaneously with [symbol] or even earlier. At the little town of Falerii (Civita Castellana), whose alphabet is undoubtedly of the same origin as the Latin, F takes the form [symbol]. Though uncertain, therefore, it seems not impossible that the original symbol of the Phoenician alphabet, which was a consonant like the English _w_, may have been differentiated in Greek into two symbols, one indicating the consonant value _w_ and retaining the position of the Phoenician consonant Vau, the other having the vowel value _u_, which ultimately most dialects changed to a modified sound like French _u_ or German _u_. Be this as it may, the value of the symbol F in Greek was _w_, a bilabial voiced sound, not the labio-dental unvoiced sound which we call _f_. When the Romans adopted the Greek alphabet they took over the symbols with their Greek values. But Greek had no sound corresponding to the Latin _f_, for [phi] was pronounced _p-h_, like the final sound of _lip_ in ordinary English or the initial sound of _pig_ in Irish English. Consequently in the very old inscription on a gold fibula found at Praeneste and published in 1887 (see ALPHABET) the Latin _f_ is represented by FB. Later, as Latin did not use F for the consonant written as _v_ in _vis_, &c., H was dropped and F received a new special value in Latin as representative of the unvoiced labio-dental spirant. In the Oscan and Umbrian dialects, whose alphabet was borrowed from Etruscan, a special form appears for _f_, viz. 8, the old form [symbol] being kept for the other consonant _v_ (i.e. English _w_). The 8 has generally been asserted to be developed out of the second element in the combination FB, its upper and lower halves being first converted into lozenges, [symbol], which naturally changed to 8 when inscribed without lifting the writing or incising implement. Recent discoveries, however, make this doubtful (see ALPHABET). (P. Gi.)

FABBRONI, ANGELO (1732-1803), Italian biographer, was born at Marradi in Tuscany on the 25th of September 1732. After studying at Faenza he entered the Roman college founded for the education of young Tuscans. On the conclusion of his studies he continued his stay in Rome, and having been introduced to the celebrated Jansenist Bottari, received from him the canonry of Santa Teresa in Trastevere. Some time after this he was chosen to preach a discourse in the pontifical chapel before Benedict XIV. and made such a favourable impression that the pontiff settled on him an annuity, with the possession of which Fabbroni was able to devote his whole time to study. He was intimate with Leopold I., grand-duke of Tuscany, but the Jesuits disliked him on account of his Jansenist views. Besides his other literary labours he began at Pisa in 1771 a literary journal, which he continued till 1796. About 1772 he made a journey to Paris, where he formed the acquaintance of Condorcet, Diderot, d'Alembert, Rousseau and most of the other eminent Frenchmen of the day. He also spent four months in London. He died at Pisa on the 22nd of September 1803.

The following are his principal works:--_Vitae Italorum doctrina excellentium qui saeculis XVII. et XVIII. floruerunt_ (20 vols., Pisa, 1778-1799, 1804-1805), the last two vols., published posthumously, contain a life of the author; _Laurentii Medicei Magnifici Vita_ (2 vols., Pisa, 1784), a work which served as a basis for H. Roscoe's _Life of Lorenzo dei Medici_; _Leonis X. pontificis maximi Vita_ (Pisa, 1797); and _Elogi di Dante Alighieri, di Angelo Poliziano, di Lodovico Ariosto, e di Torq. Tasso_ (Parma, 1800).

FABER, the name of a family of German lead-pencil manufacturers. Their business was founded in 1760 at Stein, near Nuremberg, by Kaspar Faber (d. 1784). It was then inherited by his son Anton Wilhelm (d. 1819). Georg Leonhard Faber succeeded in 1810 (d. 1839), and the business passed to Johann Lothar von Faber (1817-1896), the great-grandson of the founder. At the time of his assuming control about twenty hands were employed, under old-fashioned conditions, and owing to the invention of the French _crayons Contes_ of Nicolas Jacques Conte (q.v.) competition had reduced the entire Nuremberg industry to a low ebb (see PENCIL). Johann introduced improvements in machinery and methods, brought his factory to the highest state of efficiency, and it became a model for all the other German and Austrian manufacturers. He established branches in New York, Paris, London and Berlin, and agencies in Vienna, St Petersburg and Hamburg, and made his greatest _coup_ in 1856, when he contracted for the exclusive control of the graphite obtained from the East Siberian mines. Faber had also branched out into the manufacture of water-colour and oil paints, inks, slates and slate-pencils, and engineers' and architects' drawing instruments, and built additional factories to house his various industries at New York and at Noisy-le-Sec, near Paris, and had his own cedar mills in Florida. For his services to German industry he received a patent of nobility and an appointment as councillor of state. After the death of his widow (1903) the business was inherited by his grand-daughter Countess Otilie von Faber-Castell and her husband, Count Alexander.

FABER, BASIL (1520--c. 1576), Lutheran schoolmaster and theologian, was born at Sorau, in lower Lusatia, in 1520. In 1538 he entered the university of Wittenberg, studying as _pauper gratis_ under Melanchthon. Choosing the schoolmaster's profession, he became successively rector of the schools at Nordhausen, Tennstadt (1555), Magdeburg (1557) and Quedlinburg (1560). From this last post he was removed in December 1570 as a Crypto-Calvinist. In 1571 he was appointed to the Raths-gymnasium at Erfurt, not as rector, but as director (_Vorsteher_). In this situation he remained till his death in 1575 or 1576. His translation of the first twenty-five chapters of Luther's commentary on Genesis was published in 1557; in other ways he promoted the spread of Lutheran views. He was a contributor to the first four of the _Magdeburg Centuries_. He is best known by his _Thesaurus eruditionis scholasticae_ (1571; last edition, improved by J.H. Leich, 1749, folio, 2 vols.); this was followed by his _Libellus de disciplina scholastica_ (1572).

See Wagenmann and G. Muller in Herzog-Hauck's _Realencyklopadie_ (1898). (A. Go.*)

FABER, FREDERICK WILLIAM (1814-1863), British hymn writer and theologian, was born on the 28th of June 1814 at Calverley, Yorkshire, of which place his grandfather, Thomas Faber, was vicar. He attended the grammar school of Bishop Auckland for a short time, but a large portion of his boyhood was spent in Westmorland. He afterwards went to Harrow and to Balliol College, Oxford. In 1835 he obtained a scholarship at University College; and in 1836 he gained the Newdigate prize for a poem on "The Knights of St John," which elicited special praise from Keble. Among his college friends were Dean Stanley and Roundell Palmer, 1st earl of Selborne. In January 1837 he was elected fellow of University College. Meanwhile he had given up the Calvinistic views of his youth, and had become an enthusiastic follower of John Henry Newman. In 1841 a travelling tutorship took him to the continent; and on his return a book appeared called _Sights and Thoughts in Foreign Churches and among Foreign Peoples_ (London, 1842), with a dedication to his friend the poet Wordsworth. He accepted the rectory of Elton in Huntingdonshire, but soon after went again to the continent, in order to study the methods of the Roman Catholic Church; and after a prolonged mental struggle he joined the Roman Catholic communion in November 1845. He founded a religious community at Birmingham, called Wilfridians, which was ultimately merged in the oratory of St Philip Neri, with John Henry Newman as Superior. In 1849 a branch of the oratory--subsequently independent--was established in London, first in King William Street, and afterwards at Brompton, over which Faber presided till his death on the 26th of September 1863. In spite of his weak health, an almost incredible amount of work was crowded into those years. He published a number of theological works, and edited the _Oratorian Lives of the Saints_. He was an eloquent preacher, and a man of great charm of character. It is mainly as a hymn-writer, however, that Faber is remembered. Among his best-known hymns are:--"The Greatness of God," "The Will of God," "The Eternal Father," "The God of my Childhood," "Jesus is God," "The Pilgrims of the Night," "The Land beyond the Sea," "Sweet Saviour, bless us ere we go," "I was wandering and weary," and "The Shadow of the Rock." The hymns are largely used in Protestant collections. In addition to many pamphlets and translations, Faber published the following works: _All for Jesus_; _The Precious Blood_; _Bethlehem_; _The Blessed Sacrament_; _The Creator and the Creature_; _Growth of Holiness; Spiritual Conferences_; _The Foot of the Cross_ (8 vols., London, 1853-1860).

See his _Life and Letters_, by Father J.E. Bowden (London, 1869), and _A Brief Sketch of the Early Life of the late F.W. Faber_, D.D., by his brother the Rev. F.A. Faber (London, 1869).

FABER, Fabri or Fabry (surnamed STAPULENSIS), JACOBUS [Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples] (c. 1455--c. 1536), a pioneer of the Protestant movement in France, was born of humble parents at Etaples, in Pas de Calais, Picardy, about 1455. He appears to have been possessed of considerable means. He had already been ordained priest when he entered the university of Paris for higher education. Hermonymus of Sparta was his master in Greek. He visited Italy before 1486, for he heard the lectures of Argyropulus, who died in that year; he formed a friendship with Paulus Aemilius of Verona. In 1492 he again travelled in Italy, studying in Florence, Rome and Venice, making himself familiar with the writings of Aristotle, though greatly influenced by the Platonic philosophy. Returning to Paris, he became professor in the college of Cardinal Lemoine. Among his famous pupils were F.W. Vatable and Farel; his connexion with the latter drew him to the Calvinistic side of the movement of reform. At this time he began the publication, with critical apparatus, of Boetius (_De Arithmetica_), and Aristotle's _Physics_ (1492), _Ethics_ (1497), _Metaphysics_ (1501) and _Politics_ (1506). In 1507 he took up his residence in the Benedictine Abbey of St Germain des Pres, near Paris; this was due to his connexion with the family of Briconnet (one of whom was the superior), especially with William Briconnet, cardinal bishop of St Malo (Meaux). He now began to give himself to Biblical studies, the first-fruit of which was his _Quintuplex Psalterium: Gallicum, Romanum, Hebraicum, Vetus, Conciliatum_ (1509); the _Conciliatum_ was his own version. This was followed by _S. Pauli Epistolae xiv. ex vulgata editione, adjecta intelligentia ex Graeco cum commentariis_ (1512), a work of great independence and judgment. His _De Maria Magdalena et triduo Christi disceptatio_ (1517) provoked violent controversy and was condemned by the Sorbonne (1521). He had left Paris during the whole of 1520, and, removing to Meaux, was appointed (May 1, 1523) vicar-general to Bishop Briconnet, and published his French version of the New Testament (1523). This (contemporary with Luther's German version) has been the basis of all subsequent translations into French. From this, in the same year, he extracted the versions of the Gospels and Epistles "a l'usage du diocese de Meaux." The prefaces and notes to both these expressed the view that Holy Scripture is the only rule of doctrine, and that justification is by faith alone. He incurred much hostility, but was protected by Francis I. and the princess Margaret. Francis being in captivity after the battle of Pavia (February 25, 1525), Faber was condemned and his works suppressed by commission of the parlement; these measures were quashed on the return of Francis some months later. He issued _Le Psautier de David_ (1525), and was appointed royal librarian at Blois (1526); his version of the Pentateuch appeared two years later. His complete version of the Bible (1530), on the basis of Jerome, took the same place as his version of the New Testament. Margaret (now queen of Navarre) led him to take refuge (1531) at Nerac from persecution. He is said to have been visited (1533) by Calvin on his flight from France. He died in 1536 or 1537.

See C.H. Graf, _Essai sur la vie et les ecrits_ (1842); G. Bonet-Maury, in A. Herzog-Hauck's _Realencyklopadie_ (1898). (A. Go.*)

FABER (or LEFEVRE), JOHANN (1478-1541), German theologian, styled from the title of one of his works "Malleus Haereticorum," son of one Heigerlin, a smith (_faber_), was born at Leutkirch, in Swabia, in 1478. His early life is obscure; the tradition that he joined the Dominicans is untenable. He studied theology and canon law at Tubingen and at Freiburg im Breisgau, where he matriculated on the 26th of July 1509, and graduated M.A. and doctor of canon law. He was soon appointed vicar of Lindau and Leutkirch, and shortly afterwards canon of Basel. In 1518 Hugo von Landenberg, bishop of Constance, made him one of his vicars-general, and Pope Leo X. appointed him papal protonotary. He was an advocate of reforms, in sympathy with Erasmus, and corresponded (1519-1520) with Zwingli. While he defended Luther against Eck, he was as little inclined to adopt the position of Luther as of Carlstadt. His journey to Rome in the autumn of 1521 had the result of estranging him from the views of the Protestant leaders. He published _Opus adversus nova quaedam dogmata Lutheri_ (1522), and appeared as a disputant against Zwingli at Zurich (1523). Then followed his _Malleus in haeresin Lutheranam_ (1524). Among his efforts to stem the tide of Protestant innovation was the establishment of a training-house for the maintenance and instruction of popular preachers, drawn from the lower ranks, to compete with the orators of reform. In 1526 he became court preacher to the emperor Ferdinand, and in 1527 and 1528 was sent by him as envoy to Spain and England. He approved the death by burning of Balthasar Hubmeier, the Baptist, at Vienna on the 10th of March 1528. In 1531 he was consecrated bishop of Vienna, and combined with this (till 1538) the administration of the diocese of Neustadt. He died at Vienna on the 21st of May 1541. His works were collected in three volumes, 1537, 1539 and 1541.

See C.E. Kettner, _Diss. de J. Fabri Vita Scriptisque_ (1737); Wagenmann and Egli in Herzog-Hauck's _Realencyklopadie_ (1898). (A. Go.*)

FABERT, ABRAHAM DE (1599-1660), marshal of France, was the son of Abraham Fabert, seigneur de Moulins (d. 1638), a famous printer who rendered great services, civil and military, to Henry IV. At the age of fourteen he entered the _Gardes francaises_, and in 1618 received a commission in the Piedmont regiment, becoming major in 1627. He distinguished himself repeatedly in the constant wars of the period, notably in La Rochelle and at the siege of Exilles in 1630. His bravery and engineering skill were again displayed in the sieges of Avesnes and Maubeuge in 1637, and in 1642 Louis XIII. made him governor of the recently-acquired fortress of Sedan. In 1651 he became lieutenant-general, and in 1654 at the siege of Stenay he introduced new methods of siegecraft which anticipated in a measure the great improvements of Vauban. In 1658 Fabert was made a marshal of France, being the first commoner to attain that rank. He died at Sedan on the 17th of May 1660.

See _Histoire du marechal de Fabert_ (Amsterdam, 1697); P. Barre, _Vie de Fabert_ (Paris, 1752); A. Feillet, _Le Premier Marechal de France plebeien_ (Paris, 1869); Bourelly, _Le Marechal Fabert_ (Paris, 1880).

FABIAN [FABIANUS], SAINT (d. 250), pope and martyr, was chosen pope, or bishop of Rome, in January 236 in succession to Anteros. Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._ vi. 29) relates how the Christians, having assembled in Rome to elect a new bishop, saw a dove alight upon the head of Fabian, a stranger to the city, who was thus marked out for this dignity, and was at once proclaimed bishop, although there were several famous men among the candidates for the vacant position. Fabian was martyred during the persecution under the emperor Decius, his death taking place on the 20th of January 250, and was buried in the catacomb of Calixtus, where a memorial has been found. He is said to have baptized the emperor Philip and his son, to have done some building in the catacombs, to have improved the organization of the church in Rome, to have appointed officials to register the deeds of the martyrs, and to have founded several churches in France. His deeds are thus described in the _Liber Pontificalis_: "Hic regiones dividit diaconibus et fecit vii subdiacones, qui vii notariis imminerent, ut gestas martyrum integro fideliter colligerent, et multas fabricas per cymiteria fieri praecepit." Although there is very little authentic information about Fabian, there is evidence that his episcopate was one of great importance in the history of the early church. He was highly esteemed by Cyprian, bishop of Carthage; Novatian refers to his _nobilissimae memoriae_, and he corresponded with Origen. One authority refers to him as Flavian.

See the article on "Fabian" by A. Harnack in Herzog-Hauck's _Realencyklopadie_, Band v. (Leipzig, 1898).

FABIUS, the name of a number of Roman soldiers and statesmen. The Fabian gens was one of the oldest and most distinguished patrician families of Rome. Its members claimed descent from Hercules and a daughter of the Arcadian Evander. From the earliest times it played a prominent part in Roman history, and was one of the two gentes exclusively charged with the management of the most ancient festival in Rome--the Lupercalia (Ovid, _Fasti_, ii. 375). The chief family names of the Fabian gens or clan, in republican times, were Vibulanus, Ambustus, Maximus, Buteo, Pictor, Dorso, Labeo; with surnames Verrucosus, Rullianus, Gurges, Aemilianus, Allobrogicus (all of the Maximus branch). The most important members of the family are the following:--

1. MARCUS FABIUS AMBUSTUS, pontifex maximus in the year of the capture of Rome by the Gauls (390). His three sons, Quintus, Numerius and Caeso, although they had been sent as ambassadors to the Gauls when they were besieging Clusium, subsequently took part in hostilities (Livy v. 35). The Gauls thereupon demanded their surrender, on the ground that they had violated the law of nations; the Romans, by way of reply, elected them consular tribunes in the following year. The result was the march of the Gauls upon Rome, the battle of the Allia, and the capture of the city (Livy vi. 1).

2. Q. FABIUS MAXIMUS, surnamed _Rullianus_ or _Rullus_, master of the horse in the second Samnite War to L. Papirius Cursor, by whom he was degraded for having fought the Samnites contrary to orders (Livy viii. 30), in spite of the fact that he gained a victory. In 315, when dictator, he was defeated by the Samnites at Lautulae (Livy ix. 23). In 310 he defeated the Etruscans at the Vadimonian Lake. In 295, consul for the fifth time, he defeated, at the great battle of Sentinum, the combined forces of the Etrurians, Umbrians, Samnites and Gauls (see ROME: _History_, II. "The Republic"). As censor (304) he altered the arrangement of Appius Claudius Caecus, whereby the freedmen were taken into all the tribes, and limited them to the four city tribes. For this he is said to have received the title of _Maximus_, as the deliverer of the comitia from the rule of the mob (Livy ix. 46), but there is reason to think that this title was first conferred on his grandson. It is probable that his achievements are greatly exaggerated by historians favourable to the Fabian house.

3. QUINTUS FABIUS MAXIMUS, surnamed _Verrucosus_ (from a wart on his lip), _Ovicula_ ("the lamb," from his mild disposition), and _Cunctator_ ("the delayer," from his cautious tactics in the war against Hannibal), grandson of the preceding. He served his first consulship in Liguria (233 B.C.), was censor (230) and consul for the second time (228). In 218 he was sent to Carthage to demand satisfaction for the attack on Saguntum (Livy xxi. 18). According to the well-known story, he held up a fold of his toga and offered the Carthaginians the choice between peace and war. When they declared themselves indifferent, he let fall his toga with the words, "Then take war." After the disastrous campaign on the Trebia, and the defeat on the banks of the Trasimene Lake, Fabius was named dictator (Livy calls him pro-dictator, since he was nominated, not by the consul, but by the people) in 217, and began his tactics of "masterly inactivity." Manoeuvring among the hills, where Hannibal's cavalry were useless, he cut off his supplies, harassed him incessantly, and did everything except fight. His steady adherence to his plan caused dissatisfaction at Rome and in his own camp, and aroused the suspicion that he was merely endeavouring to prolong his command. Minucius Rufus, his master of the horse, seized the opportunity, during the absence of Fabius at Rome, to make an attack upon the enemy which proved successful. The people, more than ever convinced that a forward movement was necessary, divided the command between Minucius and Fabius (Livy xxii. 15. 24; Polybius iii. 88). Minucius was led into an ambuscade by Hannibal, and his army was only saved by the opportune arrival of Fabius. Minucius confessed his mistake and henceforth submitted to the orders of Fabius (Livy xxiii. 32). At the end of the legal time of six months Fabius resigned the dictatorship and the war was carried on by the consuls. The result of the abandonment of Fabian tactics was the disaster of Cannae (216). In 215 and 214 (as consul for the third and fourth times) he was in charge of the operations against Hannibal together with Claudius Marcellus (Livy xxiii. 39). He laid siege to Capua, which had gone over to Hannibal after Cannae, and captured the important position of Casilinum; in his fifth consulship (209) he retook Tarentum, which had been occupied by Hannibal for three years (Livy xxvii. 15; Polybius xiii. 4; Plutarch, _Fabius_). He died in 203. Fabius was a strenuous opponent of the new aggressive policy, and did all he could to prevent the invasion of Africa by Scipio. He was distinguished for calmness and prudence, while by no means lacking in courage when it was required. In his later years, however, he became morose, and showed jealousy of rising young men, especially Scipio (_Life_ by Plutarch; Livy xx.-xxx.; Polybius iii. 87-106).

4. Q. FABIUS MAXIMUS AEMILIANUS, eldest son of L. Aemilius Paullus, adopted by Fabius Cunctator. He served in the last Macedonian War (168), and, as consul, defeated Viriathus in Spain (Livy, _Epit_. 52). He was the pupil and patron of Polybius (Polybius xviii., xxix. 6, xxxii. 8-10; Livy xliv. 35).

5. Q. FABIUS MAXIMUS ALLOBROGICUS, son of the above, consul 121 in Gaul. He obtained his surname from his victory over the Allobroges and Arverni in that year (Vell. Pat. ii. 10; Eutropius iv. 22). As censor (108) he erected the first triumphal arch.

6. Q. FABIUS VIBULANUS, with his brothers Caeso and Marcus, filled the consulship for seven years in succession (485-479 B.C.). In the last year there was a reaction against the family, in consequence of Caeso espousing the cause of the plebeians. Thereupon the Fabii--to the number, it is said, of 306 patricians, with some 5000 dependents--emigrated from Rome under the leadership of Caeso, and settled on the banks of the Cremera, a few miles above Rome. For two years the exiles continued to be the city's chief defence against the Veientes, until at last they were surprised and cut off. The only survivor of the gens was Quintus, the sen of Marcus, who apparently took no part in the battle. The story that he had been left behind at Rome on account of his youth cannot be true, as he was consul ten years afterwards. This Quintus was consul in 467, 465 and 459, and a member of the second decemvirate in 450, on the fall of which he went into voluntary exile (Livy ii. 42, 48-50, iii. 1, 9, 41, 58, vi. 1; Dion. Halic. viii. 82-86, ix. 14-22: Ovid, _Fasti_, ii. 195).

The Fabian name is met with as late as the 2nd century A.D. A complete list of the Fabii will be found in de Vit's _Onomasticon_; see also W.N. du Rieu, _Disputatio de Gente Fabia_ (1856), containing an account of 57 members of the family.

FABIUS PICTOR, QUINTUS, the father of Roman history, was born about 254 B.C. He was the grandson of Gaius Fabius, who received the surname _Pictor_ for his painting of the temple of Salus (302). He took an active part in the subjugation of the Gauls in the north of Italy (225), and after the battle of Cannae (216) was employed by the Romans to proceed to Delphi in order to consult the oracle of Apollo. He was the earliest prose writer of Roman history. His materials consisted of the _Annales Maximi_, _Commentarii Consulares_, and similar records; the chronicles of the great Roman families; and his own experiences in the Second Punic War. He is also said to have made much use of the Greek historian Diodes of Peparethus. His work, which was written in Greek, began with the arrival of Aeneas in Italy, and ended with the Hannibalic war. Although Polybius and Dionysius of Halicarnassus frequently find fault with him, the first uses him as his chief authority for the Second Punic War. A Latin version of the work was in existence in the time of Cicero, but it is doubtful whether it was by Fabius Pictor or by a later writer with whom he was confused--Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus (consul 142); or there may have been two annalists of the name of Fabius Pictor.

Fragments in H. Peter, _Historicorum Romanorum Fragmenta_ (1883); see also ANNALISTS and LIVY, and Teuffel-Schwabe, _History of Roman Literature_, S 116.

FABLE (Fr. _fable_, Lat. _fabula_). With certain restrictions, the necessity of which will be shown in the course of the article, we may accept the definition of "fable" which Dr Johnson proposes in his _Life of Gay_: "A _fable_ or _apologue_ seems to be, in its genuine state, a narrative in which beings irrational, and sometimes inanimate (_arbores loquuntur, non tantum ferae_), are, for the purpose of moral instruction, feigned to act and speak with human interests and passions." The description of La Fontaine, the greatest of fabulists, is a poetic rendering of Johnson's definition:

"Fables in sooth are not what they appear; Our moralists are mice, and such small deer. We yawn at sermons, but we gladly turn To moral tales, and so amused we learn."

The fable is distinguished from the myth, which grows and is not made, the spontaneous and unconscious product of primitive fancy as it plays round some phenomenon of natural or historical fact. The literary myth, such as, for instance, the legend of Pandora in Hesiod or the tale of Er in the _Republic_ of Plato, is really an allegory, and differs from the fable in so far as it is self-interpreting; the story and the moral are intermingled throughout. Between the parable and the fable there is no clear line of demarcation, and theologians like Trench have unwarrantably narrowed their definition of a parable to fit those of the New Testament. The soundest distinction is drawn by Neander. In the fable human passions and actions are attributed to beasts; in the parable the lower creation is employed only to illustrate the higher life and never transgresses the laws of its kind. But whether Jotham's apologue of the trees choosing a king, perhaps the first recorded in literature, should be classed as a fable or a parable is hardly worth disputing. Lastly, we may point out the close affinity between the fable and the proverb. A proverb is often a condensed or fossilized fable, and not a few fables are amplified or elaborated proverbs.

The history of the fable goes back to the remotest antiquity, and Aesop has even less claim to be reckoned the father of the fable than has Homer to be entitled the father of poetry. The fable has its origin in the universal impulse of men to express their thoughts in concrete images, and is strictly parallel to the use of metaphor in language. It is the most widely diffused if not the most primitive form of literature. Though it has fallen from its high place it still survives, as in J. Chandler Harris's _Uncle Remus_ and Rudyard Kipling's _Jungle Book_. The Arab of to-day will invent a fable at every turn of the conversation as the readiest form of argument, and in the _Life_ of Coventry Patmore it is told how an impromptu fable of his about the pious dormouse found its way into Catholic books of devotion.

With the fable, as we know it, the moral is indispensable. As La Fontaine puts it, an apologue is composed of two parts, body and soul. The body is the story, the soul the morality. But if we revert to the earliest type we shall find that this is no longer the case. In the primitive beast-fable, which is the direct progenitor of the Aesopian fable, the story is told simply for its own sake, and is as innocent of any moral as the fairy tales of Little Red Riding-Hood and Jack and the Beanstalk. Thus, in a legend of the Flathead Indians, the Little Wolf found in cloud-land his grandsires the Spiders with their grizzled hair and long crooked nails, and they spun balls of thread to let him down to earth; when he came down and found his wife the Speckled Duck, whom the Old Wolf had taken from him, she fled in confusion, and this is why she lives and dives alone to this very day. Such animal myths are as common in the New World as in the Old, and abound from Finland and Kamtchatka to the Hottentots and Australasians. From the story invented, as the one above quoted, to account for some peculiarity of the animal world, or told as a pure exercise of the imagination, just as a sailor spins a yarn about the sea-serpent, to the moral apologue the transition is easy; and that it has been effected by savages unaided by the example of higher races seems sufficiently proved by the tales quoted by E.B. Tylor (_Primitive Culture_, vol. i. p. 411). From the beast-fables of savages we come next to the Oriental apologues, which we still possess in their original form. The East, the land of myth and legend, is the natural home of the fable, and Hindustan was the birthplace, if not of the original of these tales, at least of the oldest shape in which they still exist. The _Pancha Tantra_ (2nd century B.C.), or fables of the Brahma Vishnu Sarman, have been translated from Sanskrit into almost every language and adapted by most modern fabulists. The _Kalilah_ and _Dimna_ (names of two jackals), or fables of Bidpai (or Pilpai), passed from India to western Europe through the successive stages of Pahlavi (ancient Persian), Arabic, Greek, Latin. By the end of the 16th century there were Italian, French and English versions. There is an excellent Arabic edition (Paris, 1816) with an introduction by Sylvestre de Sacy. The _Hitopadesa_, or "friendly instruction," is a modernized form of the same work, and of it there are three translations into English by Dr Charles Wilkins, Sir William Jones and Professor F. Johnson. The _Hitopadesa_ is a complete chaplet of fables loosely strung together, but connected so as to form something of a continuous story, with moral reflections freely interspersed, purporting to be written for the instruction of some dissolute young princes. Thus, in the first fable a flock of pigeons see the grains of rice which a fowler has scattered, and are about to descend on them, when the king of the pigeons warns them by telling the fable of a traveller who being greedy of a bracelet was devoured by a tiger. They neglect his warning and are caught in the net, but are afterwards delivered by the king of the mice, who tells the story of the Deer, the Jackal and the Crow, to show that no real friendship can exist between the strong and the weak, the beast of prey and his quarry, and so on to the end of the volume. Another book of Eastern fables is well worthy of notice, _Buddhaghosha's Parables_, a commentary on the _Dhammapada_ or _Buddha's Paths of Virtue_. The original is in Pali, but an English translation of the Burmese version was made by Captain T. Rogers, R.E.

From Hindustan the Sanskrit fables passed to China, Tibet and Persia; and they must have reached Greece at an early age, for many of the fables which passed under the name of Aesop are identical with those of the East. Aesop to us is little more than a name, though, if we may trust a passing notice in Herodotus (ii. 134), he must have lived in the 6th century B.C. Probably his fables were never written down, though several are ascribed to him by Xenophon, Aristotle, Plutarch and other Greek writers, and Plato represents Socrates as beguiling his last days by versifying such as he remembered. Aristophanes alludes to them as merry tales, and Plato, while excluding the poets from his ideal republic, admits Aesop as a moral teacher. Of the various versions of _Aesop's Fables_, by far the most trustworthy is that of Babrius or Babrias, a Greek probably of the 3rd century A.D., who rendered them in choliambic verse. These, which were long known in fragments only, were recovered in a MS. found by M. Minas in a monastery on Mount Athos in 1842, now in the British Museum.[1] An inferior version of the same in Latin iambics was made by Phaedrus, a slave of Thracian origin, brought to Rome in the time of Augustus and manumitted by him. Phaedrus professes to polish in senarian verse the rough-hewn blocks from Aesop's quarry; but the numerous allusions to contemporary events, as, for example, his hit at Sejanus in the Frogs and the Sun, which brought upon the author disgrace and imprisonment, show that many of them are original or free adaptations. For some time scholars doubted as to the genuineness of Phaedrus's fables, but their doubts have been lately dispelled by a closer examination of the MSS. and by the discovery of two verses of a fable on a tomb at Apulum in Dacia. Phaedrus's style is simple, clear and brief, but dry and unpoetical; and, as Lessing has pointed out, he often falls into absurdities when he deserts his original. For instance, in Aesop the dog with the meat in his mouth sees his reflection in the water as he passes over a bridge; Phaedrus makes him see it as he swims across the river.

To sum up the characteristics of the Aesopian fable, it is artless, simple and transparent. It affects no graces of style, and we hardly need the text with which each concludes, [Greek: ho mythos deloi hoti, k.t.l.] The moral inculcated is that of _Proverbial Philosophy_ and _Poor Richard's Almanacks_. Aesop is no maker of phrases, but an orator who wishes to gain some point or induce some course of action. It is the Aesopian type that Aristotle has in view when he treats of the fable as a branch of rhetoric, not of poetry.

The Latin race was given to moralizing, and the language lent itself to crisp and pointed narrative, but they lacked the free play of fancy, the childlike "make-believe," to produce a national body of fables. With the doubtful exception of Phaedrus, we possess nothing but solitary examples, such as the famous apologue of Menenius Agrippa to the Plebs and the exquisite Town Mouse and Country Mouse of Horace's _Satires_.

The fables of the rhetorician Aphthonius about A.D. 400 in Greek prose, and those in Latin elegiac verse by Avianus, used for centuries as a text-book in schools, form in the history of the apologue a link between classical and medieval times. In a Latin dress, sometimes in prose, sometimes in regular verse, and sometimes in rhymed stanzas, the fable contributed, with other kinds of narratives, to make up the huge mass of stories which has been bequeathed to us by the monastic libraries. These served more uses than one. They were at once easier and safer reading than the classics. To the lazy monk they stood in place of novels; to the more industrious and gifted they furnished an exercise on a par with Latin verse composition in our public schools; the more original transformed them into _fabliaux_, or embodied them in edifying stories, as in the _Gesta Romanorum_. It is not in the _Speculum Doctrinale_ of Vincent de Beauvais, a Dominican of the 12th century, nor in the collection of his contemporary Odo de Cerinton, an English Cistercian, nor in Planudes of the 14th century, whose one distinction is to have added to the fables a life of Aesop, that the direct lineage of La Fontaine must be traced. It is the _fabliaux_ that inspired some of his best fables--the Lion's Court, the Young Widow, the Coach and the Fly.

As the supremacy of Latin declined and modern languages began to be turned to literary uses, the fable took a new life. Not only were there numerous adaptations of Aesop, known as Ysopets, but Marie de France in the 13th century composed many original fables, some rivalling La Fontaine's in simplicity and gracefulness. Later, also, fables were not wanting, though not numerous, in the English tongue. Chaucer has given us one, in his Nonne Preste's Tale, which is an expansion of the fable _Don Coc et don Werpil_ of Marie de France; another is Lydgate's tale of The Churl and the Bird.

Several of Odo's tales, like Chaucer's story, can be ultimately traced to the History of Reynard the Fox. This great beast-epic has been referred by Grimm as far back as the 10th century, and is known to us in three forms, each with independent episodes, but all woven upon a common basis. The Latin form is probably the earliest, and the poems _Reinardus_ and _Ysengrinus_ date from the 10th or 11th century. Next come the German versions. The most ancient, that of a minnesinger Heinrich der Glichesaere (probably a Swabian), was analysed and edited by Grimm in 1840. The French poem of more than 30,000 lines, the _Roman du Renard_, belongs probably to the 13th century. In 1498 appeared _Reynke de Voss_, almost a literal version in Low Saxon of the Flemish poem of the 12th century, _Reinaert de Vos_. Hence the well-known version of Goethe into modern German hexameters was taken. The poem has been well named "an unholy world Bible." In it the Aesopian fable received a development which was in several respects quite original. We have here no short and unconnected stories. Materials, partly borrowed from older apologues, but in a much greater proportion new, are worked up into one long and systematic tale. The moral, so prominent in the fable proper, shrinks so far into the background, that the epic might be considered a work of pure fiction, an animal romance. The attempts to discover in it personal satire have signally failed; some critics deny even the design to represent human conduct at all; and we can scarcely get nearer to its signification than by regarding it as being, in a general way, what Carlyle has called "a parody of human life." It represents a contest maintained successfully, by selfish craft and audacity, against enemies of all sorts, in a half-barbarous and ill-organized society. With his weakest foes, like Chaunteclere the Cock, Reynard uses brute-force; over the weak who are protected, like Kiward the Hare and Belin the Ram, he is victorious by uniting violence with cunning; Bruin, the dull, strong, formidable Bear, is humbled by having greater power than his own enlisted against him; and the most dangerous of all the fox's enemies, Isengrim, the obstinate, greedy and implacable Wolf, after being baffled by repeated strokes of malicious ingenuity, forces Reynard to a single combat, but even thus is not a match for his dexterous adversary. The knavish fox has allies worthy of him in Grimbart the watchful badger, and in his own aunt Dame Rukenawe, the learned She-ape; and he plays at his pleasure on the simple credulity of the Lion-King, the image of an impotent feudal sovereign. The characters of these and other brutes are kept up with a rude kind of consistency, which gives them great liveliness; many of the incidents are devised with much force of humour; and the sly hits at the weak points of medieval polity and manners and religion are incessant and palpable.

It is needless to trace the fable, or illustrations borrowed from fables, that so frequently occur as incidental ornaments in the older literature of England and other countries. It has appeared in every modern nation of Europe, but has nowhere become very important, and has hardly ever exhibited much originality either of spirit or of manner. In English, Prior transplanted from France some of La Fontaine's ease of narration and artful artlessness, while Gay took as his model the _Contes_ rather than the _Fables_. Gay's fables are often political satires, but some, like the Fox on his Deathbed, have the true ring, and in the Hare with many Friends there is genuine pathos. To Dryden's spirited remodellings of old poems, romances and _fabliaux_, the name of fables, which he was pleased to give them, is quite inapplicable. In German, Hagedorn and Gellert, both famous in their day and the latter extolled by Goethe, are quite forgotten; and even Lessing's fables are read by few but schoolboys. In Spanish, Yriarte's fables on literary subjects are sprightly and graceful, but the critic is more than the fabulist. A spirited version of the best appeared in _Blackwood's Magazine_, 1839. Among Italians Pignotti is famous for versatility and command of rhythm, as amongst Russians is Kriloff for his keen satire on Russian society. He has been translated into English by Ralston.

France alone in modern times has attained any pre-eminence in the fable, and this distinction is almost entirely owing to one author. Marie de France in the 13th century, Gilles Corrozet, Guillaume Haudent and Guillaume Gueroult in the 16th, are now studied mainly as the precursors of La Fontaine, from whom he may have borrowed a stray hint or the outline of a story. The unique character of his work has given a new word to the French language: other writers of fables are called _fabulistes_, La Fontaine is named _le fablier_. He is a true poet; his verse is exquisitely modulated; his love of nature often reminds us of Virgil, as do his tenderness and pathos (see, for instance, The Two Pigeons and Death and the Woodcutter). He is full of sly fun and delicate humour; like Horace he satirizes without wounding, and "plays around the heart." Lastly, he is a keen observer of men. The whole society of the 17th century, its greatness and its foibles, its luxury and its squalor, from _Le grand monarque_ to the poor _manant_, from his majesty the lion to the courtier of an ape, is painted to the life. To borrow his own phrase, La Fontaine's fables are "une ample comedie a cent actes divers." Rousseau did his best to discredit the _Fables_ as immoral and corruptors of youth, but in spite of _Emile_ they are studied in every French school and are more familiar to most Frenchmen than their breviary. Among the successors of La Fontaine the most distinguished is Florian. He justly estimates his own merits in the pretty apologue that he prefixed to his _Fables_. He asks a sage whether a fabulist writing after La Fontaine would not be wise to consign his work to the flames. The sage replies by a question: "What would you say did some sweet, ingenuous Maid of Athens refuse to let herself be seen because there was once a Helen of Troy?"

The fables of Lessing represent the reaction against the French school of fabulists. "With La Fontaine himself," says Lessing, "I have no quarrel, but against the imitators of La Fontaine I enter my protest." His attention was first called to the fable by Gellert's popular work published in 1746. Gellert's fables were closely modelled after La Fontaine's, and were a vehicle for lively railings against the fair sex, and hits at contemporary follies. Lessing's early essays were in the same style, but his subsequent study of the history and theory of the fable led him to discard his former model as a perversion of later times, and the "Fabeln," published in 1759, are the outcome of his riper views. Lessing's fables, like all that he wrote, display his vigorous common sense. He has, it is true, little of La Fontaine's _curiosa felicitas_, his sly humour and lightness of touch; and Frenchmen would say that his criticism of La Fontaine is an illustration of the fable of the sour grapes. On the other hand, he has the rare power of looking at both sides of a moral problem; he holds a brief for the stupid and the feeble, the ass and the lamb; and in spite of his formal protest against poetical ornament, there is in not a few of his fables a vein of true poetry, as in the Sheep (ii. 13) and Jupiter and the Sheep (ii. 18). But the monograph which introduced the _Fabeln_ is of more inportance than the fables themselves. According to Lessing the ideal fable is that of Aesop. All the elaborations and refinements of later authors, from Phaedrus to La Fontaine, are perversions of this original. The fable is essentially a moral precept illustrated by a single example, and it is the lesson thus enforced which gives to the fable its unity and makes it a work of art. The illustration must be either an actual occurrence or represented as such, because a fictitious case invented _ad hoc_ can appeal but feebly to the reader's judgment. Lastly, the fable requires a story or connected chain of events. A single fact will not make a fable, but is only an emblem. We thus arrive at the following definition:--"A fable is a relation of a series of changes which together form a whole. The unity of the fable consists herein, that all the parts lead up to an end, the end for which the fable was invented being the moral precept."

We may notice in passing a problem in connexion with the fable which had long been debated, but never satisfactorily resolved till Lessing took it in hand--Why should animals have been almost universally chosen as the chief _dramatis personae_? The reason, according to Lessing, is that animals have distinct characters which are known and recognized by all. The fabulist who writes of Britannicus and Nero appeals to the few who know Roman history. The Wolf and the Lamb comes home to every one whether learned or simple. But, besides this, human sympathies obscure the moral judgment; hence it follows that the fable, unlike the drama and the epos, should abstain from all that is likely to arouse our prejudices or our passions. In this respect the Wolf and the Lamb of Aesop is a more perfect fable than the Rich Man and the Poor Man's Ewe Lamb of Nathan.

Lessing's analysis and definition of the fable, though he seems himself unconscious of the scope of his argument, is in truth its death-warrant. The beast-fable arose in a primitive age when men firmly believed that beasts could talk and reason, that any wolf they met might be a were-wolf, that a peacock might be a Pythagoras in disguise, and an ox or even a cat a being worthy of their worship. To this succeeded the second age of the fable, which belongs to the same stage of culture as the Hebrew proverbs and the gnomic poets of Greece. That honesty is the best policy, that death is common to all, seemed to the men of that day profound truths worthy to be embalmed in verse or set off by the aid of story or anecdote. Last comes an age of high literary culture which tolerates the trite morals and hackneyed tales for the sake of the exquisite setting, and is amused at the wit which introduces topics and characters of the day under the transparent veil of animal life. Such an artificial product can be nothing more than the fashion of a day, and must, like pastoral poetry, die a natural death. A serious moralist would hardly choose that form to inculcate, like Mandeville in his _Fable of the Bees_, a new doctrine in morals, for the moral of the fable must be such that he who runs may read. A true poet will not care to masquerade as a moral teacher, or show his wit by refurbishing some old-world maxim. Yet Taine in France, Lowell in America, and J.A. Froude in England have proved that the fable as one form of literature is not yet extinct, and is capable of new and unexpected developments.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--_Pantschatantrum_, ed. Kosegarten (Bonn, 1848); _Hitopadesa_, ed. Max Muller (1864); Silvestre de Sacy, _Calilah et Dimna, ou Fables de Bidpai, en Arabe, precedees d'un memoire sur l'origine de ce livre_ (Paris, 1816), translated by the Rev. Wyndham Knatchbull (Oxford, 1819); Comparetti, _Ricerche intorno al Libro di Sindebad_ (Milan, 1869); Max Muller, "Migration of Fables," _Chips from a German Workshop_, vol. iv. (1875); Keller, _Untersuchungen uber die Geschichte der griechischen Fabel_ (Leipzig, 1862); _Babrius_, ed. W.G. Rutherford, with excursus on Greek fables (1883); L. Hervieux, _Les Fabuiistes latins_ (1884); Jakob Grimm, _Reinhart Fuchs_ (Berlin, 1834); A.C.M. Robert, _Fables inedites des XII^e, XIII^e, et XIV^e siecles_, &c. (Paris, 1825); Taine, _Essai sur les fables de La Fontaine_ (1853); Saint-Marc Girardin, _La Fontaine et les fabulistes_ (Paris, 1867). (F. S.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] M. Minas professed to have discovered under the same circumstances another collection of ninety-four fables by Babrius. This second part was accepted by Sir G.C. Lewis, but J. Conington conclusively proved it spurious, and probably a forgery. See BABRIUS.

FABLIAU. The entertaining tales in eight-syllable rhymed verse which form a marked section of French medieval literature are called _fabliaux_, the word being derived by Littre from _fablel_, a diminutive of _fable_. It is a mistake to suppose, as is frequently done, that every legend of the middle ages is a fabliau. In a poem of the 12th century a clear distinction is drawn between songs of chivalry, war or love, and _fabliaux_, which are recitals of laughter. A fabliau always related an event; it was usually brief, containing not more than 400 lines; it was neither sentimental, religious nor supernatural, but comic and gay. MM. de Montaiglon and Raynaud, who have closely investigated this class of literature, consider that about 150 fabliaux have come down to us more or less intact; a vast number have doubtless disappeared. It appears from a phrase in the writings of the trouvere, Henri d'Andeli, that the fabliau was not thought worthy of being copied out on parchment. The wonder, then, is that so many of these ephemeral compositions have been preserved. Arguments brought forward by M. Joseph Bedier, however, tend to show that we need not regret the disappearance of the majority of the fabliaux, as those which were copied into MSS. were those which were felt to be of the greatest intrinsic value. As early as the 8th century fabliaux must have existed, since the faithful are forbidden to take pleasure in these _fabulas inanes_ by the _Paenitentiale_ of Egbert. But it appears that all the early examples are lost.

In the opinion of the best scholars, the earliest surviving fabliau is that of _Richeut_, which dates from 1159. This is a rough and powerful study of the coarse life of the day, with little plot, but engaged with a realistic picture of manners. Such poems, but of a more strictly narrative nature, continued to be produced, mainly in the north and north-east of France, until the middle of the 14th century. Much speculation has been expended on the probable sources of the tales which the trouveres told. The Aryan theory, which saw in them the direct influence of India upon Europe, has now been generally abandoned. It does not seem probable that any ancient or exotic influences were brought to bear upon the French jongleurs, who simply invented or adapted stories of that universal kind which springs unsown from every untilled field of human society. More remarkable than the narratives themselves is the spirit in which they are told. This is full of the national humour and the national irony, the true _esprit gaulois_. A very large section of these popular poems deals satirically with the pretensions of the clergy. Such are the famous _Pretre aux mures_, the _Pretre qui dit la Passion_ and _Les Perdrix_. Some of these are innocently merry; others are singularly depraved and obscene. Another class of fabliaux is that which comprises jests against the professions; in this, the most prominent example is _Le Vilain Mire_, a satire on doctors, which curiously predicts the _Medecin malgre lui_ of Moliere. There are also tales whose purpose is rather voluptuous than witty, and whose aim is to excuse libertinage and render marriage ridiculous. Among these are prominent _Court Mantel_ and _Le Dit de Berenger_. Yet another class repeated, with a strain of irony or oddity, such familiar classical stories as those of Narcissus, and Pyramus and Thisbe. It is rarely that any elevation of tone raises these poems above a familiar and even playful level, but there are some that are almost idealistic. Among these the story of a sort of Sisyphus errant, _Le Chevalier de Barizel_, offers an ethical interest which lifts it in certain respects above all other surviving fabliaux. An instance of the pathetic fabliau is _Housse Partie_, a kind of primitive version of the story of King Lear.

In composing these pieces, of very varied character, the jongleurs have practised an art which was in many respects rudimentary, but sincere and simple. The student of language finds the rich vocabulary of the fabliaux much more attractive to him than the conventionality of the serious religious and amatory poems of the same age. The object of the writers was the immediate amusement of their audience; by reference to familiar things, they hoped to arouse a quick and genuine merriment. Hence their incorrectness and their negligence are balanced by a delightful ease and absence of pedantry, and in the fabliaux we get closer than elsewhere to the living diction of medieval France. It is true that if we extend too severe a judgment to these pieces, we may find ourselves obliged to condemn them altogether. An instructed French critic, vexed with their faults, has gone so far as to say that "the subjects of these tales are degrading, their inspiration nothing better than flat and cruel derision, their distinguishing features rascality, vulgarity and platitude of style." From one point of view, this condemnation of the fabliau is hardly too severe. But such scholars as Gaston Paris and Paul Meyer have not failed to emphasize other sides to the question. They have praised, in the general laxity of style and garrulity of the middle ages, the terseness of the jongleurs; in the period of false ornament, their fidelity to nature; in a time of general vagueness, the sharp and picturesque outlines of their art. One feature of the fabliaux, however, cannot be praised and yet must not be overlooked. In no other section of the world's literature is the scorn and hatred of women so prominent. It is difficult to account for the anti-feminine rage which pervades the fabliaux, and takes hideous shapes in such examples as _Le Valet aux deux femmes_, _Le Pecheur de Pont-sur-Seine_ and _Chicheface et Bigorne_. Probably this was a violent reaction against the extravagant cult of woman as expressed in the contemporary _lais_ as well as in the legends of saints. The exaggeration was not greater in the one case than in the other, and it is probable that the exaltation was made endurable to those who listened to the trouveres by the corresponding degradation. We must remember, too, that those who listened were not nobles or clerks, they were the common people. The fabliaux were _fabellae ignobilium_, little stories told to amuse persons of low degree, who were irritated by the moral pretensions of their superiors.

The names of about twenty of the authors of fabliaux have been preserved, although in most cases nothing is known of their personal history. The most famous poet of this class of writing is the man whose name, or more probably pseudonym, was Rutebeuf. He wrote _Frere Denyse_ and _Le Sacristain_, while to him is attributed the _Dit d'Aristote_, in the course of which Aristotle gives good advice to Alexander. Fabliaux, however, form but a small part of the work of Rutebeuf, who was a satirical poet of wide accomplishment and varied energy. Most of the jongleurs who wrote these merry and indecent tales in octosyllabic verse were persons of less distinction. Henri d'Andeli was an ecclesiastic, attached, it is supposed, to the cathedral of Rouen. Jean de Conde, who flourished in the court of Hainaut from 1310 to 1340, and who is the latest of the genuine writers of fabliaux, lived in comfort and security, but most of the professional jongleurs seem to have spent their years in a Bohemian existence, wandering among the clergy and the merchant class, alternately begging for money and food and reciting their mocking verses.

The principal authorities for the fabliaux are MM. Anatole de Montaiglon and Gaston Raynaud, who published the text, in 6 vols., between 1872 and 1890. This edition corrected and supplemented the very valuable labours of Meon (1808-1823) and Jubinal (1839-1842). The works of Henri d'Andeli were edited by M.A. Heron in 1880, and those of Rutebeuf were made the subject of an exhaustive monograph by M. Leon Cledat in 1891. See also the editions of separate fabliaux by Gaston Paris, Paul Meyer, Ebeling, August Scheler and other modern scholars. M. Joseph Bedier's _Les Fabliaux_ (1895) is a useful summary of critical opinion on the entire subject. (E. G.)

FABRE, FERDINAND (1830-1898), French novelist, was born at Bedarieux, in Herault, a very picturesque district of the south of France, which he made completely his own in literature. He was the son of a local architect, who failed in business, and Ferdinand was brought up by his uncle, the Abbe Fulcran Fabre, at Camplong among the mulberry woods. Of his childhood and early youth he has given a charming account in _Ma Vocation_ (1889). He was destined to the priesthood, and was sent for that purpose to the seminary of St Pons de Thomieres, where, in 1848, he had, as he believed, an ecstatic vision of Christ, who warned him "It is not the will of God that thou shouldst be a priest." He had now to look about for a profession, and, after attempting medicine at Montpellier, was articled as a lawyer's clerk in Paris. In 1853 he published a volume of verses, _Feuilles de lierre_, broke down in health, and crept back, humble and apparently without ambition, to his old home at Bedarieux. After some eight or nine years of country life he reappeared in Paris, with the MS. of his earliest novel, _Les Courbezon_ (1862), in which he treated the subject which was to recur in almost all his books, the daily business of country priests in the Cevennes. This story enjoyed an immediate success with the literary class of readers; George Sand praised it, Sainte-Beuve hailed in its author "the strongest of the disciples of Balzac," and it was crowned by the French Academy. From this time forth Fabre settled down to the production of novels, of which at the time of his death he had published about twenty. Among these the most important were _Le Chevrier_ (1868), unique among his works as written in an experimental mixture of Cevenol patois and French of the 16th century; _L'Abbe Tigrane, candidat a la papaute_ (1873), by common consent the best of all Fabre's novels, a very powerful picture of unscrupulous priestly ambition; _Mon Oncle Celestin_ (1881), a study of the entirely single and tender-hearted country abbe; and _Lucifer_ (1884), a marvellous gallery of serious clerical portraits. In 1883 Fabre was appointed curator of the Mazarin Library, with rooms in the Institute, where, on 11th February 1898, he died after a brief attack of pneumonia. Ferdinand Fabre occupies in French literature a position somewhat analogous to that of Mr Thomas Hardy amongst English writers of fiction. He deals almost exclusively with the population of the mountain villages of Herault, and particularly with its priests. He loved most of all to treat of the celibate virtues, the strictly ecclesiastical passions, the enduring tension of the young soul drawn between the spiritual vocation and the physical demands of nature. Although never a priest, he preserved a comprehension of and a sympathy with the clerical character, and he always indignantly denied that he was hostile to the Church, although he stood just outside her borders. Fabre possessed a limited and a monotonous talent, but within his own field he was as original as he was wholesome and charming.

See also J. Lemaitre, _Les Contemporains_, vol. ii.; G. Pellissier, _Etudes de litterature contemporaine_ (1898); E.W. Gosse, _French Profiles_ (1905). (E. G.)

FABRE D'EGLANTINE, PHILIPPE FRANCOIS NAZAIRE (1750-1794), French dramatist and revolutionist, was born at Carcassonne on the 28th of July 1750. His real name was simple Fabre, the "d'Eglantine" being added in commemoration of his receiving the golden eglantine of Clemence Isaure from the academy of the floral games at Toulouse. After travelling through the provinces as an actor, he came to Paris, and produced an unsuccessful comedy entitled _Les Gens de lettres, ou le provincial a Paris_ (1787). A tragedy, _Augusta_, produced at the _Theatre Francais_, was also a failure. One only of his plays, _Philinte, ou la suite du Misanthrope_ (1790), still preserves its reputation. It professes to be a continuation of Moliere's _Misanthrope_, but the hero of the piece is of a different character from the nominal prototype--an impersonation, indeed, of pure and simple egotism. On its publication the play was introduced by a preface, in which the author mercilessly satirizes the _Optimiste_ of his rival J.F. Collin d'Harleville, whose _Chateaux en Espagne_ had gained the applause which Fabre's _Presomptueux_ (1789) had failed to win. The character of Philinte had much political significance. Alceste received the highest praise, and evidently represents the citizen patriot, while Philinte is a dangerous aristocrat in disguise. Fabre was president and secretary of the club of the Cordeliers, and belonged also to the Jacobin club. He was chosen by Danton as his private secretary, and sat in the National Convention. He voted for the king's death, supporting the _maximum_ and the law of the suspected, and he was a bitter enemy of the Girondins. After the death of Marat he published a _Portrait de l'Ami du Peuple_. On the abolition of the Gregorian calendar he sat on the committee entrusted with the formation of the republican substitute, and to him was due a large part of the new nomenclature, with its poetic _Prairial and Floreal_, its prosaic _Primidi_ and _Duodi_. The report which he made on the subject, on the 24th of October, has some scientific value. On the 12th of January 1794 he was arrested by order of the committee of public safety on a charge of malversation and forgery in connexion with the affairs of the Compagnie des Indes. Documents still existing prove that the charge was altogether groundless. During his trial Fabre showed the greatest calmness and sang his own well-known song of _Il pleut, il pleut, bergere, rentre tes blancs moutons_. He was guillotined on the 5th of April 1794. On his way to the scaffold he distributed his manuscript poems to the people.

A posthumous play, _Les Precepteurs_, steeped with the doctrines of Rousseau's _Emile_, was performed on the 17th of September 1794, and met with an enthusiastic reception. Among Fabre's other plays are the gay and successful _Convalescent de qualite_ (1791), and _L'Intrigue epistolaire_ (1791). In the latter play Fabre is supposed to have drawn a portrait of the painter Jean Baptiste Greuze.

The author's _Oeuvres melees et posthumes_ were published at Paris 1802, 2 vols. See Albert Maurin, _Galerie hist. de la Revolution francaise_, tome 11; Jules Janin, _Hist. de la litt. dram._; Chenier, _Tableau de la litt. francaise_; F.A. Aulard in the _Nouvelle Revue_ (July 1885).

FABRETTI, RAPHAEL (1618-1700), Italian antiquary, was born in 1618 at Urbino in Umbria. He studied law at Cagli and Urbino, where he took the degree of doctor at the age of eighteen. While in Rome he attracted the notice of Cardinal Lorenzo Imperiali, who employed him successively as treasurer and auditor of the papal legation in Spain, where he remained thirteen years. Meanwhile, his favourite classical and antiquarian studies were not neglected; and on his return journey he made important observations of the relics and monuments of Spain, France and Italy. At Rome he was appointed judge of appellation of the Capitol, which post he left to be auditor of the legation at Urbino. After three years he returned to Rome, on the invitation of Cardinal Carpegna, vicar of Innocent XI., and devoted himself to antiquarian research, examining with minute care the monuments and inscriptions of the Campagna. He always rode a horse which his friends nicknamed "Marco Polo," after the Venetian traveller. By Innocent XII. he was made keeper of the archives of the castle St Angelo, a charge which he retained till his death. He died at Rome on the 7th of January 1700. His collection of inscriptions and monuments was purchased by Cardinal Stoppani, and placed in the ducal palace at Urbino, where they may still be seen.

His work _De Aquis et Aquae-ductibus veteris Romae_ (1680), three dissertations on the topography of ancient Latium, is inserted in Graevius's _Thesaurus_, iv. (1677). His interpretation of certain passages in Livy and other classical authors involved him in a dispute with Gronovius, which bore a strong resemblance to that between Milton and Salmasius, Gronovius addressing Fabretti as _Faber Rusticus_, and the latter, in reply, speaking of _Grunnovius_ and his _titivilitia_. In this controversy Fabretti used the pseudonym Iasitheus, which he afterwards took as his pastoral name in the Academy of the Arcadians. His other works, _De Columna Trajani Syntagma_ (Rome, 1683), and _Inscriptionum Antiquarum Explicatio_ (Rome, 1699), throw much light on Roman antiquity. In the former is to be found his explication of a bas-relief, with inscriptions, now in the Capitol at Rome, representing the war and taking of Troy, known as the Iliac table. Letters and other shorter works of Fabretti are to be found in publications of the time, as the _Journal des Savants_.

See Crescimbeni, _Le Vite degli Arcadi illustri_; Fabroni, _Vitae Italorum_, vi. 174; Niceron, iv. 372; J. Lamius, _Memorabilia Italorum eruditione praestantium_ (Florence, 1742-1748).

FABRIANI, SEVERINO (1792-1849), Italian author and teacher, was born at Spilamberto, Italy, on the 7th of January 1792. Entering the Church, he took up educational work, but in consequence of complete loss of voice he resolved to devote himself to teaching deaf mutes, and founded a small school specially for them. This school the duke of Modena made into an institute, and by a special authority from the pope a teaching staff of nuns was appointed. Fabriani's method of instruction is summed up in his _Logical Letters on Italian Grammar_ (1847). He died on the 27th of April 1849.

FABRIANO, a town of the Marches, Italy, in the province of Ancona, from which it is 44 m. S.W. by rail, 1066 ft. above sea-level. Pop. (1901) town 9586, commune 22,996. It has been noted since the 13th century for its paper mills, which still produce the best paper in Italy. A school of painting arose here, one of the early masters of which is Allegretto Nuzi (1308-1385); and several of the churches contain works by him and other local masters. His pupil, Gentile da Fabriano (1370-1428), was a painter of considerably greater skill and wider knowledge; but there are no important works of his at Fabriano. The sacristy of S. Agostino also contains some good frescoes by Ottaviano Nelli of Gubbio. The municipal picture gallery contains a collection of pictures, and among them are some primitive frescoes, attributable to the 12th century, which still retain traces of Byzantine influence. The Archivio Comunale contains documents on watermarked paper of local manufacture going back to the 13th century. The Ponte dell' Acra, a bridge of the 15th century, is noticeable for the ingenuity and strength of its construction. The hospital of S. Maria Buon Gesu is a fine work of 1456, attributed to Rossellino.

See A. Zonghi, _Antiche Carte Fabrianesi_. (T. As.)

FABRICIUS, GAIUS LUSCINUS (i.e. "the one-eyed"), Roman general, was the first member of the Fabrician gens who settled in Rome. He migrated to Rome from Aletrium (Livy ix. 43), one of the Hernican towns which was allowed to retain its independence as a reward for not having revolted. In 285 he was one of the ambassadors sent to the Tarentines to dissuade them from making war on the Romans. In 282 (when consul) he defeated the Bruttians and Lucanians, who had besieged Thurii (Livy, _Epit._ 12). After the defeat of the Romans by Pyrrhus at Heraclea (280), Fabricius was sent to treat for the ransom and exchange of the prisoners. All attempts to bribe him were unsuccessful, and Pyrrhus is said to have been so impressed that he released the prisoners without ransom (Plutarch, _Pyrrhus_, 18). The story that Pyrrhus attempted to frighten Fabricius by the sight of an elephant is probably a fiction. In 278 Fabricius was elected consul for the second time, and was successful in negotiating terms of peace with Pyrrhus, who sailed away to Sicily. Fabricius afterwards gained a series of victories over the Samnites, the Lucanians and the Bruttians, and on his return to Rome received the honour of a triumph. Notwithstanding the offices he had filled he died poor, and provision had to be made for his daughter out of the funds of the state (Val. Max. iv. 4, 10). Fabricius was regarded by the Romans of later times as a model of ancient simplicity and incorruptible integrity.

FABRICIUS, GEORG (1516-1571), German poet, historian and archaeologist, was born at Chemnitz in upper Saxony on the 23rd of April 1516, and educated at Leipzig. Travelling in Italy with one of his pupils, he made an exhaustive study of the antiquities of Rome. He published the results in his _Roma_ (1550), in which the correspondence between every discoverable relic of the old city and the references to them in ancient literature was traced in detail. In 1546 he was appointed rector of the college of Meissen, where he died on the 17th of July 1571. In his sacred poems he affected to avoid every word with the slightest savour of paganism; and he blamed the poets for their allusions to pagan divinities.

Principal works: editions of Terence (1548) and Virgil (1551); _Poematum sacrorum libri xxv._ (1560); _Poetarum veterum ecclesiasticorum opera Christiana_ (1562); _De Re Poetica libri septem_ (1565); _Rerum Misnicarum libri septem_ (1569); (posthumous) _Originum illustrissimae stirpis Saxonicae libri septem_ (1597); _Rerum Germaniae magnae et Saxoniae universae memorabilium mirabiliumque volumina duo_ (1609). A life of Georg Fabricius was published in 1839 by D.C.W. Baumgarten-Crusius, who in 1845 also issued an edition of Fabricius's _Epistolae ad W. Meurerum et alios aequales_, with a short sketch _De Vita Ge. Fabricii et de gente Fabriciorum_; see also F. Wachter in Ersch and Gruber's _Allgemeine Encyclopadie_.

FABRICIUS, HIERONYMUS [FABRIZIO, GERONIMO] (1537-1619), Italian anatomist and embryologist, was surnamed Acquapendente from the episcopal city of that name, where he was born in 1537. At Padua, after a course of philosophy, he studied medicine under G. Fallopius, whose successor as teacher of anatomy and surgery he became in 1562. From the senators of Venice he received numerous honours, and an anatomical theatre was built by them for his accommodation. He died at Venice on the 21st of May 1619. His works include _De visione, voce et auditu_ (1600), _De formato foetu_ (1600), _De venarum ostiolis_ (1603), _De formatione ovi et pulli_ (1621). His collected works were published at Leipzig in 1687 as _Opera omnia Anatomica et Physiologica_, but the Leiden edition, published by Albinus in 1738, is preferred as containing a life of the author and the prefaces of his treatises. (See ANATOMY; EMBRYOLOGY.)

FABRICIUS, JOHANN ALBERT (1668-1736), German classical scholar and bibliographer, was born at Leipzig on the 11th of November 1668. His father, Werner Fabricius, director of music in the church of St Paul at Leipzig, was the author of several works, the most important being _Deliciae Harmonicae_ (1656). The son received his early education from his father, who on his death-bed recommended him to the care of the theologian Valentin Alberti. He studied under J.G. Herrichen, and afterwards at Quedlinburg under Samuel Schmid. It was in Schmid's library, as he afterwards said, that he found the two books, F. Barth's _Adversaria_ and D.G. Morhof's _Polyhistor Literarius_, which suggested to him the idea of his _Bibliothecae_, the works on which his great reputation was founded. Having returned to Leipzig in 1686, he published anonymously (two years later) his first work, _Scriptorum recentiorum decas_, an attack on ten writers of the day. His _Decas Decadum, sive plagiariorum et pseudonymorum centuria_ (1689) is the only one ot his works to which be signs the name Faber. He then applied himself to the study of medicine, which, however, he relinquished for that of theology; and having gone to Hamburg in 1693, he proposed to travel abroad, when the unexpected tidings that the expense of his education had absorbed his whole patrimony, and even left him in debt to his trustee, forced him to abandon his project. He therefore remained at Hamburg in the capacity of librarian to J.F. Mayer. In 1696 he accompanied his patron to Sweden; and on his return to Hamburg, not long afterwards, he became a candidate for the chair of logic and philosophy. The suffrages being equally divided between Fabricius and Sebastian Edzardus, one of his opponents, the appointment was decided by lot in favour of Edzardus; but in 1699 Fabricius succeeded Vincent Placcius in the chair of rhetoric and ethics, a post which he held till his death, refusing invitations to Greifswald, Kiel, Giessen and Wittenberg. He died at Hamburg on the 30th of April 1736.

Fabricius is credited with 128 books, but very many of them were only books which he had edited. One of the most famed and laborious of these is the _Bibliotheca Latina_ (1697, republished in an improved and amended form by J.A. Ernesti, 1773). The divisions of the compilation are--the writers to the age of Tiberius; thence to that of the Antonines; and thirdly, to the decay of the language; a fourth gives fragments from old authors, and chapters on early Christian literature. A supplementary work was _Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae Aetatis_ (1734-1736; supplementary volume by C. Schottgen, 1746; ed. Mansi, 1754). His _chef-d'oeuvre_, however, is the _Bibliotheca Graeca_ (1705-1728, revised and continued by G.C. Harles, 1790-1812), a work which has justly been denominated _maximus antiquae eruditionis thesaurus_. Its divisions are marked off by Homer, Plato, Christ, Constantine, and the capture of Constantinople in 1453, while a sixth section is devoted to canon law, jurisprudence and medicine. Of his remaining works we may mention:--_Bibliotheca Antiquaria_, an account of the writers whose works illustrated Hebrew, Greek, Roman and Christian antiquities (1713); _Centifolium Lutheranum_, a Lutheran bibliography (1728); _Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica_ (1718). His _Codex Apocryphus_ (1703) is still considered indispensable as an authority on apocryphal Christian literature.

The details of the life of Fabricius are to be found in _De Vita et Scriptis J.A. Fabricii Commentarius_, by his son-in-law, H.S. Reimarus, the well-known editor of Dio Cassius, published at Hamburg, 1737; see also C.F. Bahr in Ersch and Gruber's _Allgemeine Encyclopadie_, and J.E. Sandys, _Hist. Class. Schol._ iii. (1908).

FABRICIUS, JOHANN CHRISTIAN (1745-1808), Danish entomologist and economist, was born at Tondern in Schleswig on the 7th of January 1745. After studying at Altona and Copenhagen, he was sent to Upsala, where he attended the lectures of Linnaeus. He devoted his attention professionally to political economy, and, after lecturing on that subject in 1769, was appointed in 1775 professor of natural history, economy and finance at Kiel, in which capacity he wrote various works, chiefly referring to Denmark, and of no special interest. He also published a few other works on general and natural history, botany and travel (including _Reise nach Norwegen_, 1779), and, although his professional stipend was small, he extended his personal researches into every town in northern and central Europe where a natural history museum was to be found. It is as an entomologist that his memory survives, and for many years his great scientific reputation rested upon the system of classification which he founded upon the structure of the mouth-organs instead of the wings. He had a keen eye for specific differences, and possessed the art of terse and accurate description. He died on the 3rd of March 1808.

A complete list of his entomological publications (31) will be found in Hagen's _Bibliotheca Entomologiae_; the following are the chief:--_Systema Entomologiae_ (1775); _Genera Insectorum_ (1776); _Philosophia Entomologica_ (1778); _Species insectorum_ (1781); _Mantissa Insectorum_ (1787); _Entomologia Systematica_ (1792-1794), with a supplement (1798); _Systema Eleutheratorum_ (1801), _Rhyngotorum_ (1803), _Piezatorum_ (1804), and _Antliatorum_ (1805). Full particulars of his life will be found, with a portrait, in the _Transactions of the Entomological Society of London_ (1845), 4, pp. i-xvi, where his autobiography is translated from the Danish.

FABRIZI, NICOLA (1804-1885), Italian patriot, was born at Modena on the 4th of April 1804. He took part in the Modena insurrection of 1831, and attempted to succour Ancona, but was arrested at sea and taken to Toulon, whence he proceeded to Marseilles. Afterwards he organized with Mazzini the ill-fated Savoy expedition. Taking refuge in Spain, he fought against the Carlists, and was decorated for valour on the battlefield (18th July 1837). At the end of the Carlist War he established a centre of conspiracy at Malta, endeavoured to dissuade Mazzini from the Bandiera enterprise, but aided Crispi in organizing the Sicilian revolution of 1848. With a company of volunteers he distinguished himself in the defence of Venice, afterwards proceeding to Rome, where he took part in the defence of San Pancrazio. Upon the fall of Rome he returned to Malta, accumulating arms and stores; which he conveyed to Sicily; after having, in 1859, worked with Crispi to prepare the Sicilian revolution of 1860. While Garibaldi was sailing from Genoa towards Marsala Fabrizi landed at Pizzolo, and, after severe fighting, joined Garibaldi at Palermo. Under the Garibaldian Dictatorship he was appointed governor of Messina and minister of war. Returning to Malta after the Neapolitan plebiscite, which he had vainly endeavoured to postpone, he was recalled to aid Cialdini in suppressing brigandage. While on his way to Sicily in 1862, to induce Garibaldi to give up the Aspromonte enterprise, he was arrested at Naples by Lamarmora. During the war of 1866 he became Garibaldi's chief of staff, and in 1867 fought at Mentana. In parliament he endeavoured to promote agreement between the chiefs of the Left, and from 1878 onwards worked to secure the return of Crispi to power, but died on the 31st of March 1885, two years before the realization of his object. His whole life was characterized by ardent patriotism and unimpeachable integrity. (H. W. S.)

FABROT, CHARLES ANNIBAL (1580-1659), French jurisconsult, was born at Aix in Provence on the 15th of September 1580. At an early age he made great progress in the ancient languages and in the civil and the canon law; and in 1602 he received the degree of doctor of law, and was made avocat to the parlement of Aix. In 1609 he obtained a professorship in the university of his native town. He is best known by his translation of the _Basilica_, which may be said to have formed the code of the Eastern empire till its destruction. This work was published at Paris in 1647 in 7 vols. fol., and obtained for its author a considerable pension from the chancellor, Pierre Seguier, to whom it was dedicated. Fabrot likewise rendered great service to the science of jurisprudence by his edition of Cujas, which comprised several treatises of that great jurist previously unpublished. He also edited the works of several Byzantine historians, and was besides the author of various antiquarian and legal treatises. He died at Paris on the 16th of January 1659.

FABYAN, ROBERT (d. 1513), English chronicler, belonged to an Essex family, members of which had been connected with trade in London. He was a member of the Drapers company, alderman of Farringdon Without, and served as sheriff in 1493-1494. In 1496 he was one of those appointed to make representations to the king on the new impositions on English cloth in Flanders. Next year he was one of the aldermen employed in keeping watch at the time of the Cornish rebellion. He resigned his aldermanry in 1502, on the pretext of poverty, apparently in order to avoid the expense of mayoralty. He had, however, acquired considerable wealth with his wife Elizabeth Pake, by whom he had a numerous family. He spent his latter years on his estate of Halstedys at Theydon Garnon in Essex. He died on the 28th of February 1513 (_Inquisitiones post mortem for London_, p. 29, edited by G.S. Fry, 1896); his will, dated the 11th of July 1511, was proved on the 12th of July 1513. Fabyan's Chronicle was first published by Richard Pynson in 1516 as _The new chronicles of England and of France_. In this edition it ends with the reign of Richard III., and this probably represents the work as Fabyan left it, though with the omission of an autobiographical note and some religious verses, which form the _Envoi_ of his history. The note and verses are first found in the second edition, printed by John Rastell in 1533 with continuations down to 1509. A third edition appeared in 1542, and a fourth in 1559 with additions to that year. The only modern edition is that of Sir Henry Ellis, 1811.

In the note above mentioned Fabyan himself says: "and here I make an ende of the vii. parte and hole werke, the vii. day of November in the yere of our Lord Jesu Christes Incarnacion M. vc. and iiij." This seems conclusive that in 1504 he did not contemplate any extension of his chronicles beyond 1485. The continuations printed by Rastell are certainly not Fabyan's work. But Stow in his _Collections_ (ap. _Survey of London_, ii. 305-306, ed. C.L. Kingsford) states that Fabyan wrote "a Chronicle of London, England and of France, beginning at the creation and endynge in the third year of Henry VIII., which both I have in written hand." In his _Survey of London_ (i. 191, 209, ii. 55, 116) Stow several times quotes Fabyan as his authority for statements which are not to be found in the printed continuations of Rastell. Some further evidence may be found in other notes of Stow's (ap. _Survey of London_,