part v

. of the _Nineteenth and of the Twenty-first Annual Reports of the United States Geological Survey_, and vol. ix. of the _10th Census Report on the Forests of North America_; and _Reports_ of the State Forestry Commissions of New York, New Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, &c., and of the State Geological Surveys of New Jersey, Maryland and North Carolina. (G. P.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The United States fiscal year ends June 30, and receives its designation from the calendar year in which it terminates. Thus, the fiscal year 1898 is the year July 1, 1897-June 30, 1898.

[2] Administration transferred to Bureau of Forestry, February 1, 1905.

[3] Woods waste includes tops, stumps, cull logs and butts, but does not include defective trees left or trees used for road purposes.

[4] Mill waste includes bark, kerf, slabs and edgings.

FOREY, ELIE FREDERIC (1804-1872), marshal of France, was born at Paris on the 5th of January 1804, and entered the army from St Cyr in 1824. He took part in the earlier Algerian campaigns, and became captain in 1835. Four years later he was given command of a battalion of _chasseurs a pied_ and in 1844 he became colonel. At the Revolution of 1848 Cavaignac made him a general of brigade. He took an active part in the _coup d'etat_ of the 2nd of December 1851, and Napoleon III. made him a general of division shortly afterwards. He held a superior command in the Crimean War, and in the Italian campaign of 1859 distinguished himself very greatly in the action of Montebello (20th May). In 1862 Forey was placed in command of the French expeditionary corps in Mexico, with the fullest civil and military powers, and he crowned a successful campaign by the capture of Mexico city in May 1863, receiving as his reward the marshal's baton. From December 1863 to 1867 he held high commands in France, but in the latter year he was struck with paralysis and had to retire. Marshal Forey died at Paris on the 20th of June 1872.

FORFAR, a royal, municipal and police burgh, and capital of the county of Forfarshire, Scotland. Pop. (1901) 12,117. It lies at the east end of the Loch of Forfar in the valley of Strathmore, and is 13 m. N. by E. of Dundee by road and 21-1/4 m. by the Caledonian railway. It is also situated on the same company's main line to Aberdeen and sends off a branch to Brechin. The principal buildings comprise the court house, the county hall (with portraits by Raeburn, Romney, Opie and others), the town hall, the Meffan Institute (including the free library), the infirmary, poorhouse and the Reid hall, founded by Peter Reid, a merchant in the burgh who also gave the public park. The burgh unites with Montrose, Arbroath, Brechin and Inverbervie (the Montrose group of burghs) in returning one member to parliament. The Loch of Forfar, 1-1/4 m. long by 1/4 m. wide, is drained by Dean Burn, and contains pike and perch. On a gravel bank or spit in the north-west of the lake stood a castle which was sometimes used as a residence by Margaret, queen of Malcolm Canmore. The staple industries are linen and jute manufactures, but brewing, tanning, bleaching, rope-making and iron-founding are also carried on.

Forfar is at least as old as the time of Malcolm Canmore, for the first parliament after the defeat of Macbeth met in the old castle, which stood on a mound on the northern side of the town. The parliaments of William the Lion, Alexander II. and Robert II. also assembled within its walls. The town, which was created a royal burgh by David I., was burnt down about the middle of the 13th century. Edward I. captured the castle on one of his incursions, but in 1307 Robert Bruce seized it, put its defenders to the sword and then destroyed it, its site being now marked by the town cross. Previous to the reign of James VI. the weekly market was held on Sunday, but after the union of the crowns parliament enacted that it should be held on Friday. The town sided with Charles I. during the Civil War, and Charles II. presented the Cross to it out of regard for the loyalty shown to his father. Forfar seems to have played a less reputable part in the persecution of witches. In 1661 a crown commission was issued for the trial of certain miserable creatures, some of whom were condemned to be burnt. In the same year one John Ford for his services as a witch-finder was admitted a burgess along with Lord Kinghorne. The witches' bridle, a gag to prevent them from speaking whilst being led to execution, is still preserved in the county hall. One mile to the E. lie the ruins of Restennet Priory, where a son of Robert Bruce was buried. For twenty five years after the Reformation it was used as the parish church and afterwards by the Episcopalians, until they obtained a chapel of their own in 1822.

FORFARSHIRE, or ANGUS, an eastern county of Scotland, bounded N. by the shires of Kincardine and Aberdeen, W. by Perthshire, S. by the Firth of Tay and E. by the North Sea. It has an area of 559,171 acres, or 873.7 sq. m. The island of Rossie and the Bell Rock belong to the shire.

Forfarshire is characterized by great variety of surface and may be divided physically into four well-marked sections. In the most northerly of these many of the rugged masses of the Grampians are found; this belt is succeeded by Strathmore, or the Howe of Angus, a fertile valley, from 6 to 8 m. broad, which is a continuation of the Howe of the Mearns, and runs south-westwards till it enters Strathearn, to the south-west of Perth; then come the Sidlaw Hills and a number of isolated heights, which in turn give way to the plain of the coast and the Firth. The mountains are all in the northern division and belong to the Binchinnin group (sometimes rather inexactly called the Braes of Angus) of the Grampian ranges. Among the highest masses, most of which lie on or near the confines of the bordering counties, are Glas Maol(3502 ft.), on the summit of which the shires of Aberdeen, Forfar and Perth meet, Cairn-na-Glasha (3484), Fafernie (3274), Broad Cairn (3268), Creag Leacach (3238), Tolmount (3143), Tom Buidhe (3140), Driesh (3105), Mount Keen (3077) and Mayar (3043), while peaks of upwards of 2000 ft. are numerous. The Sidlaw Hills--the greater part of which, however, belongs to Perthshire--are much less lofty and of less striking appearance. They have a breadth of from 3 to 6 m., the highest points within the county being Craigowl Hill (1493 ft.), Auchterhouse Hill (1399) and Gallow Hill (1242). None of the rivers is navigable, and only three are of any importance. The Isla, rising in Cairn-na-Glasha, flows southwards, then turns S.E. and finally S.W. till it enters the Tay after a course of 45 m. Its chief tributaries on the right are the Alyth, Ericht and Lunan, and on the left the Newton, Melgam and Dean. Near Bridge of Craig is the fall of Reekie Linn (70 ft.), so named from the fact that when the stream is in flood the spray rises in a dense cloud like smoke (_reek_). Near old Airlie Castle are the cascades called the Slugs of Auchrannie. The North Esk, formed by the confluence of the Lee and Mark at Invermark, after a south-easterly course of 28 m. enters the North Sea 3 m. N. of Montrose. On the right bank it receives the West Water and Cruick and on the left the Tarf and Luther. It gives the title of earl of Northesk to a branch of the Carnegie family. The South Esk rises in the Grampians near Mount Fafernie and not far from its source forms the Falls of Bachnagairn; after flowing towards the south-east, it bends eastwards near Tannadice and reaches the North Sea at Montrose, the length of its course being 48 m. Its principal affluents are the Prosen on the right and the Noran on the left. It supplies the title of earl of Southesk to another branch of the Carnegies. The lakes are small, the two largest being the Loch of Forfar and the mountain-girt Loch Lee (1 m. long by 1/4 m. wide). Lintrathen (circular in shape and about 3/4 m. across), to the north of Airlie Castle, supplies Dundee with drinking water. The glens of the Forfarshire Grampians are remarkable for their beauty, and several of them for the wealth of their botanical specimens. The largest and finest of them are Glen Isla, in which are the ruins of Forter Castle, destroyed by Argyll in 1640, and the earl of Airlie's shooting-lodge of the Tulchan; Glen Clova, near the entrance to which stands Cortachy Castle, the seat of the earl of Airlie; Glen Esk and Glen Prosen.

_Geology._--A great earth fracture traverses this county from near Edzell on the N.E. to Lintrathen Loch on the S.W. Between Cortachy and the south-western boundary this fault runs in Old Red Sandstone, but north-east of that place it forms the junction line of Silurian and Old Red; and in a general way we may say that on the N.W. side of the fault the metamorphosed Silurian rocks are found, while the remainder of the county is occupied by the Old Red Sandstone. On the margin of the disturbance the Silurian rocks are little-altered grey and green clay slates with bands of pebbly grit; farther towards the N.W. we find the same rocks metamorphosed into mica schists and gneisses with pebbly quartzites. Rising up through the schists between Carn Bannock and Mount Battock is a great mass of granite. The Old Red Sandstone extends from this county into Perthshire and Kincardineshire; here some 20,000 ft. of these deposits are seen; an important part being formed of volcanic tuffs and lavas which are regularly interbedded in the sandstones and conglomerates. North of Dundee some of the lower beds are traversed by intrusive dolerites, and Dundee Law is probably the remains of an old vent through which some of the contemporaneous lavas, &c., were discharged. The Old Red Rocks have been subjected to a good deal of folding, as may be seen along the coast. The principal direction of strike is from N.E. to S.W. A synclinal fold occupies Strathmore, and between Longforgan and Montrose the northern extension of the Sidlaw Hills is an anticlinal fold. Two fish-bearing beds occur in the county; from the lower one many large _Eurypterids_ have been obtained. The well-known paving flags of Arbroath belong to the lower part of the formation. The Upper Old Red Sandstone is found only in one spot about a mile north of Arbroath. During the Glacial period the ice travelled south-eastward across Strathmore and over the Sidlaw Hills; abundant evidence of this transporting agent is to be seen in the form of morainic deposits, the most striking of which is the great transverse barrier of Glenairn in the valley of the S. Esk, half a mile in length and about 200 ft. high. Relics of the same period are found round the coast in the form of raised beaches at 100, 50 and 25 ft. above the present sea-level.

_Climate and Agriculture._--On the whole the climate is healthy and favourable to agricultural pursuits. The mean temperature for the year is 47.3 deg. F., for January 38 deg. and for July 59 deg. The average annual rainfall is 34 in., the coast being considerably drier than the uplands. In the low-lying districts of the south the harvest is nearly as early as it is in the rest of Scotland, but in the north it is often late. The principal wheat districts are Strathmore and the neighbourhood of Dundee and Arbroath; and the yield is well up to the best Scottish average. Barley, an important crop, has increased steadily. Oats, however, though still the leading crop, have somewhat declined. Potatoes are mostly grown near the seaboard in the higher ground; turnips also are largely raised. The northern belt, where it is not waste land, has been turned into sheep walks and deer forests. The black-faced sheep are the most common in the mountainous country; cross-bred sheep in the lowlands. Though it is their native county (where they date from 1808), polled Angus are not reared so generally as in the neighbouring shire of Aberdeen, but shorthorns are a favourite stock and Irish cattle are imported for winter-feeding. Excepting in the vicinity of the towns there are no dairy farms. Horses are raised successfully, Clydesdales being the commonest breed, but the small native garrons are now little used. Pigs also are reared. Save perhaps in the case of the crofts, or very small holdings of less than 10 acres, farm management is fully abreast of the times.

_Other Industries._--The staple industries are the jute and flax manufactures. Their headquarters are in Dundee, but they flourish also at other places. Shipbuilding is carried on at Dundee, Arbroath and Montrose. The manufactures of jams, confectionery, leather, machinery, soap and chemicals, are all of great and growing value. Sandstone quarries employ many hands and the deep-sea fisheries, of which Montrose is the centre, are of considerable importance. The netting of salmon at the mouth of the North Esk is also a profitable pursuit.

Two railway companies serve the county. The North British, entering from the south by the Tay Bridge, follows the coast north-eastwards, sending off at Montrose a branch to Bervie. The Caledonian runs up Strathmore to Forfar, whence it diverges due east to Guthrie, where it again resumes its north-easterly course to Dubton and Marykirk; it reaches Dundee from Perth by the shore of the estuary of the Tay, and sends branches from Dundee to Kirriemuir via Monikie and Forfar and to Alyth Junction via Newtyle, while a short line from Dubton gives it touch with Montrose.

_Population and Government._--The population was 277,735 in 1891, and 284,083 in 1901, when 1303 spoke Gaelic and English, and 13 Gaelic only. The chief towns are Arbroath (pop. in 1901, 22,398), Brechin (8941), Broughty Ferry (10,484), Carnoustie (5204), Dundee (161,173), Forfar (11,397), Kirriemuir (4096), Monifieth (2134) and Montrose (12,427). Forfarshire returns one member to Parliament. It is a sheriffdom and there is a resident sheriff-substitute at Dundee and another at Forfar, the county town, and courts are held also at Arbroath. In addition to numerous board schools there are secondary schools at Dundee, Montrose, Arbroath, Brechin, Forfar and Kirriemuir, and technical schools at Dundee and Arbroath. Many of the elementary schools earn grants for higher education. The county council and the Dundee and Arbroath town councils expend the "residue" grant in subsidizing science and art and technical schools and classes, including University College, the textile school, the technical institute, the navigation school, and the workshop schools at Dundee, the technical school at Arbroath, besides cookery, dairy, dress-cutting, laundry, plumbing and veterinary science classes at different places.

_History._--In the time of the Romans the country now known as Forfarshire was inhabited by Picts, of whose occupation there are evidences in remains of weems, or underground houses. Traces of Roman camps and stone forts are common, and there are vitrified forts at Finhaven, Dumsturdy Muir, the hill of Laws near Monifieth and at other points. Spearheads, battle-axes, sepulchral deposits, Scandinavian bronze pins, and other antiquarian relics testify to periods of storm and stress before the land settled down into order, towards which the Church was a powerful contributor. In the earliest days strife was frequent. The battle in which Agricola defeated Galgacus is supposed to have occurred in the Forfarshire Grampians (A.D. 84); the Northumbrian King Egfrith and the Pictish king Burde fought near Dunnichen in 685, the former being slain; conflicts with the Danes took place at Aberlemno and other spots; Elpin king of the Scots was defeated by Aengus in the parish of Liff in 730; at Restennet, about 835, the Picts and Scots had a bitter encounter. In later times the principal historical events, whether of peace or war, were more immediately connected with burghs than with the county as a whole. There is some doubt whether the county was named Angus, its title for several centuries, after a legendary Scottish prince or from the hill of Angus to the east of the church of Aberlemno. It was early governed by hereditary earls and was made a hereditary sheriffdom by David II. The first earl of Angus (by charter of 1389) was George Douglas, an illegitimate son of the 1st earl of Douglas by Margaret Stuart, who was countess of Angus in her own right. On the death of the 1st and only duke of Douglas, who was also 13th earl of Angus, in 1761, the earldom merged in the dukedom of Hamilton. Precisely when the shire became known by the name of the county town has not been ascertained, but probably the usage dates from the 16th century. Among old castles are the roofless square tower of Red Castle at the mouth of the Lunan; the tower of the castle of Auchinleck; the stronghold of Inverquharity near Kirriemuir; the castle of Finhaven; the two towers of old Edzell Castle; the ruins of Melgund Castle, which are fairly complete; the small castle of Newtyle, and the old square tower and gateway of the castle of Craig.

See A. Jervise, _Memorials of Angus and Mearns_ (Edinburgh, 1895); _Land of the Lindsays_ (Edinburgh, 1882); _Epitaphs and Inscriptions_ (Edinburgh, 1879); Earl of Crawford, _Lives of the_ _Lindsays_ (London, 1835); Sir W. Fraser, _History of the Carnegies_ (Edinburgh, 1867); A.H. Millar, _Historical Castles and Mansions_ (Paisley, 1890); G. Hay, _History of Arbroath_ (Arbroath, 1876); D.D. Black, _History of Brechin_ (Edinburgh, 1867).

FORFEITURE (from "forfeit," originally an offence, and hence a fine exacted as a penalty for such; derived through the O. Fr. _forfait_, from the late Lat. _foris factum_, a trespass, that which is done _foris_, outside), in English law, the term applied (1) to loss or liability to the loss of property in consequence of an offence or breach of contract; (2) to the property of which the party is deprived.

Under the common law, conviction and attainder on indictment for treason or felony was followed not only by forfeiture of the life of the offender, but also by forfeiture of his lands and goods. In the case of treason all the traitor's lands of whomsoever holden were forfeited to the king; in the case of felony (including _felo-de-se_, or suicide), the felon's lands escheated (_exceciderunt_) to his immediate lord, subject to the king's right to waste them for a year and a day. This rule did not apply to lands held in gavelkind in the county of Kent. The goods of traitors and felons were forfeited to the king. The desire of the king and his officers to realize the profits of these forfeitures was one of the chief motives for instituting the circuits of the king's justices throughout England; and from time to time conflicts arose from attempts by these justices to extend the law of treason--under which the king levied all the forfeitures--at the expense of felony, in which the lord of the felon benefited by the escheats. As regards theft, the king's rights overrode those of the owner of the stolen property, until, in the reign of Henry VIII., provision was made for restitution of the goods to the owner if he prosecuted the thief to conviction. In Pepys's _Diary_, 21st of January 1667-1668, will be found an illustration of the working of the old law. We find that on the suicide of his brother-in-law, Pepys at once applied to the king personally and obtained a grant of the brother-in-law's estate in favour of his widow and children should the inquest find a verdict of _felo-de-se_. It was common practice for persons anticipating conviction for treason or felony to assign all their property to others to avoid the forfeiture; and in some instances the accused refused to plead to the indictment and endured the _peine forte et dure_, until death supervened, to avoid these consequences of conviction. The royal rights to forfeitures arising within particular areas were frequently granted by charter to corporations or individuals. In 1897 the courts had to interpret such charters granted to the town of Nottingham in 1399 and 1448. All forfeitures and escheats with respect to conviction and attainder for treason and felony were abolished as from the 4th of July 1870, except forfeitures consequent upon the now disused process of outlawry, and the forfeitures included in the penalties of praemunire.

The term "forfeit" is also applied to penalties imposed by statute for acts or omissions which are neither treasonable nor felonious. In such statutes the forfeiture enures in favour of the crown unless the statute indicates another destination; and unless a particular method of enforcing the forfeiture is indicated it is enforceable as a debt to the crown and has priority as such. The words "forfeit and pay" are often used in imposing a pecuniary penalty for a petty misdemeanour, and where they are used the court dealing with the case must not only convict the offender but adjudicate as to the forfeiture.

Statutory forfeitures in some cases extend to specific chattels, e.g. of a British merchant-ship when her character as such is fraudulently dissimulated (Merch. Shipp. Act 1894, ss. 70, 76), or of goods smuggled in contravention of the customs acts or books introduced in violation of the copyright acts. Recognisances are said to be forfeited when the conditions are broken and an order of court is made for their enforcement as a crown debt against the persons bound by them.

The term "forfeiture" is now most commonly used with reference to real property, i.e. with reference to the rights of lords of the manor or lessors to determine the estate or interest of a copyholder or lessee for breach of the customary or contractual terms of tenure. It is also applied to express the deprivation of a limited owner of settled property, real or personal, for breach of the conditions by which his rights are limited; e.g. by becoming bankrupt or attempting to charge or alienate his interest. As a general rule, the courts "lean against forfeitures" of this kind; and are astute to defeat the claim of the superior landlord or other person seeking to enforce them. By legislation of 1881 and 1892 there is jurisdiction to grant relief upon terms against the forfeiture of a lease for breach of certain classes of covenant, e.g. to pay rent or to insure.

FORGERY (derived through the French from Latin _fabricare_, to construct), in English law, "the fraudulent making or alteration of a writing to the prejudice of another man's right," or "the false making, or making _malo animo_, of any written instrument for the purpose of fraud or deceit." This definition, it will be seen, comprehends all fraudulent tampering with documents. "Not only the fabrication and false making of the whole of a written instrument, but a fraudulent insertion, alteration or erasure, even of a letter, in any material part of a true instrument whereby a new operation is given to it, will amount to forgery,--and this though it be afterwards executed by another person ignorant of the deceit" (Russell on _Crimes and Misdemeanours_, vol. ii.). Changing the word Dale into Sale in a lease, so that it appears to be a lease of the manor of Sale instead of the manor of Dale, is a forgery. And when a country banker's note was made payable at the house of a banker in London who failed, it was held to be forgery to alter the name of such London banker to that of another London banker with whom the country banker had subsequently made his notes payable. As to the fraud, "an intent to defraud is presumed to exist if it appears that at the time when the false document was made there was in existence a specific person, ascertained or unascertained, capable of being defrauded thereby; and this presumption is not rebutted by proof that the offender took or intended to take measures to prevent such person from being defrauded in fact, nor by the fact that he had or thought he had a right to the thing to be obtained by the false document" (Stephen's _Digest of the Criminal Law_). Thus when a man makes a false acceptance to a bill of exchange, and circulates it, intending to take it up and actually taking it up before it is presented for payment, he is guilty of forgery. Even if it be proved as a matter of fact that no person could be defrauded (as when A forges a cheque in B's name on a bank from which B had withdrawn his account), the intent to defraud will be presumed. But it would appear that if A knew that B had withdrawn his account, the absence of fraudulent intention would be inferred. A general intention to cheat the public is not the kind of fraud necessary to constitute forgery. Thus if a quack forges a diploma of the college of surgeons, in order to make people believe that he is a member of that body, he is not guilty of forgery.

The crime of forgery in English law has been from time to time dealt with in an enormous number of statutes. It was first made a statutory offence in 1562, and was punishable by fine, by standing in the pillory, having both ears cut off, the nostrils slit up and seared, the forfeiture of land and perpetual imprisonment. It was made capital, without benefit of clergy in 1634. The most notable cases of those who have suffered the extreme penalty of the law are those of the Rev. Dr W. Dodd in 1777, for forging Lord Chesterfield's name on a bond, and Henry Fauntleroy, a partner in the banking-house of Marsh, Sibbald & Co., for the appropriation by means of forged instruments of money entrusted to the bank, in 1824. "Anthony Hammond, in the title Forgery of his _Criminal Code_, has enumerated more than 400 statutes which contain provisions against the offence" (Sir J.T. Coleridge's notes to Blackstone). Blackstone notices the increasing severity of the legislature against forgery, and says that "through the number of these general and special provisions there is now hardly a case possible to be conceived wherein forgery that tends to defraud, whether in the name of a real or fictitious person, is not made a capital crime." These acts were consolidated in 1830. The later statutes, fixing penalties from penal servitude for life downwards, were consolidated by the Forgery Act 1861. It would take too much space to enumerate all the varieties of the offence with their appropriate punishments. The following condensed summary is based upon chapter xlv. of Sir J. Stephen's _Digest of the Criminal Law_:

1. Forgeries punishable with penal servitude for life as a maximum are--

(a) Forgeries of the great seal, privy seal, &c.

(b) Forgeries of transfers of stock, India bonds, exchequer bills, bank-notes, deeds, wills, bills of exchange, &c.

(c) Obliterations or alterations of crossing on a cheque.

(d) Forgeries of registers of birth, &c., or of copies thereof and others.

2. Forgeries punishable with fourteen years' penal servitude are--

(a) Forgeries of debentures.

(b) Forgeries of documents relating to the registering of deeds, &c.

(c) Forgeries of instruments purporting to be made by the accountant general and other officers of the court of chancery, &c.

(d) Drawing bill of exchange, &c., on account of another, per procuration or otherwise, without authority.

(e) Obtaining property by means of a forged instrument, knowing it to be forged, or by probate obtained on a forged will, false oath, &c.

3. Forgeries punishable with seven years' penal servitude:--Forgeries of seals of courts, of the process of courts, of certificates, and of documents to be used in evidence, &c.

By the Merchandise Marks Acts 1887 and 1891, forgery of trade marks is an offence punishable on conviction by indictment with imprisonment not exceeding two years or to fine, or both, and on conviction by summary proceedings with imprisonment not exceeding four months or with a fine.

The Forged Transfers Act 1891, made retrospective by the Forged Transfers Act 1892, enables companies and local authorities to make compensation by a cash payment out of their funds for any loss arising from a transfer of their stocks, shares or securities through a forged transfer.

_United States._--Forgery is made a crime by statute in most if not all the states, in addition to being a common law cheat. These statutes have much enlarged the common definition of this crime. It is also made a crime by a Federal statute (U.S. Rev. Stat., ch. 5), which includes forgery of national banknotes, letters patent, public bid, record, signature of a judge, land warrants, powers of attorney, ships' papers or custom-house documents, certificates of naturalization, &c.; the punishment is by fine or by imprisonment from one to fifteen years with or without hard labour.

In Illinois, fraudulently connecting together different parts of several banknotes or other genuine instruments so as to produce one additional note or instrument with intent to pass all as genuine, is a forgery of each of them (Rev. Stats. 1901, ch. 38, S 108). The alleged instrument must be apparently capable of defrauding (_Goodman_ v. _People_ [1907], 228, Ill. 154).

In Massachusetts, forgery of any note, certificate or bill of credit issued by the state treasurer and receiver general, or by any other officer, for a debt of that commonwealth, or a bank bill of any bank, is punishable by imprisonment for life or any term of years (Rev. Laws 1902, ch. 209, SS 4 and 5).

In New York, forgery includes the false making, counterfeiting, alteration, erasure or obliteration of a genuine instrument (Penal Code, S 520). An officer or agent of a corporation who with intent to defraud sells, pledges or issues a fraudulent scrip, share certificate, is guilty of forgery in third degree. Falsely making any instrument which purports to be issued by a corporation bearing a pretended signature of a person falsely indicated as an officer of the company, is forgery just as if such person were in truth such officer (id. S 519). Counterfeiting railroad tickets is forgery in the third degree. Falsely certifying that the execution of a deed has been acknowledged is forgery (id. S 511). So also is the forging a fictitious name (_People_ v. _Browne_ [1907], 103 N.Y. suppl. 903). Punishment for forgery in the first degree may be twenty years, in the second degree ten years, in the third degree five years.

In Pennsylvania, fraudulently making, signing, altering, uttering or publishing any written instrument other than bank bills, cheques or drafts, was punishable by fine and imprisonment "by separate or solitary confinement at labour for a term not exceeding ten years" (L. 1860, March 31); forging bank bills, &c., for a term not exceeding five years. Defacing, removing, or counterfeiting brands from lumber floating in any river is punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (L. 1887, May 23). Fraudulently using the registered mark of another on lumber is punishable by fine or imprisonment by solitary confinement for a term not exceeding three years (id.).

In Tennessee, forgery may be committed by typewriting the body of and signature to an instrument which may be the subject of forgery (1906; _State_ v. _Bradley_, 116 Tenn. 711).

In Vermont, the act of 1904, p. 135, no. 115, S 24, authorizes licensees to sell intoxicating liquors only on the written prescription of a legally qualified physician stating that it "is given and necessary for medicinal use." It was held that a prescription containing no such statement was invalid and the alteration thereof was not forgery (1906; _State_ v. _McManus_, 78 St. 433).

AUTHORITIES.--Pollock and Maitland, _History of English Law_; Stephen, _Digest of Criminal Law_; _History of Criminal Law_; L.O. Pike, _History of Crime in England_, 1873-1876; Russell, _On Crimes_; Archbold, _Criminal Pleadings_.

FORGET-ME-NOT, or SCORPION-GRASS (Ger. _Vergissmeinnicht_, Fr. _gremillet_, _scorpionne_), the name popularly applied to the small annual or perennial herbs forming the genus _Myosotis_ of the natural order _Boraginaceae_, so called from the Greek [Greek: mys], a mouse, and [Greek: ous], an ear, on account of the shape of the leaves. The genus is represented in Europe, north Asia, North America and Australia, and is characterized by oblong or linear stem-leaves, flowers in terminal scorpioid cymes, small blue, pink or white flowers, a five-cleft persistent calyx, a salver- or funnel-shaped corolla, having its mouth closed by five short scales and hard, smooth, shining nutlets. The common or true forget-me-not, _M. palustris_, is a perennial plant growing to a height of 6 to 18 in., with rootstock creeping, stem clothed with lax spreading hairs, leaves light green, and somewhat shining, buds pink, becoming blue as they expand, and corolla rotate, broad, with retuse lobes and bright blue with a yellow centre. The divisions of the calyx extend only about one-third the length of the corolla, whereas in the other British species of _Myosotis_ it is deeply cleft. The forget-me-not, a favourite with poets, and the symbol of constancy, is a frequent ornament of brooks, rivers and ditches, and, according to an old German tradition, received its name from the last words of a knight who was drowned in the attempt to procure the flower for his lady. It attains its greatest perfection under cultivation, and, as it flowers throughout the summer, is used with good effect for garden borders; a variety, _M. strigulosa_, is more hairy and erect, and its flowers are smaller. In _M. versicolor_ the flowers are yellow when first open and change generally to a dull blue; sometimes they are permanently yellowish-white. Of the species in cultivation, _M. dissitiflora_, 6 to 8 in., with large handsome abundant sky-blue flowers, is the best and earliest, flowering from February onwards; it does well in light cool soils, preferring peaty ones, and should be renewed annually from seeds or cuttings. _M. rupicola_, or _M. alpestris_, 2 to 3 in., intense blue, is a fine rock plant, preferring shady situations and gritty soil; _M. azorica_ (a native of the Azores) with purple, ultimately blue flowers about half an inch across, has a similar habit but larger flowers; _M. sylvatica_, 1 ft., blue, pink or white, used for spring bedding, should be sown annually in August.

FORGING, the craft of the smith, or "blacksmith," exercised on malleable iron and steel, in the production of works of constructive utility and of ornament. It differs from founding (q.v.) in the fact that the metal is never melted. It is essentially a moulding process, the iron or steel being worked at a full red, or white, heat when it is in a plastic and more or less pasty condition. Consequently the tools used are in the main counterparts of the shapes desired, and they mould by impact. All the operations of forging may be reduced to a few very simple ones: (1) Reducing or drawing down from a larger to a smaller section ("fullering" and "swaging"); (2) enlargement of a smaller to a larger portion ("upsetting"); (3) bending, or turning round to any angle of curvature; (4) uniting one piece of metal to another ("welding"); (5) the formation of holes by punching; and (6) severance, or cutting off. These include all the operations that are done at the anvil. In none of these processes, the last excepted, is the use of a sharp cutting tool involved, and therefore there is no violence done to the fibre of the malleable metal. Nor have the tools of the smith any sharp edges, except the cutting-off tools or "setts." The essential fact of the flow of the metal, which is viscous when at a full red heat, must never be lost sight of; and in forging wrought iron the judgment of the smith must be exercised in arranging the direction of the fibre in a way best calculated to secure maximum strength.

[Illustration: FIG. 1.]

Fullering and swaging.

Fullering denotes the preliminary roughing-down of the material between tools having convex edges; swaging, the completion or finishing process between swages, or dies of definite shape, nearly hemispherical in form. When a bar has to be reduced from larger to smaller dimensions, it is laid upon a fuller or round-faced stake, set in the anvil, or, in some cases, on a flat face (fig. 1), and blows are dealt upon that portion of the face which lies exactly opposite with a fullering tool A, grasped by a rather loosely-fitting handle and struck on its head by a sledge. The position of the piece of work is quickly changed at brief intervals in order to bring successive portions under the action of the swages until the reduction is completed; the upper face, and if a bottom fuller is used the under face also, is thus left corrugated slightly. These corrugations are then removed either by a flatter, if the surfaces are plane (fig. 2), or by hollow swages, if the cross section is circular (fig. 3). Spring swages (fig. 4) are frequently used instead of separate "top and bottom tools." Frequently swaging is practised at once, without the preliminary detail of fullering. It is adopted when the amount of reduction is slight, and also when a steam hammer or other type of power hammer is available. This process of drawing down or fullering is, when practicable, adopted in preference to either upsetting or welding, because it is open to no objection, and involves no risk of damage to the material, while it improves the metal by consolidating its fibres. But its limitations in anvil work lie in the tediousness of the operation, when the part to be reduced is very much less in diameter, and very much longer, than the original piece of bar. Then there are other alternatives.

[Illustration: FIG. 2.]

[Illustration: FIG. 3.]

[Illustration: FIG. 4.]

Upsetting.

If a long bar is required to have an enlargement at any portion of its length, not very much larger in diameter than the bar, nor of great length, upsetting is the method adopted. The part to be enlarged is heated, the parts adjacent remaining cold, and an end is hammered, or else lifted and dropped heavily on the anvil or on an iron plate, with the result that the heated portion becomes both shortened and enlarged (figs. 5 and 6). This process is only suitable for relatively short lengths, and has the disadvantage that the fibres of wrought iron are liable to open, and so cause weakening of the upset portion. But steel, which has no direction of fibre, can be upset without injury; this method is therefore commonly adopted in steel work, in power presses to an equal extent with drawing down. The alternative to upsetting is generally to weld a larger to a smaller bar or section, or to encircle the bar with a ring and weld the two (fig. 7), and then to impart any shape desired to the ring in swages.

Bending.

Bending is effected either by the hammer or by the simple exercise of leverage, the heated bar being pulled round a fulcrum. It is always, when practicable, preferable to cutting out a curved or angular shape with a hot sett or to welding. The continuity of the fibre in iron is preserved by bending, and the risk of an imperfect weld is avoided. Hence it is a simple and safe process which is constantly being performed at the anvil. An objection to sharp bends, or those having a small radius, is that the fibres become extended on the outer radius, the cross section being at the same time reduced below that of the bar itself. This is met by imparting a preliminary amount of upsetting to the part to be bent, sufficient to counteract the amount of reduction due to extension of the fibres. A familiar example is seen in the corners of dip cranks.

[Illustration: FIG. 5.]

[Illustration: FIG. 6.]

[Illustration: FIG. 7.]

Welding.

The property possessed by pieces of iron or steel of uniting autogeneously while in a condition of semi-fusion is very valuable. When portions which differ greatly in dimensions have to be united, welding is the only method practicable at the anvil. It is also generally the best to adopt when union has to be made between pieces at right angles, or when a piece on which much work has to be done is required at the end of a long plain bar, as in the tension rods of cranes and other structures with eyes. The art of welding depends chiefly on having perfectly clean joint faces, free from scale, so that metal can unite to metal; union would be prevented by the presence of oxide or of dirt. Also it is essential to have a temperature sufficiently high, yet not such as to overheat the metal. A dazzling white, at which small particles of metal begin to drop off, is suitable for iron, but steel must not be made so hot. A very few hammer blows suffice to effect the actual union; if the joint be faulty, no amount of subsequent hammering will weld it. The forms of weld-joints include the scarf (figs. 8 and 9), the butt (fig. 10), the V (fig. 11) and the glut, one form of which is shown in fig. 12; the illustrations are of bars prepared for welding. These forms give the smith a suitable choice for different conditions. A convexity is imparted to the joint faces in order to favour the expulsion of slag and dirt during the closing of the joint; these undesirable matters become entangled between concave faces. The ends are upset or enlarged in order to leave enough metal to be dressed down flush, by swaging or by flattering. The proportional lengths of the joint faces shown are those which conform to good practice. The fluxes used for welding are numerous. Sand alone is generally dusted on wrought iron, but steel requires borax applied on the joint while in the fire, and also dusted on the joint at the anvil and on the face of the latter itself. Electric welding is largely taking the place of the hand process, but machines are required to maintain the parts in contact during the passage of the current. Butt joints are employed, and a large quantity of power is absorbed, but the output is immensely greater than that of hand-made welds.

[Illustration: FIG. 8.]

[Illustration: FIG. 9.]

[Illustration: FIG. 10.]

[Illustration: FIG. 11.]

[Illustration: FIG. 12.]

Punching.

When holes are not very large they are formed by punching, but large holes are preferably produced by bending a rod round and welding it, so forming an eye (fig. 13). Small holes are often punched simply as a preliminary stage in the formation of a larger hole by a process of drifting. A piece of work to be punched is supported either on the anvil or on a ring of metal termed a bolster, laid on the anvil, through which the burr, when severed, falls. But in making small holes through a thick mass, no burr is produced, the metal yielding sideways and forming an enlargement or boss. Examples occur in the wrought iron stanchions that carry light hand railing. In such cases the hole has to be punched from each face, meeting in the centre. Punching under power hammers is done similarly, but occupies less time.

Cutting-off.

The cutting-off or severance of material is done either on hot or cold metal. In the first case the chisels used, "hot setts," have keener cutting angles than those employed for the second, termed "cold setts." One sett is held in a hole in the anvil face, the "anvil chisel," the other is handled and struck with a sledge.

[Illustration: FIG. 13.]

The difference between iron and steel at the forge is that iron possesses a very marked fibre whereas steel does not. Many forgings therefore must be made differently according as they are in iron or in steel. In the first the fibre must never be allowed to run transversely to the axis of greatest tensile or bending stress, but must be in line therewith. For this reason many forgings, of which a common eye or loop (fig. 13) is a typical example, that would be stamped from a solid piece if made in steel, must be bent round from bar and welded if in wrought iron. Further, welding which is practically uniformly trustworthy in wrought iron, is distrusted in steel. The difference is due to the very fibrous character of iron, the welding of which gives much less anxiety to the smith than that of steel. Welds in iron are frequently made without any flux, those in steel never. Though mention has only been made of iron and steel, other alloys are forged, as those of aluminium, delta metal, &c. But the essential operations are alike, the differences being in temperature at which the forging is done and nature of the fluxes used for welding. For hardening and tempering, an important section of smith's work, see ANNEALING.

_Die Forging._--The smith operating by hand uses the above methods only. There is, however, a large and increasing volume of forgings produced in other ways, and comprehended under the general terms, "die forging" or "drop forging."

Little proof is needed to show that the various operations done at the anvil might be performed in a more expeditious way by the aid of power-operated appliances; for the elementary processes of reducing, and enlarging, bending, punching, &c., are extremely simple, and the most elaborate forged work involves only a repetition of these. The fact that the material used is entirely plastic when raised to a white heat is most favourable to the method of forging in matrices or dies. A white hot mass of metal can be placed in a matrix, and stamped into shape in a few blows under a hammer with as much ease as a medal can be stamped in steel dies under a coining press. But much detail is involved in the translation of the principle into practice. The parallel between coining dies and forging dies does not go far. The blank for the coin is prepared to such exact dimensions that no surplus material is left over by the striking of the coin, which is struck while cold. But the blank used in die forging is generally a shapeless piece, taken without any preliminary preparation, a mere lump, a piece of bar or rod, which may be square or round irrespective of whether the ultimate forging is to be square, or round, or flat or a combination of forms. At the verge of the welding heat to which it is raised, and under the intensity of the impact of hammer blows rained rapidly on the upper die, the metal yields like lead, and flows and fills the dies.

Herein lies a difference between striking a coin and moulding a forging. A large amount of metal is squeezed out beyond the concavity of the forging dies, and this would, if allowed to flow over between the joints, prevent the dies from being closed on the forging. There are two methods adopted for removing this "fin," or "flash" as it is termed, one being that of suppression, applicable to circular work, the other that of stripping, applied to almost all other cases.

The suppression of fin means that the circular bar is rotated in the dies (fig. 14) through a small arc, alternating between every few blows, with the result that the fin is obliterated immediately when formed, this being done at the same time that reduction of section is being effected over a portion or the whole of the bar.

Stripping means that when a considerable amount of fin has been formed, it is removed by laying the forging on a die pierced right through with an opening of the same shape and area as the forging, and then dealing the forging a blow with the hammer. The forging is thus knocked through the die, leaving the severed or stripped fin behind. The forging is then returned to the dies and again treated, and the stripping may be repeated twice, or even oftener, before the forging can be completed.

[Illustration: Fig. 14.]

Figs. 15 and 16 illustrate the bottom dies of a set for forging in a

## particular form of eye, the top dies being of exactly the same shape.

The first operation takes place in fig. 15, in which a bar of metal is reduced to a globular and cylindrical form, being constantly rotated meanwhile. The shank portion is then drawn down in the parallel recess to the left. The shape of the eye is completed in fig. 16, and the shank in the recess to the left of that. Fig. 17 shows how a lever is stamped between top and bottom dies. The hole in the larger boss is formed by punching, the punches nearly meeting in the centre, and the centre for the hole to be drilled subsequently in the smaller boss is located by a conical projection in the top die.

[Illustration: FIG. 15.]

[Illustration: FIG. 16.]

[Illustration: FIG. 17.]

It is evident that the methods of die forging, though only explained here in barest outline, constitute a principle of extensive application.

An intricate or ornamental forging, which might occupy a smith a quarter of a day in making at the anvil, can often be produced in dies within five minutes (fig. 18). On the other hand, there is the cost of the preparation of the dies, which is often heavy, so that the question of method is resolved into the relative one of the cost of dies, distributed over the number of identical forgings required. From this point of view it is clear that given say a thousand forgings, ordered all alike, the cost of even expensive dies distributed over the whole becomes only an infinitesimal amount per forging.

[Illustration: FIG. 18.]

There is, further, the very important fact that forgings which are produced in dies are uniform and generally of more exact dimensions than anvil-made articles. This is seen to be an advantage when forgings have to be turned or otherwise tooled in the engineer's machine shop, since it lessens the amount of work required there. Besides, for many purposes such forgings do not require tooling at all, or only superficial grinding, while anvil-made ones would, in consequence of their slight inaccuracies.

[Illustration: FIG. 19.]

Yet again, die forging is a very elastic system, and herein lies much of its value. Though it reaches its highest development when thousands of similar pieces are wanted, it is also adaptable to a hundred, or even to a dozen, similar forgings. In such cases economy is secured by using dies of a very cheap character; or, by employing such dies as supplementary to anvil work for effecting neat finish to more precise dimensions than can be ensured at the anvil. In the first case use is made of dies of cast iron moulded from patterns (fig. 19) instead of having their matrices laboriously cut in steel with drills, chisels and milling tools. In the second, preliminary drawing down is done under the steam hammer, and bending and welding at the anvil, or under the steam hammer, until the forgings are brought approximately to their final shape and dimensions. Then they are reheated and inserted in the dies, when a few blows under the steam or drop hammer suffice to impart a neat and accurate finish.

The limitations of die forging are chiefly those due to large dimensions. The system is most successful for the smallest forgings and dies which can be handled by one man without the assistance of cranes; and massive forgings are not required in such large numbers as are those of small dimensions. But there are many large articles manufactured which do not strictly come under the term forgings, in which the aid of dies actuated by powerful hydraulic presses is utilized. These include work that is bent, drawn and shaped from steel plate, of which the fittings of railway wagons constitute by far the largest proportion. The dies used for some of these are massive, and a single squeeze from the ram of the hydraulic press employed bends the steel plate between the dies to shape at once. Fairly massive forgings are also produced in these presses.

Die forging in its highest developments invades the craft of the skilled smith. In shops where it is adopted entirely, the only craftsmen required are the few who have general charge of the shops. The men who attend to the machines are not smiths, but unskilled helpers. (J. G. H.)

FORK (Lat. _furca_), an implement formed of two or more prongs at the end of a shaft or handle, the most familiar type of which is the table-fork for use in eating. In agriculture and horticulture the fork is used for pitching hay, and other green crops, manure, &c.; commonly this has two prongs, "tines"; for digging, breaking up surface soil, preparing for hand weeding and for planting the three-pronged fork is used. The word is also applied to many objects which are characterized by branching ends, as the tuning-fork, with two branching metal prongs, which on being struck vibrates and gives a musical note, used to give a standard of pitch; to the branching into two streams of a river, or the junction where a tributary runs into the main river; and in the human body, to that part where the legs branch off from the trunk.

The _furca_, two pieces of wood fastened together in the form of the letter [Lambda], was used by the Romans as an instrument of punishment. It was placed over the shoulders of the criminal, and his hands were fastened to it, condemned slaves were compelled to carry it about with them, and those sentenced to be flogged would be tied to it; crucifixions were sometimes carried out on a similar shaped instrument. From the great defeat of the Romans by the Samnites at the battle of the Caudine Forks (_Furculae Caudinae_), a narrow gorge, where the vanquished were compelled to pass under the yoke (_jugum_), as a sign of submission, the expression "to pass through or under the forks" has been loosely used of such a disgraceful surrender. The "forks" in any allusion to this defeat should refer to the topographical name and not to the _jugum_, which consisted of two upright spears with a third placed transversely as a cross-bar.

FORKEL, JOHANN NIKOLAUS (1749-1818), German musician, was born on the 22nd of February 1749 at Meeder in Coburg. He was the son of a cobbler, and as a practical musician, especially as a pianoforte player, achieved some eminence; but his claims to a more abiding name rest chiefly upon his literary skill and deep research as an historian of musical science and literature. He was an enthusiastic admirer of J.S. Bach, whose music he did much to popularize. His library, which was accumulated with care and discrimination at a time when rare books were cheap, forms a valuable portion of the royal library in Berlin and also of the library of the Koniglicher Institut fur Kirchenmusik. He was organist to the university church of Gottingen, obtained the degree of doctor of philosophy, and in 1778 became musical director of the university. He died at Gottingen on the 20th of March 1818. The following is a list of his principal works: _Uber die Theorie der Musik_ (Gottingen, 1777); _Musikalisch kritische Bibliothek_ (Gotha, 1778); _Allgemeine Geschichte der Musik_ (Leipzig, 1788). The last is his most important work. He also wrote a _Dictionary of Musical Literature_, which is full of valuable material. To his musical compositions, which are numerous, little interest is to-day to be attached. But it is worth noting that he wrote variations on the English national anthem "God save the king" for the clavichord, and that Abt Vogler wrote a sharp criticism on them, which appeared at Frankfort in 1793 together with a set of variations as he conceived they ought to be written.

FORLI (anc. _Forum Livii_), a town and episcopal see of Emilia, Italy, the capital of the province of Forli, 40 m. S.E. of Bologna by rail, 108 ft. above sea-level. Pop. (1901) 15,461 (town); 43,321 (commune). Forli is situated on the railway between Bologna and Rimini. It is connected by steam tramways with Ravenna and Meldola, and by a road through the Apennines with Pontassieve. The church of S. Mercuriale stands in the principal square, and contains, besides paintings, some good carved and inlaid choir stalls by Alessandro dei Bigni. The facade has been considerably altered, but the campanile, erected in 1178-1180, still exists; it is 252 ft. in height, square and built of brickwork, and is one of the finest of Lombard campanili. The pictures in this church are the work of Marco Palmezzano (1456-1537) and others; S. Biagio and the municipal picture gallery also contain works by him. The latter has other interesting pictures, including a fresco representing an apprentice with pestle and mortar (Pestapepe), the only authentic work in Forli of Melozzo da Forli (1438-1494), an eminent master whose style was formed under the influence of Piero della Francesca, and who was the master of Palmezzano; the frescoes in the Sforza chapel in SS. Biagio e Girolamo are from the former's designs, though executed by the latter. The church also contains the fine tomb (1466) of Barbara Manfredi. The cathedral (Santa Croce) has been almost entirely rebuilt since 1844. The Palazzo del Podesta, now a private house, is a brick building of the 15th century. The citadel (Rocca Ravaldina), constructed about 1360-1370, and later rebuilt, is now used as a prison. Flavio Biondo, the first Renaissance writer on the topography of ancient Rome (1388-1463), was a native of Forli.

Of the ancient Forum Livii, which lay on the Via Aemilia, hardly anything is known. In the 12th century we find Forli in league with Ravenna, and in the 13th the imperial count of the province of Romagna resided there. In 1275 Forli defeated Bologna with great loss. Martin IV. sent an army to besiege it in 1282, which was driven out after severe fighting in the streets; but the town soon afterwards surrendered. In the 14th and 15th centuries it was under the government of the Ordelaffi; and in 1500 was taken by Caesar Borgia, despite a determined resistance by Caterina Sforza, widow of Girolamo Riario. Forli finally became a part of the papal state in 1504. (T. As.)

FORLIMPOPOLI (anc. _Forum Popillii_), a village of Emilia, Italy, in the province of Forli, from which it is 5 m. S.E. by rail, 105 ft. above sea-level. Pop. (1901) 2299 (town); 5795 (commune). The ancient Forum Popillii, a station on the Via Aemilia, was destroyed by Grimuald in 672. Whether its site is occupied by the present town is not certain; the former should perhaps be sought a mile or so farther to the S.E., where were found most of the inscriptions of which the place of discovery is certain. Forlimpopoli was again destroyed by Cardinal Albornoz in 1360, and rebuilt by Sinibaldo Ordelaffi, who constructed the well-preserved medieval castle (1380), rectangular with four circular towers at the corners. (T. As.)

FORLORN HOPE (through Dutch _verloren hoop_, from Ger. _verlorene Haufe_ = "lost troop"; _Haufe_, "heap," being equivalent in the 17th century to "body of troops"; the French equivalent is _enfants perdus_), a military term (sometimes shortened to "forlorn"), used in the 16th and 17th centuries for a body of troops thrown out in front of the line of battle to engage the hostile line, somewhat after the fashion of skirmishers, though they were always solid closed bodies. These troops ran great risks, because they were often trapped between the two lines of battle as the latter closed upon one another, and fired upon or ridden down by their friends; further, their mission was to facilitate the attacks of their own main body by striking the first blow against or meeting the first shock of the fresh and unshaken enemy. In the following century (18th), when lines of masses were no longer employed, a thin line of skirmishers alone preceded the three-deep line of battle, but the term "forlorn hope" continued to be used for picked bodies of men entrusted with dangerous tasks, and in particular for the storming party at the assault of a fortress. In this last sense "forlorn hope" is often used at the present time. The misunderstanding of the word "hope" has led to various applications of "forlorn hope," such as to an enterprise offering little chance of success, or, further still from the original meaning, to the faint or desperate hope of such success.

FORM (Lat. _forma_), in general, the external shape, appearance, configuration of an object, in contradistinction to the matter of which it is composed; thus a speech may contain excellent arguments,--the _matter_ may be good, while the style, grammar, arrangement,--the _form_--is bad. The term, with its adjective "formal" and the derived nouns "formality" and "formalism," is hence contemptuously used for that which is superficial, unessential, hypocritical: chap. xxiii. of Matthew's gospel is a classical instance of the distinction between the formalism of the Pharisaic code and genuine religion. With this may be compared the popular phrases "good form" and "bad form" applied to behaviour in society: so "format" (from the French) is technically used of the shape and size, e.g. of a book (octavo, quarto, &c.) or of a cigarette. The word "form" is also applied to certain definite objects: in printing a body of type secured in a chase for printing at one impression ("form" or "forme"); a bench without a back, such as is used in schools (perhaps to be compared with O. Fr. _s'asseoir en forme_, to sit in a row); a mould or shape on or in which an object is manufactured; the lair or nest of a hare. From its use in the sense of regulated order comes the application of the term to a class in a school ("sixth form," "fifth form," &c.); this sense has been explained without sufficient ground as due to the idea of all children in the same class sitting on a single form (bench).

The word has been used technically in philosophy with various shades of meaning. Thus it is used to translate the Platonic [Greek: idea], [Greek: eidos], the permanent reality which makes a thing what it is, in contrast with the particulars which are finite and subject to change. Whether Plato understood these forms as actually existent apart from all the particular examples, or as being of the nature of immutable physical laws, is matter of discussion. For practical purposes Aristotle was the first to distinguish between matter ([Greek: hyle]) and form ([Greek: eidos]). To Aristotle matter is the undifferentiated primal element: it is rather that from which things develop ([Greek: hypokeimenon], [Greek: dynamis]) than a thing in itself ([Greek: energeia]). The development of

## particular things from this germinal matter consists in differentiation,

the acquiring of particular _forms_ of which the knowable universe consists (cf. CAUSATION for the Aristotelian "formal cause"). The perfection of the form of a thing is its entelechy ([Greek: entelecheia]) in virtue of which it attains its fullest realization of function (_De anima_, ii. 2, [Greek: he men hyle dynamis to de eidos entelecheia]). Thus the entelechy of the body is the soul. The origin of the differentiation process is to be sought in a "prime mover" ([Greek: proton kinoun]), i.e. pure form entirely separate ([Greek: choriston]) from all matter, eternal, unchangeable, operating not by its own

## activity but by the impulse which its own absolute existence excites in

matter ([Greek: hos eromenon], [Greek: ou kinoumenon]). The Aristotelian conception of form was nominally, though perhaps in most cases unintelligently, adopted by the Scholastics, to whom, however, its origin in the observation of the physical universe was an entirely foreign idea. The most remarkable adaptation is probably that of Aquinas, who distinguished the spiritual world with its "subsistent forms" (_formae separatae_) from the material with its "inherent forms" which exist only in combination with matter. Bacon, returning to the physical standpoint, maintained that all true research must be devoted to the discovery of the real nature or essence of things. His induction searches for the true "form" of light, heat and so forth, analysing the external "form" given in perception into simpler "forms" and their "differences." Thus he would collect all possible instances of hot things, and discover that which is present in all, excluding all those qualities which belong accidentally to one or more of the examples investigated: the "form" of heat is the residuum common to all. Kant transferred the term from the objective to the subjective sphere. All perception is necessarily conditioned by pure "forms of sensibility," i.e. space and time: whatever is perceived is perceived as having spacial and temporal relations (see SPACE AND TIME; KANT). These forms are not obtained by abstraction from sensible data, nor are they strictly speaking innate: they are obtained "by the very action of the mind from the co-ordination of its sensation."

FORMALIN, or FORMALDEHYDE, CH2O or H.CHO, the first member of the series of saturated aliphatic aldehydes. It is most readily prepared by passing the vapour of methyl alcohol, mixed with air, over heated copper or platinum. In order to collect the formaldehyde, the vapour is condensed and absorbed, either in water or alcohol. It may also be obtained, although only in small quantities, by the distillation of calcium formate. At ordinary temperatures formaldehyde is a gas possessing a pungent smell; it is a strong antiseptic and disinfectant, a 40% solution of the aldehyde in water or methyl alcohol, sold as _formalin_, being employed as a deodorant, fungicide and preservative. It is not possible to obtain the aldehyde in a pure condition, since it readily polymerizes. It is a strong reducing agent; it combines with ammonia to form _hexamethylene tetramine_, (CH2)6N4, and easily "condenses" in the presence of many bases to produce compounds which apparently belong to the sugars (q.v.). It renders glue or gelatin insoluble in water, and is used in the coal-tar colour industry in the manufacture of para-rosaniline, pyronines and rosamines. Several polymers have been described. _Para-formaldehyde_, or trioxymethylene, obtained by concentrating solutions of formaldehyde _in vacuo_, is a white crystalline solid, which sublimes at about 100 deg. C. and melts at a somewhat higher temperature, changing back into the original form. It is insoluble in cold water, alcohol and ether. A diformaldehyde is supposed to separate as white flakes when the vapour is passed into chloroform (Korber, _Pharm. Zeit._, 1904, xlix. p. 609); F. Auerbach and H. Barschall (_Chem. Zentr._, 1907, ii. p. 1734) obtained three polymers by

## acting with concentrated sulphuric acid on solutions of formaldehyde,

and a fourth by heating one of the forms so obtained. The strength of solutions of formaldehyde may be ascertained by the addition of excess of standard ammonia to the aldehyde solution (hexamethylene tetramine being formed), the excess of ammonia being then estimated by titration with standard acid. On the formation of formaldehyde by the oxidation of methane at high temperatures, see W.A. Bone (_Journ. Chem. Soc._, 1902, 81, p. 535; 1903, 83, p. 1074). Formaldehyde also appears to be a reduction product of carbon dioxide (see _Annual Reports of the Chemical Society_).

FORMAN, ANDREW (c. 1465-1521), Scottish ecclesiastic, was educated at the university of St Andrews and entered the service of King James IV. about 1489. He soon earned the favour of this king, who treated him with great generosity and who on several occasions sent him on important embassies to the English, the French and the papal courts. In 1501 he became bishop of Moray and in July 1513 Louis XII. of France secured his appointment as archbishop of Bourges, while pope Julius II. promised to make him a cardinal. In 1514 during a long absence from his own land Forman was nominated by Pope Leo X. to the vacant archbishopric of St Andrews and was made papal legate in Scotland, but it was some time before he secured possession of the see owing to the attempts of Henry VIII. to subject Scotland to England and to the efforts of his rivals, Gavin Douglas, the poet, and John Hepburn, prior of St Andrews, and their supporters. Eventually, however, he resigned some of his many benefices, the holding of which had made him unpopular, and through the good offices of the regent, John Stewart, duke of Albany, obtained the coveted archbishopric and the primacy of Scotland. Afterwards he was one of the vice-regents of the kingdom and he died on the 11th of March 1521. As archbishop he issued a series of constitutions which are printed in J. Robertson's _Concilia Scotiae_ (1866). Mr Andrew Lang (_History of Scotland_, vol. i.) describes Forman as "the Wolsey of Scotland, and a fomenter of the war which ended at Flodden."

See the biography of the archbishop which forms vol. ii. of _The Archbishops of St Andrews_, by J. Herkless and R.K. Hannay (1909).

FORMAN, SIMON (1552-1611), English physician and astrologer, was born in 1552 at Quidham, a small village near Wilton, Wiltshire. At the age of fourteen he became apprentice to a druggist at Salisbury, but at the end of four years he exchanged this profession for that of a schoolmaster. Shortly afterwards he entered Magdalen College, Oxford, where he studied chiefly medicine and astrology. After continuing the same studies in Holland he commenced practice as a physician in Philpot Lane, London, but as he possessed no diploma, he on this account underwent more than one term of imprisonment. Ultimately, however, he obtained a diploma from Cambridge university, and established himself as a physician and astrologer at Lambeth, where he was consulted, especially as a physician, by many persons of rank, among others by the notorious countess of Essex. He expired suddenly while crossing the Thames in a boat on the 12th of September 1611.

A list of Forman's works on astrology is given in Bliss's edition of the _Athenae Oxonienses_; many of his MS. works are contained in the Bodleian Library, the British Museum and the Plymouth Library. _A Brief Description of the Forman MSS. in the Public Library, Plymouth_, was published in 1853.

FORMERET, a French architectural term for the wall-rib carrying the web or filling-in of a vault (q.v.).

FORMEY, JOHANN HEINRICH SAMUEL (1711-1797), Franco-German author, was born of French parentage at Berlin on the 31st of May 1711. He was educated for the ministry, and at the age of twenty became pastor of the French church at Brandenburg. Having in 1736 accepted the invitation of a congregation in Berlin, he was in the following year chosen professor of rhetoric in the French college of that city and in 1739 professor of philosophy. On the organization of the academy of Berlin in 1744 he was named a member, and in 1748 became its perpetual secretary. He died at Berlin on the 7th of March 1797. His principal works are _La Belle Wolfienne_ (1741-1750, 6 vols.), a kind of novel written with the view of enforcing the precepts of the Wolfian philosophy; _Bibliotheque critique, ou memoires pour servir a l'histoire litteraire ancienne et moderne_ (1746); _Le Philosophe chretien_ (1750); _L'Emile chretien_ (1764), intended as an answer to the _Emile_ of Rousseau; and _Souvenirs d'un citoyen_ (Berlin, 1789). He also published an immense number of contemporary memoirs in the transactions of the Berlin Academy.

FORMIA (anc. _Formiae_, called Mola di Gaeta until recent times), a town of Campania, Italy, in the province of Caserta, from which it is 48 m. W.N.W. by rail. Pop. (1901) 5514 (town); 8452 (commune). It is situated at the N.W. extremity of the Bay of Gaeta, and commands beautiful views. It lay on the ancient Via Appia, and was much frequented as a resort by wealthy Romans. There was considerable imperial property here and along the coast as far as Sperlonga, and there are numerous remains of ancient villas along the coast and on the slopes above it. The so-called villa of Cicero contains two well-preserved _nymphaea_ with Doric architecture. Its site is now occupied by the villa Caposele, once a summer residence of the kings of Naples. There are many other modern villas, and the sheltered hillsides (for the mountains rise abruptly behind the town) are covered with lemon, orange and pomegranate gardens. The now deserted promontory of the Monte Scauri to the E. is also covered with remains of ancient villas; the hill is crowned by a large tomb, known as Torre Giano. To the E. at Scauri is a large villa with substructions in "Cyclopean" work. The ancient Formiae was, according to the legend, the home of the Laestrygones, and later a Spartan colony ([Greek: Hormiaidia to euormon], Strabo v. 3. 6, p. 233). It was a Volscian town, and, like Fundi, received the _civitas sine suffragio_ from Rome in 338 (or 332 B.C.) because the passage through its territory had always been secure. This was strategically important for the Romans, as the military road definitely constructed by Appius Claudius in 312 B.C., still easily traceable by its remains, and in part followed by the high-road, traversed a narrow pass, which could easily be blocked, between Fundi and Formiae. In 188 B.C., with Fundi, it received the full citizenship, and, like it, was to a certain extent under the control of a _praefectus_ sent from Rome, though it retained its three aediles. Mamurra was a native of Formia. Cicero possessed a favourite villa here, and was murdered in its vicinity in 43 B.C., but neither the villa nor the tomb can be identified with any certainty. It was devastated by Sextus Pompeius, and became a colony, with _duoviri_ as chief magistrates, under Hadrian. Portus Caietae (the modern Gaeta) was dependent upon it.

See T. Ashby, "Dessins inedits de Carlo Labruzzi," in _Melanges de l'ecole francaise de Rome_ (1903), 410 seq. (T. As.)

FORMIC ACID, H2CO2 or H.COOH, the first member of the series of aliphatic monobasic acids of the general formula CnH_(2n)O2. It is distinguished from the other members of the series by certain characteristic properties; for example, it shows an aldehydic character in reducing silver salts to metallic silver, and it does not form an acid chloride or an acid anhydride. Its nitrile (prussic acid) has an acid character, a property not possessed by the nitriles of the other members of the series; and, by the abstraction of the elements of water from the acid, carbon monoxide is produced, a reaction which finds no parallel in the higher members of the series. Finally, formic acid is, as shown by the determination of its affinity constant, a much stronger acid than the other acids of the series. It occurs naturally in red ants (Lat. _formica_), in stinging nettles, in some mineral waters, in animal secretions and in muscle. It may be prepared artificially by the oxidation of methyl alcohol and of formaldehyde; by the rapid heating of oxalic acid (J. Gay-Lussac, _Ann. chim. phys._, 1831 [2] 46, p. 218), but best by heating oxalic acid with glycerin, at a temperature of 100-110 deg. C. (M. Berthelot, _Ann._, 1856, 98, p. 139). In this reaction a glycerol ester is formed as an intermediate product, and undergoes decomposition by the water which is also produced at the same time.

C3H5(OH)3 + H2C2O4 = C3H5(OH)2.OCHO+CO2 + H2O C3H5(OH)2O.CHO + H2O = C3H5(OH)3 + H2CO2.

Many other synthetical processes for the production of the acid or its salts are known. Hydrolysis of hydrocyanic acid by means of hydrochloric acid yields formic acid. Chloroform boiled with alcoholic potash forms potassium formate (J. Dumas, _Berzelius Jahresberichte_, vol. 15, p. 371), a somewhat similar decomposition being shown by chloral and aqueous potash (J. v. Liebig, _Ann._, 1832, 1, p. 198). Formates are also produced by the action of moist carbon monoxide on soda lime at 190-220 deg. C. (V. Merz and J. Tibicira, _Ber._, 1880, 13, p. 23; A. Geuther, _Ann._, 1880, 202, p. 317), or by the action of moist carbon dioxide on potassium (H. Kolbe and R. Schmitt, _Ann._, 1861, 119, p. 251). H. Moissan (_Comptes rend._, 1902, 134, p. 261) prepared potassium formate by passing a current of carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide over heated potassium hydride,

KH + CO2 = KHCO2 and KH + 2CO = KHCO2 + C.

A concentrated acid may be obtained from the diluted acid either by neutralization with soda, the sodium salt thus obtained being then dried and heated with the equivalent quantity of anhydrous oxalic acid (Lorin, _Bull. soc. chim._, 37, p. 104), or the lead or copper salt may be decomposed by dry sulphuretted hydrogen at 130 deg. C. L. Maquenne (_Bull. soc. chim._, 1888, 50, p. 662) distils the commercial acid, _in vacuo_, with concentrated sulphuric acid below 75 deg. C.

Formic acid is a colourless, sharp-smelling liquid, which crystallizes at 0 deg. C., melts at 8.6 deg. C. and boils at 100.8 deg. C. Its specific gravity is 1.22 (20 deg./4 deg.). It is miscible in all proportions with water, alcohol and ether. When heated with zinc dust, the acid decomposes into carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The sodium and potassium salts, when heated to 400 deg. C., give oxalates and carbonates of the alkali metals, but the magnesium, calcium and barium salts yield carbonates only. The free acid, when heated with concentrated sulphuric acid, is decomposed into water and pure carbon monoxide; when heated with nitric acid, it is oxidized first to oxalic acid and finally to carbon dioxide. The salts of the acid are known as _formates_, and are mostly soluble in water, those of silver and lead being the least soluble. They crystallize well and are readily decomposed. Concentrated sulphuric acid converts them into sulphates, with simultaneous liberation of carbon monoxide. The calcium salt, when heated with the calcium salts of higher homologues, gives aldehydes. The silver and mercury salts, when heated, yield the metal, with liberation of carbon dioxide and formation of free formic acid; and the ammonium salt, when distilled, gives some formamide, HCONH2. The esters of the acid may be obtained by distilling a mixture of the sodium or potassium salts and the corresponding alcohol with hydrochloric or sulphuric acids.

_Formamide_, HCONH2, is obtained by heating ethyl formate with ammonia; by heating ammonium formate with urea to 140 deg. C.,

2HCO.ONH4 + CO(NH2)2 = 2HCONH2 + (NH4)2CO3;

by heating ammonium formate in a sealed tube for some hours at 230 deg. C., or by the action of sodium amalgam on a solution of potassium cyanate (H. Basarow, _Ber._, 1871, 4, p. 409). It is a liquid which boils _in vacuo_ at 150 deg., but at 192-195 deg. C. under ordinary atmospheric pressure, with partial decomposition into carbon monoxide and ammonia. It dissolves mercuric oxide, with the formation of mercuric formamide, (HCONH)2Hg.

FORMOSA, a northern territory of the Argentine republic, bounded N. by Bolivia, N.E. and E. by Paraguay, S. by the Chaco Territory, and W. by Salta, with the Pilcomayo and Bermejo forming its northern and southern boundaries. Estimated area, 41,402 sq. m. It is a vast plain, sloping gently to the S.E., covered with marshes and tropical forests. Very little is known of it except small areas along the Bermejo and Paraguay rivers, where attempts have been made to form settlements. The unexplored interior is still occupied by tribes of wild Indians. The climate is hot, the summer temperature rising to a maximum of 104 deg. F. Timber-cutting is the principal occupation of the settlers, though stock-raising and agriculture engage some attention in the settlements on the Paraguay. The capital, Formosa (founded 1879), is a small settlement on the Paraguay with a population of about 1000 in 1900. The settled population of the territory was 4829 in 1895, which it was estimated had increased to 13,431 in 1905. The nomadic Indians are estimated at 8000.

FORMOSA (called _Taiwan_ by the Chinese, and following them by the Japanese, into whose possession it came after their war with China in 1895), an island in the western Pacific Ocean, between the Southern and the Eastern China Sea, separated from the Chinese mainland by the Formosa Strait, which has a width of about 90 m. in its narrowest part. The island is 225 m. long and from 60 to 80 m. broad, has a coast-line measuring 731 m., an area of 13,429 sq. m.--being thus nearly the same size as Kiushiu, the most southern of the four chief islands forming the Japanese empire proper--and extends from 20 deg. 56' to 25 deg. 15' N. and from 120 deg. to 122 deg. E. It forms part of the long line of islands which are interposed as a protective barrier between the Asiatic coast and the outer Pacific, and is the cause of the immunity from typhoons enjoyed by the ports of China from Amoy to the Yellow Sea. Along the western coast is a low plain, not exceeding 20 m. in extreme width; on the east coast there is a rich plain called Giran, and there are also some fertile valleys in the neighbourhood of Karenko and Pinan, extending up the longitudinal valleys of the rivers Karenko and Pinan, between which and the east coast the Taito range intervenes; but the rest of the island is mountainous and covered with virgin forest. In the plains the soil is generally of sand or alluvial clay, covered in the valleys with a rich vegetable mould. The scenery of Formosa is frequently of majestic beauty, and to this it is indebted for its European name, happily bestowed by the early Spanish navigators.

On the addition of Formosa to her dominions, Fuji ceased to be Japan's highest mountain, and took the third place on the list. Mount Morrison (14,270 ft.), which the Japanese renamed Niitaka-yama (New High Mountain), stands first, and Mount Sylvia (12,480 ft.), to which they give the name of Setzu-zan (Snowy Mountain), comes second. Mount Morrison stands nearly under the Tropic of Cancer. It is not volcanic, but consists of argillaceous schist and quartzite. An ascent made by Dr Honda of the imperial university of Japan showed that, up to a height of 6000 ft., the mountain is clothed with primeval forests of palms, banyans, cork trees, camphor trees, tree ferns, interlacing creepers and dense thickets of rattan or stretches of grass higher than a man's stature. The next interval of 1000 ft. has gigantic cryptomerias and chamoecyparis; then follow pines; then, at a height of 9500 ft., a broad plateau, and then alternate stretches of grass and forest up to the top, which consists of several small peaks. There is no snow. Mount Morrison, being surrounded by high ranges, is not a conspicuous object. Mount Sylvia lies in 24 deg. 30' N. lat. There are many other mountains of considerable elevation. In the north is Getsurobi-zan (4101 ft.); and on either side of Setzu-zan, with which they form a range running due east and west across the island, are Jusampunzan (4698 ft.) and Kali-zan (7027 ft.). Twenty-two miles due south of Kali-zan stands Hakumosha-zan (5282 ft.), and just 20 m. due south of Hakumosha-zan begins a chain of three peaks, Suisha-zan (6200 ft.), Hoo-zan (4928), and Niitaka-yama. These five mountains, Hari-zan, Hakumosha-zan, Suisha-zan, Hoo-zan and Niitaka-yama, stand almost exactly under 121 deg. E. long., in the very centre of the island. But the backbone of the island lies east of them, extending S. from Setzu-zan through Gokan-zan, and Noko-zan and other peaks and bending S.W. to Niitaka-yama. Yet farther south, and still lying in line down the centre of the island, are Sankyakunan-zan (3752 ft.), Shurogi-zan (5729 ft.), Poren-zan (4957 ft.), and Kado-zan (9055 ft.), and, finally, in the south-east Arugan-zan (4985 ft.). These, it will be observed, are all Japanese names, and the heights have been determined by Japanese observers. In addition to these remarkable inland mountains, Formosa's eastern shores show magnificent cliff scenery, the bases of the hills on the seaside taking the form of almost perpendicular walls as high as from 1500 to 2500 ft. Volcanic outbreaks of steam and sulphur-springs are found. Owing to the precipitous character of the east coast few rivers of any size find their way to the sea in that direction. The west coast, on the contrary, has many streams, but the only two of any considerable length are the Kotansui, which rises on Shurogi-zan, and has its mouth at Toko after a course of some 60 m. and the Seirakei, which rises on Hakumosha-zan, and enters the sea at a point 57 m. farther north after a course of 90 m.

The climate is damp, hot and malarious. In the north, the driest and best months are October, November and December; in the south, December, January, February and March. The sea immediately south of Formosa is the birthplace of innumerable typhoons, but the high mountains of the island protect it partially against the extreme violence of the wind.

_Flora and Fauna._--The vegetation of the island is characterized by tropical luxuriance,--the mountainous regions being clad with dense forest, in which various species of palms, the camphor-tree (_Laurus Camphora_), and the aloe are conspicuous. Consul R. Swinhoe obtained no fewer than 65 different kinds of timber from a large yard in Taiwanfu; and his specimens are now to be seen in the museum at Kew. The tree which supplies the materials for the pith paper of the Chinese is not uncommon, and the cassia tree is found in the mountains. Travellers are especially struck with the beauty of some of the wild flowers, more especially with the lilies and convolvuluses; and European greenhouses have been enriched by several Formosan orchids and other ornamental plants. The pine-apple grows in abundance. In the lowlands of the western portion, the Chinese have introduced a large number of cultivated plants and fruit trees. Rice is grown in such quantities as to procure for Formosa, in former days, the title of the "granary of China"; and the sweet potato, taro, millet, barley, wheat and maize are also cultivated. Camphor, sugar, tea, indigo, ground peanuts, jute, hemp, oil and rattans are all articles of export.

The Formosan fauna has been but partially ascertained; but at least three kinds of deer, wild boars, bears, goats, monkeys (probably _Macacus speciosus_), squirrels, and flying squirrels are fairly common, and panthers and wild cats are not unfrequent. A poisonous but beautiful green snake is often mentioned by travellers. Pheasants, ducks, geese and snipe are abundant, and Dr C. Collingwood in his _Naturalist's Rambles in the China Seas_ mentions _Ardea prasinosceles_ and other species of herons, several species of fly-catchers, kingfishers, shrikes and larks, the black drongo, the _Cotyle sinensis_ and the _Prinia sonitans_. Dogs are kept by the savages for hunting. The horse is hardly known, and his place is taken by the ox, which is regularly bridled and saddled and ridden with all dignity. The rivers and neighbouring seas seem to be well stocked with fish, and especial mention must be made of the turtles, flying-fish, and brilliant coral-fish which swarm in the waters warmed by the _Kurosiwo_ current, the gulf-stream of the Pacific. Shell-fish form an important article of diet to both the Chinese and the aborigines along the coast--a species of _Cyrena_, a species of _Tapes_, _Cytheraea petechiana_ and _Modiola teres_ being most abundant.

_Population._--The population of Formosa, according to a census in 1904, is estimated at 3,022,687, made up as follows: aborigines 104,334, Chinese 2,860,574 and Japanese 51,770. The inhabitants of Formosa may be divided into four classes: the Japanese, who are comparatively few, as there has not been much tendency to immigration; the Chinese, many of whom immigrated from the neighbourhood of Amoy and speak the dialect of that district, while others were Hakkas from the vicinity of Swatow; the subjugated aborigines, who largely intermingled with the Chinese; and the uncivilized aborigines of the eastern region who refuse to recognize authority and carry on raids as opportunity occurs. The semi-civilized aborigines, who adopted the Chinese language, dress and customs, were called Pe-pa-hwan (_Anglice_ Pepo-hoans), while their wilder brethren bear the name of Chin-hwan or "green savages," otherwise Sheng-fan or "wild savages." They appear to belong to the Malay stock, and their language bears out the supposition. They are broken up into almost countless tribes and clans, many of which number only a few hundred individuals, and their language consequently presents a variety of dialects, of which no classification has yet been effected: in the district of Posia alone a member of the Presbyterian mission distinguished eight different mutually unintelligible dialects. The people themselves are described as of "middle height, broad-chested and muscular, with remarkably large hands and feet, the eyes large, the forehead round, and not narrow or receding in many instances, the nose broad, the mouth large and disfigured with betel." The custom of tattooing is universal. In the north of the island at least, the dead are buried in a sitting posture under the bed on which they have expired. Petty wars are extremely common, not only along the Chinese frontiers, but between the neighbouring clans; and the heads of the slain are carefully preserved as trophies. In some districts the young men and boys sleep in the skull-chambers, in order that they may be inspired with courage. Many of the tribes that had least intercourse with the Chinese show a considerable amount of skill in the arts of civilization. The use of Manchester prints and other European goods is fairly general; and the women, who make a fine native cloth from hemp, introduce coloured threads from the foreign stuffs, so as to produce ornamental devices. The office of chieftain is sometimes held by women.

The chief town is Taipe (called by the Japanese Taihoku), which is on the Tamsui-yei river, and has a population of about 118,000, including 5850 Japanese. Taipe may be said to have two ports; one, Tamsui, at the mouth of the river Tamsui-yei, 10 m. distant on the north-west coast, the other Kelung (called by the Japanese Kiirun), on the north-east shore, with which it is connected by rail, a run of some 18 m. The foreign settlement at Taipe lies outside the walls of the city, and is called Twatutia (Taitotei by the Japanese). Kelung (the ancient Pekiang) is an excellent harbour, and the scenery is very beautiful. There are coal-mines in the neighbourhood. Tamsui (called Tansui by the Japanese) is usually termed Hobe by foreigners. It is the site of the first foreign settlement, has a population of about 7000, but cannot be made a good harbour without considerable expenditure. On the west coast there is no place of any importance until reaching Anping (23 deg. N. lat.), a port where a few foreign merchants reside for the sake of the sugar trade. It is an unlovely place, surrounded by mud flats, and a hotbed of malaria. It has a population of 4000 Chinese and 200 Japanese. At a distance of some 2-1/2 m. inland is the former capital of Formosa, the walled city of Tainan, which has a population of 100,000 Chinese, 2300 Japanese, and a few British merchants and missionaries. Connected with Anping by rail (26 m.) and laying south of it is Takau, a treaty port. It has a population of 6800, and is prettily situated on two sides of a large lagoon. Six miles inland from Takau is a prosperous Chinese town called Feng-shan (Japanese, Hozan). The anchorages on the east coast are Soo, Karenko and Pinan, which do not call for special notice. Forty-seven m. east of the extreme south coast there is a little island called Botel-tobago (Japanese, Koto-sho), which rises to a height of 1914 ft. and is inhabited by a tribe whose customs differ essentially from those of the natives on the main island.

_Administration and Commerce._--The island is treated as an outlying territory; it has not been brought within the full purview of the Japanese constitution. Its affairs are administered by a governor-general, who is also commander-in-chief of the forces, by a bureau of civil government, and by three prefectural governors, below whom are the heads of twenty territorial divisions called _cho_; its finances are not included in the general budget of the Japanese empire; it is garrisoned by a mixed brigade taken from the home divisions; and its currency is on a silver basis. One of the first abuses with which the Japanese had to deal was the excessive use of opium by the Chinese settlers. To interdict the importation of the drug altogether, as is done in Japan, was the step advocated by Japanese public opinion. But, influenced by medical views and by the almost insuperable difficulty of enforcing any drastic import veto in the face of Formosa's large communications by junk with China, the Japanese finally adopted the middle course of licensing the preparation and sale of the drug, and limiting its use to persons in receipt of medical sanction. Under the administration of the Japanese the island has been largely developed. Among other industries gold-mining is advancing rapidly. In 1902 48,400 oz. of gold representing a value of L168,626 were obtained from the mines and alluvial washings. Coal is also found in large quantities near Kelung and sulphur springs exist in the north of the island.

An extensive scheme of railway construction has been planned, the four main lines projected being (1) from Takau to Tainan; (2) from Tainan to Kagi; (3) from Kagi to Shoka; and (4) from Shoka to Kelung; these four forming, in effect, a main trunk road running from the south-west to the north-east, its course being along the foot of the mountains that border the western coast-plains. The Takau-Tainan section (26 m.) was opened to traffic on the 3rd of November 1900, and by 1905 the whole line of 259 m. was practically complete. Harbour improvements also are projected, but in Formosa, as in Japan proper, paucity of capital constitutes a fatal obstacle to rapid development.

There are thirteen ports of export and import, but 75% of the total business is done at Tamsui. Tea and camphor are the staple exports. The greater part of the former goes to Amoy for re-shipment to the west, but it is believed that if harbour improvements were effected at Tamsui so as to render it accessible for ocean-going steamers, shipments would be made thence direct to New York. The camphor trade being a government monopoly, the quantity exported is under strict control.

_History._--The island of Formosa must have been known from a very early date to the Chinese who were established in the Pescadores. The inhabitants are mentioned in the official works of the Yuan dynasty as _Tung-fan_ or eastern barbarians; and under the Ming dynasty the island begins to appear as Kilung. In the beginning of the 16th century it began to be known to the Portuguese and Spanish navigators, and the latter at least made some attempts at establishing settlements or missions. The Dutch were the first, however, to take footing in the island; in 1624 they built a fort, Zelandia, on the east coast, where subsequently rose the town of Taiwan, and the settlement was maintained for thirty-seven years. On the expulsion of the Ming dynasty in China, a number of their defeated adherents came over to Formosa, and under a leader called in European accounts Coxinga, succeeded in expelling the Dutch and taking possession of a good part of the island. In 1682 the Chinese of Formosa recognized the emperor K'ang-hi, and the island then began to form part of the Chinese empire. From the close of the 17th century a long era of conflict ensued between the Chinese and the aborigines. A more debased population than the peoples thus struggling for supremacy could scarcely be conceived. The aborigines, _Sheng-fan_, or "wild savages," deserved the appellation in some respects, for they lived by the chase and had little knowledge even of husbandry; while the Chinese themselves, uneducated labourers, acknowledged no right except that of might. The former were not implacably cruel or vindictive. They merely clung to their homesteads, and harboured a natural resentment against the raiders who had dispossessed them. Their disposition was to leave the Chinese in unmolested possession of the plain. But some of the most valuable products of the island, as camphor and rattan, are to be found in the upland forests, and the Chinese, whenever they ventured too far in search of these products, fell into ambushes of hill-men who neither gave nor sought quarter, and who regarded a Chinese skull as a specially attractive article of household furniture. A violent rebellion is mentioned in 1788, put down only after the loss, it is said, of 100,000 men by disease and sword, and the expenditure of 2,000,000 taels of silver. Reconciliation never took place on any large scale, though it is true that, in the course of time, some fitful displays of administrative ability on the part of the Chinese, and the opening of

## partial means of communication, led to the pacification of a section of

the _Sheng-fan_, who thenceforth became known as Pe-pa-hwan (_Pepohoan_).

In the early part of the 19th century the island was chiefly known to Europeans on account of the wrecks which took place on its coasts, and the dangers that the crews had to run from the cannibal propensities of the aborigines, and the almost equally cruel tendencies of the Chinese. Among the most notable was the loss in 1842 of the British brig "Ann," with fifty-seven persons on board, of whom forty-three were executed at Taichu. By the treaty of Tientsin (1860) Taichu was opened to European commerce, but the place was found quite unsuitable for a port of trade, and the harbour of Tamsui was selected instead. From 1859 both Protestant and Presbyterian missions were established in the island. An attack made on those at Feng-shan (Hozan) in 1868 led to the occupation of Fort Zelandia and Anping by British forces; but this action was disapproved by the home government, and the indemnity demanded from the Chinese restored. In 1874 the island was invaded by the Japanese for the purpose of obtaining satisfaction for the murder of a shipwrecked crew who had been put to death by one of the semi-savage tribes on the southern coast, the Chinese government being either unable or unwilling to punish the culprits. A war was averted through the good offices of the British minister, Sir T.F. Wade, and the Japanese retired on payment of an indemnity of 500,000 taels. The political state of the island during these years was very bad; in a report of 1872 there is recorded a proverb among the official classes, "every three years an outbreak, every five a rebellion"; but subsequent to 1877 some improvement was manifested, and public works were pushed forward by the Chinese authorities. In 1884, in the course of belligerent proceedings arising out of the Tongking dispute, the forts at Kelung on the north were bombarded by the French fleet, and the place was captured and held for some months by French troops. An attack on the neighbouring town of Tamsui failed, but a semi-blockade of the island was maintained by the French fleet during the winter and spring of 1884-1885. The troops were withdrawn on the conclusion of peace in June 1885.

In 1895 the island was ceded to Japan by the treaty of Shimonoseki at the close of the Japanese war. The resident Chinese officials, however, refused to recognize the cession, declared a republic, and prepared to offer resistance. It is even said they offered to transfer the sovereignty to Great Britain if that power would accept it. A formal transfer to Japan was made in June of the same year in pursuance of the treaty, the ceremony taking place on board ship outside Kelung, as the Chinese commissioners did not venture to land. The Japanese were thus left to take possession as best they could, and some four months elapsed before they effected a landing on the south of the island. Takau was bombarded and captured on the 15th of October, and the resistance collapsed. Liu Yung-fu, the notorious Black Flag general, and the back-bone of the resistance, sought refuge in flight. The general state of the island when the Japanese assumed possession was that the plain of Giran on the eastern coast and the hill-districts were inhabited by semi-barbarous folk, the western plains by Chinese of a degraded type, and that between the two there existed a traditional and continuous feud, leading to mutual displays of merciless and murderous violence. By many of these Chinese settlers the Japanese conquerors, when they came to occupy the island, were regarded in precisely the same light as the Chinese themselves had been regarded from time immemorial by the aborigines. Insurrections occurred frequently, the insurgents receiving secret aid from sympathizers in China, and the difficulties of the Japanese being increased not only by their ignorance of the country, which abounds in fastnesses where bandits can find almost inaccessible refuge, but also by the unwillingness of experienced officials to abandon their home posts for the purpose of taking service in the new territory.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--C. Imbault-Huart, _L'Ile Formose, histoire et description_ (Paris, 1893), 4^o; J.D. Clark, _Formosa_ (Shanghai, 1896); W.A. Pickering, _Pioneering in Formosa_ (London, 1898); George Candidius, _A Short Account of the Island of Formosa in the Indies_ ..., vol. i.; Churchill's _Collection of Voyages_ (1744); Robert Swinhoe, _Notes on the Island of Formosa_, read before the British Association (1863); W. Campbell, "Aboriginal Savages of Formosa," _Ocean Highways_ (April 1873); H.J. Klaproth, _Description de l'ile de Formose, mem. rel. a l'Asie_ (1826); Mrs T.F. Hughes, _Notes of a Six Years' Residence in Formosa_ (London, 1881); Y. Takekoshi, _Japanese Rule in Formosa_ (transl. by G. Braithwaite) (London, 1907).

FORMOSUS, pope from 891 to 896, the successor of Stephen V. (or VI.). He first appears in history when, as bishop of Porto, he was sent on an embassy to the Bulgarians. Having afterwards sided with a faction against John VIII., he was excommunicated, and compelled to take an oath never to return to Rome or again to assume his priestly functions. From this oath he was, however, absolved by Marinus, the successor of John VIII., and restored to his dignities; and on the death of Stephen V. in 891 he was chosen pope. At that time the Holy See was engaged in a struggle against the oppression of the princes of Spoleto, and a powerful party in Rome was eager to obtain the intervention of Arnulf, king of Germany, against these dangerous neighbours. Formosus himself shared this view; but he was forced to yield to circumstances and to consecrate as emperor Lambert, the young son of Guy of Spoleto. Guy had already been consecrated by Stephen V., and died in 894. In the following year Arnulf succeeded in seizing Rome, and Formosus crowned him emperor. But, as he was advancing on Spoleto against Lambert, Arnulf was seized with paralysis, and was forced to return to Germany. Overwhelmed with chagrin, Formosus died on the 4th of April 896. The discords in which he had been involved continued after his death. The validity of his acts was contested on the pretext that, having been originally bishop of Porto, he could not be a legitimate pope. The fundamental factor in these dissensions was the rivalry between the princes of Spoleto and the Carolingian house, represented by the king of Germany. The body of Formosus was disinterred in 897 by Stephen VI., and treated with contumely as that of a usurper of the papal throne; but Theodore II. restored it to Christian burial, and at a council presided over by John IX. the pontificate of Formosus was declared valid and all his acts confirmed. (L. D.*)

FORMULA (Lat. diminutive of _forma_, shape, pattern, &c., especially used of rules of judicial procedure), in general, a stereotyped form of words to be used on stated occasions, for specific purposes, ceremonies, &c. In the sciences, the word usually denotes a symbolical statement of certain facts; for example, a chemical formula exhibits the composition of a substance (see CHEMISTRY); a botanical formula gives the differentia of a plant; a dentition formula indicates the arrangement and number of the teeth of an animal.

FORNER, JUAN BAUTISTA PABLO (1756-1799), Spanish satirist and scholar, was born at Merida (Badajoz) on the 23rd of February 1756, studied at the university of Salamanca, and was called to the bar at Madrid in 1783. During the next few years--under the pseudonyms of "Tome Cecial," "Pablo Segarra," "Don Antonio Varas," "Bartolo," "Pablo Ignocausto," "El Bachiller Reganadientes," and "Silvio Liberio"--Forner was engaged in a series of polemics with Garcia de la Huerta, Iriarte and other writers; the violence of his attacks was so extreme that he was finally forbidden to publish any controversial pamphlets, and was transferred to a legal post at Seville. In 1796 he became crown prosecutor at Madrid, where he died on the 17th of March 1799. Forner's brutality is almost unexampled, and his satirical writings give a false impression of his powers. His _Oracion apologetica por la Espana y su merito literario_ (1787) is an excellent example of learned advocacy, far superior to similar efforts made by Denina and Antonio Cavanilles; and his posthumous _Exequias de la lengua castellana_ (printed in the _Biblioteca de autores espanoles_, vol. lxiii.) testifies to his scholarship and taste.

FORRES (Gaelic, _far uis_, "near water"), a royal and police burgh of Elginshire, Scotland. Pop. (1891) 3971; (1901) 4317. It is situated on the Findhorn, which sweeps past the town and is crossed by a suspension bridge about a mile to the W., 11 m. W. of Elgin by the Highland railway, and 6 m. by road from Findhorn, its port, due north. It is one of the most ancient towns in the north of Scotland. King Donald (892-900), son of Constantine, died in Forres, not without suspicion of poisoning, and in it King Duff (961-967) was murdered. Macbeth is said to have slain Duncan in the first structure that gave its name to Castlehill, which was probably the building demolished in 1297 by the adherents of Wallace. The next castle was a royal residence from 1189 to 1371 and was occupied occasionally by William the Lion, Alexander II. and David II. It was burned down by the Wolf of Badenoch in 1390. The ruins on the hill, however, are those of a later edifice and are surmounted by a granite obelisk, 65 ft. high, raised to the memory of Surgeon James Thomson, a native of Cromarty, who at the cost of his life tended the Russian wounded on the field of the Alma. The public buildings include the town hall, a fine and commodious house on the site of the old tolbooth; the Falconer museum, containing among other exhibits several valuable fossils, and named after Dr Hugh Falconer (1808-1865), the distinguished palaeontologist and botanist, a native of the town; the mechanics' institute; the agricultural and market hall; Leanchoil hospital and Anderson's Institution for poor boys. The cross, in Decorated Gothic, stands beside the town hall. Adjoining the town on the south-east is the beautifully-wooded Cluny Hill, a favourite public resort, carrying on its summit the tower, 70 ft. high, which was erected in 1806 to the memory of Nelson, and on its southern slopes a well-known hydropathic. An excellent golf-course extends from Kinloss to Findhorn. The industries comprise the manufacture of chemicals and artificial manures, granite polishing, flour and sawmills, boot- and shoe-making, carriage-building and woollen manufactures. There is also considerable trade in cattle.

Sueno's Stone, about 23 ft. high, probably the finest sculptured monolith in Scotland, stands in a field to the east of the town. Its origin and character have given rise to endless surmises. It is carved with figures of soldiers, priests, slaughtered men and captives on one side, and on the other with a cross and Runic ornamentation. One theory is that it is a relic of the early Christian church, symbolizing the battle of life and the triumph of good over evil. According to an older tradition it was named after Sueno, son of Harold, king of Denmark, who won a victory on the spot in 1008. A third conjecture is that it commemorates the expulsion of the Danes from Moray in 1014. Skene's view is that it chronicles the struggle in 900 between Sigurd, earl of Orkney, and Maelbrigd, Maormor of Moray. Another storied stone is called the Witches' Stone, because it marks the place near Forres where Macbeth is said to have encountered the weird sisters.

Forres is one of the Inverness district group of parliamentary burghs, the other members being Nairn, Fortrose and Inverness. The town is amongst the healthiest in Scotland and has the lowest rainfall in the county.

Within 2 m. of Forres, to the S.W., lie the beautiful woods of Altyre, the seat of the Gordon-Cummings. Three miles farther south is Relugas House, the favourite residence of Sir Thomas Dick Lauder, romantically situated on a height near the confluence of the Divie and the Findhorn. Not far away stand the ruins of the old castle of Dunphail. On the left bank of the Findhorn, 3-1/2 m. W. of Forres, is situated Brodie Castle,

## partly ancient and partly modern. The Brodies--the old name of their

estate was Brothie, from the Irish _broth_, a ditch, in allusion to the trench that ran from the village of Dyke to the north of the house--were a family of great consequence at the period of the Covenant. Alexander Brodie (1617-1680), the fourteenth laird, was one of the commissioners who went to the Hague to treat with Charles II., and afterwards became a Scottish lord of session and an English judge. He and his son were regarded as amongst the staunchest of the Presbyterians. Farther south is the forest of Darnaway, famous for its oaks, in which stands the earl of Moray's mansion of Darnaway Castle. It occupies the site of the castle which was built by Thomas Randolph, the first earl. Attached to it is the great hall, capable of accommodating 1000 men, with an open roof of fine dark oak, the only remaining portion of the castle that was erected by Archibald Douglas, earl of Moray, in 1450. Queen Mary held a council in it in 1562. Earl Randolph's chair, not unlike the coronation chair, has been preserved. Kinloss Abbey, now in ruins, stands some 2-1/2 m. to the N.E. of Forres. It was founded in 1150 by David I., and remained in the hands of the Cistercians till its suppression at the Reformation. Robert Reid, who ruled from 1526 to 1540, was its greatest abbot. His hobby was gardening, and it is believed that many of the 123 varieties of pears and 146 varieties of apples for which the district is famous were due to his skill and enterprise. Edward I. stayed in the abbey for a short time in 1303 and Queen Mary spent two nights in it in 1562.

FORREST, EDWIN (1806-1872), American actor, was born at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the 9th of March 1806, of Scottish and German descent. He made his first stage appearance on the 27th of November 1820, at the Walnut Street theatre, in Home's _Douglas_. In 1826 he had a great success in New York as Othello. He played at Drury Lane in the _Gladiator_ in 1836, but his Macbeth in 1845 was hissed by the English audience, and his affront to Macready in Edinburgh shortly afterwards--when he stood up in a private box and hissed him,--was fatal to his popularity in Great Britain. His jealousy of Macready resulted in the Astor Place riot in 1849. In 1837 he had married Catherine, daughter of John Sinclair, an English singer, and his divorce suit in 1852 was a _cause celebre_ which hurt his reputation and soured his temper. His last appearance was as Richelieu in Boston in 1871. He died on the 12th of December 1872. He had amassed a large fortune, much of which he left by will to found a home for aged actors.

See Lawrence Barrett's _Edwin Forrest_ (Boston, 1881).

FORREST, SIR JOHN (1847- ), West Australian statesman and explorer, son of William Forrest, of Bunbury, West Australia, was born near Bunbury, on the 22nd of August 1847, and educated at Perth, W.A. In 1865 he became connected with the Government Survey Department at Perth, and in 1869 led an exploring expedition into the interior in search of D. Leichardt, penetrating through bush and salt-marshes as far inland as 123 deg. E. In 1870 he again made an expedition from Perth to Adelaide, along the southern shores. In 1874, with his brother Alexander Forrest (born 1849), he explored eastwards from Champion Bay, following as far as possible the 26th parallel, and striking the telegraph line between Adelaide and Port Darwin; a distance of about 2000 m. was covered in about five months with horses and without carriers, a particularly fine achievement (see AUSTRALIA: _Exploration_). John Forrest also surveyed in 1878 the north-western district between the rivers Ashburton and Lady Grey, and in 1882 the Fitzroy district. In 1876 he was made deputy surveyor-general, receiving the thanks of the colony for his services and a grant of 5000 acres of land; for a few months at the end of 1878 he acted as commissioner of crown lands and surveyor-general, being given the full appointment in 1883 and retaining it till 1890. When the colony obtained in 1890 its constitution of self-government, Sir John Forrest (who was made K.C.M.G. in 1891, and G.C.M.G. in 1901) became its first premier, and he held that position till in 1901 he joined the Commonwealth government, first as minister for defence, later as minister for home affairs and postmaster-general, resigning the office of federal treasurer in July 1907. His influence in West Australia was one of an almost autocratic character, owing to the robust vigour of his personality and his success in enforcing his views (see WESTERN AUSTRALIA: _History_). In 1897 he was made a member of the Privy Council. Sir John Forrest married in 1876 Margaret Hamersley. He published _Explorations in Australia_ (1876) and _Notes on Western Australia_ (1884-1887).

FORREST, NATHAN BEDFORD (1821-1877), Confederate cavalry general in the American Civil War, was born near Chapel Hill, Tennessee, on the 13th of July 1821. Before his father's death in 1837 the family had removed to Mississippi, and for some years thereafter it was supported principally by Nathan, who was the eldest son. Thus he never received any formal education (as witnessed by the uncouth phraseology and spelling of his war despatches), but he managed to teach himself with very fair success, and is said to have possessed considerable ability as a mathematician. He was in turn a horse and cattle trader in Mississippi, and a slave dealer and horse trader in Memphis, until 1859, when he took to cotton planting in north-western Mississippi, where he acquired considerable wealth. At the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861 he volunteered as a private, raised a cavalry battalion, of which he was lieut.-colonel, and in February 1862 took part in the defence of Fort Donelson, and refusing, like Generals Floyd and Pillow, to capitulate with the rest of the Confederate forces, made his way out, before the surrender, with all the mounted troops there. He was promptly made a colonel and regimental commander, and fought at Shiloh with distinction, receiving a severe wound. Shortly after this he was promoted brigadier-general (July 1862). At the head of a mounted brigade he took a brilliant part in General Bragg's autumn campaign, and in the winter of 1862-1863 he was continually active in raiding the hostile lines of communication. These raids have been the theme of innumerable discussions, and on the whole their value seems to have been overrated. At the same time, and apart from the question of their utility, Forrest's raids were uniformly bold and skilful, and are his chief title to fame in the history of the cavalry arm. Indeed, next to Stuart and Sheridan, he was the finest cavalry leader of the whole war. One of the most remarkable of his

## actions was his capture, near Rome, Georgia, after five days of marching

and fighting, of an entire cavalry brigade under Colonel A.D. Streight (April 1863). He was present at the battle of Chickamauga in September, after which (largely on account of his criticism of General Bragg, the army commander) he was transferred to the Mississippi. Forrest was made a major-general in December 1863. In the winter of 1863-1864 he was as

## active as ever, and in the spring of 1864 he raided as far north as

Paducah, Ky. On the 12th of April 1864 he assaulted and captured Fort Pillow, in Tennessee on the Mississippi; U.S. negro troops formed a large part of the garrison and according to survivors many were massacred after the fort had surrendered. The "Massacre of Fort Pillow" has been the subject of much controversy and there is much conflicting testimony regarding it, but it seems probable that Forrest himself had no part in it. On the 10th of June Forrest decisively defeated a superior Federal force at Brice's Cross Roads, Miss., and throughout the year, though the greatest efforts were made by the Federals to crush him, he raided in Mississippi, Tennessee and Alabama with almost unvarying success. He was once more with the main Confederate army of the West in the last disastrous campaign of Nashville, and fought stubborn rearguard actions to cover the retreat of the broken Confederates. In February 1865 he was made a lieut.-general, but the struggle was almost at an end and General James H. Wilson, one of the ablest of the Union cavalry generals, rapidly forced back the few Confederates, now under Forrest's command, and stormed Selma, Alabama, on the 2nd of April. The surrender of General Forrest and his whole command, under the agreement between General Richard Taylor and General E.S. Canby, followed on the 9th of May. After the war he lived in Memphis. He sold his cotton plantation in 1867, and for some years was president of the Selma, Marion and Memphis Railroad. He died at Memphis, Tennessee, on the 29th of October 1877.

The military character of General Forrest, apart from questions of his technical skill, horsemastership and detail special to his arm of the service, was admittedly that of a great leader. He never commanded a large force of all arms. He was uneducated, and had neither experience of nor training for the strategical handling of great armies. Yet his personality and his natural soldierly gifts were such that General Sherman considered him "the most remarkable man the Civil War produced on either side." Joseph Johnston, the Confederate general whose greatness lay above all in calm and critical judgment, said that Forrest, had he had the advantage of a thorough military training, "would have been the great central figure of the war."

See the biographies by J.A. Wyeth (1899) and J.H. Mathes (1902).

FORSKAL, PETER (1736-1763), Swedish traveller and naturalist, was born in Kalmar in 1736. He studied at Gottingen, where he published a dissertation entitled _Dubia de principiis philosophiae recentioris_ (1756). Thence he returned to his native country, which, however, he had to leave after the publication of a pamphlet entitled _Pensees sur la liberte civile_ (1759). By Linnaeus he was recommended to Frederick V. of Denmark, who appointed him to accompany Carsten Niebuhr in an expedition to Arabia and Egypt in 1761. He died of the plague at Jerim in Arabia on the 11th of July 1763.

His friend and companion, Niebuhr, was entrusted with the care of editing his MSS., and published in 1775 _Descriptiones animalium, avium, amphibiorum, piscium, insectorum, vermium, quae in itin. Orient. observavit Petrus Forskal_. In the same year appeared also his account of the plants of Arabia Felix and of lower Egypt, under the title of _Flora Aegyptiaco-Arabica_.

FORSSELL, HANS LUDVIG (1843-1901), Swedish historian and political writer, the son of Adolf Forssell, a distinguished mathematician, was born at Gefle, where his father was professor, on 14th January 1843. At the age of sixteen he became a student in Upsala University, where he distinguished himself, and where, in 1866, having taken the degree of doctor, he was appointed reader in history. At the age of thirty, however, Forssell, who had already shown remarkable business capacity, was called to Stockholm, where he filled one important post after another in the Swedish civil service. In 1875 he was appointed head of the treasury, and in 1880 was transferred to the department of inland revenue, of which he continued to be president until the time of his death. In addition to the responsibilities which these offices devolved upon him, Forssell was constantly called to serve on royal commissions, and his political influence was immense. In spite of all these public duties, which he carried through with the utmost diligence, Forssell also found leisure for an abundant literary activity. Of his historical writings the most important were: _The Administrative and Economical History of Sweden after Gustavus I._ (1869-1875) and _Sweden in 1571_ (1872). He was also for several years, in company with the poet Wirsen, editor of the _Swedish Literary Review_. He published two volumes of _Studies and_ _Criticisms_ (1875, 1888). In the year 1881, at the death of the historian Anders Fryxell, Forssell was elected to the vacant seat on the Swedish Academy. The energy of Forssell was so great, and he understood so little the economy of strength, that he unquestionably overtaxed his vital force. His death, however, which occurred with great suddenness on the 2nd of August 1901 while he was staying at San Bernardino in Switzerland, was wholly unexpected. There was little of the typical Swedish urbanity in Forssell's exterior manner, which was somewhat dry and abrupt. Like many able men who have from early life administered responsible public posts, there appeared a certain want of sympathy in his demands upon others. His views were distinct, and held with great firmness; for example, he was a free-trader, and his consistent opposition to what he called "the new system" had a considerable effect on Swedish policy. He was not exactly an attractive man, but he was a capable, upright and efficient public servant. In 1867 he married Miss Zulamith Eneroth, a daughter of the well-known pomologist of Upsala; she survived him, with two sons and two daughters. (E. G.)

FORST (originally FORSTA or FORSTE), a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Brandenburg, on the Neisse, 44 m. S.E. of Frankfort-on-Oder. Pop. (1905) 33,757. It has two Evangelical, a Roman Catholic and an Old Lutheran church; there are two schools and two hospitals in the town. The chief industry of Forst is the manufacture of cloth, but spinning, dyeing and the making of artificial flowers are also carried on. Founded in the 13th century, Forst passed in 1667 to the duke of Saxe-Merseburg, becoming part of electoral Saxony in 1740. It was ceded to Prussia in 1815.

FORSTER, FRANCOIS (1790-1872), French engraver, was born at Locle in Neufchatel, on the 22nd of August 1790. In 1805 he was apprenticed to an engraver in Paris, and he also studied painting and engraving simultaneously in the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. His preference was ultimately fixed on the latter art, and on his obtaining in 1814 the first "grand prix de gravure," the king of Prussia, who was then with the allies in Paris, bestowed on him a gold medal, and a pension of 1500 francs for two years. With the aid of this sum he pursued his studies in Rome, where his attention was devoted chiefly to the works of Raphael. In 1844 he succeeded Tardieu in the Academy. He died at Paris on the 27th of June 1872. Forster occupied the first position among the French engravers of his time, and was equally successful in historical pieces and in portraits. Among his works may be mentioned--The Three Graces, and _La Vierge de la legende_, after Raphael; _La Vierge au bas-relief_, after Leonardo da Vinci; Francis I. and Charles V., after Gros; St Cecilia, after Paul Delaroche; Albert Durer and Henry IV., after Porbus; Wellington, after Gerard; and Queen Victoria, after Winterhalter.

FORSTER, FRIEDRICH CHRISTOPH (1791-1868), German historian and poet, was the second son of Karl Christoph Forster (1751-1811), and consequently a brother of the painter, Ernest Joachim Forster (1800-1885). Born at Munchengosserstadt on the Saale on the 24th of September 1791, he received his early education at Altenburg, and after a course of theology at Jena, devoted some time to archaeology and the history of art. At the outbreak of the War of Liberation in 1813, he joined the army, quickly attaining the rank of captain; and by his war-songs added to the national enthusiasm. On the conclusion of the war he was appointed professor at the school of engineering and artillery in Berlin, but on account of some democratic writings he was dismissed from this office in 1817. He then became connected with various journals until about 1829, when he received an appointment at the royal museum in Berlin, with the title of court councillor (_Hofrat_). He was the founder and secretary of the _Wissenschaftlicher Kunstverein_ in Berlin, and died in Berlin on the 8th of November 1868. Forster's principal works are: _Beitrage zur neueren Kriegsgeschichte_ (Berlin, 1816); _Grundzuge der Geschichte des preussischen Staates_ (Berlin, 1818); _Der Feldmarschall Blucher und seine Umgebungen_ (Leipzig, 1820); _Friedrich der Grosse, Jugendjahre, Bildung und Geist_ (Berlin, 1822); _Albrecht von Wallenstein_ (Potsdam, 1834); _Friedrich Wilhelm I., Konig von Preussen_ (Potsdam, 1834-1835); _Die Hofe und Kabinette Europas im 18. Jahrhundert_ (Potsdam, 1836-1839); _Leben und Taten Friedrichs des Grossen_ (Meissen, 1840-1841); _Wallensteins Prozess_ (Leipzig, 1844); and _Preussens Helden in Krieg und Frieden, neuere und neueste preussische Geschichte_, 7 volumes (Berlin, 1849-1860). The three concluding volumes of this work contain the history of the war of liberation of 1813-14-15. He brought out an edition of Hegel's works, adapted several of Shakespeare's plays for the theatre, wrote a number of poems and an historical drama, _Gustav Adolf_ (Berlin, 1832).

Many of his lesser writings were collected and published as _Kriegslieder, Romanzen, Erzahlungen und Legenden_ (Berlin, 1838). The beginning of an autobiography of Forster, edited by H. Kletke, has been published under the title, _Kunst und Leben_ (Berlin, 1873).

FORSTER, JOHANN GEORG ADAM (1754-1794), German traveller and author, was born at Nassenhuben, a small village near Danzig, on the 27th of November 1754. His father, Johann Reinhold Forster, a man of great scientific attainments but an intractable temper, was at that time pastor of the place; the family are said to have been of Scottish extraction. In 1765 the elder Forster was commissioned by the empress Catherine to inspect the Russian colonies in the province of Saratov, which gave his son an opportunity of acquiring the Russian language and the elements of a scientific education. After a few years the father quarrelled with the Russian government, and went to England, where he obtained a professorship of natural history and the modern languages at the famous non-conformist academy at Warrington. His violent temper soon compelled him to resign this appointment, and for two years he and his son earned a precarious livelihood by translations in London--a practical education, however, exceedingly useful to the younger Forster, who became a thorough master of English, and acquired many of the ideas which chiefly influenced his subsequent life. At length the turning point in his career came in the shape of an invitation for him and his father to accompany Captain Cook in his third voyage round the world. Such an expedition was admirably calculated to call forth Forster's peculiar powers. His account of Cook's voyage (_A Voyage round the World_, London, 1777; in German, Berlin, 1778-1780), is almost the first example of the glowing yet faithful description of natural phenomena which has since made a knowledge of them the common property of the educated world. The publication of this work was, however, impeded for some time by differences with the admiralty, during which Forster proceeded to the continent to obtain an appointment for his father as professor at Cassel, and found to his surprise that it was conferred upon himself. The elder Forster, however, was soon provided for elsewhere, being appointed professor of natural history at Halle. At Cassel Forster formed an intimate friendship with the great anatomist Sommerring, and about the same time made the acquaintance of Jacobi, who gave him a leaning towards mysticism from which he subsequently emancipated himself. The want of books and scientific apparatus at Cassel induced him to resort frequently to Gottingen, where he became betrothed to Therese Heyne, the daughter of the illustrious philologist, a clever and cultivated woman, but ill-suited to be Forster's wife. To be able to marry he accepted (1784) a professorship at the university of Wilna, which he did not find to his taste. The penury and barbarism of Polish circumstances are graphically described in his and his wife's letters of this period. After a few years' residence at Wilna he resigned his appointment to participate in a scientific expedition projected by the Russian government, and upon the relinquishment of this undertaking became librarian to the elector of Mainz. He actively promoted the incorporation of the left bank of the Rhine with France and in 1793 went to Paris to carry on the negotiations. Meanwhile, however, the Germans seized Mainz, and Forster--already disheartened by the turn of events in France--was cut off from all return. Domestic sorrows were added to his political troubles and he died suddenly at Paris on the 10th of January 1794.

Forster's masterpiece is his _Ansichten vom Niederrhein, von Brabant, Flandern, Holland, England und Frankreich_ (1791-1794), one of the ablest books of travel of the 18th century. His style is clear and vivid; his method of describing what he sees extraordinarily plastic; above all, he has the art of presenting objects to us from their most interesting and attractive side. The same qualities are also more or less conspicuous in his minor writings. By his translation (from the English) of the _Sakuntala_ of Kalidasa (1791), he first awakened German interest in Indian literature.

Forster's _Samtliche Werke_ appeared at Leipzig in 9 vols. in 1843. The _Ansichten vom Rhein_, &c., has been frequently reprinted (best edition by A. Leitzmann, Halle, 1893); Leitzmann has also published (Stuttgart, 1894) a selection of Forster's _Kleine Schriften_, which originally appeared in 6 vols. (1789-1797). His correspondence was published by his wife (2 vols., Leipzig, 1829); his _Briefwechsel mit Sommerring_ by H. Hettner (Brunswick, 1877). See J. Moleschott, _G. Forster, der Naturforscher des Volks_ (1854; 3rd ed., 1874); K. Klein, _G. Forster in Mainz_ (Gotha, 1863); A. Leitzmann, _G. Forster_ (Vorlesung) (Halle, 1893).

FORSTER, JOHN (1812-1876), English biographer and critic, was born on the 2nd of April 1812 at Newcastle. His father, who was a Unitarian and belonged to the junior branch of a good Northumberland family, was a cattle-dealer. After being well grounded in classics and mathematics at the grammar school of his native town, John Forster was sent in 1828 to Cambridge, but after only a month's residence he removed to London, where he attended classes at University College, and was entered at the Inner Temple. He devoted himself, however, chiefly to literary pursuits. He contributed to _The True Sun, The Morning Chronicle_ and to _The Examiner_, for which he acted as literary and dramatic critic; and the influence of his powerful individuality soon made itself felt. His _Lives of the Statesmen of the Commonwealth_ (1836-1839) appeared partly in Lardner's Cyclopaedia. He published the work separately in 1840 with a _Treatise on the Popular Progress in English History_. Its merits obtained immediate recognition, and Forster became a prominent figure in that distinguished circle of literary men which included Bulwer, Talfourd, Albany, Fonblanque, Landor, Carlyle and Dickens. Forster is said to have been for some time engaged to Letitia Landon, but the engagement was broken off, and Miss Landon married George Maclean. In 1843 he was called to the bar but he never became a practising lawyer. For some years he edited the _Foreign Quarterly Review_; in 1846, on the retirement of Charles Dickens, he took charge for some months of the _Daily News_; and from 1847 to 1856 he edited the _Examiner_. From 1836 onwards he contributed to the _Edinburgh Quarterly_ and _Foreign Quarterly_ Reviews a variety of articles, some of which were republished in two volumes of _Biographical and Historical Essays_ (1858). In 1848 appeared his admirable _Life and Times of Oliver Goldsmith_ (revised in 1854). Continuing his researches into English history under the early Stuarts, he published in 1860 the _Arrest of the Five Members by Charles I.--A Chapter of English History rewritten_, and _The Debates on the Grand Remonstrance, with an Introductory Essay on English Freedom_. These were followed by his _Sir John Eliot: a Biography_ (1864), elaborated from one of his earlier studies for the _Lives of Eminent British Statesmen_. In 1868 appeared his _Life of Landor_, and, on the death of his friend Alexander Dyce, Forster undertook the publication of his third edition of Shakespeare. For several years he had been collecting materials for a life of Swift, but he interrupted his studies in this direction to write his standard _Life of Charles Dickens_. He had long been intimate with the novelist, and it is by this work that John Forster is now chiefly remembered. The first volume appeared in 1872, and the biography was completed in 1874. Towards the close of 1875 the first volume of his _Life of Swift_ was published; and he had made some progress in the preparation of the second at the time of his death on the 2nd of February 1876. In 1855 Forster had been appointed secretary to the lunacy commission, and from 1861 to 1872 he held the office of a commissioner in lunacy. His valuable collection of manuscripts, including the original copies of Charles Dickens's novels, together with his books and pictures, was bequeathed to South Kensington Museum.

An admirable account of him by Henry Morley is prefixed to the official handbook (1877) of the Dyce and Forster bequests.

FORSTER, JOHN COOPER (1823-1886), British surgeon, was born in 1823 in Lambeth, London, where his father and grandfather before him had been local medical practitioners. He entered Guy's hospital in 1841, was appointed demonstrator of anatomy in 1850, assistant-surgeon, 1855, and surgeon, 1870. He became a member of the College of Surgeons in 1844, fellow in 1849 and president in 1884. He was a prompt and sometimes bold operator. In 1858 he performed practically the first gastrostomy in England for a case of cancer of the oesophagus. Among his best-known papers were discussions of acupressure, syphilis, hydrophobia, intestinal obstruction, modified obturator hernia, torsion, and colloid cancer of the large intestine; and he published a book on _Surgical Diseases of Children_ in 1860, founded on his experience as surgeon to the hospital for children and women in Waterloo Road. He died suddenly in London on the 2nd of March 1886.

FORSTER, WILLIAM EDWARD (1818-1886), British statesman, was born of Quaker parents at Bradpole in Dorsetshire on the 11th of July 1818. He was educated at the Friends' school at Tottenham, where his father's family had long been settled, and on leaving school he was put into business. He declined, however, on principle, to enter a brewery. Becoming in due time a woollen manufacturer in a large way at Bradford, Yorkshire (from which after his marriage he moved to Burley-in-Wharfedale), he soon made himself known as a practical philanthropist. In 1846-1847 he accompanied his father to Ireland as distributor of the Friends' relief fund for the famine in Connemara, and the state of the country made a deep impression on him. In 1849 he wrote a preface to a new edition of Clarkson's _Life of William Penn_, defending the Quaker statesman against Macaulay's criticisms. In 1850 he married Jane Martha, eldest daughter of the famous Dr Arnold of Rugby. She was not a Quaker, and her husband was formally excommunicated for marrying her, but the Friends who were commissioned to announce the sentence "shook hands and stayed to luncheon." Forster thereafter ranked himself as a member of the Church of England, for which, indeed, he was in later life charged with having too great a partiality. There were no children of the marriage, but when Mrs Forster's brother, William Arnold, died in 1859, leaving four orphans, the Forsters adopted them as their own.

One of these children was Mr H.O. Arnold-Forster (1855-1909), the well-known Liberal-Unionist member of parliament, who eventually became a member of Mr Balfour's cabinet; he was secretary to the admiralty (1900-1903), and then secretary of state for war (1903-1905), and was the author of numerous educational books published by Cassell & Co., of which firm he was a director.

W.E. Forster gradually began to take an active part in public affairs by speaking and lecturing. In 1858 he gave a lecture before the Leeds Philosophical Institution on "How we Tax India." In 1859 he stood as Liberal candidate for Leeds, but was beaten. But he was highly esteemed in the West Riding, and in 1861 he was returned unopposed for Bradford. In 1865 (unopposed) and in 1868 (at the head of the poll) he was again returned. He took a prominent part in parliament in the debates on the American Civil War, and in 1868 was made under-secretary for the colonies in Earl Russell's ministry. It was then that he first became a prominent advocate of imperial federation. In 1866 his attitude on parliamentary reform attracted a good deal of attention. His speeches were full of knowledge of the real condition of the people, and contained something like an original programme of Radical legislation. "We have other things to do," he said, "besides extending the franchise. We want to make Ireland loyal and contented; we want to get rid of pauperism in this country; we want to fight against a class which is more to be dreaded than the holders of a L7 franchise--I mean the dangerous class in our large towns. We want to see whether we cannot make for the agricultural labourer some better hope than the workhouse in his old age. We want to have Old England as well taught as New England." In these words he heralded the education campaign which occupied the country for so many years afterwards. Directly the Reform Bill had passed, the necessity of "inducing our masters to learn their letters" (in Robert Lowe's phrase) became pressing. Mr Forster and Mr Cardwell, as private members in opposition, brought in Education Bills in 1867 and 1868; and in 1868, when the Liberal party returned to office, Mr Forster was appointed vice-president of the council, with the duty of preparing a government measure for national education. The Elementary Education Bill (see EDUCATION) was introduced on the 17th of February 1870. The religious difficulty at once came to the front. The Manchester Education Union and the Birmingham Education League had already formulated in the provinces the two opposing theories, the former standing for the preservation of denominational interests, the latter advocating secular rate-aided education as the only means of protecting Nonconformity against the Church. The Dissenters were by no means satisfied with Forster's "conscience clause" as contained in the bill, and they regarded him, the ex-Quaker, as a deserter from their own side; while they resented the "25th clause," permitting school boards to pay the fees of needy children at denominational schools out of the rates, as an insidious attack upon themselves. By the 14th of March, when the second reading came on, the controversy had assumed threatening proportions; and Mr Dixon, the Liberal member for Birmingham and chairman of the Education League, moved an amendment, the effect of which was to prohibit all religious education in board schools. The government made its rejection a question of confidence, and the amendment was withdrawn; but the result was the insertion of the Cowper-Temple clause as a compromise before the bill passed. Extremists on both sides abused Forster, but the government had a difficult set of circumstances to deal with, and he acted like a prudent statesman in contenting himself with what he could get. An ideal bill was impracticable; it is to Forster's enduring credit that the bill of 1870, imperfect as it was, established at last some approach to a system of national education in England without running absolutely counter to the most cherished English ideas and without ignoring the principal agencies already in existence.

Forster's next important work was in passing the Ballot Act of 1872, but for several years afterwards his life was uneventful. In 1874 he was again returned for Bradford, in spite of Dissenting attacks, and he took his full share of the work of the Opposition Front Bench. In 1875, when Mr Gladstone "retired," he was strongly supported for the leadership of the Liberal party, but declined to be nominated against Lord Harrington. In the same year he was elected F.R.S., and made lord rector of Aberdeen University. In 1876, when the Eastern question was looming large, he visited Servia and Turkey, and his subsequent speeches on the subject were marked by studious moderation, distasteful to extremists on both sides. On Mr Gladstone's return to office in 1880 he was made chief secretary for Ireland, with Lord Cowper as lord-lieutenant. He carried the Compensation for Disturbance Bill through the Commons, only to see it thrown out in the Lords, and his task was made more difficult by the agitation which arose in consequence. During the gloomy autumn and winter of 1880-1881 Forster's energy and devotion in grappling with the situation in Ireland (see IRELAND) were indefatigable, his labour was enormous, and the personal risks he ran were many; but he enjoyed the Irish character in spite of all obstacles, and inspired genuine admiration in all his coadjutors. On the 24th of January 1881 he introduced a new Coercion Bill in the House of Commons, to deal with the growth of the Land League, and in the course of his speech declared it to be "the most painful duty" he had ever had to perform, and one which would have prevented his accepting his office if he had known that it would fall upon him. The bill passed, among its provisions being one enabling the Irish government to arrest without trial persons "reasonably suspected" of crime and conspiracy. The Irish party used every opportunity in and out of parliament for resenting this act, and Forster was kept constantly on the move between Dublin and London, conducting his campaign against crime and anarchy and defending it in the House of Commons. His scrupulous conscientiousness and anxiety to meet every reasonable claim availed him nothing with such antagonists, and the strain was intense and continuous. He was nicknamed "Buckshot" by the Nationalist press, on the supposition that he had ordered its use by the police when firing on a crowd. On the 13th of October Mr Parnell was arrested, and on the 20th the Land League was proclaimed. From that time Forster's life was in constant danger, and he had to be escorted by mounted police when he drove in Dublin. Early in March 1882 he visited some of the worst districts in Ireland, and addressed the crowd at Tullamore on the subject of outrages, denouncing the people for their want of courage in not assisting the government, but adding, "whether you do or not, it is the duty of the government to stop the outrages, and stop them we will." Forster's pluck in speaking out like this was fully appreciated in England, but it was not till after the revelations connected with the Phoenix Park murders that the dangers he had confronted were properly realized, and it became known that several plans to murder him had only been frustrated by the merest accidents. On the 2nd of May Mr Gladstone announced that the government intended to release Mr Parnell and his fellow-prisoners in Kilmainham, and that both Lord Cowper and Mr Forster had in consequence resigned; and the following Saturday Forster's successor, Lord Frederick Cavendish, was, with Mr Burke, murdered in Phoenix Park. It was characteristic of the man that Forster at once offered to go back to Dublin temporarily as chief secretary, but the offer was declined. His position naturally attracted universal attention towards him, particularly during the debates which ensued in parliament on the "Kilmainham Treaty." But Mr Gladstone's influence with the Liberal party was paramount, in spite of the damaging appearance of the compact made with Parnell, and Forster's pointed criticisms only caused thoroughgoing partisans to accuse him of a desire to avenge himself. It was not till the next session that he delivered his fiercest attack on Parnell in the debate on the address, denouncing him for his connexion with the Land League, and quoting against him the violent speeches of his supporters and the articles of his newspaper organs. It was on this occasion that Parnell, on Forster's charging him, not with directly planning or perpetrating outrages or murder, but with conniving at them, ejaculated "It's a lie"; and, replying on the next day, the Irish leader, instead of disproving Forster's charges, bitterly denounced his methods of administration. Though, during the few remaining years of his life, Forster's political record covered various interesting subjects, his connexion with these stormy times in Ireland throws them all into shadow. He died on the 6th of April 1886, on the eve of the introduction of the Home Rule Bill, to which he was stoutly opposed. In the interval there had been other questions on which he found himself at variance with Gladstonian Liberalism, for instance, as regards the Sudan and the Transvaal, nor was he inclined to stomach the claims of the Caucus or the Birmingham programme. When the Redistribution Act divided Bradford into three constituencies, Forster was returned for the central division, but he never took his seat in the new parliament.

Forster, like John Bright, was an excellent representative of the English middle-class in public life. Patriotic, energetic, independent, incorruptible, shrewd, fair-minded, he was endowed not only with great sympathy with progress, but also with a full faculty for resistance to mere democraticism. He was tall (the Yorkshiremen called him "Long Forster") and strongly though stiffly built, and, with his simple tastes and straightforward manners and methods, was a typical North-country figure. His oratory was rough and unpolished, but full of freshness and force and genuine feeling. It was Forster who, when appealing to the government at the time of Gordon's danger at Khartum, spoke of Mr Gladstone as able "to persuade most people of most things, and himself of almost anything," and though the phrase was much resented by Mr Gladstone's _entourage_, the truth that underlay it may be taken as representing the very converse of his own character. His personal difficulties with some of his colleagues, both in regard to the Education Act of 1870 and his Irish administration, must be properly understood if a complete comprehension of his political career is to be obtained. For an account of them we need only refer to the _Life of the Right Hon. W.E. Forster_, by Sir T. Wemyss Reid. (H. Ch.)

FORSYTH, PETER TAYLOR (1848- ), British Nonconformist divine, was born at Aberdeen in 1848. He took first-class honours in classics at Aberdeen, subsequently studied at Gottingen (under Ritschl) and at New College, Hampstead, and entered the Congregational ministry. Having held pastorates at Shipley, Hackney, Manchester, Leicester and Cambridge, he became principal of Hackney Theological College, Hampstead, in 1901. In 1907 he delivered the Lyman Beecher lectures on preaching at Yale University, published as _Positive Preaching and Modern Mind_. Among his other publications may be mentioned _Religion in Recent Art_, and articles in the _Contemporary Review_, _Hibbert Journal_, and _London Quarterly_. He was chairman of the Congregational Union of England and Wales in 1905.

FORTALEZA (usually called CEARA by foreigners), a city and port of Brazil and the capital of the state of Ceara, on a crescent-shaped indentation of the coast-line immediately W. of Cape Mucuripe or Mocoripe, 7-1/2 m. from the mouth of the Ceara river, in lat. 3 deg. 42' S., long. 38 deg. 30' W. Pop. (1890) of the municipality, including a large rural district, 40,902. The city stands on an open sandy plain overlooking the sea, and is regularly laid out, with broad, well-paved, gas-lighted streets and numerous squares. Owing to the aridity of the climate the vegetation is less luxuriant than in most Brazilian cities. The temperature is usually high, but it is modified by the strong sea winds. Fortaleza has suffered much from epidemics of yellow-fever, small-pox and beri-beri, but the climate is considered to be healthy. A small branch of the Ceara river, called the Pajehu, traverses the city and divides it into two parts, that on its right bank being locally known as Outeiro. Fortaleza is the see of a bishopric, created in 1854, but it has no cathedral, one of its ten churches being used for that purpose. Its public buildings include the government house, legislative chambers, bishop's palace, an episcopal seminary, a lyceum (high school), Misericordia hospital, and asylums for mendicants and the insane. The custom-house stands nearer the seashore, 1-3/4 m. from the railway station in the city, with which it is connected by rail. The port is the principal outlet for the products of the state, but its anchorage is an open roadstead, one of the most dangerous on the northern coast of Brazil, and all ships are compelled to anchor well out from shore and discharge into lighters. Port improvements designed by the eminent engineer Sir John Hawkshaw have been under construction for many years, but have made very slow progress. The Baturite railway, built by the national government partly to give employment to starving refugees in times of long-continued droughts, connects the city and its port with fertile regions to the S.W., and extends to Senador Pompeu, 178 m. distant. The exports include sugar, coffee, rubber, cotton, rum, rice, beans, fruits, hides and skins.

Fortaleza had its origin in a small village adjoining a fort established at this point in early colonial times. In 1654 it took the name of Villa do Forte da Assumpca, but it was generally spoken of as Fortaleza. In 1810 it became the capital of Ceara, and in 1823 it was raised to the dignity of a city under the title of Fortaleza da Nova Braganca.

FORT AUGUSTUS, a village of Inverness-shire, Scotland. Pop. (1901) 706. It is delightfully situated at the south-western extremity of Loch Ness, about 30 m. S.W. of Inverness, on the rivers Oich and Tarff and the Caledonian Canal. A branch line connects with Spean Bridge on the West Highland railway via Invergarry. The fort, then called Kilchumin, was built in 1716 for the purpose of keeping the Highlanders in check, and was enlarged in 1730 by General Wade. It was captured by the Jacobites in 1745, but reoccupied after the battle of Culloden, when it received its present name in honour of William Augustus, duke of Cumberland, the victorious general. The fort was used as a sanatorium until 1857, when it was bought by the 12th Lord Lovat, whose son presented it in 1876 to the English order of Benedictines. Within four years there rose upon its site a pile of stately buildings under the title of St Benedict's Abbey and school, a monastic and collegiate institution intended for the higher education of the sons of the Roman Catholic nobility and gentry. The series of buildings consists of the college, monastery, hospice and scriptorium--the four forming a quadrangle connected by beautiful cloisters. Amongst its benefactors were many Catholic Scots and English peers and gentlemen whose arms are emblazoned on the windows of the spacious refectory hall. The summit of the college tower is 110 ft. high.

FORT DODGE, a city and the county-seat of Webster county, Iowa, U.S.A., on the Des Moines river, 85 m. (by rail) N. by W. from Des Moines. Pop. (1890) 4871; (1900) 12,162; (1905, state census) 14,369, (2269 being foreign-born); (1910) 15,543. It is served by the Illinois Central, the Chicago Great Western, the Minneapolis & Saint Louis, and the Fort Dodge, Des Moines & Southern railways, the last an electric interurban line. Eureka Springs and Wild Cat Cave are of interest to visitors, and attractive scenery is furnished by the river and its bordering bluffs. The river is here spanned by the Chicago Great Western railway steel bridge, or viaduct, one of the longest in the country. Fort Dodge is the seat of Tobin College (420 students in 1907-1908), a commercial and business school, with preparatory, normal and classical departments, and courses in oratory and music; among its other institutions are St Paul's school (Evangelical Lutheran), two Roman Catholic schools, Corpus Christi Academy and the Sacred Heart school, Our Lady of Lourdes convent and a Carnegie library. Oleson Park and Reynold's Park are the city's principal parks. Immediately surrounding Fort Dodge is a rich farming country. To the E. of the city lies a gypsum bed, extending over an area of about 50 sq. m., and considered to be the most valuable in the United States; to the S. coal abounds; there are also limestone quarries and deposits of clay in the vicinity--the clay being, for the most part, obtained by mining. Fort Dodge is a market for the products of the surrounding country, and is a shipping centre of considerable importance. It has various manufactures, including gypsum, plaster, oatmeal, brick and tile, sewer pipe, pottery, foundry and machine-shop products, and shoes. In 1905 the value of all the factory products was $3,025,659, an increase of 200.8% over that for 1900. Fort Clark was erected on the site in 1850 to protect settlers against the Indians; in 1851 the name was changed by order of the secretary of war to Fort Dodge in honour of Colonel Henry Dodge (1782-1867), who was a lieutenant-colonel of Missouri Volunteers in the War of 1812, served with distinction as a colonel of Michigan Mounted Volunteers in the Black Hawk War, resigned from the military service in March 1833, was governor of Wisconsin Territory from 1836 to 1841 and from 1846 to 1848, and was a delegate from Wisconsin Territory to Congress from 1841 to 1845, and a United States senator from Wisconsin in 1848-1857. The fort was abandoned in 1853, and in 1854 a town was laid out. It was chartered as a city in 1869. From the gypsum beds near Fort Dodge was taken in 1868 the block of gypsum from which was modelled the "Cardiff Giant," a rudely-fashioned human figure, which was buried near Cardiff, Onondaga county, New York, where it was "discovered" late in 1869. It was then exhibited in various parts of the country as a "petrified man." The hoax was finally exposed by Professor Othniel C. Marsh of Yale; and George Hall of Binghamton, N.Y., confessed to the fraud, his object having been to discredit belief in the "giants" of Genesis vi. 4. (See "The Cardiff Giant: the True Story of a Remarkable Deception," by Andrew D. White, in the _Century Magazine_, vol. xlii., 1902.)

FORT EDWARD, a village of Washington county, New York, U.S.A., in the township of Fort Edward, on the Hudson river, 56 m. by rail N. of Albany. Pop. of the village (1900) 3521, of whom 385 were foreign-born; (1905) 3806; (1910) 3762; of the township, including the village (1900), 5216; (1905), 5300; (1910), 5740. The village lies mostly at the foot of a steep hill, is at the junction of the main line and the Glens Falls branch of the Delaware & Hudson railway, and is also served by electric line to Albany and Glens Falls; the barge canal connecting Lake Champlain and the Hudson river enters the Hudson here. The river furnishes good water-power, which is used in the manufacture of paper and wood pulp, the leading industry. Shirts and pottery (flower pots, jars and drain tile) are manufactured also. The village is the seat of the Fort Edward Collegiate Institute, a non-sectarian school for girls, which was founded in 1854 and until 1893 was coeducational. The village owns and operates the waterworks. Indian war parties on their way to Canada were accustomed to make a portage from this place, the head of navigation for small boats on the Hudson, to Lake George or Lake Champlain, and hence it was known as the Great Carrying Place. Governor (afterwards Sir) Francis Nicholson in 1709, in his expedition against Canada, built here a stockade which was named Fort Nicholson. Some years afterwards John Henry Lydius (1693-1791) established a settlement and protected it by a new fort, named Fort Lydius, but this was destroyed by the French and Indians in 1745. In 1755, a third fort was built by General Phineas Lyman (1716-1774), as preliminary to the expedition against Crown Point under General William Johnson, and was named Fort Lyman; in 1756 Johnson renamed it Fort Edward in honour of Edward, Duke of York. In the War for Independence Fort Edward was the headquarters of General Philip Schuyler while he and his troops were blocking the march of General Burgoyne's army from Fort Ticonderoga. When a part of Burgoyne's forces was distant only 3 or 4 m. from Fort Edward, on Fort Edward Hill, on the 27th of July 1777, the leader of an Indian band whose assistance the British had sought is supposed to have murdered Jane McCrea (c. 1757-1777), a young-girl who had been visiting friends in Fort Edward, and who was to be escorted on that day to the British camp and there to be married to David Jones, a loyalist serving as a lieutenant in Burgoyne's army; it is possible that she was shot accidentally by Americans pursuing her Indian escorts, but her death did much to rouse local sentiment against Burgoyne and his Indian allies, and caused many volunteers to join the American army resisting Burgoyne's invasion. A monument has been erected by the Jane McCrea Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution near the spot where she was killed, and she is buried in Union Cemetery in Fort Edward. Fort Edward township was erected in 1818 from a part of the township of Argyle. Fort Edward village was incorporated in 1852.

See R.O. Bascom, _The Fort Edward Book_ (Fort Edward, 1903).

FORTESCUE, SIR JOHN (c. 1394-c. 1476), English lawyer, the second son of Sir John Fortescue, of an ancient family in Devonshire, was born at Norris, near South Brent, in Somersetshire. He was educated at Exeter College, Oxford. During the reign of Henry VI. he was three times appointed one of the governors of Lincoln's Inn. In 1441 he was made a king's sergeant at law, and in the following year chief justice of the king's bench. As a judge Fortescue is highly recommended for his wisdom, gravity and uprightness; and he seems to have enjoyed great favour with the king, who is said to have given him some substantial proofs of esteem and regard. He held his office during the remainder of the reign of Henry VI., to whom he steadily adhered; and having faithfully served that unfortunate monarch in all his troubles, he was attainted of treason in the first parliament of Edward IV. When Henry subsequently fled into Scotland, he is supposed to have appointed Fortescue, who appears to have accompanied him in his flight, chancellor of England. In 1463 Fortescue accompanied Queen Margaret and her court in their exile on the Continent, and returned with them afterwards to England. During their wanderings abroad the chancellor wrote for the instruction of the young prince Edward his celebrated work _De laudibus legum Angliae_. On the defeat of the Lancastrian party he made his submission to Edward IV., from whom he received a general pardon dated Westminster, October 13, 1471. He died at an advanced age, but the exact date of his death has not been ascertained.

Fortescue's masterly vindication of the laws of England, though received with great favour by the learned of the profession to whom it was communicated, did not appear in print until the reign of Henry VIII., when it was published, but without a date. It was subsequently many times reprinted. Another valuable and learned work by Fortescue, written in English, was published in 1714, under the title of _The Difference between an Absolute and a Limited Monarchy_. In the Cotton library there is a manuscript of this work, in the title of which it is said to have been addressed to Henry VI.; but many passages show plainly that it was written in favour of Edward IV. A revised edition of this work, with a very valuable historical and biographical introduction, was published in 1885 by Charles Plummer, under the title _The Governance of England_. All of Fortescue's minor writings appear in _The Works of Sir John Fortescue, now first Collected and Arranged_, published in 1869 for private circulation, by his descendant, Lord Clermont.

AUTHORITIES.--Plummer's Introduction to _The Governance of England_; _Life_ in Lord Clermont's edition; Gairdner's _Paston Letters_; Foss's _Lives of the Judges_.

FORTESCUE, SIR JOHN (c. 1531-1607), English statesman, was the eldest son of Sir Adrian Fortescue (executed in 1539), and of his second wife, Anne, daughter of Sir William Reade or Rede of Borstall in Buckinghamshire. The exact date of his birth is unrecorded.[1] He was restored in blood and to his estate at Shirburn in Oxfordshire in 1551. Through his father's mother, Alice, daughter of Sir Geoffrey Boleyn, he was a second cousin once removed from Queen Elizabeth. He acquired early a considerable reputation as a scholar and was chosen to direct the Princess Elizabeth's classical studies in Mary's reign. On the accession of Elizabeth he was appointed keeper of the great wardrobe. He was returned in 1572 to parliament for Wallingford, in 1586 for Buckingham borough, in 1588 and 1597 for Buckingham county, and in 1601 for Middlesex. In 1589 he was appointed chancellor of the exchequer and a member of the privy council. In 1592 he was knighted, and in November 1601, in addition to his two great offices, he received that of chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster. By means of his lucrative employments he amassed great wealth, with which he bought large estates in Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire, and kept up much state and a large household. He took a prominent part in public business, was a member of the court of the star chamber and an ecclesiastical commissioner, sat on various important commissions, and as chancellor of the exchequer explained the queen's financial needs and proposed subsidies in parliament. On the death of Elizabeth he suggested that certain restrictions should be imposed on James's powers, in order probably to limit the appointment of Scotchmen to office,[2] but his advice was not followed. He was deprived by James of the chancellorship of the exchequer, but evidently did not forfeit his favour, as he retained his two other offices and entertained James several times at Henden and Salden. In 1604 Sir John, who stood for Buckinghamshire, was defeated by Sir Francis Goodwin, whose election, however, was declared void by the lord chancellor on the ground of a sentence of outlawry under which he lay, and Fortescue was by a second election returned in his place. This incident gave rise to a violent controversy, regarding the chancellor's jurisdiction in deciding disputed elections to parliament, which was repudiated by the Commons but maintained by the king. The matter after much debate was ended by a compromise, which, while leaving the principle unsettled, set aside the elections of both candidates and provided for the issue of a new writ. Fortescue was then in February 1606 returned for Middlesex, which he represented till his death on the 23rd of December 1607. He was buried in Mursley church in Buckinghamshire, where a monument was erected to his memory. His long public career was highly honourable, and he served his sovereign and country with unswerving fidelity and honesty. His learned attainments too were considerable--Camden styles him "vir integer, Graece, Latineque apprime eruditus,"[3] and his scholarship is also praised by Lloyd, while his friendship with Sir Thomas Bodley procured gifts of books and manuscripts to the latter's library. Fortescue married (1) Cecily, daughter of Sir Edmund Ashfield of Ewelme, by whom, besides a daughter, he had two sons, Sir Francis and Sir William; and (2) Alice, daughter of Christopher Smyth of Annabels in Hertfordshire, by whom he had one daughter. His descent in the male line became extinct with the death of Sir John Fortescue, 3rd baronet, in 1717.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Article in the _Dict. of Nat. Biography_; Lord Clermont's _Hist. of the Family of the Fortescues_; _Hist. Notices of the Parishes of Swyncombe and Ewelme_, by A. Napier, p. 390; D. Lloyd's _State Worthies_ (1670), p. 556; _Add. MSS._ 12497 f. 143 ("Sir John Fortescue's meanes of gaine by Sir R. Thikstin told me [Sir Julius Caesar]"); _Hist. MSS. Comm., Marquis of Salisbury's MSS._; Spedding's _Life of Bacon_; Architectural and Archaeological Soc. for Bucks, _Records of Bucks_, vol. i. p. 86. (P. C. Y.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The inscription on his tomb states that he was 76 at his death on the 23rd of December 1607 (Lord Clermont's _Hist. of the Family of Fortescue_, 377), but according to a statement ascribed to himself, he was born the same year as Queen Elizabeth and therefore in 1533 (Bucks. Architect. and Archaeolog. Soc. _Records of Bucks_, i. p. 89).

[2] David Lloyd's _State Worthies_ (1670), 556.

[3] _Annales_, 613.

FORTEVIOT, a village and parish of Perthshire, Scotland, on the Water of May, a right-hand affluent of the Earn, 6-3/4 m. S.W. of Perth. Pop. of parish (1901) 562. It is a place of remote antiquity, having been a capital of the Picts, when the district was known as Fortrenn, and afterwards of the Scots. The army led by Edward Baliol camped here before the battle of Dupplin (1332), in which the regent, Donald, earl of Mar, was slain along with 13,000 out of 30,000 men. The parish of Findo-Gask adjoining it on the N.W. contains remains of a Roman road, station and outpost, besides the "auld hoose" of Gask in which the Baroness Nairne was born, and which forms the theme of one of her most popular songs. The new house in which she died dates from 1801.

FORT GEORGE, a military station of Inverness-shire, Scotland. It lies 12 m. N.E. of Inverness, and is the terminus of the small branch line connecting with the Highland railway at Gollanfield junction. It occupies a sandy promontory forming the extreme end of the southern shore of Inner Moray Firth (also called the Firth of Inverness), which is here only 1 m. wide. There is communication by ferry with Fortrose on the opposite coast of the Black Isle. The fort was begun in 1748, partly after the plan of one of Vauban's works, and named in honour of George II. Wolfe, who saw it in course of erection in 1751, was much impressed with it and thought it would, when finished, be "the most considerable fortress and best situated in Great Britain." It covers 16 acres and contains accommodation for nearly 2200 men. It is the depot of the Seaforth Highlanders, and a military training-ground of some size and importance because the surrounding country gives ample facilities for exercise and manoeuvres. General Wade's road is maintained in good order. Fort George, it is said, had almost been chosen as the place of detention for Napoleon when the claims of St Helena were put forward. About 2 m. S.E. is the fishing village of Campbelltown, in growing repute as a seaside resort. Midway between the fort and Inverness stands Castle Stuart, a shooting-box of the earl of Moray.

FORTH, a river and firth of the east of Scotland. The river is formed by two head streams, Duchray Water (12 m.) and Avondhu (10 m.), or Laggan as it is called after it leaves Loch Ard, both rising in the north-east of Ben Lomond in Stirlingshire, and uniting 1 m. west of Aberfoyle. From this point till it receives the Kelty, the Forth continues to be a Perthshire stream, but afterwards it becomes the dividing line between the counties of Perth and Stirling as far as the confluence of the Allan. Thence it belongs to Stirlingshire to a point 1-1/2 m. due west of Cambus, whence it serves as the boundary between the shires of Stirling and Clackmannan. Owing to the extremely tortuous character of its course between Gartmore and Alloa--the famous "links of the Forth,"--the actual length of the river is 66 m., or nearly double the distance in a direct line (30 m.) between the source of the Duchray and Kincardine, where the firth begins. The river drains an area of 645 sq. m. Its general direction is mainly easterly with a gentle trend towards the south, and the principal tributaries on the left are the Goodie, Teith, Allan and Devon, and on the right, the Kelty, Boquhan and Bannock. The alluvial plain extending from Gartmore to the county town is called the Carse of Stirling. The places of interest on the banks are Aberfoyle, Kippen, Stirling, Cambuskenneth, Alloa and Kincardine, but after it crosses the Highland line the Forth does not present many passages of remarkable beauty. There are bridges at Aberfoyle, Gartmore, Frew, Drip and Stirling (2), besides railway viaducts at Stirling and Alloa, and there are ferries at Stirling (for Cambuskenneth), Alloa (for South Alloa) and Kincardine (for Airth). The tide rises to 4-1/2 m. above Stirling, where the river is navigable at high water by vessels of 100 tons. There is, however, a brisk shipping trade at Alloa, where the dock accommodates vessels of at least 300 tons.

The Firth of Forth extends from Kincardine to the North Sea, that is, to an imaginary line drawn, just west of the Isle of May, from the East Neuk of Fife to the mouth of the Tyne in Haddingtonshire--a distance of 48 m. Thus, according to some calculations, the Forth measures from source to sea 114 m. The width of the firth varies from 1/2 m. at Kincardine and 1-1/2 m. at Queensferry to 6-1/2 m. at Leith and 17-1/2 m. at the mouth. The chief affluents are, on the south, the Carron, Avon, Almond, Leith, Esk and Tyne, and on the north, the Tiel, Leven, Kiel and Dreel. The principal ports on the south shore are Grangemouth, Bo'ness, Granton and Leith, and on the north, Burntisland and Kirkcaldy; but fishery centres and holiday resorts are very numerous on both coasts. Since the opening of the Forth Bridge (see Bridges) in 1890 the ferries at Queensferry and Burntisland have greatly diminished in importance. The fisheries are still considerable, though the oyster trade is dwindling. The larger islands are Inchcolm, with the ruins of an abbey, Inchkeith, with fortifications and a lighthouse, and the Isle of May, with a lighthouse. The anchorage of St Margaret's Hope, with the naval base of Rosyth, lies off the shore of Fife immediately to the west of the Forth Bridge.

The Forth was the _Bodotria_ of Tacitus and the Scots Water of the chroniclers of the 11th and 12th centuries; while Bede (d. 735) knew the firth as _Sinus orientalis_ (the Eastern Gulf), and Nennius (fl. 796) as _Mare Friesicum_ (the Frisian Sea).

FORTIFICATION AND SIEGECRAFT. "Fortification" is the military art of strengthening positions against attack. The word (Lat. _fortis_, strong, and _facere_, to make) implies the creation of defences. Thus the boy who from the top of a mound defies his comrades, or shelters from their snowballs behind a fence, is merely taking advantage of ground; but if he puts up a hurdle on his mound and stands behind that he has fortified his position.

Fortification consists of two elements, viz. _protection_ and _obstacle_. The protection shields the defender from the enemy's missiles; the obstacle prevents the enemy from coming to close quarters, and delays him under fire.

_Protection_ may be of several kinds, direct or indirect. Direct protection is given by a wall or rampart of earth, strong enough to stop the enemy's missiles. The value of this is reduced in proportion as the defender has to expose himself to return the enemy's fire, or to resist his attempts to destroy the defences. Indirect protection is given by _distance_, as for instance by a high wall placed on a cliff so that the defender on the top of the wall is out of reach of the enemy's missiles if these are of short range, such as arrows. This kind of defence was very popular in the middle ages. In the present day the same object is attained by pushing out detached forts to such a distance from the town they are protecting that the besieger cannot bombard the town as long as he is outside the forts. Another form of indirect protection of great importance is concealment.

The _obstacle_ may consist of anything which will impede the enemy's advance and prevent him from coming to close quarters. In the earliest forms of fortification the protecting wall was also the obstacle, or it may be a wet or dry ditch, an entanglement, a swamp, a thorn hedge, a spiked palisade, or some temporary expedient, such as crows' feet or chevaux de frise. The two elements must of course be arranged in combination. The besieged must be able to defend the obstacle from their protected position, otherwise it can be surmounted or destroyed at leisure. But a close connexion is no longer essential. The effect of modern firearms permits of great elasticity in the disposition of the obstacle; and this simplifies some of the problems of defence.

Protection must be arranged mainly with reference to the enemy's methods of attack and the weapons he uses. The obstacle, on the other hand, should be of such a nature as to bring out the best effects of the defender's weapons. It follows from this that a well-armed force operating against a badly-armed uncivilized enemy may use with advantage very simple old-fashioned methods of protection; or even dispense with it altogether if the obstacle is a good one.

When the assailant has modern weapons the importance of protection is very great. In fact, it may be said that in proportion as missile weapons have grown more effective, the importance of protection and the difficulty of providing it have increased, while the necessity for a monumental physical obstacle has decreased.

The art of the engineer who is about to fortify consists in appreciating and harmonizing all the conditions of the problem, such as the weapons in use, nature of the ground, materials available, temper of assailants and defenders, strategical possibilities, expenditure to be incurred, and so forth. Few of these conditions are in themselves difficult to understand, but they are so many and their reactions are so complex that a real familiarity with all of them is essential to successful work. The keynote of the solution should be simplicity; but this is the first point usually lost sight of by the makers of "systems," especially by those who during a long period of peace have time to give play to their imaginations.

Fortification is usually divided into two branches, namely _permanent fortification_ and _field fortification_. Permanent fortifications are erected at leisure, with all the resources that a state can supply of constructive and mechanical skill, and are built of enduring materials. Field fortifications are extemporized by troops in the field, perhaps assisted by such local labour and tools as may be procurable, and with materials that do not require much preparation, such as earth, brushwood and light timber. There is also an intermediate branch known as _semi-permanent fortification_. This is employed when in the course of a campaign it becomes desirable to protect some locality with the best imitation of permanent defences that can be made in a short time, ample resources and skilled civilian labour being available.

The _objects of fortification_ are various. The vast enceintes of Nineveh and Babylon were planned so that in time of war they might give shelter to the whole population of the country except the field army, with their flocks and herds and household stuff. The same idea may be seen to-day in the walls of such cities as Kano. In the middle ages feudal lords built castles for security against the attacks of their neighbours, and also to watch over towns or bridges or fords from which they drew revenue; whilst rich towns were surrounded with walls merely for the protection of their own inhabitants and their property. The feudal castles lost their importance when the art of cannon-founding was fairly developed; and in the leisurely wars of the 17th and 18th centuries, when roads were few and bad, a swarm of fortified towns, large and small, played a great part in delaying the march of victorious armies.

In the present day isolated forts are seldom used, and only for such purposes as to block passes in mountainous districts. Fortresses are used either to protect points of vital importance, such as capital cities, military depots and dockyards, or at strategic points such as railway junctions. Combinations of fortresses are also used for more general strategic purposes, as will be explained later.

I. HISTORY

Ancient methods.

The most elementary type of fortification is the thorn _hedge_, a type which naturally recurs from age to age under primitive conditions. Thus, Alexander found the villages of the Hyrcanians defended by thick hedges, and the same arrangements may be seen to-day among the least civilized tribes of Africa. The next advance from the hedge is the _bank_ of earth, with the exterior made steep by revetments of sods or hurdle-work. This has a double advantage over the hedge, as, besides being a better obstacle against assault, it gives the defenders an advantage of position in a hand-to-hand fight. Such banks formed the defences of the German towns in Caesar's time, and they were constructed with a high degree of skill. Timber being plentiful, the parapets were built of alternate layers of stones, earth and tree trunks. The latter were built in at right angles to the length of the parapet, and were thus very difficult to displace, while the earth prevented their being set on fire. The bank was often strengthened by a palisade of tree trunks or hurdle-work.

After the bank the most important step in advance for a nation progressing in the arts was the _wall_, of masonry, sun-dried brick or mud. The history of the development of the wall and of the methods of attacking it is the history of fortification for several thousand years.

The first necessity for the wall was height, to give security against escalade. The second-was thickness, so that the defenders might have a platform on the top which would give them space to circulate freely and to use their weapons. A lofty wall, thick enough at the top for purposes of defence, would be very expensive if built of solid masonry; therefore the plan was early introduced of building two walls with a filling of earth or rubble between them. The face of the outer wall would be carried up a few feet above the platform, and crenellated to give protection against arrows and other projectiles.

The next forward step for the defence was the construction of _towers_ at intervals along the wall. These provided flanking fire along the front; they also afforded refuges for the garrison in case of a successful escalade, and from them the platform could be enfiladed.

The evolution of the wall with towers was simple. The main requirements were despotic power and unlimited labour. Thus the finest examples of the system known to history are also amongst the earliest. One of these was Nineveh, built more than 2000 years B.C. The object of its huge perimeter, more than 50 m., has been mentioned. The wall was 120 ft. high and 30 ft. thick; and there were 1500 towers.

After this no practical advance in the art of fortification was made for a very long time, from a constructional point of view. Many centuries indeed elapsed before the inventive genius of man evolved engines and methods of attack fit to cope with such colossal obstacles.

The earliest form of attack was of course _escalade_, either by ladders or by heaping up a ramp of faggots or other portable materials. When the increasing height of walls made escalade too difficult, other means of attack had to be invented. Probably the first of these were the _ram_, for battering down the walls, and _mining_. The latter might have two objects: (a) to drive an underground gallery below the wall from the besiegers' position into the fortress, or (b) to destroy the wall itself by undermining.

The use of missile _engines_ for throwing heavy projectiles probably came later. They are mentioned in the preparations made for the defence of Jerusalem against the Philistines in the 8th century B.C. They are not mentioned in connexion with the siege of Troy. At the sieges of Tyre and Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 587 B.C. we first find mention of the ram and of movable towers placed on mounds to overlook the walls.

Classical times.

The Asiatics, however, had not the qualities of mind necessary for a systematic development of siegecraft, and it was left for the Greeks practically to create this science. Taking it up in the 5th century B.C. they soon, under Philip of Macedon and Alexander, arrived at a very high degree of skill. They invented and systematized methods which were afterwards perfected by the Romans. Alexander's siegecraft was extremely practical. His successors endeavoured to improve on it by increasing the size of their missile and other engines, which, however, were so cumbrous that they were of little use. When the Romans a little later took up the science they returned to the practical methods of Alexander, and by the time of Caesar's wars had become past-masters of it. The highest development of siegecraft before the use of gunpowder was probably attained in the early days of the Roman empire. The beginning of the Christian era is therefore a suitable period at which to take a survey of the arts of fortification and siegecraft as practised by the ancients.

Conditions at opening of the Christian era.

In fortification the wall with towers was still the leading idea. The towers were preferred circular in plan, as this form offered the best resistance to the ram. The wall was usually reinforced by a ditch, which had three advantages: it increased the height of the obstacle, made the bringing up of the engines of attack more difficult, and supplied material for the filling of the wall. In special cases, as at Jerusalem and Rhodes, the enclosure walls were doubled and trebled. Citadels were also built on a large scale.

The typical site preferred by the Romans for a fortified town was on high ground sloping to a river on one side and with steep slopes falling away on the other three sides. At the highest point was a castle serving as citadel. The town enclosure was designed in accordance with the character of the surrounding country. Where the enemy's approach was easiest, the walls were higher, flanking towers stronger and ditches wider and deeper. Some of the towers were made high for look-out posts. If there was a bridge over the river, it was defended by a bridge-head on the far side; and stockades defended by towers were built out from either bank above and below the bridge, between which chains or booms could be stretched to bar the passage.

The natural features of the ground were skilfully utilized. Thus when a large town was spread over an irregular site broken by hills, the enceinte wall would be carried over the top of the hills; and in the intervening valleys the wall would not only be made stronger, but would be somewhat drawn back to allow of a flanking defence from the hill tops on either side. The walls would consist of two strong masonry faces, 20 ft. apart, the space between filled with earth and stones. Usually when the lie of the ground was favourable, the outside of the wall would be much higher than the inside, the parapet walk perhaps being but a little above the level of the town. Palisades were used to strengthen the ditches, especially before the gates.

There was little scope, however, in masonry for the genius of Roman warfare, which had a better opportunity in the active work of attack and defence. For siegecraft the Roman legions were specially apt. No modern engineer, civil or military, accustomed to rely on machinery, steam and hydraulic apparatus, could hope to emulate the feats of the legionaries. In earthworks they excelled; and in such work as building and moving about colossal wooden towers under war conditions, they accomplished things at which nowadays we can only wonder.

The attack was carried on mainly by the use of "engines," under which head were included all mechanical means of attack--towers, missile engines such as catapults and balistae, rams of different kinds, "tortoises" (see below), &c. Mining, too, was freely resorted to, also approach trenches, the use of which had been introduced by the Greeks.

The object of mining, as has been said, might be the driving of a gallery under the wall into the interior of the place, or the destruction of the wall. The latter was effected by excavating large chambers under the foundations. These were supported while the excavation was proceeding by timber struts and planking. When the chambers were large enough the timber supports were burnt and the wall collapsed. The besieged replied to the mining attack by countermines. With these they would undermine and destroy the besiegers' galleries, or would break into them and drive out the workers, either by force of arms or by filling the galleries with smoke.

Breaches in the wall were made by rams. These were of two kinds. For dislodging the cemented masonry of the face of the wall, steel-pointed heads were used; when this was done, another head, shaped like a ram's head, was substituted for battering down the filling of the wall.

For escalade they used ladders fixed on wheeled platforms; but the most important means of attack against a high wall were the movable towers of wood. These were built so high that from their tops the parapet walk of the wall could be swept with arrows and stones; and drawbridges were let down from them, by which a storming party could reach the top of the wall. The height of the towers was from 70 to 150 ft. They were moved on wheels of solid oak or elm, 6 to 12 ft. in diameter and 3 to 4 ft. thick. The ground floor contained one or two rams. The upper floors, of which there might be as many as fifteen, were furnished with missile engines of a smaller kind. The archers occupied the top floor. There also were placed reservoirs of water to extinguish fire. These were filled by force pumps and fitted with hose made of the intestines of cattle. Drawbridges, either hanging or worked on rollers, were placed at the proper height to give access to the top of the wall, or to a breach, as might be required. Apollodorus proposed to place a couple of rams in the upper part of the tower to destroy the crenellations of the wall.

The siege towers had of course to be very solidly built of strong timbers to resist the heavy stones thrown by the engines of the defence. They were protected against fire by screens of osiers, plaited rope or raw hides. Sometimes it was necessary, in order to gain greater height, to place them on high terraces of earth. In that case they would be built on the site. At the siege of Marseilles, described by Caesar, special methods of attack had to be employed on account of the strength of the engines used by the besieged and their frequent sallies to destroy the siege works. A square fort, with brick walls 30 ft. long and 5 ft. thick, was built in front of one of the towers of the town to resist sorties. This fort was subsequently raised to a height of six storeys, under shelter of a roof which projected beyond the walls, and from the eaves of which hung heavy mats made of ships' cables. The mats protected the men working at the walls, and as these were built up the roof was gradually raised by the use of endless screws. The roof was made of heavy beams and planks, over which were laid bricks and clay, and the whole was covered with mats and hides to prevent the bricks from being dislodged. This structure was completed without the loss of a man, and could only have been built by the Romans, whose soldiers were all skilled workmen.

Although these towers were provided with bridges by which storming

## parties could reach the top of the wall, their main object was usually

to dominate the defence and keep down the fire from the walls and towers. Under this protection breaching operations could be carried on. The approaches to the wall were usually made under shelter of galleries of timber or hurdle-work, which were placed on wheels and moved into position as required. When the wall was reached, a shelter of stronger construction, known as a "rat," was placed in position against it. Under this a ram was swung or worked on rollers; or the rat might be used as a shelter for miners or for workmen cutting away the face of the wall. The great rat at Marseilles, which extended from the tower already described to the base of the tower of the city, was 60 ft. long, and built largely of great beams 2 ft. square, connected by iron pins and bands. It was unusually narrow, the ground sills of the side walls being only 4 ft. apart. This was no doubt in order to keep down the weight of the structure, which, massive as it was, had to be movable. The sloping roof and sides of timber were protected, like those of the tower, with bricks and moist clay, hides and wool mattresses. Huge stones and barrels of blazing pitch were thrown from the wall upon this rat without effect, and under its cover the soldiers loosened and removed the foundations of the tower until it fell down.

In order that it might be possible to move these heavy structures, it was usually necessary to fill up the ditch or to level the surface of the ground. For this purpose an "approach tortoise" was often used. This was a shelter, something between the ordinary gallery and the rat, which was moved end on towards the wall, and had an open front with a hood, under cover of which the earth brought up for filling the ditch was distributed.

The missile engines threw stones up to 600 lb. weight, heavy darts from 6 to 12 ft. long, and Greek fire. Archimedes at the siege of Syracuse even made some throwing 1800 lb. The ranges varied, according to the machine and the weight thrown, up to 600 yds. for direct fire and 1000 yds. for curved fire. At the siege of Jerusalem Titus employed three hundred catapults of different sizes and forty balistae, of which the smallest threw missiles of 75 lb. weight. At Carthage Scipio found 120 large and 281 medium catapults, 23 large and 52 small balistae, and a great number of scorpions and other small missile engines.

Screens and mantlets for the protection of the engine-workers were used in great variety.

In addition to the above, great mechanical skill was shown in the construction of many kinds of machines for occasional purposes. A kind of jib crane of great height on a movable platform was used to hoist a cage containing fifteen or twenty men on to the wall. A long spar with a steel claw at the end, swung in the middle from a lofty frame, served to pull down the upper parts of parapets and overhanging galleries. The defenders on their side were not slow in replying with similar devices. Fenders were let down from the wall to soften the blow of the ram, or the ram heads were caught and held by cranes. Grapnels were lowered from cranes to seize the rats and overturn them. Archimedes used the same idea in the defence of Syracuse for lifting and sinking the Roman galleys. Wooden towers were built on the walls to overtop the towers of the besiegers. Many devices for throwing fire were employed. The tradition that Archimedes burnt the Roman fleet, or a portion of it, at Syracuse, by focusing the rays of the sun with reflectors, is supported by an experiment made by Buffon in 1747. With a reflector having a surface of 50 sq. ft., made up of 168 small mirrors each 6 by 8 in., lead was melted at a distance of 140 ft. and wood was set on fire at 160 ft.

The development of masonry in permanent fortification had long since reached its practical limit, and was no longer proof against the destructive methods that had been evolved. The extemporized defences were, as is always the case, worn down by a resolute besieger, and the attack was stronger than the defence.

Middle ages.

Through the dark ages the Eastern Empire kept alive the twin sciences of fortification and siegecraft long enough for the Crusaders to learn from them what had been lost in the West. Byzantium, however, always a storehouse of military science, while conserving a knowledge of the ancient methods and the great missile engines, contributed no new ideas to fortification, so far as we know. In practice the Byzantines favoured multiplied enceintes or several concentric lines of defence. This of course is always a tendency of decadent nations.

In the West the Roman fortifications remained standing, and the Visigoths, allies of Rome, utilized their principles in the defences of Carcassonne, Toulouse, &c. in the 5th century. Viollet-le-Duc's description and illustrations of the defences of Carcassonne will give a very good idea of the methods then in use:--

"The Visigoth fortification of the city of Carcassonne, which is still preserved, offers an analogous arrangement recalling those described by Vegetius. The level of the town is much more elevated than the ground outside, and almost as high as the parapet walks. The curtain walls, of great thickness, are composed of two faces of small cubical masonry alternating with courses of brick; the middle portion being filled, not with earth but with rubble run with lime. The towers were raised above these curtains, and their communication with the latter might be cut off, so as to make of each tower a small independent fort; externally these towers are cylindrical, and on the side of the town square; they rest, also towards the country, upon a cubical base or foundation. We subjoin (fig. 1) the plan of one of these towers with the curtains adjoining. A is the plan of the ground-level; B the plan of the first storey at the level of the parapet. We see, at C and D, the two excavations formed in front of the gates of the tower to intercept, when the drawbridges were raised, all communication between the town or the parapet walk and the several storeys of the tower. From the first storey access was had to the upper crenellated or battlemented portion of the tower by a ladder of wood placed interiorly against the side of the flat wall. The external ground-level was much lower than that of the tower, and also beneath the ground-level of the town, from which it was reached by a descending flight of from ten to fifteen steps. Fig. 2 shows the tower and its two curtains on the side of the town; the bridges of communication are supposed to have been removed. The battlemented portion at the top is covered with a roof, and open on the side of the town in order to permit the defenders of the tower to see what was going on therein, and also to allow of their hoisting up stones and other projectiles by means of a rope and pulley. Fig. 3 shows the same tower on the side towards the country; we have added a postern, the sill of which is sufficiently raised above the ground to necessitate the use of a scaling or step ladder, to obtain ingress. The postern is defended, as was customary, by a palisade or barrier, each gate or postern being provided with a work of this kind."

[Illustration: Fig. 1.--Plan of one of the Towers at Carcassonne.]

[Illustration: Fig. 2.--One of the Towers at Carcassonne, inside view.]

Meanwhile, in western Europe, siegecraft had almost disappeared. Its perfect development was only possible for an army like that of the Romans. The Huns and Goths knew nothing of it, and the efforts of Charlemagne and others of the Frankish kings to restore the art were hampered by the fact that their warriors despised handicrafts and understood nothing but the use of their weapons. During the dark ages the towns of the Gauls retained their old Roman and Visigoth defences, which no one knew properly how to attack, and accordingly the sieges of that period dragged themselves out through long years, and if ultimately successful were so as a rule only through blockade and famine. It was not until the 11th century that siegecraft was revived in the West on the ancient lines.

[Illustration: FIG. 3.--One of the Towers at Carcassonne, outside view.]

Castles.

By this time a new departure of great importance had been made in the seigneurial castle (q.v.), which restored for some centuries a definite superiority to the defence. Built primarily as strongholds for local magnates or for small bodies of warriors dominating a conquered country, the conditions which called them into existence offered several marked advantages. The defences of a town had to follow the growth of the town, and would naturally have weak points. It was not to be expected that a town would develop itself in the manner most suitable for defence; nor indeed that any position large enough for a town could be found that would be naturally strong all round. But the site of a castle could be chosen purely for its natural strength, without regard, except as a secondary consideration, to the protection of anything outside it; and as its area was small it was often easy to find a natural position entirely suited for the purpose. In fact it frequently happened that the existence of such a position was the _raison d'etre_ of the castle. A small hill with steep sides might well be unapproachable in every direction by such cumbrous structures as towers and rats, while the height of the hill, added to the height of the walls, would be too much for the besiegers' missiles. If the sides of the hill were precipitous and rocky, mining became impossible, and the site was perfect for defence. A castle built under such conditions was practically impregnable; and this was the cause of the independence of the barons in the 11th and 12th centuries. They could only be reduced by blockade, and a blockade of long duration was very difficult in the feudal age.

A very instructive example of 12th-century work is the Chateau Gaillard, built by Richard Coeur-de-Lion in 1196. This great castle, with ditches and escarpments cut out of the solid rock, and extensive outworks, was completed in one year. In the article CASTLE will be found the plan of the main work, which is here supplemented by an elevation of the donjon (or keep). The waved face of the inner or main wall of the castle, giving a divergent fire over the front, is an interesting feature in advance of the time. So also is the masonry protection of the machicolation at the top of the donjon, a protection which at that time was usually given by wooden hoardings. After the death of Richard, Philip Augustus besieged the chateau, and carried it after a blockade of seven months and a regular attack of one month. In this attack the tower at A was first mined, after which the whole of that outwork was abandoned by the defenders. The outer enceinte was next captured by surprise; and finally the gate of the main wall was breached by the pioneers. When this happened a sudden rush of the besiegers prevented the remains of the garrison from gaining the shelter of the donjon, and they had to lay down their arms.

Chateau Gaillard, designed by perhaps the greatest general of his time, exemplifies in its brief resistance the weak points of the designs of the 12th century. It is easy to understand how at each step gained by the besiegers the very difficulties which had been placed in the way of their further advance prevented the garrison from reinforcing strongly the points attacked.

In the 13th century many influences were at work in the development of castellar fortification. The experience of such sieges as that of Chateau Gaillard, and still more that gained in the Crusades, the larger garrisons at the disposal of the great feudal lords, and the importance of the interests which they had to protect in their towns, led to a freer style of design. We must also take note of an essential difference between the forms of attack preferred by the Roman soldiery and by the medieval chivalry. The former, who were artisans as well as soldiers, preferred in siege works the certain if laborious methods of breaching and mining. The latter, who considered all manual labour beneath them and whose only ideal of warfare was personal combat, affected the tower and its bridge, giving access to the top of the wall rather than the rat and battering-ram. They were also fond of surprises, which the bad discipline of the time favoured.

[Illustration: FIG. 4.--Donjon, Chateau Gaillard.]

We find, therefore, important progress in enlarging the area of defence and in improving arrangements for flanking. The size and height of all works were increased. The keep of Coucy Castle, built in 1220, was 200 ft. high. Montargis Castle, also built about this time, had a central donjon and a large open enclosure, within which the whole garrison could move freely, to reinforce quickly any threatened point. The effect of flanking fire was increased by giving more projection to the towers, whose sides were in some cases made at right angles to the curtain walls.

We find also a tendency, the influence of which lasted long after medieval times, towards complexity and multiplication of defences, to guard against surprise and localize successful assaults. Great attention was paid to the "step by step" defence. Flanking towers were cut off from their walls and arranged for separate resistance. Complicated entrances with traps and many doors were arranged. Almost all defence was from the tops of the walls and towers, the loopholes on the lower storeys being mainly for light and air and reconnoitring. Machicouli galleries (for vertical defence) were protected either by stone walls built out on corbels, or by strong timber hoardings built in war time, for which the walls were prepared beforehand by recesses left in the masonry. Loopholes and crenelles were protected by shutters. Great care and much ingenuity were expended on details of all kinds.

Already in the 12th century the engineers of the defence had made provision for countermining, by building chambers and galleries at the base of the towers and walls. Further protection for the towers against the pioneer attack was given by carrying out the masonry in front of the tower in a kind of projecting horn. This was found later to have the further advantages of doing away with the dead ground in front of the tower unseen from the curtain, and of increasing the projection and therefore the flanking power of the tower itself. The arrangement is seen in several of the towers at Carcassonne, and has in it the germ of the idea of the bastion.

[Illustration: FIG. 5.--Plan of Carcassonne, 13th century.]

The defences of Carcassonne, remodelled in the latter half of the 13th century on the old Visigoth foundations, exemplify some of the best work of the period. Figs. 5 and 6 (reproduced from Viollet-le-Duc) show the plan of the defences of the town and castle, and a bird's-eye view of the castle with its two barbicans. The thick black line shows the main wall; beyond this are the lists and then the moat. It will be noted that the wall of the lists as well as the main wall is defended by towers. There are only two gates. That on the east is defended by two great towers and a semicircular barbican. The gate of the castle, on the west, has a most complicated approach defended by a labyrinth of gates and flanking walls, which cannot be shown on this small scale, and beyond these is a huge circular barbican in several storeys, capable of holding 1500 men. On the side of the town the castle is protected by a wide moat, and the entrance is masked by another large semicircular barbican. An interesting feature of the general arrangement is the importance which the lists have assumed. The slight wooden barricade of older times has developed into a wall with towers; and the effect is that the besieger, if he gains a footing in the lists, has a very narrow space in which to work the engines of attack. The castle, after the Roman fashion, adjoins the outer wall of the town, so that there may be a possibility of communicating with a relieving force from outside after the town has fallen. There were also several posterns, small openings made in the wall at some height above the ground, for use with rope ladders.

The siegecraft of the period was still that of the ancients. Mining was the most effective form of attack, and the approach to the walls was covered by engines throwing great stones against the hoardings of the parapets, and by cross-bowmen who were sheltered behind light mantlets moved on wheels. Barrels of burning pitch and other incendiary projectiles were thrown as before; and at one siege we read of the carcasses of dead horses and barrels of sewage being thrown into the town to breed pestilence, which had the effect of forcing a capitulation.

With all this the attack was inferior to the defence. As Professor C.W.C. Oman has pointed out, the mechanical application of the three powers of tension, torsion and counterpoise (in the missile engines) had its limits. If these engines were enlarged they grew too costly and unwieldy. If they were multiplied it was impossible on account of their short range and great bulk to concentrate the fire of enough of them on a single portion of the wall.

Introduction of gunpowder.

It is difficult to give anything like an accurate account, in a small space, of the changes in fortification which took place in the first two centuries after the introduction of gunpowder. The number of existing fortifications that had to be modified was infinite, so also was the number of attempted solutions of the new problems. Engineers had not yet begun to publish descriptions of their "systems"; also the new names and terms which came into use with the new works were spread over Europe by engineers of different countries, and adopted into new languages without much accuracy.

Artillery was in use for some time before it began to have any effect on the design of fortification. The earliest cannon threw so very light a projectile that they had no effect on masonry and were more useful for the defence than the attack. Later, larger pieces were made, which acted practically as mortars, throwing stone balls with high elevation, and barrels of burning composition. In the middle of the 15th century the art of cannon-founding was much developed by the brothers Bureau in France. They introduced iron cannon balls and greatly strengthened the guns. In 1428 the English besieging Orleans were entirely defeated by the superior artillery of the besieged. By 1450 Charles VII. was furnished with so powerful a siege train that he captured the whole of the castles in Normandy from the English in one year.

[Illustration: FIG. 6.--Carcassonne Castle and Barbican.]

But the great change came after the invasion of Italy by Charles VIII. with a greatly improved siege train in 1494. The astonishing rapidity with which castles and fortified towns fell before him proved the uselessness of the old defences. It became necessary to create a new system of defences, and, says Cosseron de Villenoisy, "thanks to the mental activity of the Renaissance and the warlike conditions prevailing everywhere, the time could not have been more favourable." There is no doubt that the engineers of Italy as a body were responsible for the first advance in fortification. There, where vital and mental energy were at boiling-point, and where the first striking demonstration of the new force had been given, the greatest intellects, men such as Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo and Machiavelli, busied themselves over the problem of defence.

It has been claimed that Albert Durer was the first writer on modern fortification. This was not so; Durer's work was published in 1527, and more than one Italian engineer, certainly Martini of Siena and San Gallo, had preceded him. Also Machiavelli, writing between 1512 and 1527, had offered some most valuable criticisms and general principles. Durer, moreover, had little influence on the progress of fortification; though we may see in his ideas, if we choose, the germ of the "polygonal" system, developed long afterwards by Montalembert. Durer's work was to some extent a connecting link between the old fortification and the new. He proposed greatly to enlarge the old towers; and he provided both them and the curtains with vaulted chambers for guns (casemates) in several tiers, so as to command both the ditch and the ground beyond it. His projects were too massive and costly for execution, but his name is associated with the first practical gun casemates.

Before beginning to trace the effect of gunpowder on the design of fortification, it may be noted that two causes weakened the influence of the castles. First, their owners were slow to adopt the new ideas and abandon their high strong walls for low extended parapets, and, secondly, they had not the men necessary for long lines of defence. At the same time the corporations of the towns had learnt to take an active

## part in warfare, and provided trained and disciplined soldiers in large

numbers.

When artillery became strong enough to destroy masonry from a distance two results followed: it was necessary to modify the masonry defences so as to make them less vulnerable, and to improve the means of employing the guns of the defence. For both these purposes the older castles with their restricted area were little suited, and we must now trace the development of the fortified towns.

The bulwark.

Probably the first form of construction directly due to the appearance of the new weapons was the bulwark (_boulevard, baluardo_ or _bollwerk_). This was an outwork usually semicircular in plan, built of earth consolidated with timber and revetted with hurdles. Such works were placed as a shield in front of the gates, which could be destroyed even by the early light cannon-balls; and they offered at the same time advanced positions for the guns of the defence. They were found so useful for gun positions for flanking fire that later they were placed in front of towers or at intervals along the walls for that purpose.

This, however, was only a temporary expedient, and we have now to consider the radical modifications in designs. These affected both the construction and trace of the walls.

The wall.

The first lesson taught by improved artillery was that the walls should not be set up on high as targets, but in some manner screened. One method of doing this in the case of old works was by placing bulwarks in front of them. In other cases the lists or outer walls, being surrounded by moats, were already partially screened and suitable for conversion into the main defence; and as with improved flanking defence great height was no longer essential, the tops of the walls were in some cases cut down. In new works it was natural to sink the wall in a ditch, the earth from which was useful for making ramparts.

As regards resistance to the effect of shot, it was found that thin masonry walls with rubble filling behind them were very easily destroyed. A bank of earth behind the wall lessened the vibration of the shot, but once a breach was made the earth came down, making a slope easy of ascent. To obviate this, horizontal layers of brushwood, timber and sometimes masonry were built into the earth bank, and answered very well (fig. 7).

[Illustration: FIG. 7.]

[Illustration: FIG. 8.]

[Illustration: FIG. 9.]

Another expedient of still greater value was the use of counterforts. The earliest counterforts were simply buttresses built _inward_ from the wall into the rampart instead of _outward_ (fig. 8). Their effect was to strengthen the wall and make the breaches more difficult of ascent. An alternative arrangement for strengthening the wall was an arched gallery built behind it under the rampart (fig. 9). This construction was in harmony with the idea, already familiar, of a passage in the wall from which countermines could be started; but it has the obvious weakness that the destruction of the face wall takes away one of the supports of the arch. The best arrangement, which is ascribed to Albert Durer, was the "counter-arched revetment." This consisted of a series of arches built between the counterforts, with their axes at right angles to the face of the wall. Their advantage was that, while supporting the wall and taking all the weight of the rampart, they formed an obstacle after the destruction of the wall more difficult to surmount than the wall itself and very hard to destroy. The counter-arches might be in one, two or three tiers, according to the height of the wall (figs. 10 and 11, the latter without the earth of the rampart and showing also a countermine gallery).

The rampart.

A more important question, however, than the improvement of the passive defence or obstacle was the development of the active defence by artillery. For this purpose it was necessary to find room for the working of the guns. At the outset it was of course a question of modifying the existing defences at as little cost as possible. With this object the roofs of towers were removed and platforms for guns substituted, but this only gave room for one or two guns. Also the loopholes in the lower storeys of towers were converted into embrasures to give a grazing fire over the ditch; this became the commonest method of strengthening old works for cannon, but was of little use as the resulting field of fire was so small. In some cases the towers were made larger, with a semicircular front and side walls at right angles to the curtain. Such towers built at Langres early in the 16th century had walls 20 ft. thick to resist battering.

[Illustration: FIG. 10.]

Even in new works some attempts were made to combine artillery defence with pure masonry protection. The works of Albert Durer in theory, and the bridge-head of Schaffhausen in practice, are the best examples of this. The Italian engineers also showed much ingenuity in arranging for the defence of ditches with masonry caponiers. These were developed from external buttresses, and equally with the casemated flanking towers of Durer contained the germs of the idea of "polygonal" defence.

The natural solution, however, which was soon generally adopted, was the rampart; that is, a bank of earth thrown up behind the wall, which, while strengthening the wall as already indicated, offered plenty of space for the disposal of the guns.

The ditch.

The _ditch_, which had only been occasionally used in ancient and medieval fortification, now became essential and characteristic. Serving as it did for the double purpose of supplying earth for a rampart and allowing the wall to be sunk for concealment, it was found also to have a definite use as an obstacle. Hitherto the wall had sufficed for this purpose, the ditch being useful mainly to prevent the besieger from bringing up his engines of attack.

When the wall (or escarp) was lowered, the obstacle offered by the ditch was increased by revetting the far side of it with a _counterscarp_. Beyond the counterscarp wall some of the earth excavated from the ditch was piled up to increase the protection given to the escarp wall. This earth was sloped down gently on the outer side to meet the natural surface of the ground in such a manner as to be swept by the fire from the ramparts and was called the _glacis_.

[Illustration: FIG. 11.]

Now, however, a new difficulty arose. In all times a chief element in a successful defence has consisted in action by the besieged outside the walls. The old ditches, when they existed, had merely a slope on the far side leading up to the ground-level; and the ditch was a convenient place in which troops preparing for a sortie could assemble without being seen by the enemy, and ascend the slope to make their attack. The introduction of the counterscarp wall prevented sorties from the ditch. At first it was customary, after the introduction of the counterscarp, to leave a narrow space on the top of it, behind the glacis, for a patrol path. Eventually the difficulty was met by widening this patrol path into a space of about 30 ft., in which there was room for troops to assemble. This was known as the _covered way_.

With this last addition the ordinary elements of a profile of modern fortification were complete and are exemplified in fig. 12.

[Illustration: FIG. 12.]

The trace.

Up to the gunpowder period the _trace_ of fortifications, that is, the plan on which they were arranged on the ground, was very simple. It was merely a question of an enclosure wall adapted to the site and provided with towers at suitable intervals. The foot of the wall could be seen and defended everywhere, from the tops of the towers and the machicoulis galleries. The introduction of ramparts and artillery made this more difficult in two ways. The rampart, interposed between the defenders and the face of the wall, put a stop to vertical defence. Also with the inferior gun-carriages of the time very little depression could be given to the guns, and thus the top of the enceinte wall, with or without a rampart, was not a suitable position for guns intended to flank the ditch in their immediate neighbourhood. The problem of the "trace" therefore at the beginning of the 16th century was to rearrange the line of defence so as to give due opportunity to the artillery of the besieged, both to oppose the besiegers' breaching batteries and later to defend the breaches. At the outset the latter role was the more important.

In considering the early efforts of engineers to solve this problem we must remember that for economical reasons they had to make the best use they could of the existing walls. At first for flanking purposes casemates on the ditch level were used, the old flanking towers being enlarged for the purpose. Masonry galleries were constructed across the ditch, containing casemates which could fire to either side, and after this casemates were used in the counterscarps. Some use was also made of the fire from detached bulwarks. It was soon realized, however, that the flanking defence of the body of the place ought not to be dependent on outworks, and that greater freedom was required for guns than was consistent with casemate defence. The _bulwark_ (which in its earliest shape suggests that it was in some sort the offspring of the barbican, placed to protect an entrance) gave plenty of space for guns, but was too detached for security. The enlarged tower, as an integral part of the lines, gave security, and its walls at right angles to the curtain gave direct flanking fire, but the guns in it were too cramped. The blending of the two ideas produced the _bastion_, an element of fortification which dominated the science for three hundred years, and so impressed itself on the imagination that to this day any strong advanced position in a defensive line is called by that name by unscientific writers. The word had been in use for a long time in connexion with extemporized towers or platforms for flanking purposes, the earliest forms being _bastille_, _bastide_, _bastillon_, and in its origin it apparently refers rather to the quality of work in the construction than to its defensive intention.

[Illustration: FIG. 13.--Bastion at Troyes.]

The earliest bastions were modified bulwarks with straight faces and flanks, attached to the main wall, for which the old towers often acted as keeps; and at first the terms bulwark and bastion were more or less interchangeable. Fig. 13, taken from a contemporary MS. by Viollet-le-Duc, shows a bastion added to the old wall of Troyes about 1528. On the other hand, in fig. 14 (taken from an English MS. of 1559, which again is based on the Italian work of Zanchi published in 1554), we find _a a_ spoken of as "bulwarks" and _b b_ as "bastilions." The triangular works between the bastilions are described as "ramparts," intended to protect the curtains from breaching fire. (We may also notice in this design the broad ditch, the counterscarp with narrow covered way, and loopholes indicating counterscarp galleries.)

Towards the end of the 16th century the term "bulwark" began to be reserved for banks of earth thrown up a little distance in front of the main wall to protect it from breaching fire, and it thus reverted to its original defensive intention. The term "bastion" henceforth denoted an artillery position connected by flanks to the main wall; and the question of the arrangement of these flanks was one of the main preoccupations of engineers. Flanks retired, casemated or open, or sometimes in several tiers were proposed in infinite variety.

[Illustration: FIG. 14.]

Thus, while in the early part of the 16th century the actual modification of existing defences was proceeding very slowly on account of the expense involved, the era of theoretical "systems" had begun, based on the mutual relations of flank and face. These can be grouped under three heads as follows:--

1. The _cremaillere_ or indented trace: Faces and flanks succeeding each other in regular order (fig. 15).

[Illustration: FIG. 15.]

[Illustration: FIG. 16.]

2. The _tenaille_ trace: Flanks back to back between the faces (fig. 16). The development of the flanks in this case gives us the _star_ trace (fig. 17).

[Illustration: FIG. 17.]

[Illustration: FIG. 18.]

3. The _bastioned_ trace: Flanks facing each other and connected by curtains (fig. 18).

In comparing these three traces it will be observed that unless casemates are used the flanking in the first two is incomplete. Guns on the ramparts of the faces cannot defend the flanks, and therefore there are "dead" angles in the ditch. In the bastioned trace there is no "dead" ground, provided the flanks are so far apart that a shot from the rampart of a flank can reach the ditch at the centre of the curtain.

The bastioned trace.

Here was therefore the parting of the ways. For those who objected to casemate fire, the bastioned trace was the way of salvation. They were soon in the majority; perhaps because the symmetry and completeness of the idea captivated the imagination. At all events the bastioned trace, once fairly developed, held the field in one form or another practically without a rival until near the end of the 18th century. The Italian engineers, who were supreme throughout most of the 16th century, started it; the French, who took the lead in the following century, developed it, and officially never deserted it until late in the 19th century, when the increasing power of artillery made enceintes of secondary importance.

It will be useful at this point to go forward a little, with a couple of explanatory figures, in order to get a grasp of the component parts of the bastioned trace as ultimately developed, and of its outworks.

[Illustration: FIG. 19.]

In fig. 19 ABCD represents part of an imaginary line drawn round the place to be fortified, forming a polygon, regular or irregular.

ABC is an _exterior angle_ or angle of the polygon.

BC is an _exterior side_.

_zz_ is an _interior side_.

_abcdefghijk_ is the trace of the _enceinte_.

_bcdef_ is a _bastion_.

_zdef_ is a _demi-bastion_.

_de_ is a _face_ of the bastion.

_ef_ is a _flank_ of the bastion.

_fg_ is the _curtain_.

_bf_ is the _gorge_.

(Two demi-bastions with the connecting curtain make the bastioned front, _defghi_.)

_zd_ bisecting the _exterior angle_ ABC is the _capital_ of the bastion.

_xy_ is the _perpendicular_, the proportionate length of which to the exterior side BC (usually about one-sixth) is an important element of the trace.

_ef_C is the angle of _defence_.

BC_f_ is the _diminished angle_.

_cde_ is the _flanked angle_ or _salient angle_ of the bastion.

_e_ is the _shoulder_ of the bastion.

_def_ is the _angle of the shoulder_.

_efg_ is the _angle of the flank_.

The line of the escarp is called the _magistral line_ since it regulates the trace. When plans of fortifications are given without much detail, this line, with that of the counterscarp and the crest of the parapet, are often the only ones shown,--the crest of the parapet, as being the most important line, whence the fire proceeds, being usually emphasized by a thick black line.

[Illustration: FIG. 20.]

Fig. 20, reproduced from a French engraving of 1705, shows an imaginary place fortified as a hexagon with bastions and all the different kinds of outworks then in use. The following is the explanation of its figuring and lettering.

1. _Flat bastion:_ Placed in the middle of a curtain when the lines of defence were too long for musketry range.

2. _Demi-bastion:_ Used generally on the bank of a river.

3. _Tenaille bastion:_ Used when the flanked angle is too acute; that is, less than 70 deg.

4. _Redans:_ Used along the bank of a river, or when the parapet of the covered way can be taken in reverse from the front.

A, B. _Ravelins._

C. _Demi-lunes:_ So called from the shape of the gorge. They differ from the ravelins in being placed in front of the bastions instead of the curtains.

D. _Counter-guards:_ Used instead of demi-lunes, which were then going out of fashion.

E. _Simple tenaille._

F. _Double tenaille_ (see L and M).

(If the tenaille E is reduced in width towards the gorge, as shown alternatively, it is called a _swallow-tail_. If the double tenaille is reduced as at G, it is called a _bonnet de pretre_. Such works were rarely used.)

H. _Hornwork:_ Much used for gates, &c.

I. _Crown-work._

K. _Crowned hornwork._

L. M. New forms of _tenaille_: (N.B.--These are the forms which ultimately retained the name.)

N. New form of work called a _demi-lune lunettee_, the ravelin N being protected by two counterguards, O.

P. _Re-entering places of arms._

Q. _Traverses._

R. _Salient places of arms._

S. _Places of arms_ without _traverses_.

T. Orillon, to protect the flank V.

X. A _double bastion_ or _cavalier_.

Y. A _retrenchment_ with a ditch, of the breach Z.

&. _Traverses_ to protect the terreplein of the ramparts from enfilade.

Turning back now to the middle of the 16th century we find in the early examples of the use of the bastion that there is no attempt made to defend its faces by flanking fire, the curtains being considered the only weak points of the enceinte. Accordingly, the flanks are arranged at right angles to the curtain, and the prolongation of the faces sometimes falls near the middle of it. When it was found that the faces needed protection, the first attempts to give it were made by erecting _cavaliers_, or raised parapets, behind the parapet of the curtain or in the bastions.

[Illustration: FIG. 21.]

The first example of the complete bastioned system is found in Paciotto's citadel of Antwerp, built in 1568 (fig. 21). Here we have faces, flanks and curtain in due proportion; the faces long enough to contain a powerful battery, and the flanks able to defend both curtain and faces. The weak points of this trace, due to its being arranged on a small pentagon, are that the terreplein or interior space of the bastions is rather cramped, and the salient angles too acute.

The 16th century.

In the systems published by Speckle of Strassburg in 1589 we find a distinct advance. Speckle's actual constructions in fortification are of no great importance; but he was a great traveller and observer, and in his work, published just before his death, he has evidently assimilated, and to some extent improved, the best ideas that had been put forward up to that time.

Two specimens from Speckle's work are well worth studying as connecting links between the 16th and 17th centuries.

Fig. 22 is early 16th-century work much improved. There are no outworks, except the covered way, now fully developed, with a battery in the re-entering place of arms. The bastions are large, but the faces directed on the curtain get little protection from the flanks. To make up for this they are flanked by the large cavaliers in the middle of the curtain. The careful arrangement of the flank should be noted; part of it is retired, with two tiers of fire, some of which is arranged to bear on the face of the bastion. The great saliency of the bastion is a weak point, but the whole arrangement is simple and strong.

In the second example, known as Speckle's "reinforced trace" (fig. 23), we find him anticipating the work of the next century. The ravelin is here introduced, and made so large that its faces are in prolongation of those of the bastions. Speckle's other favourite ideas are here: the cavaliers and double parapets and his own

## particular invention of the low batteries behind the re-entering place

of arms and the gorge of the ravelin. These low batteries did not find favour with other writers, being liable to be too easily destroyed by the besiegers' batteries crowning the salients of the covered way.

Speckle's book is of great importance as embodying the best work of the period. His own ideas are large and simple, but rather in advance of the powers of the artillery of his day.

[Illustration: FIG 22.]

The 17th century.

At the beginning of the 17th century we find the Italian engineers following Paciotto in developing the complete bastioned trace; but they got on to a bad line of thought in trying to reduce everything to symmetry and system. The era of geometrical fortification (or, as Sir George Clarke has called it, "drawing-board" fortification) had already begun with Marchi, and his followers busied themselves entirely in finding geometrical solutions for the application of symmetrical bastioned fronts to such imaginary forms of perimeter as the oval, club, heart, figure of eight, &c. Marchi, however, was one of the first to think of prolonging the resistance of a place by means of outworks such as the ravelin. De Villenoisy says that Busca was the first to discuss the proportions and functions of all the component parts of a front; and Floriani, about 1630, was the last of the important Italians. The characteristics of a good deal of Spanish fortification carried out at this time were, according to the same authority, that the works were well adapted to sites, and the masonry excellent but too much exposed, while the bastions were too small. The Dutch and German schools will be referred to later.

[Illustration: FIG. 23.--Speckle's Reinforced Trace.]

The French engineers now began to take the lead in adapting the principles already established to actual sites. In the first half of the century the names of de Ville and Pagan stand out as having contributed valuable studies to the advancement of the science. In putting forward their designs they discussed very fully such practical questions as the length of the line of defence, whether this should be governed by the range of artillery or musketry fire, the length of flanks, the use in them of orillons, casemates and retired flanks, the size of bastions, &c.

It is the latter half of the 17th century, however, which is one of the most important periods in the history of fortification, chiefly because it was illuminated by the work of Vauban. It was at this time also that a prodigious output of purely theoretical fortification began, which went on till the French Revolution. Many of the "systems" published at this time were elaborated by men who had no practical knowledge of the subject, some of them priests who were engaged in educating the sons of the upper classes, and who had to teach the elements of fortification among other things. They naturally wrote treatises, which were valuable for their clearness of style; and with their industry and ingenuity the elaboration of existing methods was a very congenial task. Most of these essays took the form of multiplication and elaboration of outworks on an impossible scale, and they culminated in such fantastic extravagances as the system of Rhana, published in 1769 (fig. 24). These proposals, however, were of no practical importance.

Vauban.

The work of the real masters who knew more than they published can always be recognized by its comparative simplicity. The greatest of these was Sebastien le Prestre de Vauban (q.v.). Born in 1633, and busied from his eighteenth year till his death in 1707 in war or preparations for war, he earned alike by his genius, his experience, his industry and his personal character the chief place among modern military engineers. His experience alone puts him in a category apart from others. Of this it is enough to say that he took part in forty-eight sieges, forty of which he directed as chief engineer without a single failure, and repaired or constructed more than 160 places. Vauban's genius was essentially practical, and he was no believer in systems. He would say, "One does not fortify by systems but by common sense." Of new ideas in fortification he introduced practically none, but he improved and modified existing ideas with consummate skill in actual construction. His most original work was in the attack (see below), which he reduced to a scientific method most certain in its results. It is therefore one of the ironies of fate that Vauban should be chiefly known to us by three so-called "systems," known as his "first," "second" and "third." How far he was from following a system is shown by de Villenoisy, who reproduces twenty-eight fronts constructed by him between 1667 and 1698, no two of which are quite alike and most of which vary very considerably to suit local conditions.

[Illustration: FIG. 24.]

Vauban's "first system," as variously described by other writers even in his own time, is pieced together from some of the early examples of his work. The "second system" is the "tower bastion" defence of Belfort and Landau (1684-1688), obviously suggested by a design of Castriotto's one hundred years earlier; and the "third system" is the front of Neu-Breisach (1698), which is merely Landau slightly improved. In other works, between 1688 and 1698, he did not keep to the tower bastion idea.

It will be convenient to take the "first system," as reproduced in the Royal Military Academy text book of fortification (fig. 25) as typical of much of Vauban's work. It may be observed that he sometimes uses the straight flank, and sometimes the curved flank with orillon. Parapets in several tiers are never used, nor cavaliers. The ravelin is almost always used. It is small, having little artillery power and giving no protection to the shoulders of the bastions. Sometimes it has flanks and occasionally a keep.

The tenaille is very generally found. In this form, viz. as a shield to the escarp of the curtain, it was probably invented by him. Fig. 25 shows two forms. In both the parapet of the tenaille had to be kept low, so that the flanks might defend a breach at the shoulder of the opposite bastion, with artillery fire striking within 12 ft. of the base of the escarp. Traverses are used for the first time on the covered way to guard against enfilade fire; and the re-entering place of arms, to which Vauban attached considerable importance, is large.

[Illustration: FIG. 25.--Vauban's First System.]

For the construction of the trace an average length of about 400 yds. (which, however, is a matter entirely dependent on the site) may be taken for the exterior side. The perpendicular, except for polygons of less than six sides, is one-sixth, and the faces of the bastions two-sevenths of the exterior side. The flanks are chords of arcs struck from the opposite shoulder as centres. An arc described with the same radius, but with the angle of the flank as a centre, and cutting the perpendicular produced outwardly, gives the salient of the ravelin; the prolongations of the faces of the ravelin fall upon the faces of the bastions at 11 yds. from the shoulders. The main ditch has a width of 38 yds. at the salient of the bastions, and the counterscarp is directed upon the shoulders of the adjoining bastions. The ditch of the ravelin is 24 yds. wide throughout.

As regards the profile the bastions and curtain have a command of 25 ft. over the country, 17 ft. over the crest of the glacis and 8 ft. over the ravelin. The ditches are 18 ft. deep throughout. The parapets are 18 ft. thick with full revetments. In his later works he used demi-revetments.

Fig. 26 shows the tower bastions of Neu-Breisach, or the so-called "third system." It is worth introducing, simply as showing that even a mind like Vauban's could not resist in old age the tendency to duplicate defences. Here the main bastions and tenaille are detached from the enceinte. The line of the enceinte is broken with flanks and further flanked by the towers. The ravelin is large and has a keep. The section through the face of the bastion shows a demi-revetment with wide berm, and a hedge as an additional obstacle.

18th and 19th centuries.

After Vauban died, though the theories continued, the valuable additions to the system were few. Among his successors in the early part of the 18th century Cormontaingne (q.v.) has the greatest reputation, though his experience and authority fell far short of Vauban's. He was a clear thinker and writer, and the elements of the system were distinctly advanced by him. His trace includes an enlarged ravelin with flanks, the ends of which were intended to close the gaps at the end of the tenaille, and a keep to the ravelin with flanks. He provides a very large re-entering place of arms, also with a keep, the ditches of which are carefully traced so as to be protected from enfilade by the salients of the ravelin and bastion. He was also in favour of a permanent retrenchment of the gorge of the bastion. His works were printed, with many alterations, more than twenty years after his death, to serve as a text-book for the school of Mezieres. This school was established in 1748, and from this time forward there was an official school of thought, based on Vauban. Cormontaingne's work, therefore, represents the modifications of Vauban's ideas accepted by French engineers in the latter part of the 18th century. The school of Mezieres was afterwards replaced by that of Metz, which carried on its traditions. Such schools are necessarily conservative, and hence, in spite of the gradual improvement in ordnance and firearms, we find the main elements of the bastioned system remaining unchanged right up to the period of the Franco-German War in 1870. Chasseloup-Laubat tells us that, before the Revolution, to attempt novelties in fortification was to write one's self down ignorant. How far the general form of the bastion with its outworks had become crystallized is evident from a cursory comparison of fig. 27 with Vauban's early work. This figure is the front of the Metz school in 1822, by General Noizet.

[Illustration: FIG. 26.--Neu-Breisach.]

[Illustration: FIG. 27.--Noizet.]

Since, therefore, the official view was that the general outlines of the system were sacred, the efforts of orthodox engineers from Cormontaingne's time onwards were given to improvements of detail, and mainly to retard breaching operations as long as possible. We find enormous pains being bestowed on the study of the comparative heights of the masonry walls and crest levels; with the introduction here and there of glacis slopes in the ditches, put in both to facilitate their defence and to protect portions of the escarps.

Among the unorthodox two names deserve mention. The first of these is Chasseloup-Laubat (q.v.), who served throughout the wars of the Republic and Empire, and constructed the fortress of Alessandria in Piedmont.

Chasseloup's main proposals to improve the bastioned system were two:

First, in order to prevent the bastions from being breached through the gaps made by the ditch of the ravelin, he threw forward the ravelin and its keep outside the main glacis. This had the further advantage of giving great saliency to the ravelin for cross-fire over the terrain of the attack. On the other hand, it made the ravelin liable to capture by the gorge. It is probable that this system would have lent itself to a splendid defence by an able commander with a strong force; but under the opposite conditions it has a dangerous element of weakness.

Secondly, in order to get freedom to use longer fronts than those admissible for the ordinary bastioned trace, he proposed to extend his exterior side up to about 650 yds. and to break the faces of his bastions; the portion next the shoulder being defended from the flank of the collateral bastion and coinciding with the line of defence, and the portion next the salient, up to about 80 yds. in length, being defended from a central keep or caponier placed in front of the tenaille. The natural criticism of this arrangement is that it combines some of the defects of both the bastioned and polygonal systems without getting the full advantages of either.

[Illustration: FIG. 28.--Chasseloup-Laubat.

Fig. 28 shows a half front of Chasseloup's system, of ordinary length, as actually constructed. The section shows an interesting detail, viz. the Chasseloup mask--a detached mask with tunnels for the casemate guns to fire through, the intention of which is to save them from being destroyed from a distance.

The second name is that of Captain Choumara of the French Engineers, born in 1787, whose work was published in 1827. Two leading ideas are due to him. The first is that of the "independence of parapets." A glance at any of the plans that have already been shown will show that hitherto the crests of parapets had always been traced parallel to the escarp or magistral line. Choumara pointed out that, while it was necessary for the escarp to be traced in straight lines with reference to the flanking arrangements, there was no such necessity as regards the parapets. By making the crest of the parapet quite independent of the escarp line he obtained great freedom of direction for his fire. The second idea is that of the "inner glacis." This was a glacis parapet placed in the main ditch to shield the escarp; its effect being to prevent the escarp of the body of the place from being breached in the usual way by batteries crowning the crest of the covered way.

The need for Choumara's improvements has passed by, but he was in his time a real teacher. One sentence of his strikes a resounding note: "What is chiefly required in fortification is simplicity and strength. It is not on a few little contrivances carefully hidden that one can rely for a good defence. _The fate of a place should not depend on the intelligence of a corporal shut up in a small post prepared for his detachment._"

[Illustration: FIG. 29.--Sedan in 1705.]

Before leaving the bastioned system it will be of interest to study a couple of actual and complete examples, one irregular and one regular. Fig. 29 shows the defences of Sedan as they were at the end of the 17th century. One sees the touch of Vauban here and there, but the work is for the most part apparently early 17th century. It will be observed that on the river side of the town the defence consists of very irregular bastions with duplicated wet ditches (see the Dutch style, below); and on the other side, where water is not available, strength is sought for by pushing a succession of hornworks far out.

Fig. 30 is Saarlouis, constructed by Vauban in 1680 in his early manner, a remarkable example of symmetry. Vauban of course never thought of aiming at symmetry, which is of itself neither good nor bad, but it is interesting to note such a perfect example of the system.

It must here be remarked that the reproach of "geometrical" fortification is in no way applicable to the works of Vauban and his immediate successors. The true geometric fortification, which worshipped symmetry as a fetish, marked, as has been already pointed out, the decadence of the Italian school. Vauban and his fellows excelled in adapting works to sites, the real test of the engineer.

The bastioned system was the 17th-century solution of the fortification problem. Given an artillery and musketry of short range and too slow for effective frontal defence, a ditch is necessary as an obstacle. What is the best means of flanking the ditch and of protecting the flanking arrangements? If Vauban elected for the bastion, we must before criticizing his choice remember that he was the most experienced engineer of his day, a man of the first ability and quite without prejudice. What is matter for regret is that the authority of Vauban should have practically paralysed the French school during the 18th and most of the 19th century, so that while the conditions of attack and defence were gradually altering they could admit no change of idea, and their best men, who could not help being original, were struggling against the whole weight of official opposition.

Again, such duplication of outworks as we see at Sedan is not geometric fortification. It is a definite attempt to retard the attack, on ground favourable to it, by successive lines of defence. As to the policy of this, no axiom can be laid down. Nowadays most of us think, as Machiavelli did, that a single line of defence is best and that a second line only serves to suggest the advisability of retreat. There are also, of course, the recognized drawbacks of outworks, difficulty of retreat, of relief and so forth, and the moral effect of their loss. But the engineers of such defences as Ostend and Candia might well say, "Oh, if only when we had held on to that bastion for so many months we had had a second and a third line of permanent retrenchment to fall back upon, we could have held the place for ever." And who shall say that they were wrong? Let us at all events remember that the leading engineers of that time were men who had passed their lives in a state of war, and that we ourselves in comparison with them are the theorists.

[Illustration: FIG. 30.]

The Dutch school.

From the end of the 16th century the Dutch methods of fortification acquired a great reputation, thanks to the stout resistance offered to the Spaniards by some of their fortresses, the three years' defence of Ostend being perhaps the most striking example. Prolonged defences, which were mainly due to the desperate energy of the besieged, were credited to the quality of their defences. In point of fact the Dutch owed more to nature, and more still to their own spirit, than to art; but they showed a good deal of skill in adapting recent ideas to their needs.

Three conditions governed the development of the Dutch works at this time, viz. want of time, want of money and abundance of water. When the Netherlands began their revolt against Spain, they would no doubt have been glad enough of expensive masonry fortresses on such models as Paciotto's citadel of Antwerp. But there was neither time nor money for such works. Something had to be extemporized, and fortunately for them they had wet ditches to take the place of high revetted walls. Everywhere water was near the surface, and rivers or canals were available for inundations. A wide and shallow ditch, while making a good obstacle, was also the readiest means of obtaining earth for the ramparts. High command was, owing to the flatness of the country, unnecessary and even undesirable, as it did not allow of grazing fire.

What the Dutch actually did in strengthening their towns gives little evidence of system. Starting as a rule from an existing enceinte, sometimes a medieval wall, they would provide a broad wet ditch. No further provision was usually made on the sides of the town which were additionally protected by a river or inundation. On the other sides the wet ditch was made still broader, and sometimes contained a counterguard, sometimes ravelins and lunettes. These were quite irregular in their design and relation to each other. At the foot of the glacis would be found another but narrower wet ditch, which was a peculiarly Dutch feature; and sometimes if the town was in a bend of a river there would be a canal cut across the bend in a straight line, strengthened by several redans.

Speaking generally, they endeavoured to provide for the want of a first-class masonry obstacle by multiplication of wet ditches, and further to strengthen these obstacles by great quantities of palisading, for which purpose the timber of old ships was used. They also recognized the inherent weaknesses of wet ditches, as, for instance, that when frozen they no longer provide an obstacle; and they studied the means, not only of causing inundations, but also of arranging to empty as well as to fill the ditches at will. Simon Stevin was the leader in this work.

Nevertheless a Dutch school of design did come into existence at this time. The leaders, early in the 17th century, were Simon Stevin, Maurice and Henry of Nassau, Marollois and Freitag. The fortress of Coevorden, constructed by Prince Maurice, of which fig. 31 shows a front, is a well-known example of this, and the section shows clearly some typical features of the school.

[Illustration: FIG. 31.--Coevorden.]

The elements of the plan are those of the early bastioned trace, but we find added both ravelins and lunettes, very regular in design. There is also the ditch at the foot of the glacis, and surrounding the rampart of the enceinte a continuous fausse-braie. This work, which partook of the nature of both boulevard and counterguard, served several purposes. It was desirable that the weight of the rampart should be drawn back a little from the edge of the ditch, and the fausse-braie filled what would otherwise have been dead ground at the foot of the rampart. It also afforded a grazing fire over the ditch, which was very important, and which the rampart supported by a plunging fire.

Coehoorn.

Coehoorn (q.v.), the contemporary and nearest rival to Vauban, was the greatest light of the Dutch school. Like Vauban he was distinguished as a fighting engineer, both in attack and defence; but in the attack he differed from him in relying more on powerful artillery fire than systematic earthworks. He introduced the Coehoorn mortar. His "first system," which was employed at Mannheim (fig. 32), is reproduced for the sake of comparison with the Coevorden front designed a hundred years earlier. Among other points will be noticed the combination of wet and dry ditches; the very broad main ditch with counterguard; the roomy keep of the ravelin; the expansion of the fausse-brais into an independent low parapet; and the powerful flanking fire in three tiers.

[Illustration: FIG. 32.--Coehoorn's First System.]

German school.

The "tenaille" system and the "polygonal" system which grew out of it are mainly identified with the _German school_. That school, says von Zastrow, does not, like that of France, represent the authoritative teaching of an official establishment, but rather the general practice of the German engineers. It was founded on the principles of Durer, Speckle and especially Rimpler, and much influenced in execution by Montalembert. "The German engineers desired a simple trace, a strong fortification with retrenchments and keeps, bomb-proof accommodation and an organization suitable for an offensive defence."

These had always been the German principles. Already in the 16th century the Prussian defences of Kustrin, Spandau and Peitz had large bomb-proof casemates sufficient for a great part of the garrison. The same thing is seen in the defences of Giogau, Schweidnitz, &c., built by Frederick the Great. These works show various applications of the tenaille system. In 1776 Frederick became acquainted with the work of Montalembert, and his influence is seen in the casemates of Kosel.

Whether through the influence of Albert Durer or not cannot be said, but while the bastion was being developed in France the tenaille and the accompanying casemates from the first found acceptance in Germany, and thence in eastern and northern Europe. De Groote, who wrote in 1618, produced a sort of tenaille system, and may have been the inspiration of Rimpler. Dillich (1640), Landsberg the elder (1648), Griendel d'Aach (1677), Werthmuller (1685) and others advocated both bastion and tenaille, sometimes in combination; the German bastion being usually distinguished by short faces and long flanks.

Rimpler, who was present at the siege of Candia (taken by the Turks in 1669) and died at that of Vienna in 1683, exercised a great influence. He had been struck by the weakness of the early Italian bastions at Candia, and published a book in 1673 called _Fortification with Central Bastions_, which was practically the polygonal trace. Zastrow thinks that Rimpler inspired Montalembert. He left unfortunately no designs to illustrate his ideas.

[Illustration: FIG. 33.]

Landsberg the younger (1670-1746), a major-general in the Prussian service, who saw many sieges, also had a great influence. He appears to have been the first who frankly advocated the tenaille alone, chiefly on the ground that the flank, which was the most important part of the bastioned system, was also the weakest. Fig. 33 shows his system, published in 1712.

Montalembert and Carnot.

It was, however, ultimately a Frenchman, Marc Rene Montalembert (q.v.), who was the great apostle of the tenaille, though in his later years he leaned more to the polygonal trace. He objected to the bastioned trace on many grounds; principally that the bastion was a shell trap, that the flanks by crossing their fire lost the advantage of the full range of their weapons, and that the curtain was useless for defence. He took the view that the bastions with their ravelins constituted practically a tenaille trace, spoilt by the detachment of the ravelins and cramped by the presence of the curtains and flanks. His tenaille system consisted of redans, with salient angles of 60 deg. or more, flanking each other at right angles; from which he gave to his system the name of "perpendicular fortification."

Lazare Carnot (q.v.), the "Organizer of Victory," was, in fortification, a follower of Montalembert, and produced in 1797 a tenaille system (fig. 34) on strong and simple lines.

[Illustration: FIG. 34.]

In 1812 Carnot offered three systems. For a dry and level site he recommended a bastioned trace; but for wet ditches and for irregular ground, tenaille traces. Both of these latter differ from his 1797 trace in that the re-entering angle is reinforced by a tenaille whose faces are parallel to the main faces and reach almost to the salients. There are also counterguards in front of the salients, whose ends overlap the ends of the tenaille. (N.B. To avoid confusion between the _tenaille trace_ and the _tenaille_, it should be noted that the latter is a low detached parapet placed in front of the escarp of the body of the place, partly as a shield, and partly as an additional line of defence. It is used in front of the curtain in the bastioned trace, and in the re-entering angle in the tenaille trace.)

Other important features of Carnot's work were: a continuous general retrenchment, or interior parapet, following more or less the lines of the main parapet; the use of the detached wall in place of the escarp revetment; and the countersloping glacis. This last (of which Carnot was not the inventor), instead of sloping gently outwards from a crest raised about 8 ft. down to the natural level of the ground, sloped inwards from the ground-level to the bottom of the ditch. The advantage of the additional obstacle of the counterscarp was thus lost to the defence. On the other hand, the besiegers' saps, as they progressed down the glacis, were exposed to a plunging fire from the parapet.

[Illustration: FIG. 35.--Mortar-casemate and Detached Wall.]

Carnot was also, like Coehoorn, a great believer in the mortar; but while Coehoorn introduced the small portable mortar that bears his name, Carnot expected great results from a 13 in. mortar throwing 600 iron balls at each discharge. He endeavoured to prove mathematically that the discharge of these mortars would in due course kill off the whole of the besieging force. These mortars he emplaced in open fronted mortar-casemates, in concealed positions. Fig. 35 shows in section one of these mortar-casemates, placed between the parapet of the retrenchment and a detached wall.

[Illustration: FIG. 36.--Montalembert, 1786.]

The polygonal trace.

The leading idea of Montalembert was that for a successful defence it was necessary for the artillery to be superior to that of the enemy. This idea led him to the adoption of casemates in several tiers; in preference to open parapets, exposed to artillery fire of all kinds, high angle, ricochet and reverse. In considering the defects of bastions he had arrived at the conclusion that for flanking purposes two forms of trace were preferable; either the tenaille form, connecting the ravelins with the body of the place, or the form in which the primary flanking elements, instead of facing each other with overlapping fire, as with the bastions, should be placed back to back in the middle of the exterior side. Fig. 36 is an example of this. The central flanking work resulting from this arrangement is the caponier of the early Italians, reintroduced and developed; and with it Montalembert laid the foundation of the polygonal system of our own time.

Montalembert was one of the first to foresee the coming necessity for detached forts, and it was for these that he chiefly proposed to use his caponier flanking, preferring the tenaille system for large places. In abandoning the bastioned trace he was already committed to the principle of casemate defence for ditches; and the combination of this principle with his desire for an overwhelming artillery defence led him in the course of years of controversial writing into somewhat extravagant proposals. For instance, for a square fort of about 400 yds. side, he proposed over 1000 casemate guns; and one of his caponier sections shows 10 tiers of masonry gun-casemates one above the other. Confiding in the power of such an artillery, he freely exposed the upper parts of his casemates to direct fire.

Montalembert is said to have contributed more new ideas to fortification than any other man. His designs must be considered in some ways unworkable and unsound, but all the best work of the 19th century rests on his teaching. The Germans, who already used the tenaille system and made free provision of bomb-proof casemates, took from him the polygonal trace and the idea of the entrenched camp.

The polygonal system in fortification implies straight or slightly broken exterior sides, flanked by casemated caponiers. The caponier is the vital point of the front, and is protected in important works by a ravelin and keep. The essence of the system is its simplicity, which allows of its being applied to any sort of ground, level or broken, and to long or short fronts.

[Illustration: FIG. 37.--Front at Posen.]

1815-1855, entrenched camps.

The final period of smooth bore artillery is an important one in the history of fortification. It is true that the many expensive works that were constructed at this time were obsolete almost as soon as they were finished; but this was inevitable, thanks to the pace at which the world was travelling. After the Napoleonic wars the Germanic Confederation began to strengthen its frontiers; and considering that they had not derived much strategic advantage from their existing fortresses, the Germans took up Montalembert's idea of entrenched camps, utilizing at the same time his polygonal system with modifications for the main enceintes. The Prussians began with the fortresses of Coblenz and Cologne; later Posen, Konigsberg and other places were treated on the same lines. The Austrians constructed, among other places, Linz and Verona. The Germanic Confederation reinforced Mainz with improved works, and reorganized entirely Rastatt and Ulm. The Bavarians built Germersheim and Ingolstadt. While all these works were conceived in the spirit of Rimpler and Montalembert, they showed the differences of national temperament. The Prussian works, simple in design, relied upon powerful artillery fire, and exposed a good deal of masonry to the enemy's view. The Austrians covered part of their masonry with earth and gave more attention to detail.

The German development of the polygonal system at this time is not of great importance, since the great masonry caponiers were designed without sufficient consideration for the increasing powers of artillery. One example (fig. 37) is given for the sake of historical comparison. It is a front of Posen.

"The exterior side of the front is about 650 yds. (600 metres) long. It is flanked by a central caponier, which is protected by a _detached bastion_.... The main front is broken back to flank the faces of the bastion from casemates behind the escarp, as well as from the parapet.

Posen.

"The central caponier forms the keep of the whole front and sweeps both the interior and the ditch by its flanking fire. It has two floors of gun-casemates and one for musketry, and on the top is a parapet completely commanding alike the outworks and the body of the place. It contains barrack accommodation for a battalion of 1000 men, and has a large inner courtyard closed at the gorge by a detached wall. The caponier is itself flanked by three small caponiers at the head, and one at the inner end of each flank.

"The escarp of the body of the place is a simple detached wall; that of the detached bastion is either a detached wall with piers and arches, or a counter-arched revetment. At the salient of the bastion there is a mortar battery under the rampart, and a casemated traverse for howitzers upon the terreplein. The flanks of the bastion are parallel to those of the caponier, and at the same distance from it as the faces.

"Masonry blockhouses, loopholed for musketry, are provided as keeps of the re-entering and salient places of arms. In the latter case they have stairs leading down into a counterscarp gallery, which serves as a base for countermine galleries, and is connected with the detached bastion by a gallery under the ditch. The counterscarp is not revetted if the ditch is wet.

"The angle of the polygon should not be less than 160 deg., in order that the prolongation of the main ditch may fall within the salients of the detached bastions of the neighbouring fronts, and the masonry of the caponiers may thus be hidden from outside view." (R.M.A. _Text-book of F. & M.E._, 1886.)

The detached fort.

We have now reached a period when the "detached fort" becomes of more importance than the organization of the enceinte. The early conception of the role of detached forts in connexion with the fortress was to form an entrenched camp within which an army corps could seek safety if necessary. The idea had occurred to Vauban, who added to the permanent defences of Toulon a large camp defended by field parapets attached to one side of the fortress. The substitution of a ring of detached forts, while giving it the greater safety of permanent instead of field defences, gave also a wider area and freer scope for the operations of an army seeking shelter under the guns of a fortress, and at the same time made siege more difficult by increasing the line of investment. The use of the detached fort as a means of protecting the body of the place from bombardment had not yet been made necessary by increased range of artillery.

When these detached forts were first used by Germany the scope of the idea had evidently not been realised, as they were placed much too close to the fortress. Those at Cologne, for instance, were only some 400 or 500 yds. in advance of the ramparts. The same leading idea is seen in most of these forts as in the new enceintes; i.e. a lunette, with a casemated keep at the gorge. The keep is the essential part of the work, the rampart of the lunette serving to protect it from frontal artillery fire. The keep projects to the rear, so as not only to be able to flank its own gorge, but to give some support to the neighbouring works with guns protected from frontal fire. This is a valuable arrangement, which is still sometimes used. The front ditches of the lunettes were flanked by caponiers. Some of the larger forts were simple quadrangular works with casemate barracks and caponier ditch defence.

In 1830, in Austria, the archduke Maximilian made an entirely fresh departure with the defences of Linz. The idea was to provide an entrenched camp at the least possible cost, whose works should require the smallest possible garrison. With this object Linz was surrounded with a belt of circular towers spaced about 600 yds. apart. The towers, 25 metres in diameter, were enclosed by a ditch and glacis, and contained 3 tiers of casemates. The masonry was concealed from view by the ditch and glacis. On the top of the tower was an earth parapet, over which a battery of 13 guns fired _en barbette_. In order to find room for so many guns in the restricted space, the whole 13 were placed parallel and close together on a single specially designed mounting.

This new departure was received with a certain amount of approval at the time, which is somewhat difficult to account for, as a more faulty system could hardly be devised; but the experiment was never repeated.

The credit for much of the clear views and real progress made in Germany during this period is due to General von Brese-Winiari, inspector-general of the Prussian engineers.

France, for a few years after 1815, could spare little money for fortifications, and nothing was done but repairs and minor improvements on the old lines. Belgium, having some money in hand, rebuilt and improved in detail a number of bastioned fortresses which had fallen into disrepair.

[Illustration: FIG. 38. The Fortress of Antwerp.]

In 1830 France began to follow the lead of Germany with entrenched camps. The enceinte of Paris was reconstructed, and detached forts were added at a cost, according to von Zastrow, of L8,000,000. The Belgian and German frontiers of France being considered fairly protected by the existing fortresses, they turned their attention to the Swiss and Italian frontiers, and constructed three fortresses with detached forts at Belfort, Besancon and Grenoble. The cost of the new works at Lyons was, according to the same writer, L1,000,000 without the armament. Here and elsewhere the enceinte was simplified on account of the advanced defences. That of Paris, which was influenced by political considerations, was a simple bastioned trace with rather long fronts and without ravelins or other outworks; the escarp was high and therefore exposed, and the counterscarp was not revetted.

As regards the detached forts there was certainly a want of clearness of conception. Those of Paris were simply fortresses in miniature, square or pentagonal figures with bastioned fronts and containing defensible barracks. Those of Lyons were much more carefully designed, but the authors wavered between two ideas. Unwilling to give up the bastion, but evidently hankering after the new caponiers, they produced a type which it is difficult to praise. The larger works were irregular four- or five-sided figures with bastioned fronts; and practically the whole interior space was taken up by a large keep, with its ditch, on the polygonal system. The smaller works, instead of a keep, had defensible barracks in the gorge.

[Illustration: FIG. 39.]

Period from 1855 to 1870.

During the period 1855-1870 a considerable impulse was given to the science of fortification, both by the Crimean War and the arrival of the rifled gun. One immediate result of these was the condemnation of masonry exposed to artillery fire. The most important work of the period was the new scheme of defence of Antwerp, initiated in 1859. This is chiefly interesting as giving us the last and finest expression of the medieval enceinte, at a time when the war between the polygonal and bastioned traces was still raging, though the boom of the long-range guns had already given warning that a new era had begun. Antwerp is also associated with the name of General Brialmont (q.v.), of the Belgian engineers, whom posterity will no doubt regard as the greatest writer on fortification of the latter half of the 19th century.

Antwerp.

We give in figs. 38, 39 and 40 the general plan of the 1859 defences of Antwerp, the plan of a front of the enceinte, and its sections, as showing almost the last word of fortification before the arrival of high explosives.

The defences of Antwerp were designed, as the strategic centre of the national defence of Belgium, for an entrenched camp for 100,000 men. The length of the enceinte is about 9 m. The detached forts, which on the sides not defended by inundation are about 1-1/4 m. apart and from 2 to 3 m. in front of the enceinte, are powerful works, arranged for a garrison of 1000 men. They have each a frontal crest-line of over 700 yds. and are intended for an armament of 120 guns and 15 mortars.

[Illustration: FIG. 40.--Sections of fig. 39.]

The general arrangement of the fronts of the enceinte should be compared with the earlier German type of Posen. It will be noticed that while the large casemated caponier at Posen breaks the enceinte and flanks it both without and within, at Antwerp the caponier is detached--a much sounder arrangement--and flanks the front only. The defence of the faces rests on the width of the wet ditches and on the flanking power of the caponier; there is no attempt to add to it by fausse-braie or detached wall. The dimensions are everywhere very generous, allowing free movement for the troops of the defence; the covered way is 22 yds. wide and there is a double terreplein on the face. The parapet of the face is 27 ft. thick. The masonry of the casemate guns in the caponier, first flank and low battery, is protected by earth, _a la_ Haxo.

In 1859 Austria acknowledged the influence of the new artillery with some new forts at Verona. The detached forts built by Radetzky in 1848 were only from 1000 to 2000 yds. distant from the ramparts. Those now added, of which fig. 41 is an example, were from 3000 to 4000 yds. out.

[Illustration: FIG. 41.--Austrian Fort at Verona.]

In the same year the land defences of some of the British dockyards were taken in hand. These first serious attempts at permanent fortification in England were received with approval on the continent, as constituting an advance on anything that had been done before. The detached forts intended to keep an enemy outside bombarding distance were roomy works with small keeps. The parapets were organized for artillery and the ditches were defended by caponiers or counterscarp galleries. The forts were spaced about a mile apart and arranged so as to support each other by their fire.

Period from 1870 to 1885.

The sieges of the Franco-German War of 1870 are alluded to in the section below dealing with the "Attack of Fortresses." As regards their effect on the designs of fortification the most important thing to note is the distance to which it was thought necessary to throw out the detached forts. These distances were of course influenced by the character of the ground, but for the most part they were very largely increased. Thus at Paris the fort at St Cyr was 18,000 yds. from the enceinte; at Verdun the distances varied from 2300 to 12,000 yds.; at Belfort the new forts were from 4500 to 11,500 yds. out; at Metz 2300 to 4500; and at Strassburg 5200 to 10,000. One result of these increased distances was of course to increase very largely the length of the zone of investment, and therefore the strength necessary for the besieging force.

As regards the character of the works, the typical shape adopted both in France and Germany was a very obtuse-angled lunette, shallow from front to rear. The German type had one parapet only, which was organized for artillery and heavily traversed, the living casemates being under this parapet. The ditch defence was provided for by caponiers and a detached wall (see fig. 42).

The French forts had two parapets, that in the rear being placed over living casemates (in two tiers, as shown in the section of fig. 43 by a dotted line), and commanding the front one. There was a long controversy as to whether the artillery of the fort should be on the upper or the lower parapet, the advocates of the upper parapet attaching great importance to the command that the guns would have over the country in front. The other school, objecting to having guns on the skyline, preferred to sacrifice the command and place them on the lower parapet, as in fig. 43, the infantry occupying the upper parapet. It will be observed that the bastioned trace is abandoned, the ditches, like those of the German fort, being defended by caponiers.

[Illustration: FIG. 42.--German Fort about 1880.]

[Illustration: FIG. 43.--French Fort about 1880.]

While a great deal of work was done on these lines, a very active controversy had already begun on the general question as to whether guns should be employed in forts at all. Some declared that the accuracy and power of artillery had already developed so far, that guns in fixed and visible positions must needs be put out of action in a very short time. The remedy proposed by these was the removal of the guns from the forts into "wing-batteries" which should be less conspicuous; but soon the broader idea was put forward of placing the guns in concealed positions and moving them from one to another by means of previously prepared roads or railways. Others declared that there was no safety for the guns outside the forts, and that the use of steel turrets and disappearing cupolas was the only solution of the difficulty. General Brialmont, who had by this time become the first European authority on fortification questions, ranged himself on the side of the turrets. The younger school were largely in favour of mobility and expressed themselves eagerly in a shower of pamphlets.

It was at this juncture that a new factor was introduced, namely, the obus-torpille, or long shell with high-explosive bursting charge. With its appearance we say good-bye to the old school and enter upon the consideration of the fortification of to-day.

II. MODERN PERMANENT FORTIFICATION

High-angle fire with long shell.

Modern fortification dates by universal consent from 1885. The Germans had begun experiments a year or two before this, with long shell containing large charges of gun-cotton. But it was the experiments at Fort Malmaison in France in 1886 that set the military world speculating on the future of fortification. The fort was used as a target for 8-in. shell of five calibres length containing large charges of melinite. The reported effects of these made a tremendous sensation, and it was thought at first that the days of permanent fortification were over. Magazine casemates were destroyed by a single shell, and revetment walls were overturned and practicable breaches made by two or three shells falling behind them. It must be remembered, however, that the works were not adapted to meet this kind of fire. The casemates had enough earth over them to tamp the shell thoroughly, but not enough to prevent it from coming into contact with the masonry, and the latter was not thick enough to resist the explosion of the big charges. Other experiments were made in the same direction in Germany, Holland, Belgium and Austria. The Germans used shell containing from 60 to 130 lb. of high explosive.

After the first alarm had subsided foreign engineers set about adapting their works to meet the new projectiles. Revetments were enormously strengthened, and designed so that their weight resisted overturning. Concrete roofs were made from 6 to 10 ft. thick, and in many cases the surface of the concrete was left bare so as to expose a hard surface to the shell without any earth tamping. The idea of cupolas and shielded guns gained ground, and is now practically accepted all over the continent of Europe. In many cases the main armament, in some only the safety armament (see below), is in cupolas in the forts.

[Illustration: From Plessix and Legrand's _Manuel complet de la fortification_, by permission.

FIG. 44.--Metz in 1899.]

But meanwhile Europe had been flooded with literature on the subject, and the whole policy of fortification as well as its minutest details were discussed _ab ovo_. The extremists of both sides revelled in their opportunity. Some declared that, with the use of heavy guns and armour, fortresses could be made stronger than ever. Others held that modern fortresses were far too expensive, that their use led to strategic mistakes, and (arguing from certain well-known examples) that extemporized field defences could offer as good a resistance as permanent works.

European military opinion generally is now more or less agreed on the following lines:--

1. Important places must be defended by fortresses.

2. Their girdle of forts must be far enough out to prevent the bombardment of the place.

3. An enceinte is desirable, but need not be elaborate.

4. A few guns (called "safety armament") should be in the forts, and these must be protected by armour.

5. The bulk of the artillery of the defence should be outside the forts; the direct-fire guns preferably in cupolas, the howitzers in concealed positions.

6. The forts should be connected by lines of entrenched infantry positions and obstacles, permanent bomb-proof shelters being provided for the infantry.

7. There should be ample communications--radial and peripheral--between the place and the forts, both by road and rail.

8. Special lines of communication--such as mountain passes--should be closed by barrier forts.

These considerations will now be taken somewhat more in detail, but first it will be useful to deal with the plan of Metz in 1899 (fig. 44).

Metz.

Here the fortifications of successive periods can be readily recognized. First the old enceinte, unaltered by the Germans and now _declassee_. Next the detached forts, begun by the French engineers in 1868 and still unfinished in 1870, can be readily recognized by their bastioned trace. Among them are Fort Manteuffel, formerly St Julien, and Fort Goeben (fig. 45), formerly Queuleu. These were not altered in their general lines.

[Illustration: From Plessix and Legrand's _Manuel complet de la fortification_, by permission.

FIG. 45.--Fort Goeben, Metz.]

This early line of detached forts, less than 3000 yds. from the enceinte, was completed by the Germans with forts of polygonal type such as Fort Prinz August. The hill of St Quentin (fig. 46), a very important point, was converted into a fortified position, with two forts and connecting parapets, and a communication running north to Fort Alvensleben.

The arrangement of wing batteries in connexion with the forts can be clearly noted at Fort Manteuffel. These are reinforced by other batteries either for the defence of the intervals or to dominate important lines of approach such as the valley of the Moselle (canal battery at Montigny). To these were added later armoured batteries.

There are also infantry positions, shelters and magazines in connexion with this line.

Finally some new forts of modern type were commenced in 1899 at about 9000 yds. from the place.

Fortresses.

Leaving out of consideration at present the strategic use of groups of fortresses, the places which, as mentioned above, are intrinsically worth being defended as fortresses are:--

(a) Centres of national, industrial or military resources.

(b) Places which may serve as _points d'appui_ for manoeuvres.

(c) Points of intersection of important railroads.

(d) Bridges over considerable rivers.

(e) Certain lines of communication across a frontier.

Examples of (a) are Paris, Antwerp, Lyons, Verdun. Again for (a) and (b), as is pointed out by Plessix and Legrand, Metz in the hands of the Germans may serve both as a base of supplies and a _point d'appui_ for one flank. Strassburg is a bridge-head giving the Germans a secure retreat across the Rhine if beaten in the plains of Alsace, and an opportunity of resuming the offensive when they have re-formed behind the river.

[Illustration: From Plessix and Legrand's _Manuel complet de la fortification_, by permission.

FIG. 46.--St Quentin position, Metz.]

The ring of detached forts.

The distance of detached forts from the place depends on the range of the siege artillery and the distance at which it can usually be established from the forts, and is variously given by different continental writers at from 4 to 9 km. (4500 to 10,000 yds.). The bombarding range of siege howitzers with heavy shells is considered to be about 8000 yds., and if it is possible for them to be emplaced within say 2000 yds. of the forts, this would give a minimum distance of 6000 yds. from the forts to the body of the place. Some writers extend the minimum distance to 7 km., or nearly 8000 yds. In practice, however, it must happen that the position of the forts is determined to a very large extent by the lie of the ground. Thus some good positions for forts may be found within 4000 or 5000 yds. of the place, and no others suitable on the same front within 15,000 yds. In that case the question of expense might necessitate choosing the nearer positions. Some examples of the actual distances of existing forts have already been given. Others, more recent, are, at Bucharest 7-10 km., Lyons 8-10(1/2), Copenhagen 7-8 and Paris 14-17. _Strategic pivots_ are in a different category from other fortresses. While not necessarily protected from bombardment, they may yet have one or two forts thrown out from 9 to 12 km., to get advantage of ground. Such are Langres, Epinal and Belfort.

_The Enceinte._--The desirability of this is almost universally allowed; but often it is more as a concession to tradition than for any solid reason. The idea is that behind the line of forts, which is the main defensive position, any favourable points that exist should be provisionally fortified to assist in a "step-by-step" defence: and behind these again the body of the place should be surrounded by a last line of defence, so that the garrison may resist to the last moment. It may be remarked that apart from the additional expense of an enceinte, such a position would not, under modern conditions, be the most favourable for the last stages of a defence. Again, there is the difficulty that it is practically impossible to shut in a large modern town by a continuous enceinte. It has been proposed to construct the enceinte in sections in front of the salient portions of the place. This system of course abandons several of the chief advantages claimed for an enceinte.

In actual practice enceintes have been constructed since 1870 in France and other countries, consisting of a simple wall 10 or 12 ft. high with a banquette and loopholes at intervals. This of course can only be looked upon as a measure of police. For war purposes, in face of modern artillery, it is a _reductio ad absurdum_.

_The Safety Armament._--If the bulk of the artillery is to be placed in positions prepared on the outbreak of war, it is considered very necessary that a few heavy long-range guns should be permanently in position ready at any moment to keep an enemy at a distance, forcing him to open his first batteries at long range and checking the advance of his investment line. Such guns would naturally be in secure positions inside the forts, and if they are to be worked from such positions they must have armour to shield them from the concentrated fire of the numerous field artillery that a besieger could bring to bear from the first.

The question of artillery positions.

Artillery outside the forts constitutes the most important part of the defence, and there is room for much discussion as to whether it should have positions prepared for it beforehand or should be placed in positions selected as the attack develops itself. On the one hand the preparation of the positions beforehand, which in many cases means the use of armour and concrete, increases very largely the initial expense of the defence, and ties the defender somewhat in the special dispositions that become desirable once the attack has taken shape. Moreover, such expenditure must be incurred on all the fronts of the fortress, whereas the results would only be realized on the front or fronts actually attacked. On the other hand much time and labour are involved in emplacing heavy and medium artillery with extemporized protection, and this becomes a serious consideration when one remembers how much work of all kinds is necessary in preparing a fortress against attack. Again, to avoid the danger of a successful attack on the intervals between the forts before their defences have been fully completed, the fire of the guns in the intermediate positions might be urgently required. The solution in any given case would no doubt depend on the importance of the place. In most cases a certain amount of compromise will come in, some preparation being made for batteries, without their being completed. Armoured batteries of whatever kind must in any case be prepared in peace time. It should not be overlooked that as, whatever theories may exist about successive lines of defence, the onus of the defence will now lie on the fort line, just as it formerly did on the enceintes, so that line should be fully prepared, and should not have to commence its fight in a position of inequality.

[Illustration: From Brialmont's _Progres de la defense des etats et de la fortification permanente depuis Vauban_, by permission of M. le Commandant G. Meeus.

FIG. 47.]

_Defence of Intervals of Forts._--The frontal fire of the batteries in the intervals and the flanking fire of some of the guns in the forts will play an important part, but the main reliance should be on infantry defence. A fully prepared fortress would have practically a complete chain of infantry fighting positions and obstacles between the forts, at all events on the fronts likely to be seriously attacked. The positions would consist largely of fire trenches, with good communications; but it is pretty generally recognized that there must be some _points d'appui_ in the shape of redoubts or infantry forts, and also bomb-proof shelter for men, ammunition and stores near the fighting line. This is usually included in the redoubts. If they are to resist the heaviest shell, such shelters must be built in peace time.

_Communications_ are of the first importance, not merely to facilitate the movement of the enormous stores of ammunition and materials required in the fighting line, but also that defenders may fully utilize the advantage of acting on interior lines. They should include both railways and roads running from the centre of the place to the different sectors of defence, and all round, in rear of the line of forts; also ample covered approaches to the fighting line. Concealment is essential, and where the lie of the ground does not help, it must be got from earth parapets or plantations.

Barrier forts.

The principal use of barrier forts is in country where the necessary line of communication cannot be easily diverted. For instance, in a comparatively flat country a barrier fort commanding a road or railway is of little use because roads may be found passing round it, or a line of railway may be diverted for some miles to avoid it. But in mountainous country, where such diversion is impossible, it will be necessary for the enemy to capture the fort before he can advance; and the impossibility of surrounding it, the few positions from which siege artillery can be brought into play, and the fact that there is practically only one road of approach to be denied, make these positions peculiarly suitable for forts with armoured batteries. Italy makes considerable use of such forts for the defence of frontier passes.

_General Brialmont's Theoretical Claim for the Defence of a Country._--Before going into details, it is worth while to state the full claim of strategic fortification advanced by General Brialmont, the most thorough of all its advocates. It is as follows:--

A. Fortify the capital.

B. Fortify the points where main lines of communication pass a strategic barrier.

C. Make an entrenched camp at the most important centre of communication in each zone of invasion: and support it by one or two places arranged so as to make a fortified district.

[Illustration: From Brialmont's _Progres de la defense des etats et de la fortification depuis Vauban_, by permission of Commandant G. Meeus.

FIG. 48.]

D. Close with barrier forts the lines necessary to an enemy across mountains or marshes.

E. Make a central place behind a mountain chain as a pivot for the army watching it.

F. Defend mountain roads by provisional fortifications.

G. Make a large place in each theatre of war which is far from the principal theatre, and where the enemy might wish to establish himself.

H. Fortify coasts and harbours.

Objections to these proposals will be readily supplied by the officials of the national treasury and the commanders-in-chief of the

## active armies.

Types of detached forts.

So many types of detached forts have been proposed by competent authorities, as well as actually constructed in recent years, that it is impossible here to consider all of them, and a few only will be reproduced of those which are most representative of modern continental thought.

Taking first the type of heavily armed fort, which contains guns for the artillery fight as well as safety armament, we must give precedence to General Brialmont. The two works here shown are taken from the _Progres de la defense des etats, &c._, published in 1898. The pentagonal fort (fig. 47) has two special features. In section 1 is shown a concrete infantry parapet, with a gallery in which the defenders of the parapet may take shelter from the bombardment preceding an assault. In section 2 it will be seen that the counterscarp galleries flanking the ditch are drawn back from the face of the counterscarp. This is to counteract proposals that have been made to obscure the view from the flanking galleries, and perhaps drive the defenders out of them by throwing smoke-producing materials into the ditch at the moment of an assault. The arrangement may save the occupants of the galleries from excessive heat and noxious fumes, but will not of course prevent the smoke from obscuring the view.

The following points may be noticed about this design in comparing it with earlier types. There is no escarp, the natural slope of the rampart being carried down to the bottom of the ditch. There is a counterscarp to the faces, but no covered way. The flanks have no counterscarp, but a steel fence at the foot of the slope, and the covered way which is utilized for a wire entanglement which is under the fire of the parapet. The gorge has a very slight bastioned indentation, which allows for an efficient flanking of the ditch by a couple of machine guns placed in a single casemate on either side.

The abolition of the covered way as such is noteworthy. It marks an essential difference between the fort and the old enceinte profiles; showing that offensive action is not expected from the garrison of the fort, and is the duty of the troops of the intermediate lines.

The great central mass of concrete containing all the casemates and the gun-cupolas, a very popular feature, is omitted in this design, advantage being taken of the great lateral extent of the fort to spread the casemates under the faces, flanks and gorge, with a communication across the centre of the fort. This arrangement gives more freedom to the disposition of the cupolas. The thickness of the concrete over the casemate arches is more than 8 ft. Communication between the faces and the counterscarp galleries is obtained by posterns under the ditch. The armament, which is all protected by cupolas, is powerful. It consists of two 150-mm. (6 in.) guns, four 120-mm. (4.7 in.) guns, two 210-mm. (8.4 in.) howitzers, two 210-mm. (8.4 in.) mortars, four 57-mm. Q.F. guns for close defence. There is also a shielded electric light projector in the centre.

This fort is a great advance on General Brialmont's designs before 1885. These were marked by great complexity of earth parapets and various _chicanes_ which would not long survive bombardment. This type is simple and powerful. It is also very expensive.

The second Brialmont fort (fig. 48) is selected because it shows a keep or citadel, an inner work designed to hold out after the capture of the outer parapet. General Brialmont held strongly to the necessity of keeps for all important works. History of course gives instances of citadels which have enabled the garrison to recapture the main work with assistance, or caused a really useful delay in the progress of the general attack. It affords still more instances in which the keeps have made no resistance, or none of any value. Some think that the existence of a keep encourages the defenders of the main work; others that it encourages the idea of retreat. The British school of thought is against keeps. In any case they add largely to expense.

In the present design the keep is a mass of concrete, which depends for the defence of its front ditches on counterscarp galleries in the main work, the few embrasures for frontal defence being practically useless. Its main function is to prevent the attackers from establishing themselves on the gorge, thus leaving the way open for a reinforcement from outside to enter (assisted by bamboo flying bridges) through the passages left for the purpose in the outer and inner gorge parapets.

As regards the main work, the arrangements for defence of the ditch and the armament are similar to the design last considered. This parapet has no concrete shelter for the defenders. The casemates are all collected in the keep and the gorge, with a passage all round giving access to the parapet and the cupolas.

[Illustration: From Brialmont's _Progres de la defense des etats, &c._, by permission of Commandant G. Meeus.

FIG. 49.--Fort Molsheim, Strassburg.]

Fig. 49 is a German work, Fort Molsheim at Strassburg. This is a simple type of triangular fort. The main mass of concrete rests on the gorge, and is divided by a narrow courtyard to give light and air to the front casemates. The fort has a medium armament for the artillery fight, consisting of four 6-in. howitzers in cupolas. On each face are two small Q.F. guns in cupolas for close defence, for which purpose, it will be seen, there is also an infantry parapet. At the angles are look-out turrets. The ditch has escarp and counterscarp, and is defended by counterscarp galleries at the angles. There is no covered way. The thickness of concrete over the casemates, where it is uncovered, is about 10 ft.

Fig. 50 is Fort Lyngby at Copenhagen. The new Copenhagen defences are very interesting, giving evidence of clear and original thought, and effectiveness combined with economy. There is one special feature worth noting about the outer ring of forts, of which Lyngby is one. These works are intended for the artillery fight only, their main armament being four 6-in. guns (in pairs) and three 6-in. howitzers, all in cupolas. The armament for immediate defence is trifling, consisting of only two 57-mm. guns and a machine-gun. There is no provision for infantry defence. The ditch has no escarp or counterscarp, and is flanked by counterscarp galleries at the salient.

It is usual in the case of works so slightly organized for their own defence, and intended only for the long-range artillery fight, to withdraw them somewhat from the front line. The Danish engineers, however, have not hesitated to put these works in the very front line, some 2000 metres in front of the permanent intermediate batteries. The object of this is to force the enemy to establish his heavy artillery at such long ranges that it will be able to afford little assistance to the trench attack of the infantry. The intermediate batteries, being withdrawn, are comparatively safe. They therefore do not require expensive protection, and can reserve their strength to resist the advance of the attack. The success of this arrangement will depend on the fighting strength of the cupolas under war conditions; and what that may be, war alone can tell us.

In the details of these works, besides the bold cutting down of defensive precautions, we may note the skilful and economical use of layers of large stones over the casemates to diminish the thickness of concrete required. The roofs of the casemates are stiffened underneath with steel rails, and steel lathing is used to prevent lumps of concrete from falling on the occupants. The living casemates look out on the gorge, getting plenty of light and air, while the magazines are under the cupolas.

The forts above described are all armed with a view to their taking an important part in the distant artillery fight. The next type to be considered (fig. 51) is selected mainly because it is a good example of the use of concealed flanking batteries, known on the continent as _batteries traditores_, which seem to be growing in popularity.

This design by Colonel Voorduin of the Dutch engineers has a medium armament, which is not intended for the artillery duel, but to command the immediate front of the neighbouring forts and the intervals. The fort is long and narrow, with small casemate accommodation. It contains eight 4.7-in. guns. Two of these are in a cupola concealed from view, though not protected, by a bank of earth in front. The other six are in an armoured battery behind the cupola. It may be remarked that as the cupola gets no real protection from the covering mass of earth, it would be better to be able to utilize the fire of its guns to the front. The _batterie traditore_, if properly protected overhead, would be very difficult to silence, and its flanking fire would probably be available up to the last moment. There is very much to be said both for and against the policy of so emplacing the guns. The immediate defence of the work, with the aid of a broad wet ditch, is easy; but the great mass of concrete, which is intended to form an indestructible platform and breastwork for the infantry, would seem to be a needless expense.

[Illustration: From Brialmont's _Progres de la defense des etats, &c._, by permission of Commandant G. Meeus.

FIG. 50.--Fort Lyngby, Copenhagen.]

[Illustration: From Leithner's _Bestandige Befestigung_.

FIG. 51.]

Fig. 52, designed by the Austrian lieutenant field-marshal Moritz Ritter von Brunner (1839-1904), is selected as a type of the intermediate fort which is intended only to be a strong point in the infantry line of defence between the main forts. It has a protected armament, but this, which consists only of four small Q.F. guns in cupolas, is for its own defence, and not to take part in the artillery duel. There is also a movable armament of four light Q.F. guns on wheels, for which a shelter is provided between the two observatory cupolas. The garrison would be a half company of infantry, for whom casemates are provided in the gorge. The gorge ditch is flanked by a caponier, but there is no flank defence for the front ditch. This is defended by a glacis parapet. At the bottom of the ditch is a wire entanglement and the glacis slope is planted with thorns. The thickness of concrete on the casemates is 2 metres (6 ft. 7 in.). This is a strong and simple form of infantry work, but considering its role it appears to be needlessly expensive.

Fig. 53 is an Italian type of barrier fort in mountainous country. A powerful battery of eight medium guns protected by a Gruson shield commands the approach. The fort with its dwelling casemates is surrounded by a deep ditch flanked by counterscarp galleries. There are certain apparent weaknesses in the type, but the difficulties of the attack in such country and its limitations must be borne in mind.

_Modern Details of Protection and Obstacle._--After considering the above types of fort, it will be of use to note some of the details in which modern construction has been modified to provide against the increasing power of artillery.

[Illustration: From Brialmont's _Progres de la defense des etats, &c._, by permission of Commandant G. Meeus.

FIG. 52.]

Bomb-proof protection.

The penetration of projectiles varies according to the nature of the soil--the lighter the better for protection. Sand offers the greatest resistance to penetration, clay the least. Since, however, the penetration of heavy shells fired from long ranges with high elevation may be 20 ft. or more in ordinary soil, we can no longer look to earth alone as a source of protection against bombardment. Again a moderate quantity of earth over a casemate increases the explosive effect of a shell by "tamping" it, that is by preventing the force of the explosion from being wasted in the open air. We find therefore that in most modern designs the tops of casemates are left uncovered, or with only a few inches of earth over them, in which grass may be grown for concealment.

For the materials of casemates and revetment walls exposed to fire, concrete (q.v.) has entirely replaced masonry and brickwork, not because of its convenience in construction, but because it offers the best resistance. The exact composition of the concrete is a matter that demands great care and knowledge. It should be, like an armour plate, hard on the surface and tough within. The great thickness of 10 ft. of concrete for casemate arches, very generally prescribed on the continent in important positions, is meant to meet the danger of several successive shells striking the same spot. To stop a single shell of any siege calibre in use at present, 5 ft. of good concrete would be enough. A good deal is expected from the use of "reinforced concrete" (that is concrete strengthened by steel) both for revetment walls and casemates.

Parapets.

Parapets are frequently made continuous or glacis-wise, that is the superior slope is prolonged to the bottom of the ditch so that the whole rampart can be swept by the fire of the defenders from the crest, and there is no dead ground in front of it. It is also common to build the crest of the parapet in solid concrete, with sometimes a concrete banquette, so that bombardment shall not destroy the line the defenders have to man in repelling an assault. This concrete parapet may be further reinforced by hinged steel bullet-proof plates, to give head cover; which when not in use hang down behind the crest.

[Illustration: From General Rocchi's _Traccia per lo studio della fortificazione_, by permission.

FIG. 53.]

Obstacles.

The escarp is falling into disfavour, on account of the great expense of a revetment that can withstand breaching fire. A counterscarp of very solid construction is generally used. It is low and gives cover to a wire entanglement in the ditch. This may be supplemented by a steel unclimbable fence, and by entanglements or thorn plantations on the covered way and the lower slopes of the parapet. Entanglements are attached to steel posts bedded in concrete. The upper parts of revetments and the foundations of walls are protected against the action of shells, that falling steeply might act as mines to overturn them, by thick aprons of large stones. Fig. 54 shows most of these dispositions.

Search-lights.

Electric search-lights are now used in all important works and batteries. They are usually placed in disappearing cupolas. They are of great value for discovering working parties at night, and lighting up the foreground during an attack; and since only the projector need be exposed, they are not very vulnerable. Their value, however, must not be over-estimated. The most powerful search-light can in no way compare with daylight as an illuminant, and, like all other mechanical contrivances, they have certain marked drawbacks in war. They may give rise to a false confidence; an important light may fail at a critical moment; and in foggy weather they are useless.

Armour.

The use of armour (see also ARMOUR-PLATES) for coast batteries followed closely upon its employment for ships, for those were the days of short ranges and close fighting, and it seemed natural not to leave the battery in a position of inferiority to the ship in the matter of protection. In England the coast battery for a generation after the Crimean War was a combination of masonry and iron; and in 1860 Brialmont employed armoured turrets at Antwerp in the forts which commanded the Scheldt. For land defence purposes, however, engineers were very slow to adopt armour. Apart from all questions of difficulty of manufacture, expense, &c., the idea was that sea and land fronts were radically different. It was pointed out that a ship gun, fired from an unsteady platform, had not enough accuracy to strike repeated blows on the same spot; so that a shield which was strong enough to resist a single shot would give complete protection. A battery on a land front, on the other hand, was exposed to an accurate fire from guns which could strike successive blows on the same spot, and break down the resistance of the strongest shield. But in time continental opinion gradually began to turn in favour of iron protection. Practical types of disappearing and revolving cupolas were produced, and many engineers were influenced in their favour by the effect of the big high-explosive shell. Eventually it was argued that, after all, the object of fortification is not to obtain a resisting power without limit, but to put the men and guns of a work in an advantageous position to defend themselves as long as possible against a superior force; and that from this point of view armour cannot but add strength to defensive works.

[Illustration: From Deguise's _La Fortification permanente_, by permission of J. Polleunis.

FIG. 54.]

The question has of course long passed beyond the stage of theory. Practically every European state uses iron or steel casemates and cupolas. German, Danish, Italian and other types of forts so armed have been shown. Recent French types have not been published, but it is known that cupolas are employed; and Velichko, the Russian authority, long an uncompromising opponent of armour, in the end changed his views. These countries have had to proceed gradually, by improving existing fortresses, and with such resources as could be spared from the needs of the active armies. Among the smaller states Rumania and Belgium have entered most freely into the new way. In England, which is less directly interested, opinion has been led by Sir George Clarke, since the publication in 1890 of his well-known book on fortification. Having witnessed officially the experiments at Bucharest in 1885 with a St Chamond turret and a Gruson cupola, he expressed himself very strongly against the whole system. Besides pointing out very clearly the theoretical objections to it, and the weak points of the constructions under experiment, he added: "The cost of the French turret was about L10,000 exclusive of its armament, and for this sum about six movable overbank guns of greater power could be provided." In view of the weight that belongs of right to his criticisms it is as well to point out that while this remark is quite true, yet the six guns would require also six gun detachments, with arrangements for supply, &c.; a consideration which alters the working of this apparently elementary sum. The whole object of protection is to enable a few men and guns successfully to oppose a larger number.

At the time when Sir George Clarke's first edition came out, such extravagances were before the public as Mougin's fort; "a mastless turret ship," as he called it, "buried up to the deck-level in the ground and manned by mechanics." Such ideas tended to throw discredit on the more reasonable use of armour, but whether the system be right or wrong, it exists now and has to be taken account of. Nowhere has it been applied more boldly than in Rumania. The defences of Bucharest (designed by Brialmont) consist of 18 main and 18 small forts, with intermediate batteries. The main forts are some 4500 yds. apart, and 11,000 to 12,000 yds. from the centre of the place. The typical armament of a main fort is six 6-in. guns in three cupolas (one for indirect fire), two 8.4-in. howitzers in cupolas, one 4.7-in. howitzer in a cupola, six small Q.F. guns in disappearing cupolas. The total armament of the place (all protected) is eighty-six 6-in. guns, seventy-four 8.4-in. howitzers, eighteen 4.7-in. howitzers, 127 small calibre Q.F. guns in disappearing cupolas, 476 small calibre Q.F. guns in casemates for flanking the ditches. The "Sereth Line" will be described later.

_Different Forms of Protection: Casemate, Cupola, &c._--The broad difference between casemates or shielded batteries and turrets and cupolas is that the former are fixed while the latter revolve and in some cases disappear. The casemate thus has the disadvantages that the arc of fire of the gun, which has to fire through a fixed embrasure or port-hole, is very limited, and that the muzzle of the gun and the port-hole, the weak points of the system, are constantly exposed to the fire of the enemy. The advantage of the casemate lies in its comparative cheapness and the greater strength of a fixed structure. It is well suited for barrier forts (fig. 53) and other analogous positions; and the Italians amongst other nations have so employed it at such places as the end of the Mont Cenis tunnel. Steel and iron casemates are also useful as caponiers for ditch flanking (fig. 55).

[Illustration: From Leithner's _Bestandige Befestigung_, by permission.

FIG. 55.]

_Turrets and Cupolas._--The difference between a turret and a cupola is that the former is cylindrical with a flat or nearly flat top and presents a vertical target; while the latter is a flattened dome, the vertical supports of which are entirely concealed. The turret appears to be little used. The object of both forms is at once to give an all-round arc of fire to the guns and to allow of the weak point of the structure, the port-hole and muzzle of the gun, being turned away from the enemy in the intervals of firing. Both usually emerge from a mass of concrete, which is strengthened round the opening by a collar of chilled cast iron about 12 to 15 in. thick.

Cupolas.

There are four types of cupolas, viz. (a) Disappearing, (b) Oscillating, (c) Central pivot, (d) On roller rings.

(a) Disappearing cupolas are used chiefly for small quick-firing guns, on account of the expense of the various systems. They can be used for medium guns. The details of the best foreign systems are secret. (b) The oscillating turret is a Mougin type, in which the turret is supported in the centre by a knife-edge on which it can swing. The oscillation is controlled by powerful springs. The effect of it is that after firing, the front of the cupola with the port-hole swings downwards under cover, and is held there until the gun is ready to fire again. (c) Schumann's centre pivot is understood to be approved in Germany. It has been adopted in Rumania and Belgium for howitzer cupolas. It is only suitable for a single piece; d is strong and steady--the best cupola for coast batteries; c and d are best for rapid fire because they can be loaded without lowering. They are suited for long guns.

The following types are illustrated as being generally representative of the different classes of cupola.

[Illustration: FIG. 56.--Cupola for 6-in. gun (Friedr. Krupp A.G.).]

Fig. 56 is a section of Messrs Krupp's typical cupola for one 6-in. gun. The shield is of nickel steel, the collar of cast steel. A small space is left between the cupola and its collar to prevent the possibility of the shield jamming after being damaged. The guns are muzzle-pivoting and thickened out near the muzzle by the addition of a ring, so as to close the port as much as possible. The recoil is controlled within narrow limits both to economize space and to prevent the smoke from the muzzle from getting into the cupola. To facilitate the elevation and depression of the gun (with muzzle pivotings the breech has of course to be moved through a much larger arc than with ordinary mountings) it is balanced by a counterweight. The cupola rests on a roller ring and is traversed by a winch. It can be turned through a complete circle in about one minute.

[Illustration: From Leithner's _Bestandige Befestigung_.

FIG. 57.--Gruson Spherical Mortar.]

Fig. 57 shows a Schumann shielded mortar (sphere-mortar, _Kugelmorser_). In this case it will be observed that the cupola is replaced by an enlargement of the encircling collar; and the mortar (8.4-in. calibre) is enclosed in a sphere of cast iron, so as to close completely the opening of the collar in any position.

Fig. 58 shows a Gruson cupola for one 4.7-in. Q.F. howitzer.

Fig. 59 shows a disappearing turret for an electric light projector.

Fig. 60 shows a Krupp transportable cupola for a 5.7-cm. gun. This is drawn on a four-wheeled carriage, and when coming into action slides on rollers on to a platform in the parapet. It weighs about 2-1/2 tons, and with carriage and platform about 4 tons.

The mechanism of these cupolas is for the most part simpler than it appears. Counterweights and hand winches are much in use for the lighter natures of guns. The armouring of course keeps pace with improvements in manufacture. The chilled cast iron first made popular by the Gruson firm is now little used except for such purposes as the collar round a cupola. Wrought iron, steel and compound plates for the tops of cupolas have all been tried, the most recent Krupp-Gruson designs being of nickel steel.

The sighting in some cases may be done by sights on the gun, with suitable enlargements in the port-hole; in others by sights affixed to the cupola itself (which of course can give horizontal direction only); in others training and elevation are given in accordance with the readings on electric dials, or instructions by telephone or speaking tube. There is of course nothing unreasonable in this in the case of indirect fire guns and howitzers, for if not firing from cupolas they would be behind the shelter of some wood or quarry.

_Schumann's System: "Armoured Fronts."_--Lieut.-Colonel Maximilian Schumann (1827-1889) of the Prussian engineers, who took a very prominent part in the design and advocacy of armoured defences, eventually produced a system which dispensed entirely with forts and relied on the fire of protected guns. It consists of several lines of batteries for Q.F. guns and howitzers in cupolas. He considered that such batteries would be able to defend their own front, and the infantry garrison was not to be called into action except in the case of the enemy breaking through at some point of the line.

This system was actually adopted by Rumania (1889-1892) for the Sereth Line. There are three routes by which the Russians can enter the country across the Sereth river: through Focshani, Nemolassa and Galatz. These three routes are barred by bridge-heads, those at Focshani, the most important, being on the left bank of the Milkov, a tributary of the Sereth.

The Focshani works consist of 71 batteries arranged on a semicircular front about 12 m. long and from 8000 to 10,000 yds. in advance of the bridges. The batteries are placed in three lines, which are about 500 yds. apart, and are subdivided into groups. The normal group consists of 5 batteries, of which 3 are in the first line, 1 in the second, and 1 in the third. The first-line batteries each contain five small Q.F. guns in travelling cupolas. The second-line batteries, each six small Q.F. guns in disappearing cupolas. The third-line batteries have one 120-mm. gun in a cupola, and two 210-mm. spherical mortars with Gruson shields. The immediate defence of the batteries consists of a glacis planted with thorn bushes and a wire entanglement.

[Illustration: From Leithner's _Bestandige Befestigung_.

FIG. 58.--Cupola for 4.7-in. Howitzer.]

The fortification of these three bridge-heads are said to have cost about L1,100,000. But the system of "armoured fronts" is never likely to be reproduced, having been condemned by all authoritative continental opinion. Its defects have been summarized by Schroeter as follows: weakness of artillery at long ranges, want of security against a surprise rush, the neglect of the use of infantry in the defence, and the difficulty of command. This last is the most serious of all. It is indeed difficult to conceive that any one should expect half-a-dozen expert gunners, each shut up in an iron box with a gun, to stop the rush of a thousand men, even by day. But imagine the feelings of the gunner on the night of a big attack, alone in his box, his nerves already strained by a preliminary bombardment and nights of watching. He hears the sounds of battle all around; he knows nothing of the progress of the attack, but expects everything, and feels every moment the door of his box being opened and the bayonet entering his back. No wise commander would submit his troops to such a test.

_Sir George Clarke and Unarmoured Systems._--Before leaving the subject of fortresses it is necessary to consider the ideas of those who, while recognizing the necessity for places permanently organized for defence, prefer to treat them more from the point of view of perfected field defences. It is to the credit of English military science that Sir George Clarke may be taken as the representative of this school of thought. His study of fortification, as he tells us, began with a history of the defence of Plevna (q.v.). He was led to compare the resistance made behind extemporized defences at such places as Sevastopol, Kars and Plevna, with those at other places fortified in the most complete manner known to science. From this comparison he drew the conclusion that the true strength of fortification does not depend on great masonry works intricately pieced together at vast expense, but on organization, communications and invisibility. In his 1907 edition he says:--

"Future defences will divide themselves naturally into the following categories: (1) Permanent works wholly constructed in peace time and forming the key points of the position. (2) Gun emplacements, magazines and shelters for men in rear of the main line, all concrete structures and platforms to be completed, though some earthwork may be left until the position is placed in a state of defence. (3) Field works, trenches, &c., guarding the intervals between the permanent defences in the main line, or providing rear positions. These should be deliberately planned in time of peace ready to be put in hand at short notice. The essence of a well-fortified position is that the weapons of the defender shall obtain the utmost possible scope of

## action, and that those of the attacker shall have the minimum chances

of effecting injury."

[Illustration: Drawn from illustration in Leithner's _Bestandige Befestigung_, by permission.

FIG. 59.--Disappearing Turret for Searchlight.]

Infantry redoubts.

Since Sir George Clarke published his first edition in 1890 continental ideas have expanded a good deal. The foregoing statement as to the three categories of defences would be accepted anywhere now: the differences of opinion come in when we reach the stage of classifying under the first head the permanent works to be constructed in peace time. In most countries these would include forts with guns for the artillery duel, forts with safety armaments, fixed batteries with or without armour, and forts for infantry only. Sir George Clarke will have no armour for guns except in certain special cases of barrier forts. Heavy guns and howitzers requiring permanent emplacements (concrete platforms, &c.) must either be well concealed or be provided with alternative positions. The only permanent works which he admits are for infantry. They are redoubts of simple form intended for 350 or 400 men, with casemate accommodation for three-fourths of that number. Fig. 61 shows the design:--two rows of casemates, one under the front parapet, one under a parados; frontal musketry defence; obstacle consisting of entanglements, mines, &c., with or without escarp and counterscarp.

[Illustration: FIG. 60.--Transportable Cupola for 5.7-cm. Gun (Friedr. Krupp A.G.).]

"The intervals (he says) between the infantry redoubts may be about 2500 yds.; but this will necessarily depend upon the conformation of the ground. Where there are good artillery positions falling within the sphere of protection of the redoubts, large intervals will be permissible. Thus, in the case of an extended line of defence where the ground offers marked tactical features, the idea of a continuous chain of permanent works may be abandoned in favour of groups of redoubts guarding the artillery positions. In this case, the redoubts in a group might be distributed on a curve bent back in approximately horse-shoe form."

[Illustration: From Sir George S. Clarke's Fortification, by permission of John Murray.

FIG. 61.]

The keystones of the close defence of the fighting line in future will undoubtedly be these infantry redoubts, and therefore it is of great interest to compare with the above types two studies put forward by Schroeter (_Die Festung in der heutigen Kriegfuhrung_), one in his first edition in 1898 (fig. 62), and the other in the second in 1905 (fig. 63). In both these the defensive arrangements are merely trenches of field profile with entanglements, the command and the obstacle being less than in Sir George Clarke's work; and it will be noticed that in the 1905 type, published after the Russo-Japanese War, the plan is much less simple and arrangements for close flanking defence have been introduced. But these works of Schroeter's are merely infantry supporting points in a line which contains forts of the triangular type with guns, and armoured batteries, as well as a very complete arrangement of field defences and communications; while Sir G. Clarke's redoubts are the only permanent works giving casemate protection in the front line.

[Illustration: From Schoeter's Die Festung in der heutigen Kriegfuhrung, by permission of E.S. Mittler u. Sohn.

FIG. 62.]

The comparative merits of either design for an infantry redoubt are not of much importance. It is agreed that the main line of defence must consist of a more or less continuous line of field defences and obstacles, and that at some points in the line there should be infantry supporting points with bomb-proof protection capable of resisting big shells. The open question is, what additional works, if any, are required for the artillery, whether for the medium and heavy guns that will take part in the "artillery duel," or for the lighter natures that will help in the close fight and defence of the intervals. Is it best for the defenders to rely on armoured protection or on concealment for his guns?

Opposing views as to armour, gun positions, &c.

Official opinion outside England has certainly sanctioned armour, since all over the continent it is to some extent adopted in practice. National practice is usually based on the advice of the most distinguished officers of the day, and therefore it is unsafe to condemn it hastily. Sir George Clarke and those who are with him--and they are many, both in Great Britain and abroad--object entirely to armour. He says (_Fortification_, ed. 1907, p. 96): "The great advantage possessed by the attack in all ages has been the employment of a mobile artillery against armaments cribbed, cabined and confined by fortification. It is necessary to perpetuate this advantage?" Of course the effect of long-range weapons, in increasing the length of front that can be held by a given force, has given much greater freedom of action to the defence and this should be taken full advantage of.

[Illustration: From Schroeter's _Die Festung in der heutigen Kriegfuhrung_, by permission of E.S. Mittler u. Sohn.

FIG. 63.]

The argument as to the vulnerability of shielded guns is not at present strong. Sir George says (ib. p. 94), "If the high angle fire ... is ever to find a favourable opportunity, it will surely be against a cupola, the site of which can generally be determined with accuracy." On the other hand he says (p. 90), "During the long and costly experiments carried on at Bucharest in 1885-1886, 164 rounds were fired from the Krupp 21 cm. mortar at targets of about 40 sq. metres area" (about 430 sq. ft.) "without obtaining a single hit. The range was 2700 yds.; the targets were towers built upon a level plain; the shooting conditions were ideal, and the fall of each shell was telephoned back to the firing point; but it must have been evident to the least instructed observer that to attempt to group 6 or 8 shells on an invisible area 2 metres square would have been absolutely futile." These facts are adduced to prove that it is not necessary to give great thickness to concrete casemates, to resist successive bursts of shells in the same place; but surely they are equally applicable to cupolas. Again (p. 252), "The experience gained at Port Arthur was not altogether encouraging as regards the use of high angle fire. The Russian vessels in the harbour were sunk by opening their sea-valves.... Fire was subsequently directed upon them from 11 in. howitzers at ranges up to about 7500 yds. This was deliberate practice from siege batteries at stationary targets; but the effect was distinctly disappointing." The cupolas therefore can hardly be considered ideal targets: and the probability is that they would hold their own against both direct and indirect fire for a long time. There are other and stronger arguments against the general use of them, all of which are clearly set forth by Sir George Clarke.

The worst objections to the cupola are the military disadvantages of isolation and immobility, and the multiplication of mechanical arrangements. For a successful round from a disappearing cupola, the elevating and traversing arrangements, the elevating and loading gear of the gun, and the telephone communication, must all be in good order. At night the successful co-operation of the searchlight is also in many cases necessary.

The teaching of history is all against immobile mechanical defences. Initiative, surprise, unforeseen offensive action, keeping the besieger in ignorance of the dispositions of the garrison, and of what progress he is making: all these, with their influence on the morale of both sides, tend towards successful defences and do not point towards the use of armour.

It may further be said that the use of armour as a general rule is unnecessary, because a concealed battery is a protected one; and with the long ranges now usual for heavy guns and howitzers, there is not generally much difficulty about concealment.

In the opinion, however, of the present writer an exception must be made for guns intended to flank the line of defence, which would generally need bomb-proof over-head cover. Further, when we leave theory and come to the consideration of actual problems of defence, it will often be found that it is necessary to place guns in certain positions where good concealment cannot be got. In such cases some form of protection must be given if the guns are to engage the concealed batteries of the attack.

III. THE ATTACK OF FORTRESSES

In considering the history of siegecraft since the introduction of gunpowder, there are three main lines of development to follow, viz. the gradually increasing power of artillery, the systematizing of the works of attack, and in recent times the change that has been brought about by the effect of modern small-arm fire.

Cannon appear to have been first used in sieges as mortars, to destroy hoardings by throwing round stones and barrels of burning composition. Early in the 15th century we find cannon throwing metal balls, not only against hoarding and battlements, but also to breach the bases of the walls. It was only possible to work the guns very slowly, and archers or crossbowmen were needed in support of them, to drive the defenders from the crenellations or loopholes of the battlements. At that period the artillery was used in place of the medieval siege engines and in much the same manner. The guns of the defence were inaccurate, and being placed high on the walls were made ineffective by bad mountings, which did not allow of proper depression. The besieger therefore could place his guns close to the walls, with only the protection of a few large gabions filled with earth, set up on the ground on either side of the muzzle.

In the course of the 15th century the power of artillery was largely increased, so that walls and gates were destroyed by it in an astonishingly short time. Three results shortly followed. The guns of the defence having gained equally in effectiveness, greater protection was needed for the attack batteries; bastions and outworks were introduced to keep the besieger at a distance from the inner walls; and the walls were sunk in ditches so that they could only be breached by batteries placed on the edge of the glacis.

Early in the 16th century fortresses were being rapidly remodelled on these lines, and the difficulties of the attack were at once very much increased. The tendency of the assailants was still to make for the curtain, which had always been considered the weak point; but the besiegers now found that they had to bring their guns right up to the edge of the ditch before they could make a breach, and in doing so had to pass over ground which was covered by the converging fire from the faces of the bastions. Towards the end of the century the attack of the curtain was delayed and the cross-fire over the ground in front increased by the introduction of ravelins.

The slight gabion protection for the siege batteries was at first replaced by strong timber shelters. These were found inadequate; but a still greater difficulty was that of bringing up the siege guns to their positions, emplacing them and maintaining communication with them under fire. In addition to this, the guns of the defence until they could be overpowered (a slow process) dominated a wide belt of ground in front of the fortress; and unless the besiegers could find some means of maintaining a strong guard close to their batteries these were liable to be destroyed by sorties from the covered way.

Siegecraft before Vauban.

Gradually the whole problem of siege work centred round the artillery. The besiegers found that they had first to bring up enough guns to overpower those of the defence; then to advance their guns to positions from which they could breach the walls; and throughout these operations to protect them against sorties. Breaches once made, the assault could follow on the old lines.

The natural solution of the difficulty of approach to the battery positions was the use of trenches. The Turks were the first to make systematic use of them, having probably inherited the idea from the Eastern Empire. The soldiers of Christendom, however, strongly disliked digging, and at first great leaders like Bayard and Montluc had themselves to use pick and shovel, to give their men an example. In due course the necessity of the trenches was recognized, but the soldiers never took kindly to them, and the difficulty was dealt with in a manner reminiscent of the feudal ages, by impressing large bodies of peasantry as workmen whenever a siege was in contemplation.

Through the 16th and most of the 17th century, therefore, we find the attack being conducted by means of trenches leading to the batteries, and supported by redoubts often called "places of arms" also made by trench work. During this period the result of a siege was always doubtful. Both trenches and batteries were arranged more or less at haphazard without any definite plan; and naturally it often happened that offensive action by the besieged against the trenches would disorder the attack and at times delay it indefinitely. Fig. 64, taken from a late 17th-century print by de Fer of Paris, gives a good idea of the general practice of that day when Vauban's methods were not yet generally known.

Another weak point about the attack was that after the escarp walls had been strengthened to resist artillery fire as has been described, there was no clear idea as to how they should be breached. The usual process was merely an indiscriminate pounding from batteries established on the crest of the glacis. Thus there were cases of sieges being abandoned after they had been carried as far as the attempt to breach.

It is in no way strange that this want of method should have characterized the attack for two centuries after artillery had begun to assert its power. At the outset many new ideas had to be assimilated. Guns were gradually growing in power; sieges were conducted under all sorts of conditions, sometimes against medieval castles, sometimes against various and widely-differing examples of the new fortification; and the military systems of the time were not favourable to the evolution of method. It is the special feature of Vauban's practical genius for siege warfare that he introduced order into this chaos and made the issue of a siege under normal conditions, a mere matter of time, usually a very short time.

Vauban's teaching.

The whole of Vauban's teaching and practice cannot be condensed into the limits of this article, but special reference must be made to several points. The most important of these is his general arrangement of the attack. The ultimate object of the attack works was to make a breach for the assaulting columns. To do this it was necessary to establish breaching batteries on the crest of the glacis; and before this could be done it was necessary to overpower the enemy's artillery. This preliminary operation is nowadays called the "artillery duel." In Vauban's day the effective range of guns was 600 to 700 yds. He tells us that it was customary to establish batteries at 1000 yds. from the place, but that at that range they did little more than make a great deal of noise. The first object of the attack, therefore, after the preliminary operations of investment, &c., had been completed, was to establish batteries within 600 or 700 yds. of the place, to counter-batter or enfilade all the faces bearing on the front of attack; and to protect these batteries against sorties. After the artillery of the defences had been subdued--if it could not be absolutely silenced--it was necessary to push trenches to the front so that guns might be conveyed to the breaching positions and emplaced there in batteries. Throughout these processes it was necessary to protect the working parties and the batteries against sorties.

[Illustration: FIG. 64.--Siege-works of the 17th century.]

For this purpose Vauban devised the _Places d'armes_ or _lignes paralleles_. He tells us that they were first used in 1673 at the siege of Maestricht, where he conducted the attack, and which was captured in thirteen days after the opening of the trenches. The object of these parallels was to provide successive positions for the guard of the trenches, where they could be at hand to repel sorties. The latter were most commonly directed against the trenches and batteries, to destroy them and drive out the working parties. The most vulnerable points were the heads of the approach trenches. It was necessary, therefore, that the guard of the trenches should be in a position to reach the heads of the approaches more quickly than the besieged could do so from the covered way. This was provided for as follows.

The first parallel was usually established at about 600 yds. from the place, this being considered the limiting range of action of a sortie. The parallel was a trench 12 to 15 ft. wide and 3 ft. deep, the excavated earth being thrown forward to make a parapet 3 or 4 ft. high. In front of the first parallel and close to it were placed the batteries of the "first artillery position."

The attack.

While these batteries were engaged in silencing the enemy's artillery, for which purpose most of them were placed in prolongation of the faces of the fortress so as to enfilade them, the "Approach Trenches" were being pushed forward. The normal attack included a couple of bastions and the ravelin between, with such faces of the fortress as could support them; and the approach trenches (usually three sets) were directed on the capitals of the bastions and ravelin, advancing in a zigzag so arranged that the prolongations of the trenches always fell clear of the fortress and could not be enfiladed.

Fig. 65, taken from Vauban's _Attack and Defence of Places_, shows clearly the arrangement of trenches and batteries.

After the approach trenches had been carried forward nearly half-way to the most advanced points of the covered way, the "second parallel" was constructed, and again the approach trenches were pushed forward. Midway between the second parallel and the covered way, short branches called _Demi-parallels_ were thrown out to either flank of the attacks: and finally at the foot of the glacis came the third parallel. Thus there was always a secure position for a sufficient guard of the trenches. Upon an alarm the working parties could fall back and the guard would advance.

Trenches were either made by _common trenchwork, flying trenchwork or sap_. In the first two a considerable length of trench was excavated at one time by a large working party extended along the trench: flying trenchwork (formerly known as flying sap) being distinguished from common trenchwork by the use of gabions, by the help of which protection could be more quickly obtained. Both these kinds of trenchwork were commenced at night, the position of the trench having been previously marked out by tape. The "tasks" or quantities of earth to be excavated by each man were so calculated that by daybreak the trench would afford a fair amount of cover. Flying trenchwork was generally used for the 2nd parallel and its approaches, and as far beyond it as possible. In proportion as the attack drew nearer to the covered way, the fire of the defenders' small-arms and wall-pieces naturally grew more effective, though by this time most of their artillery would have been dismounted by the fire of the siege batteries. It therefore became necessary before reaching the 3rd parallel to have recourse to sap.

[Illustration: FIG. 65.--Regular Attack (Vauban).]

Sapping.

Sapping required trained men. It consisted in gradually pushing forward the end of a narrow trench in the desired direction. At the sap-head was a squad of sappers. The leading man excavated a trench 1 ft. 6 in. wide and deep. To protect the head of the trench he had a shield on wheels, under cover of which he placed the gabions in position one after another as the sap-head progressed. Other men following strengthened the parapet with fascines, and increased the trench to a depth of 3 ft., and a width of 2 ft. 6 in. to 3 ft. Fig. 66, taken from Vauban's treatise on the attack, shows the process clearly. The sap after being completed to this extent could be widened at leisure to ordinary trench dimensions by infantry working parties.

[Illustration: FIG. 66.--Sapping (Vauban).]

As the work at the sap-head was very dangerous, Vauban encouraged his sappers by paying them on the spot at piecework rates, which increased rapidly in proportion to the risk. He thus stimulated all concerned to do their best, and reckoned that under average conditions he could depend on a rate of progress for an ordinary sap of about 50 yds. in 24 hours.

It is interesting to compare the more recent method of sapping with that above described (fig. 67 taken from the _Instruction in Military Engineering_, 1896). It is no longer possible to place gabions in position at the sap-head under fire. Accordingly the leading sapper excavates to the full depth of 4 ft. 6 in., and the rate of progress is retarded proportionately, so that an advance of only 15 to 30 yds. in 24 hours can be reckoned on instead of 50. The head of the sap is protected by a number of half-filled sandbags, which the leading sapper throws forward as he goes on.

The nearer the approaches drew to the covered way, the more oblique became the zig-zags, so that little forward progress was made in proportion to the length of the trench. The approaches were then carried straight to the front, by means of the "double sap," which consisted of two single saps worked together with a parapet on each side (fig. 68). To protect these from being enfiladed from the front, traverses had to be left at intervals, usually by turning the two saps at right angles to right or left for a few feet, then forward, and so on as shown in fig. 69, the distance apart of these traverses being of course regulated by the height from which the enemy's fire commanded the trench.

Later stages of the attack.

The later stages in the attack are illustrated in fig. 70. From the third parallel the attack was pushed forward up the glacis by means of the double sap. It was then pushed right and left along the glacis, a little distance from the crest of the covered way. This was called "crowning" the covered way, and on the position thus gained breaching batteries were established in full view of the escarp. While the escarp was being breached, if it was intended to use a systematic attack throughout, a mine gallery (see _Mining_ below) was driven under the covered way and an opening made through the counterscarp into the ditch. The sap was then pushed across the ditch, and if necessary up the breach, the defenders' resistance being kept under by musketry and artillery fire from the covered way. The ravelin and bastions were thus captured successively, and where the bastions had been retrenched the same methods were used against the retrenchment.

[Illustration: From _Military Engineering_, by permission of the Controller of H.M. Stationery Office.

FIG. 67.--"Deep" Sap.]

Vauban showed how to breach the escarp with the least expenditure of ammunition. This was done by making, with successive shots placed close together (which was feasible even in those days from a position so close as the crest of the covered way) horizontal and vertical cuts through the revetment wall. The portion of revetment enclosed by the cuts being thus detached from support was overturned by the pressure of the earth from the rampart. Ricochet fire was also the invention of Vauban. He showed how, in enfilading the face of a work, by using greatly reduced charges a shot could be made to drop over the crest of the parapet and skim along the terreplein, dismounting guns and killing men as it went.

18th-century principles of defence.

The constant success of Vauban must be ascribed to method and thorough organization. There was a deadly certainty about his system that gave rise to the saying "Place assiegee, place prise." He left nothing to chance, and preferred as a rule the slow and certain progress of saps across the ditch and up the breach to the loss and delay that might follow an unsuccessful assault. His contemporary and nearest rival Coehoorn tried to shorten sieges by heavy artillery fire and attacks across the open; but in the long run his sieges were slower than Vauban's.

So much a matter of form did the attack become under these conditions, that in comparing the supposed defensive powers of different systems of fortification it was usual to calculate the number of days that would be required in each case before the breach was opened, the time being measured by the number of hours of work required for the construction of the various trenches and batteries. It began to be taken as a matter of course that no place under any circumstances could hold out more than a given number of days; and naturally, when the whole question had become one of formula, it is not surprising to find that places were very often surrendered without more than a perfunctory show of resistance.

The theory of defence at this time appeared to be that since it was impossible to arrest the now methodical and protected progress of the besiegers' trenches, no real resistance was possible until after they had reached the covered way, and this idea is at the root of the extraordinary complications of outworks and multiplied lines of ramparts that characterized the "systems" of this period. No doubt if a successor to Vauban could have brought the same genius to bear on the actual defence of places as he did on the attack, he would have discovered that the essence of successful defence lay in offensive action outside the body of the place, viz. with trench against trench. For want of such a man the engineers of the defence resigned themselves contentedly to the loss of the open ground outside their walls, and relied either upon successive permanent lines of defence, or if these did not exist, upon extemporized retrenchments, usually at the gorge of the bastion.

[Illustration: FIG. 68.--Double Sap.]

It is curious that such experienced soldiers as most of them were should not have realized the fatal effect upon the minds of the defenders which this almost passive abandonment of line after line must needs produce. Even a civilian--Machiavelli--had seen into the truth of the matter years before when he said (_Treatise on the Art of War_,