Project Gutenberg Encyclopedia
Previous Part     1 ... 23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35 ... 89     Next Part
Home - Random Browse

We pass on now to the theory. We shall make the natural supposition that motion of the aether, say with velocity (u,v,w) at the point (x,y,z), is simply superposed on the velocity V of the optical undulations through that medium, the latter not being intrinsically altered. Now the direction and phase of the light are those of the ray which reaches the eye; and by Fermat's principle, established by Huygens for undulatory motion, the path of a ray is that track along which the disturbance travels in least time, in the restricted sense that any alteration of any short reach of the path will increase the time. Thus the path of the ray when the aether is at rest is the curve which makes Integralds/V least; but when it is in motion it is the curve which makes Integralds/(V+lu+my+nw) least, where (l,m,n) is the direction vector of ds. The latter integral becomes, on expanding in a series,

Integralds/V - Integral(udx + vdy + wdz)/V2 + Integral(udx + vdy + wdz)2/V3 + ...,

since lds=dx. If the path is to be unaltered by the motion of the aether, as the law of astronomical aberration suggests, this must differ from Integralds/V by terms not depending on the path—that is, by terms involving only the beginning and end of it. In the case of the free aether V is constant; thus, if we neglect squares like (u/V)2, the condition is that udx + vdy + wdz be the exact differential of some function f. If this relation is true along all paths, the velocity of the aether must be of irrotational type, like that of frictionless fluid. Moreover, this is precisely the condition for the absence of interference between the component of a split beam; because, the time of passage being to the first order

Integralds/V - Integral(udx + vdy + wdz)/V2

the second term will then be independent of the path (f being a single valued function) and therefore the same for the paths of both the interfering beams. If therefore the aether can be pnt into motion, we conclude (with Stokes) that such motion, in free space, must be of strictly irrotational type.

But our experimental data are not confined to free space. if c is the velocity of radiation in free space and m the refractis'e index of a transparent body, V=C/m; thus it is the expression c-2Integralm2(u'dx + v'dy + w'dz) that is to be integrable explicitly, where now (u',v',w') is what is added to V owing to the velocity (u,v,w) of the medium. As, however, our terrestrial optical apparatus is now all in motion along with the matter, we must deal with the rays relative to the moving system, and to these also Fermat's principle clearly applies; thus V + (lu' + mv' + nw') is here the velocity of radiation in the direction of the ray, but relative to the moving material system. Now the expression above given cannot be integrable exactly, under all circumstances and whatever be the axes of co-ordinates, unless (m2u',m2v',m2w') is the gradient of a continuous function. In the simplest case, that of uniform translation, these components of the gradient will each be constant throughout the region; at a distant place in free aether where there is no motion, they must thus be equal to -u,-v, -w, as they refer to axes moving with the matter. Hence the paths and times of passage of all rays relative to the material system will not be altered by a uniform motion of the system, provided the velocity of radiation relative to the system, in material of index m, is diminished by m-2 times the velocity of the system in the direction of the radiation, that is, provided the absolute velocity of radiation is increased by 1 - m-2 times the velocity of the material system; this involves that the free aether for which m is unity shall remain at rest. This statement constitutes the famous hypothesis of Fresnel, which thus ensures that all phenomena of ray-path and refraction, and all those depending on phase, shall be unaffected by uniform convection of the material medium, in accordance with the results of experiment.

Is the Aether Stationary or mobile?—-This theory secures that the times of passage of the rays shall be independent of the motion of the system, only up to the first order of the ratio of its velocity to that of radiation. But a classical experiment of A. A. Michelson, in which the ray-path was wholly in air, showed that the independence extends to higher orders. This result is inconsistent with the aether remaining at rest, unless we assume that the dimensions of the moving system depend, though to an extent so small as to be not otherwise detectable, on its orientation with regard to the aether that is streaming through it. It is, however, in complete accordance with a view that would make the aether near the earth fully partake in its orbital motion—-a view which the null effect of convection on all terrestrial optical and electrical phenomena also strongly suggests. But the aether at a great distance must in any case be at rest; while the facts of astronomical aberration require that the motion of that medium must be irrotational. These conditions cannot be consistent with sensible convection of the aether near the earth without involving discontinuity in its motion at some intermediate distance, so that we are thrown back on the previous theory.

Another powerful reason for taking the aether to be stationary is afforded by the character of the equations of electrodynamics; they are all of linear type, and superposition of effects is possible. Now the kinetics of a medium in which the parts can have finite relative motions will lead to equations which are not linear—-as, for example, those of hydrodynamics—-and the phenomena will be far more complexly involved. It is true that the theory of vortex rings in hydrodynamics is of a simpler type; but electric currents cannot be likened to permanent vortex rings, because their circuits can be broken and the element of cyclic steadiness on which the simplicity depends is thereby destroyed.

Dynamical Theories of the Aether.—-The analytical equations which represent the propagation of light in free aether, and also in aether modified by the presence of matter, were originally developed on the analogy of the equations of propagation of elastic effects in solid media. Various types of elastic solid medium have thus been invented to represent the aether, without complete success in any case. In T. Maccullagh's hands the correct equations were derived from a single energy formula by the principle of least action; and while the validity of this dynamical method was maintained, it was frankly admitted that no mechanical analogy was forthcoming. When Clerk Maxwell pointed out the way to the common origin of optical and electrical phenomena, these equations naturally came to repose on an electric basis, the connexion having been first definitely exhibited by Fitzgerald in 1878; and according as the independent variable was one or other of the vectors which represent electric force, magnetic force or electric polarity, they took the form appropriate to one or other of the elastic theories above mentioned.

In this place it must suffice to indicate the gist of the more recent developments of the electro-optical theory, which involve the dynamical verification of Fresnel's hypothesis regarding optical convection and the other relations above described. The aether is taken to be at rest; and the strain-forms belonging to the atoms are the electric fields of the intrinsic charges, or electrones, involved in their constitution. When the atoms are in motion these strain-forms produce straining and unstraining in the aether as they pass across it, which in its motional or kinetic aspect constitutes the resulting magnetic field; as the strains are slight the coefficient of ultimate inertia here involved must be great. True electric current arises solely from convection of the atomic charges or electrons; this current is therefore not restricted as to form in any way. But when the rate of change of aethereal strain——that is, of (f,g,h) specified as Maxwell's electric displacement in free aether—-is added to it, an analytically convenient vector (u,v,w) is obtained which possesses the characteristic property of being circuital like the flow of an incompressible fluid, and has therefore been made fundamental in the theory by Maxwell under the name of the total electric current.

As already mentioned, all efforts to assimilate optical propagation to transmission of waves in an ordinary solid medium have failed; and though the idea of regions of intrinsic strain, as for example in unannealed glass, is familiar in physics, yet on account of the absence of mobility of the strain no attempt had been made to employ them to illustrate the electric fields of atomic charges. The idea of Maccullagh's aether, and its property of purely rotational elasticity which had been expounded objectively by W. J. M. Rankine, was therefore much vivified by Lord Kelvin's specification (Comptes Rendus, 1889) of a material gyrostatically constituted medium which would possess this character. More recently a way has been pointed out in which a mobile permanent field of electric force could exist in such a medium so as to travel freely in company with its nucleus or intrinsic charge—-the nature of the mobility of the latter, as well as its intimate constitution, remaining unknown.

A dielectric substance is electrically polarized by a field of electric force, the atomic poles being made up of the displaced positive and negative intrinsic charges in the atom: the polarization per unit volume (f',g',h') may be defined on the analogy of magnetism, and d/dt(f', g', h') thus constitutes truo electric current of polarization, i.e. of electric separation in the molecules, specified per unit volume. The convection of a medium thus polarized involves electric disturbance, and therefore must contribute to the true electric current; the determination of this constituent of the current is the most delicate point in the investigation. The usual definition of the component current in any direction, as the net amount of electrons which crosses, towards the positive side, an element of surface fixed in space at right angles to that direction, per unit area per unit time, here gives no definite result. The establishment and convection of a single polar atom constitutes in fact a quasi-magnetization, in addition to the polarization current as above defined, the negative poles completing the current circuits of the positive ones. But in the transition from molecular theory to the electrodynamics of extended media, all magnetism has to be replaced by a distribution of current; the latter being now specified by volume as well as by flow so that (u,v,w) dt is the current in the element of volume dt. In the present case the total dielectric contribution to this current works out to be the change per unit time in the electric separation in the molecules of the element of volume, as it moves uniformly with the matter, all other effects being compensated molecularly without affecting the propagation.1 On subtracting from this total the current of establishment of polarization d/dt/(f,g',h') as formulated above, there remains vd/dx(f',g',h') as the current of convection of polarization when the convection is taken for simplicity to be in the direction of the axis of x with velocity v. The polarization itself is determined from the electric force (P,Q,R) by the usual statical formula of linear type which becomes tor an isotropic medium

(f',g',h') = ((K-1)/4pc2)(P,Q,R),

because any change of the dielectric constant K arising from the convection of the material through the aether must be independent of the sign of v and therefore be of the second order. Now the electric force (P,Q,R) is the force acting on the electrons of the medium moving with velocity v; consequently by Faraday's electrodynamic law

(P,Q,R) = (P',Q' - vc, R'- vb)

where (P', Q', R') is the force that would act on electrons at rest, and (a,b,c) is the magnetic induction. The latter force is, by Maxwell's hypothesis or by the dynamical theory of an aether pervaded by electrons, the same as that which strains the aether, and may be called the aethereal force; it thereby produces an aethereal electric displacement, say (y,g,h), according to the relation

(f,g,h) = (4pc2) - (P', Q', R'),

in which c is a constant belonging to the aether, which turns out to be the velocity of light. The current of aethereal displacement d/dt(f,g,h) is what adds on to the true electric current to produce the total circuital current of Maxwell.

We have now to substitute these data in the universally valid circuital relations—-namely, (i) line integral of magnetic force round a circuit is equal to 4p times the current through its aperture, which may be regarded as a definition of the constitution of the aether and its relation to the electrons involved in it; and (ii) line integral of the electric force belonging to any material circuit (i.e. acting on the electrons situated on it which move with the velocity of the matter) is equal to minus the time-rate of change of the magnetic induction through that circuit as it moves with the matter, this being a dynamical consequence of the aethereal constitution assigned in (i).

We may now, as is somewhat the more natural course in the terrestrial application, take axes (x,y,z) which move with the matter; but the current must be invariably defined by the flux across surfaces fixed in space, so that we may say that relation (i) refers to a circuit fixed in space, while (ii) refers to one moving with the matter. These circuital relations, when expressed analytically, are then for a dielectric medium of types

dg/dy - db/dz = 4pu,...,..., where (u,v,w) = (d/dt + v(d/dx))(f',g',h') + (d/dt)(f,g,h) and dR/dy - dQ/dz = -da/dt',...,...,. where, when magnetic quality is inoperative, the magnetic induction (a,b,c) is identical with the magnetic force (a,b,g.)

These equations determine all the phenomena. They take this simple form, however, only when the movement of the matter is one of translation. If v varies with respect to locality, or if there is a velocity of convection (p,q,r) variable with respect to direction and position, and analytical expression of the relation (ii) assumes a more complex form; we thus derive the most general equations of electrodynamic propagation for matter treated as continuous, anyhow distributed and moving in any manner.

For the simplest case of polarized waves travelling parallel to the axis of x, with the magnetic oscillation g along z and the electric oscillation Q along y, all the quantities are functions of x and t alone; the total current is along y and given with respect to our moving axes by

v = (d/dt - v(d/dx))(Q+vg)/4pc2 + (d/dt)((K-1)/4pc2)Th;

also the circuital relations here reduce to

-dg/dx = 4pv, dQ/dx = -dg/dt;


d2Q/dx2 = 4pdv/dt

giving, on substitution for v,

(c2-v2)d2Q/dx2 = Kd2Q/dt2 - 2vd2Q/dxdt.

For a simple wave-train, Q varies as sin m(x-Vt), leading on substitution to the velocity of propagation V relative to the moving material, by means of the equation KV2 + 2 vV = c2-v2; this gives, to the first order of v/c, V = c/sqrt. K - v/K, which is in accordance with Fresnel's law. Trains of waves nearly but not quite homogeneous as regards wave-length will as usual be propagated as wave-groups travelling with the slightly different velocity d(Vl-1)/ dl-1, the value of K occurring in V being a function of l determined by the law of optical dispersion of the medium.

For purposes of theoretical discussions relating to moving radiators and reflectors, it is important to remember that the dynamics of all this theory of electrons involves the neglect of terms of the order (v/c)2, not merely in the value of K but throughout.

Recent Experimental Developments.—-The modification of the spectrum of a radiating gas by a magnetic field, such as would result from the hypothesis that the radiators are the system of revolving or oscillating electrons in the molecule, was detected by P. Zeeman in 1896, and worked up, in conjunction with H. A. Lorentz, on the general lines suggested by the electron-theory of molecular constitution. While it cannot be said that the full significance of this very definite phenomenon, consisting of the splitting of the spectral line into a number of polarized components, has yet been made out, a wide field of correlation with optical theory, especially in the neighbourhood of absorption bands, has been developed by Zeeman himself, by A. H. Becquerel, by D. Macaluso and O. M. Corbino, and by other workers.

The most fundamental experimental confirmation that the theory of the aether has received on the optical side in recent years has been the verification of Maxwell's proposition that radiation exerts mechanical force on a material system, on which it falls, which may be represented in all cases as the resultant of pressures operating along the rays, and of intensity equal at each point of free space to the density of radiant energy. A high vacuum is needed for the detection of the minute forces here concerned; but just in that case the indirect radiometer-effect of the heating of the residual gas masks the effect. P. N. Lebedew in 1900 succeeded, by operating on metallic vanes so thin that the exposed and averted faces were practically at the same temperature, in satisfactorily verifying the relation for metals; and very soon after, E. F. Nichols and G. F. Hull published accounts of an exact and extensive research, in which the principle had been fully and precisely confirmed as regards both transparent and opaque bodies. The experiment of J. H. Poynting may also be mentioned, in which the tangential component of the thrust of obliquely incident radiation is separately put in evidence, by the torsion produced in an arrangement which is not sensitive to the normal component or to the radiometer-pressure of the residual gas. (See RADIOMETER.)

Next to these researches on the pressure of radiation, which, by forming the mechanical link between radiation and matter, are fundamental for the thermodynamics of radiant energy, the most striking recent result has been the discovery of H. Rubens and E. Hagen that for dark heat rays of only about ten times the wave-length of luminous radiation, the properties of metals are determined by their electric resistance alone, which then masks all resonance due to periods of free vibration of the molecules; and, moreover, that the resistance for such alternations is practically the same as the ohmic resistance for ordinary steady currents. They found that the absorbing powers of the metals, and therefore, by the principle of exchanges, their radiating powers also, are proportional to the square roots of their electric conductivities. Maxwell had himself, at an early stage of his theory, tested the absorbing power of gold-leaf for light, and found that the effective conductivity for luminous vibrations must be very much greater than its steady ohmic value; it is, in fact, there a case of incipient conductivity, which is continually being undone on account of the rapid alternation of force before it is fully established. That, however, complete conduction should arrive with alternations only ten times slower than light was an unexpected and remarkable fact, which verifies the presumption that the process of conduction is one in which the dynamic activities of the molecules do not come into play. The corollary, that the electric resistance of a metal can be determined in absolute units by experiments on the reflexion of heat-rays from its surface, is a striking illustration of the unification of the various branches of physical science, which has come in the train of the development of the theory of the aether. (See RADIATION.)

Finally, reference should be made to the phenomena of radioactivity, whether excited by the electric discharge in vacuum tubes, foreshadowed in part by Sir Wm. Crookes and G. G. Stokes, and later by A. Schuster and others, but first fully developed with astonishing results including the experimental discovery of the free electron by J. J. Thomson, or the correlated phenomena occurring spontaneously in radio-active bodies as discovered by H. Becquerel and by M. and Mme Curie, and investigated by them and by E. Rutherford and others. These results constitute a far-reaching development of the modern or electrodynamic theory of the aether, of which the issue can hardly yet be foreseen.

REFERENCES.—Maxwell, Collected Papers H. A. Lorentz, Archives Neerlandaises, xxi. 1887, and xxv. 1892, and a tract, Versuch einer Theorie der electrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Korpern (Leyden, 1895); also recent articles "Elektrodynamik'' and "Elektronentheorie'' in the Encyk. der Math. Wissenschaften, Band v. 13, 14; O. Lodge, "On Aberration Problems,'' Phil. Trans. 1893 and 1897; J. Larmor, Phil. Trans. 1894—95—97, and a treatise, Aether and Motter (1900), where full references are given. Of recent years most treatises on physical optics, e.g. those of P. K. L. Drude, A. Schuster, R. W. Wood, have been written largely on the basis of the general physics of the aether; while the Collected Papers of Lord Rayleigh should be accessible to all who desire a first-hand knowledge of the development of the optical side of the subject. See also MOLECULE, ELECTRICITY, LIGHT and RADIATION. (J. L.*)

1 See H. A. Lorentz, loc. cit. infra.; J. Larmor, Aether and Matter, p. 262 and passim.

AETHICUS (=ETHICUS) ISTER, "the philosopher of Istria,'' the supposed but unknown author of a description of the world written in Greek. An abridgment, under the title of Cosmographia Ethici, written in barbarous Latin, and wrongly described as the work of St Jerome, probably belongs to the 7th century. After a discussion of the creation of the world and a description of the earth, an account of the wonderful journeys of Aethicus is given, with digressions on various subjects, such as Alexander the Great and the kings of Rome, full of obscure and fabulous details.

The name Aethicus is also attached to another geographical treatise probably dating from the 6th century, a reproduction, with some unimportant additions, of the cosmography—little else than a dry list of names—of Julius Honorius.

Editions.—D'Avezac (1852); Pertz (1853); Wuttke (1854); Riese's Lexicographi Latini Minores (1878); see also Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography.

AETIOLOGY, or ETIOLOGY (from Gr. aitia. cause, and logia, discourse), strictly, the science or philosophy of causation, but generally used to denote the part of any special science (and especially of that of medicine and disease) which investigates the causes and origin of its phenomena. An aetiological myth is one which is regarded as having been invented ex post facto to explain some fact, name or coincidence, the true account or origin of which has been forgotten. Such myths were often based on grotesque philological analogies, according to which an existing connexion between two personalities (cities, &c.) was traced back to a common mythical origin. For a good example of the evolution of such myths, see the argument under AEGINA, History.

AETION, or EETION, a Greek painter, mentioned by Cicero, Pliny and Lucian. His most noted work, described in detail by Lucian (Herodotus or Eetion, 5), was a picture representing the marriage of Alexander and Roxana. He is said to have exhibited it at the Olympic games, and by it so to have won the favour of the president that he gave him his daughter in marriage. Through a misunderstanding of the words of Lucian, Aetion has been supposed to belong to the age of the Antonines; but there can be little doubt that he was a contemporary of Alexander and of Apelles (Brunn, Geschichte der griechischen Kunstler, ii. p. 243). Pliny gives his date as 350 B.C.

AETIUS (fl. 350), surnamed "the Atheist,'' founder of an extreme sect of Arians, was a native of Cocle-Syria. After working as a vine-dresser and then as a goldsmith he became a travelling doctor, and displayed great skill in disputations on medical subjects; but his controversial power soon found a wider field for its exercise in the great theological question of the time. He studied successively under the Arians, Paulinus, bishop of Antioch, Athanasius, bishop of Anazarbus, and the presbyter Antonius of Tarsus. In 350 he was ordained a deacon by Leontius of Antioch, but was shortly afterwards forced by the orthodox party to leave that town. At the first synod of Sirmium he won a dialectic victory over the homoiousian bishops, hasilius and Eustathius, who sought in consequence to stir up against him the enmity of Caesar Gallus. In 356 he went to Alexandria with Eunomius (q.v.) in order to advocate Arianism, but he was banished by Constantius. Julian recalled him from exile, bestowed upon him an estate in Lesbos, and retained him for a time at his court in Constantinople. Being consecrated a bishop, he used his office in the interests of Arianism by creating other bishops of that party. At the accession of Valens (364) he retired to his estate at Lesbos, but soon returned to Constantinople, where he died in 367. The Anomoean sect of the Arians, of whom he was the leader, are sometimes called after him Aetians. His work De Fide has been preserved in connexion with a refutation written by Epiphanius (Haer. lxxvi. 10). Its main thought is that the Homousia, i.e. the doctrine that the Son (therefore the Begotten) is essentially God, is self-contradictory, since the idea of unbegottenness is just that which constitutes the nature of God.

See A. Harnack, History of Dogma, vol. iv. passim.

AETIUS, a Greek physician, born at Amida in Mesopotamia, flourished at the beginning of the 6th century A.D. He studied at Alexandria, and became court physician at Byzantium and comes obsequii, one of the chief officers of the imperial household. He wrote a large medical work in sixteen books, founded on Oribasius and compiled from various sources, especially Galen [Galenos]. Superstition and mysticism play a great part in his remedies. Eight books of the Greek original were printed at Venice, 1534, and a complete Latin translation by Cornarius appeared at Basel, 1542.

See Weigel, Aetianarum exercitationum specimen (1791); Danelius, Beitrag zur Augenheilkunde des Aetius (1889); Zernos, Aetii sermo sextidecimus et ultimus, editio princeps (1901).

AETIUS (d. 454), a Roman general of the closing period of the Western empire, born at Dorostolus in Moesia, late in the 4th century. He was the son of Gaudentius, who, although possibly of barbarian family, rose in the service of the Western empire to be master of the horse, and later count of Africa. Aetius passed some years as hostage, first with Alaric and the Goths, and later in the camp of Rhuas, king of the Huns, acquiring in this way the knowledge which enabled him afterwards to defeat them. In 424 he led into Italy an army of 60,000 barbarians, mostly Huns, which he employed first to support the primicerius Joannes, who had proclaimed himself emperor, and, on the defeat of the latter, to enforce his claim to the supreme command of the army in Gaul upon Placidia, the empress-mother and regent for Valentinian III. His calumnies against his rival, Count Boniface, which were at first believed by the emperor, led Boniface to revolt and call the Vandals to Africa. Upon the discovery of the truth, Boniface, although defeated in Africa, was received into favour by Valentinian; but Aetius came down against Boniface from his Gallic wars, like another Julius Caesar, and in the battle which followed wounded Boniface fatally with his own javelin. From 433 to 450 Aetius was the dominating personality in the Western empire. In Gaul he won his military reputation, upholding for nearly twenty years, by combined policy and daring, the falling fortunes of the empire. His greatest victory was that of Chalons-sur-Marne (September 20, 451), in which he led the Gallic forces against Attila and the Huns. This was the last triumph of the empire. Three years later (454) Aetius presented himself at court to claim the emperor's daughter in marriage for his son Gaudentius; but Valentinian, suspecting him of designs upon the crown, slew him with his own hand.

See T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, vols. i. and ii. (1880).

AETOLIA, a district of northern Greece, bounded on the S. by the Corinthian Gulf, on the W. by the river Achelous, on the N. and E. by the western spurs of Parnassus and Oeta. The land naturally falls into two divisions. The basins of the lower Achelous (mod. Aspropotamo) and Euenus (Phidharis) form a series of alluvial valleys intersected by detached ridges which mostly run parallel to the coast. This district of "Old Aetolia'' lacks a suitable sea-board, but the inland, and especially the plain of central Aetolia lying to the north of Lakes Hyria and Trichonis and Mount Aracynthus, forms a rich agricultural country. The northern and eastern regions are broken by an extensive complex of chains and peaks, whose rugged limestone flanks are clad at most with stunted shrubs and barely leave room for a few precarious mule-tracks. These heights often rise in the frontierranges of Tymphrestus, Oxia and Corax to more than 7000 ft.; the snow-capped pinnacle of Krona attains to 8240 ft. A few defiles pass through this barrier to the other side of the north Greek watershed.

In early legend Old Aetolia, with its cities of Pleuron and Calydon, figures prominently. During the great migrations (see DORIANS) the population was largely displaced, and the old inhabitants long remainedin a backward condition. In the 5th century some tribes were still living in open villages under petty kings, addicted to plunder and piracy, and hardly recogniged as Hellenes at all. Yet their military strength was not to be despised: in 426 their archers and slingers easily repelled an Athenian invasion under Demosthenes. In the 4th century the Aetolians began to take a greater part in Greek politics, and, in return for helping Epaminondas (367) and Philip of Macedon (338), recovered control of their sea-board, to which they annexed the Acarnanian coast and the Oeniadae. Aetolia's prosperity dates from the period of Macedonian supremacy. It may be ascribed partly to the wealth and influence acquired by Aetolian mercenaries in Hellenistic courts, but chiefly to the formation of a national Aetolian league, the first effective institution of this kind in Greece. Created originally to meet the peril of an invasion by the Macedonian regents Antipater and Craterus, who had undertaken a punitive expedition against Aetolia after the Lamian War (322), and by Cassander (314-311), the confederacy grew rapidly during the subsequent period of Macedonian weakness. Since 290 it had extended its power over all the uplands of central Greece, where its command over Heracleia (280) provided it with an important defensive position against northern invaders, its control of Delphi and the Amphictyonic council with a useful political instrument. The valour of the Aetolians was conspicuously displayed in 279, when they broke the strength of the Celtic irruption by slaughtering great hordes of marauders. The commemorative festival of the Soteria, which the league established at Delphi, obtained recognition from many leading Greek states. After annexing Boeotia (by 245) the Aetolians controlled all central Greece. Endeavouring next to expand into Peloponnesus, they allied themselves with Antigonus Gonatas of Macedonia against the Achaean league (q.v.), and besides becoming protectors of Elis and Messenia won several Arcadian cities. Their naval power extended to Cephalonia, to the Aegaean islands and even to the Hellespont. The league at its zenith had thus a truly imperial status.

Later in the century its power began to he sapped by Macedonia. To check King Demetrius (239-229) the Aetolians joined arms with the Achaeans. In 224 they held Heracleia Trachis against Antigonus Doson, but lost control of Boeotia and Phocis. Since 228 their Arcadian possessions had been abandoned to Sparta. At the same time a new enemy arose in the Illyrian pirate fleets, which outdid them in unscrupulousness and violence. The raids of two Aetolian chiefs in Achaean territory (220) led to a coalition between Achaea and Philip V. of Macedon, who assailed the invaders with great energy, driving them out of Peloponnesus and marching into Aetolia itself, where he surprised and sacked the federal capital Thermon. After buying peace by the cession of Acarnania (217) the league concluded a compact with Rome, in which both states agreed to plunder ruthlessly their common enemies (211). In the great war of their Roman allies against Philip the federal troops took a prominent part, their cavalry being largely responsible for the victory of Cynoscephalae (197). The Romans in return restored central Greece to the league, but by withholding its former Thessalian possessions excited its deep resentment. The Aetolians now invited Antiochus III. of Syria to European Greece, and so precipitated a conflict with Rome. But in the war they threw away their chances. In 192 they wasted themselves in an unsuccessful attempt to secure Sparta. In 191 they supported Antiochus badly, and by their slackness in the defence of Thermopylae made his position in Greece untenable. Having thus isolated themselves the Aetolians stood at bay behind their walls against the Romans, who refused all compromises, and, after the general surrender in 189, restricted the league to Aetolia proper and assumed control over its foreign relations. In 167 the country suffered severely from the intrigues of a philo-Roman party, which caused a series of judicial murders and the deportation of many patriots to Italy. By the time of Sulla, when the league is mentioned for the last time, its functions were purely nominal. The federal constitution closely resembled that of the Achaean league (q.v.), for which it doubtless served as a model. The general assembly, convoked every autumn at Thermon to elect officials, and at other places in special emergencies, shaped the league's general policy; it was nominally open to all freemen, though no doubt the Aetolian chieftains really controlled it. The council of deputies from the confederate cities undertook the routine of administration and jurisdiction. The strategus (general), aided by 30 apocleti (ministers), had complete control in the field and presided over the assembly, though with restricted advisory powers. The Aetolians also used the Amphictyonic synod for passing solemn enactments. The league's relation to outlying dependencies is obscure; many of these were probably mere protectorates or "allied states'' and secured no representation. The federal executive was certainly much more efficient than that of the Achaeans, and its councils suffered less from disunion; but its generals and admirals, official or otherwise, enjoyed undue licence; hence the league deservedly gained an evil name for the numerous acts of lawlessness or violence which its troops committed. But as a champion of republican Greece against foreign enemies no other power of the age rendered equal services. After the first overthrow of the Byzantine empire Aetolia passed to a branch of the old imperial house (1205). In the 15th century it was held by Scanderbeg (q.v.) and by the Venetians, but Mahommed II. brought it definitely under Turkish rule. In the War of Independence the Aetolians by their stubborn defence, culminating in the sieges of Missolonghi (q.v.), formed the backbone of the rebellion. Northern Aetolia remains a desolate region, inhabited mainly by Vlach shepherds. The south-western plain, though rendered unhealthy by lagoons, and central Aetolia yield good crops of currants, vine, maize and tobacco, which are conveyed by railway from Agrinion and Anatolikon to the coast. The country, which forms part of the modern department of Acarnania and Aetolia, contains numerous fragments of ancient fortifications. It has contributed a notable Droportion of distinguished men to modern Greece. Diodorus xviii. 24. 5; Pausanias x. 20 sq.; Polybius and Livy passim; W. J. Woodhouse, Aetolia (Oxford, 1897); M. Dubois, Les Lieues acheenne et etolienne (Paris, 1885); E. A. Freeman, Federal Government (ed. 1893, London), ch. vi.; B. V. Head, Historia Numorum (Oxford, 1887), pp. 283-284; M. Holleaux in Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique (1905, pp. 362-372l; G. Sotiriades in 'Efemeris 'Arxaiologike, (1900) pp. 163-212, (1903) pp. 73-94, and in Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique (1907), pp. 139-184: C. Salvetti in Studi di Storia Antica, vol. ii. (Rome, 1893), pp. 270-320. (M. O. B. C.)

AFARS (DANAHIL), a tribe of African "Arabs'' of Hamitic stock. They occupy the arid coast-lands between Abyssinia and the sea. They claim to be Arabs, but are more akin to the Galla and Somali. The tribe is roughly divisible into a pastoral and a coast-dwelling group. Their religion is chiefly fetish and tree-worship; many, nominally, profess Mahommedanism. They are distinguished by narrow straight noses, thin lips and small pointed chins; their cheekbones are not prominent. They are more scantily clothed than the Abyssinians or Galla, wearing, generally, nothing but a waist-cloth. Their women, when quite young, are pretty and graceful. Their huts are often tastefully decorated, the floors being spread with yellow mats, embroidered with red and violet designs. The Afars are divided into many sub-tribes, each having an hereditary sultan, whose power is, however, limited. They are desperate fighters and in 1875 successfully resisted an attempt to bring them under Egyptian rule. In 1883-1888, however, their most important sultan concluded treaties placing his country under Italian protection. The Afar region is now partly under Abyssinian and partly under Italian authority. The Afars are also found in considerable numbers in French Somaliland. They have a saying "Guns are only useful to frighten cowards.'' They were formerly redoubtable pirates, but the descendants of these corsairs are now fishermen, and are the only sailors in the Red Sea who hunt the dugong.

P. Paulitschke, Ethnographic Nordost-Afrikas (2 vols., Berlin, 1893-1896); and Die geographische Erforschung der A dal-Lander und Harars in Ost-Afrika (Leipzig, 1884).

AFER, DOMITIUS, a Roman orator and advocate, born at Nemausus (Nimes) in Gallia Narbonensis, flourished in the reigns of Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero. His pupil Quintilian calls him the greatest orator he had ever known; but he disgraced his talents by acting as public informer against some of the most distinguished personages in Rome. He gained the favour of Tiberius by accusing Claudia Pulcra, the widow of Germanicus, of adultery and the use of magic arts against the emperor. Judicious flattery secured him the consulship under Caligula (39); and under Nero he was superintendent of the water supply. He died A.D. 60, according to Jerome, of over-eating. Quintilian quotes some of his witty sayings (dicta), collections of which were published, and mentions two books by him On Witnesses.

Quintilian, Instit. vi. 3. 42, viii. 5. 16, x. 1. 118, &c.; Tac. Ann iv. 52; Dio Cassius lix. 19, lx. 33; Pliny, Epp. viii. 18.

AFFECTION (Lat. ad, and facere, to do something to, sc. a person), literally, a mental state resulting generally from an external influence. It is popularly used of a relation between persons amounting to more than goodwill or friendship. By ethical writers the word has been used generally of distinct states of feeling, both lasting and spasmodic; some contrast it with "passion'' as being free from the distinctively sensual element. More specifically the word has been restricted to emotional states which are in relation to persons. In the former sense, it is the Gr. pathos, and as such it appears in Descartes and most of the early British ethical writers. On various grounds, however—-e.g. that it does not involve anxiety or excitement, that it is comparatively inert and compatible with the entire absence of the sensuous element—At is generally and usefully distingmshed from passion. In this narrower sense the word has played a great part in ethical systems, which have spoken of the social or parental "affections'' as in some sense a part of moral obligation. For a consideration of these and similar problems, which depend ultimately on the degree in which the affections are regarded as voluntary, see H. Sidgwick, Methods of Ethics, pp. 345-349.

In psychology the terms "affection'' and "affective'' are of great importance. As all intellectual phenomena have by experimentalists been reduced to sensation, so all emotion has been and is regarded as reducible to simple mental affection, the element of which all emotional manifestations are ultimately composed. The nature of this element is a problem which has been provisionally, but not conclusively, solved by many psychologists; the method is necessarily experimental, and all experiments on feeling are peculiarly difficult. The solutions proposed are two. In the first, all affection phenomena are primarily divisible into those which are pleasurable and those which are the reverse. The main objections to this are that it does not explain the infinite variety of phenomena, and that it disregards the distinction which most philosophers admit between higher and lower pleasures. The second solution is that every sensation has its specific affective quality, though by reason of the poverty of language many of these have no name. W. Wundt, Outlines of Psychology (trans. C. H. Judd, Leipzig, 1897), maintains that we may group under three main affective directions, each with its negative, all the infinite varieties in question; these are (a) pleasure, or rather pleasantness, and the reverse, (b) tension and relaxation, (c) excitement and depression. These two views are antithetic and no solution has been discovered.

Two obvious methods of experiment have been tried. The first, introduced by A. Mosso, the Italian psychologist, consists in recording the physical phenomena which are observed to accompany modifications of the affective consciousness. Thus it is found that the action of the heart is accelerated by pleasant, and retarded by unpleasant, stimuli; again, changes of weight and volume are found to accompany modifications of affection—and so on. Apart altogether from the facts that this investigation is still in its infancy and that the conditions of experiment are insufficiently understood, its ultimate success is rendered highly problematical by the essential fact that real scientific results can be achieved only by data recorded in connexion with a perfectly normal subject; a conscious or interested subject introduces variable factors which are probably incalculable.

The second is Fechner's method; it consists of recording the changes in feeling-tone produced in a subject by bringing him in contact with a series of conditions, objects or stimuli graduated according to a scientific plan and presented singly in pairs or in groups. The result is a comparative table of likes and dislikes.

Mention should also be made of a third method which has hardly yet been tried, namely, that of endeavouring to isolate one of the three "directions'' by the method of suggestion or even hypnotic trance observations.

For the subject of emotion in general see modern text-books of psychology, e.g. those of J. Sully, W. James, G. T. Fechner, O. Kulpe; Angelo Mosso, La Paura (Milan, 1884, 1900; Eng. trans. E. Lough and F. Kiesow, Lond. 1896); E. B. Titchener, Experimental Psychology (1905); art. PSYCHOLOGY and works there quoted.

AFFIDAVIT (Med. Lat. for "he has declared upon oath,'' from affidare, fides, faith), a written statement sworn or affirmed to before some person who has authority to administer an oath or affirmation. Evidence is chiefly taken by means of affidavits in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in England on a petition, summons or motion. Interlocutory proceedings before trial are conducted by affidavits, e.g. for discovery of documents, hence called affidavit of documents. Affidavits are sometimes necessary as certificates that certain formalities have been duly and legally performed (such as service of proceedings, &c.). They are extensively used in bankruptcy practice, in the administration of the revenue and in the inferior and county courts. In testamentary causes, all documents of any kind, such as wills, codicils, drafts or instructions of same must be filed in the form of affidavits (termed affidavits of scripts.) In Scotland the testimony of witnesses by affidavit is almost unknown, except in a few non-contentious cases as prima facie evidence. In the rules of the Supreme Court (R.S.C. Ord. XXXVIII.) certain formal requirements are laid down for all affidavits and affirmations in causes or matters depending in the High Court. An affidavit must consist of title, body or statement and jurat. It must be written or printed on foolscap, bookwise, in the first person; give correctly the names of the parties to the action; and the description and true place of abode of the deponent. An affidavit is confined, except on interlocutory motions, to such facts as the witness is able of his own knowledge to prove. The signature of the deponent must be written opposite to the jurat, which must contain the place, date and time of swearing, and this signed by the officer or magistrate before whom the affidavit is sworn. An affidavit sworn on a Sunday is not invalid. Quakers, Moravians and Separatists were first privileged to make a solemn declaration or affirmation, and by the Common Law Procedure Act 1852 and other statutes all persons prevented by religious belief from taking an oath were allowed to affirm; and, finally, by the Oaths Act 1888, every person who objects to be sworn is allowed to affirm in all places and for all purposes where an oath is required by law. By an act of 1835 justices are permitted to take affidavits in any matter by declaration, and a person making a false affidavit in this way is liable to punishment. The same act prohibited justices of peace from administering oaths in any matter in which they had not jurisdiction as judges, except when an oath was specially authorized by statute, as in the bankruptcy law, and excepting criminal inquiries, parliamentary proceedings and instances where oaths are required to give validity to documents abroad. Scottish justices can act in England and vice versa. The Oaths Act 1888 and the Commissioner of Oaths Act 1889 consolidated all previous enactments relating to oaths and gave the lord chancellor power to appoint commissioners for oaths to take affidavits for all purposes (see OATH.) Under the Debtors Act 1869 a plaintiff may file an affidavit for the arrest of a debtor (affidavit to hold to bail) when the debt amounts to L. 50 or upwards, where it can be shown that the debtor's absence from the kingdom would materially prejudice the prosecution of the action.

Affidavits may be made abroad before any British ambassador, envoy, minister, charge d'affaires, secretary of embassy or legation, consul or consular agent.

In the United States affidavit has the same meaning as in England and its general uses are the same, but it is not substituted for oral evidence in court to anything like the extent to which that is done in the English courts of chancery. The statutes of each state designate the persons before whom affidavits may be made outside the state, and special commissioners are appointed for that purpose by each state. Affidavits made abroad must be made before such commissioners or persons so designated, who are usually diplomatic and consular officials, justices, notaries public or mayors. "Affidavit of documents'' is not generally used in the United States; discovery is procured by motion.

AFFILIATION (from Lat. ad-filiare, to adopt as a son), in law, the procedure by which the paternity of a bastard child is determined, and the obligation of contributing to its support enforced. In England a number of statutes on the subject hnve been passed, the chief being the Bastardy Act of 1845, and the Bastardy Laws Amendment Acts of 1872 and 1873. The mother of a bastard may summon the putative father to petty sessions within twelve months of the birth (or at any later time if he is proved to have contributed to the child's support within twelve months after the birth), and the justices, after hearing evidence on both sides, may, if the mother's evidence be corroborated in some material particular, adjudge the man to be the putative father of the child, and order him to pay a sum not exceeding five shillings a week for its maintenance, together with a sum for expenses incidental to the birth, or the funeral expenses, if it has died before the date of order, and the costs of the proceedings. An order ceases to be valid after the child reaches the age of thirteen, but the justices may in the order direct the payments to be continued until the child is sixteen years of age. An appeal to quarter sessions is open to the defendant, and a further appeal on questions of law to the King's Bench by rule nisi or certiorari. Should the child afterwards become chargeable to the parish, the sum due by the father may be received by the parish officer. When a bastard child, whose mother has not obtained an order, becomes chargeable to the parish, the guardians may proceed against the putative father for a contribution. Any woman who is single, a widow, or a married woman living apart from her husband, may make an application for a summons, and it is immaterial where the child is begotten, provided it is born in England. An application for a summons may be made before the birth of the child, but in this case the statement of the mother must be in the form of a sworn deposition. The defendant must be over fourteen years of age. No agreement on the part of the woman to take a sum down in discharge of the liability of the father is a bar to the making of an affiliation order. In the case of twins it is usual to make separate applications and obtain separate summonses. The Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879 makes due provision for the enforcement of an order of affiliation. In the case of soldiers an affiliation order cannot be enforced in the usual way, but by the Army Act 1881, if an order has been made against a soldier of the regular forces, and a copy of such order be sent to the secretary of state, he may order a portion of the soldier's pay to be retained. There is no such special legislation with regard to sailors in the royal navy.

In the British colonies, and in the states of the United States (with the exception of California, Idaho, Missouri, Oregon, Texas and Utah), there is some procedure (usually termed filiation) akin to that described above, by means of which a mother can obtain a contribution to the support of her illegitimate child from the putative father. The amount ordered to be paid may subsequently be increased or diminished (1905; 94 N.Y. Supplt. 372). On the continent of Europe, however, the legislation of the various countries differs rather widely. France, Belgium, Holland, Italy, Russia, Servia and the canton of Geneva provide no means of inquiry into the paternity of an illegitimate child, and consequently all support of the child falls upon the mother; on the other hand, Germany, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the majority of the Swiss cantons provide for an inquiry into the paternity of illegitimate children, and the law casts a certain amount of responsibility upon the father.

Affiliation, in France, is a term applied to a species of adoption by which the person adopted succeeds equally with other heirs to the acquired, but not to the inherited, property of the deceased. (See ADOPTION. Also BASTARD; POOR LAWS.)

AUTHORITIES.—-Saunders, Law and Practice of Orders of Affiliation; Lushington, Law of Affiliation and Bastardy; Little, Poor Law Statutes. (T. A. I.)

AFFINITY (Lat. affinitas, relationship by marriage, from affinis, bordering on, related to; finis, border, boundary), in law, as distinguished from consanguinity (q.v.), the term applied to the relation which each party to a marriage, the husband and wife, bears to the kindred of the other. Affinity is usually described as of three kinds. (1) Direct: that relationship which subsists between the husband and his wife's relations by blood or between the wife and the husband's relations by blood. The marriage having made them one person, the blood relations of each are held as related by affinity in the same degree to the one spouse as by consanguinity to the other. But the relation is only with the married parties themselves, and does not bring those in affinity with them in affinity with each other; so a wife's sister has no affinity to her husband's brother. This is (2) Secondary affinity. (3) Collateral affinity is the relationship subsisting between the husband and the relations of his wife's relations.

The subject is chiefly important from the matrimonial prohibitions by which the canon law has restricted relations by affinity. Taking the table of degrees within which marriage is prohibited on account of consanguinity, the rule has been thus extended to affinity, so that wherever relationship to a man himself would be a bar to marriage, relationship to his deceased wife will be the same bar, and vice versa on the husband's decease.

Briefly, direct affinity is a bar to marriage. This rule has been founded chiefly on interpretations of the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus. Formerly by law in England, marriages within the degrees of affinity were not absolutely null, but they were liable to be annulled by ecclesiastical process during the lives of both parties; in other words, the incapacity was only a canonical, not a civil, disability. By the Marriage Act 1835 all marriages of this kind not disputed before the passing of the act were declared absolutely valid, while all subsequent to it were declared null. This rendered null in England, and not merely voidable, a marriage with a deceased wife's sister or niece. (See CONSANGUINITY; MARRIAGE.)

AFFINITY, CHEMICAL, the property or relation in virtue of which dissimilar substances are capable of entering into chemical combination with each other. (See CHEMISTRY; CHEMICAL ACTION; VALENCY.)

AFFIRMATION (from Lat. affirmare, to assert), the declaration that something is true; in logic, a positive judgment, the union of the subject and predicate of a proposition; particularly, in law, the solemn declaration allowed to those who conscientiously object to taking an oath. (See OATH.)

AFFRAY, in law, the fighting of two or more persons in a public place to the terror (a l' effroi ) of the lieges. The offence is a misdemeanour at English common law, punishable by fine and imprisonment. A fight in private is an assault and battery, not an affray. As those engaged in an affray render themselves also liable to prosecution for Assault (q.v.), Unlawful Assembly (see ASSEMBLY, UNLAWFUL), or Riot (q.v.), it is for one of these offences that they are usually charged. Any private person may, and constables and justices must, interfere to put a stop to an affray. In the United States the English common law as to affray applies, subject to certain modifications by the statutes of particular states (Bishop, Amer. Crim. Law, 8th ed., 1892, vol. i. sec. 535). The Indian Penal Code (sect. 159) adopts the English definition of affray, with the substitution of "actual disturbance of the peace'' for "causing terror to the lieges.'' The Queensland Criminal Code of 1899 (sect. 72) defines affray as taking part in a fight in a public highway or taking part in a fight of such a nature as to alarm the public in any other place to which the public have access. This definition is taken from that in the English Criminal Code Bill of 1880, cl. 96. Under the Roman Dutch law in force in South Africa affray falls within the definition of vis publica.

AFFRE, DENIS AUGUSTE (1793—1848), archbishop of Paris, was born at St Rome, in the department of Tarn, on the 27th of September 1793. He was educated for the priesthood at St Sulpice, where in 1818 he became professor of dogmatic theology. After filling a number of ecclesiastical offices, he was elevated to the archbishopric of Paris in 1840. Though opposed to the government of Louis Philippe, he took no part in politics, but devoted himself to his pastoral work. His episcopate, however, is chiefly remembered owing to its tragic close. During the insurrection of June 1848 the archbishop was led to believe that by his personal interference peace might be restored between the soldiery and the insurgents. Accordingly, in spite of the warning of General Cavaignac, he mounted the barricade at the entrance to the Faubourg St Antoine, bearing a green branch as sign of peace. He had spoken only a few words, however, when the insurgents, hearing some shots, and fancying they were betrayed, opened fire upon the national guard, and the archbishop fell, struck by a stray bullet. He was removed to his palace, where he died on the 27th of June 1848. Next day the National Assembly issued a decree expressing their great sorrow on account of his death; and the public funeral on the 7th of July was one of the most striking spectacles of its kind. The archbishop wrote several treatises of considerable value, including an Essai sur les hieroglyphes egyptiens (Paris, 1834), in which he showed that Champollion's system was insufficient to explain the hieroglyphics.

See Ricard, Les grands eveques de l'eglise de France au XIXe siecle (Lille, 1893); L. Alazard, Denis-Auguste Affre, archeveque de Paris (Paris, 1905).

AFFREIGHTMENT (from "freight,'' q.v.). Contract of Affreightment is the expression usually employed to describe the contract between a shipowner and some other person called the freighter, by which the shipowner agrees to carry goods of the freighter in his ship, or to give to the freighter the use of the whole or part of the cargo-carrying space of the ship for the carriage of his goods on a specified voyage or voyages or for a specified time; the freighter on his part agreeing to pay a specified price, called "freight,'' for the carriage of the goods or the use of the ship. A ship may be let like a house to some person who takes possession and control of it for a specified term. The person who hires a ship in this way occupies during the currency of his term the position of shipowner. The contract by which a ship is so let may be called a charter-party; but it is not, properly speaking, a contract of affreightment, and is mentioned here only because it is necessary to remember the distinction between a charter-party of this kind, which is sometimes called a demise of the ship, and a charter-party which is a form of contract of affreightment, as will hereinafter appear.

Rules of law.

The law with regard to the contract of affreightment is, of course, a branch of the general law of contract. The rights and obligations of the shipowner and the freighter depend, as in the case of all parties to contracts, upon the terms of the agreement entered into between them. The law, however, interferes to some extent in regulating the effect to be given to contracts. Certain contracts are forbidden by the law, and being illegal are, therefore, incapable of enforcement. The most important example of illegality in the case of contracts of affreightment is when the contract involves trading with an enemy. The law interferes again with regard to the interpretation of the contract. The meaning to be given to the words of the contract, or, in other words, its construction, when a dispute arises about it, must be determined by the judge or court. The result is, that certain more or less common clauses in contracts of affreightment have come before the courts for construction, and the decisions in these cases are treated practically, though not perhaps quite logically, as rules of law determining the sense to be put upon certain forms of expression in common use in shipping contracts. A third way in which the law interferes is by laying down certain rules by which the rights of the parties are to be regulated in the absence of any express stipulation with regard to the matter dealt with by such rules. This is done either by statutory enactment, as by that part (Part VIII.) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1804 which deals with the liability of shipowners; or by established rules of the unwritten law, the "common law'' as it is called, as, for instance, the rule that the common carrier is absolutely responsible for the safe delivery of the goods carried, unless it is prevented by the act of God or the king's enemies. These rules of law, whether common law or statute law, regulating the obligations of carriers of goods by sea, are of most importance in cases which are uncommon though not unknown at the present day, in which there is an affreightment without any written agreement of any kind. It will, therefore, be convenient to consider first cases of this kind where there is no express agreement, oral or written, except as to the freight and destination of the goods, and where, consequently, the rights and obligations of the parties as to all other terms of carriage depend wholly upon the rules of law, remembering always that these same rules apply when there is a written contract, except in so far as they are qualified or negatived by the terms of such contract.

In defaults of express contract.

The rules of the common or ancient customary law of England with regard to the carriage of goods were no doubt first considered by the courts and established with regard to the carriage of goods by common carriers on land. These rules were applied to common carriers by water, and it may now be taken to be the general rule that shipowners who carry goods by sea are by the English law subject to the liabilities of common carriers. (See, as to the grounds and precise extent of this doctrine, the judgments in Liver Alkali Company v. Johnson (1874), L.R., 9 Ex. 338, and Nugent v. Smith (1876) 1 C.P.D. 423.) In practice goods are not often shipped without a written contract or acknowledgment of the terms upon which they are to be carried. For each separate consignment or parcel of goods shipped a bill of lading is almost invariably given, and when a whole cargo is agreed to be carried the terms are set out in a document called a charter-party, signed by or on behalf of the shipowner on the one part, and the shipper, who is called the charterer, on the other part. But at present we are considering the relations of shipowner and shipper independently of any express contract, as in a case when goods are shipped and received to be carried to the place to which the ship is bound for a certain freight, but without any further agreement as to the terms of carriage. In such a case the rights of the parties depend on the rules of law, or, which is much the same thing, upon the warranties or promises which though not expressed must, as the courts have held, be implied as arising from the relation between the parties as shipper and carrier. The obligations on the one side and the other may be defined shortly to be as follows:—The shipper must not ship goods of a nature or in a condition which he knows, or ought, if he used reasonable care, to know to be dangerous to the ship, or to other goods, unless the shipowner has notice of or has sufficient opportunity to observe their dangerous character. The shipper must be prepared, without notice from the shipowner, to take delivery of his goods with reasonable despatch on the arrival of the ship at the place of destination, being ready there to discharge in some usual discharging place. The shipper must pay the agreed freight, and will not be entitled to claim delivery until the freight has been paid. In other words, the shipowner has a lien on the goods carried for the freight payable in respect of the carriage. On the other hand, the obligation upon the shipowner is first and foremost to deliver safely at their destination the goods shipped, and this obligation is, by the common law, subject to this exception only that the shipowner is not liable for loss or damage caused by the act of God or the king's enemies; but by statute (Merchant Shipping Act 1894, Part VIII.) it is further qualified to this extent that the shipowner is not liable for loss, happening without his actual fault or privity, by fire on board the ship, or by the robbery or embezzlement of or making away with gold or silver or jewellery, the true nature and value of which have not been declared in writing at the time of shipment; and, further, the shipowner is not laable for damage to or loss of goods or merchandise beyond an aggregate amount, not exceeding eight pounds per ton for each ton of the ship's tonnage. The shipowner is bound by an implied undertaking, or, in other words, is made responsible by the law as if he had entered into an express undertaking: (1) that the ship is seaworthy; (2) that she shall proceed upon the voyage with reasonable despatch, and shall not deviate without necessity from the usual course of the voyage.

It is not our purpose in this article to discuss minute or doubtful questions; but in their general outline the obligations of shipper and shipowner, where no terms of carriage have been agreed, except as to the freight and destination of the goods, are such as have been described above. The importance of appreciating clearly this view of the relations of shipper and shipowner arises from the fact that these fundamental rules apply to all contracts of affreightment, whether by bill of lading, charter-party or otherwise, except in so far as they are modified or negatived by the express terms of the contract.

Bills of Lading. The document signed by the master or agent for the shipowner, by which are acknowledged the shipment of a parcel of goods and the terms upon which it is to be carried, is called a Bill of Lading. Very many different forms of bills of lading are used. For the purpose of illustration the following form (from Mr Scrutton's book on Charter-parties and Bills of Lading) has been selected as a sample:—

Shipped, in apparent good order and condition by in and upon the good Vessel called the now lying in the port of and bound for , with liberty to call at any ports in any order, to sail without Pilots, and to tow and assist Vessels in distress, and to deviate for the purpose of saving life or property; and to be delivered in the like good order and condition at the aforesaid port of unto or to his or their assigns, freight and all other conditions as per Charter Party. The act of God, perils of the sea, fire, barratry of the Master and Crew, enemies, pirates, and thieves, arrests, and restraints of princes, rulers, and people, collisions, stranding, and other accidents of navigation excepted, even when occasioned by negligence, default, or error in judgment of the Pilot, Master, Mariners, or other servanis of the Shipowners. Ship not answerable for losses through explosion, bursting of boilers, breakage of shafts, or any latent defect in the machinery or hull, not resulting from want of due diligence by the Owners of the Ship, or any of them, or by the Ship's Husband or Manager. General Average payable according to York-Antwerp Rules. In Witness whereof, the Master or Agent of the said Ship hath affirmed to three Bills of Lading, all of this tenor and date, drawn as first, second and third, one of which Bills being accomplished, the others to stand void. Dated in this day of 188 .

The bill of lading is an acknowledgment of the shipment of goods in a named vessel for carriage to a specified destination on terms set forth in the document. It is usually signed by the master of the vessel, but very commonly by the agents of the shipowner or sometimes of the charterers of the vessel. A vessel may be employed by its owners to earn freight in various ways: (1) It may be placed, as it is said, on the berth as a general ship, to receive cargo from any shippers who may desire to send goods to the port, or one of the ports, to which the vessel is bound. The mate or chief officer usually superintends the loading, and, as goods are shipped, a mate's receipt is given as an acknowledgment of the shipment. The mate's receipt is afterwards exchanged for the bill of lading. In the case of a shipment by a general ship the bill of lading is the evidence and memorandum of the contract between the shipowner and the shipper. (2) A shipper may, however, require the whole cargo space of the vessel to carry, for example, a full cargo of grain. In such a case the vessel will be chartered by the shipowner to the shipper. and the contract will be the charter-party. Even in such a case a bill or bills of lading will usually be given to enable the shipper to deal more conveniently with the goods by way of sale or otherwise. By the ancient custom of merchants recognized and incorporated in the law, the bill of lading is a document of title, representing the goods themselves, by the transfer of which symbolical delivery of the goods may be made. But when a cargo is shipped under a charter party, although bills of lading may be given to the charterer, it is the charter-party, and not the bills of lading, which constitutes the record of the contract between the parties—-of charter-parties we shall treat below. (3) There is a third class of case which is a combination of the two with which we have dealt above. A vessel is very commonly chartered by her owner to a charterer who has no intention to ship and does not ship any cargo on his own account, but places the vessel on the berth to receive cargo from shippers who ship under bills of lading. The charterer receives the bill of lading freight and pays the charter-party freight, his object being of course to obtain a total bill of lading freight in excess of the chartered freight, and so make a profit. The master, although he usually remains the servant of the shipowner during the term of the charter-party, acts nevertheless under the directions and on behalf of the charterer in signing bills of lading. The legal effect of this situation is that shippers who ship goods under bills of lading without knowledge of the terms of the charter-party are entitled to look to the shipowner as the person responsible to them for the safe carriage of their goods. This right depends essentially on the fact that the master who signs the bills of lading, although in doing so he is acting for the charterer, remains nevertheless the servant of the shipowner, who is not allowed to deny as against third persons, who do not know the relations between the charterer and the shipowner, that his servant, the master of the ship, has the ordinary authority of a master to bind his owner by signing bills of lading.

The forms of bills of lading vary very much, and their clauses have been the subject of judicial consideration and decision in a vast number of reported cases. The essential particulars, or at all events those common to all bihs of lading, may be stated as follows:

1. The name of the shipper. 2. The name of the ship. 3. The place of loading and destination of the ship. 4. A description of the goods shipped. 5. The place of delivery. 6. The persons to whom delivery is to be made. 7. The freight to be paid.' 8. The excepted perils. 9. The shipowner's lien. The description of (1) the shipper and (2) the ship calls for no remark. The (3) description of the voyage is important, because there is, as we have already explained, an implied undertaking by the shipowner in every contract of carriage not unnecessarily to deviate from the ordinary route of the voyage upon which the goods are received to be carried. The consequences of a deviation are serious, inasmuch as the shipowner is liable, not only for any loss or damage which the shipper suffers in consequence of the deviation, but for any loss of goods which occurs after the deviation, even though such loss is caused by one of the excepted perils. The only exception to this rule is that a deviation may be made to save life, but not to save property. It is, however, very usual to qualify the strictness of this implied undertaking by introducing in the bill of lading certain "liberties'' to deviate, as, for example, in the form given above, "liberty to call at any ports in any order, to tow and assist vessels in distress, and to deviate for the purpose of saving life and property.'' The nature and extent of the liberty will depend on the words of the contract. The inclination of English courts has been to construe clauses giving a liberty to deviate somewhat strictly against the shipowner.

The (4) importance of the description of the goods shipped and their condition is obvious, as the contract is to deliver them as described and in the like good condition, subject, of course, to the exceptions. It must, moreover, be noted that, as against the master or person who has himself signed the bill of lading, the statement therein of the goods shipped is absolutely conclusive. But as against the shipowner, unless he has himself signed the bill of lading, the statement of the goods shipped is not conclusive. It is evidence as against him that the goods described were shipped, but he is allowed to rebut this evidence by proving, if he can, that the goods mentioned, or some of them, were not in fact shipped.

As to (5) the place of delivery, very serious questions frequently arise. Primarily, of course, the shipowner is bound to deliver at the place named. Should he be prevented by some obstacle or difficulty which is of a temporary nature, the vessel must wait, and delivery must be made as soon as possible. Where, however, the obstacle is permanent, or at all events such as must cause unreasonable delay, having regard to the nature of the adventure, the shipowner is excused from delivery at the place named in the bill of lading, provided the difficulty arises from an excepted peril, or in consequence of delivery at the place named being forbidden by the law of England, as may happen, for example, in the case of a declaration of war between Great Britain and the state in which the port named in the bill of lading is situate. A party to a contract cannot be held liable for breaking his contract if its performance has become illegal. There may be other cases in which, from the circumstances of the voyage and adventure, it must be inferred that the parties intended the performance of the contract to be conditional on the existence at the time of performance of a certain state of things, the non-existence of which would render performance impossible. For instance, if the port named in the bill of lading became permanently closed and inaccessible to shipping in consequence of an earthquake, it would probably be held that the continued existence of the place named as a port was an implied condition of the contract, and that the shipowner was excused. Where, however, the performance of the contract remains lawful, and is not excused by the express terms of the contract, or by some implied condition, the shipowner is liable for any loss or damage suffered by the shipper by reason of his goods not being delivered at the named place, even though such delivery has become impossible. There is another reason why the precise description of the place of delivery often becomes important. It is only on the arrival of the ship at the place described as the place of delivery that the obligation of the consignee of the goods to take delivery commences. Delay involves considerable loss and expense to the shipowner. The shipper or consignee is not responsible for any delay which occurs before the ship has arrived at the place of delivery described in the bill of lading.

(6) The goods may be deliverable by the terms of the bill of lading to a named consignee, and to him only, but more usually they are made deliverable to the "order or assigns'' of the named consignee or of the shipper. If the goods are made deliverable to order or assigns the bill of lading is a negotiable instrument, or, in other words, the right to the goods, and the rights and liabilities under the contract contained in the bill of lading, may be transferred by indorsement and delivery of the document. When an indorsement has once been made by the shipper or consignee writing his name and nothing more on the back of the bill of lading, the rights in and under it may be transferred from hand to hand by mere delivery. A bill of lading so indorsed is said to be indorsed "in blank.'' But the shipper or consignee may restrict the negotiability of the bill of lading by indorsing it not "in blank,'' but with a direction requiring delivery to be made to a particular person or indorsee, or to his order. This is called an indorsement "in full.'' When an indorsement has been made "in full'' to a named indorsee or order, such indorsee must again indorse "in blank'' or "in full'' to effect a new transfer of the rights in the bill of lading.

(7) The amount or rate of freight payable is stated in the bill of lading, either expressly, or, not uncommonly when the freight under the bill of lading is the same as under the charter-party, by reference to the charter-party. A common form of such reference is "freight and other conditions, as per charter-party.'' It may here be mentioned that this form of words does not incorporate in the contract under the bill of lading all the terms and conditions of the charter-party, but only those which apply to the person who is to take delivery, and relate to matters ejusdem generis, or similar to the payment of freight, such as demurrage and the like. The conditions of the charter-party thus incorporated do not include, for instance, the exceptions in the charter-party so as to add them to the exceptions in the bill of lading. Freight, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract, is payable only on delivery of the goods at their destination. If the voyage is interrupted and its completion becomes impossible, the shipowner cannot claim payment of freight even pro rata itineris. He loses his freight altogether. This is so even when the completion of the voyage is prevented by causes for which the shipowner is not responsible, such as the act of God or the king's enemies, or perils which are within the express exceptions in the bill of lading. When the voyage is interrupted by accident, and indeed in any case, the goods may, by agreement between the shipowner and the consignee, be delivered at some place short of their destination upon payment of a freight pro rata; that is to say, proportional to the length of voyage accomplished, and such an agreement may be implied in certain circumstances from the conduct of the consignee in taking delivery before they arrive at their destination. In all such cases it will be a question of fact whether the goods were in fact delivered upon the terms, express or implied, that freight pro rata should be paid. As a rule such an agreement would not be implied where the shipowner is unable or unwilling to forward the goods to their destination, and the owner of the goods, therefore, has no option but to take delivery where offered.

When the ship is disabled and cannot proceed, or she is prevented by some obstacle from proceeding to the place of delivery named in the bill of lading, and the shipowner is unwilling or unable to forward the goods by another ship, even though he may be excused for his failure to carry the goods to their destination, he is not entitled to be paid any part of the freight; and the consignee is entitled to have the goods delivered to him either at the place where the vessel has taken refuge in her disabled condition, or, if the obstacle arises without disablement of the vessel, at the place which is nearest and most reasonably convenient at the time and in the circumstances when the further prosecution of the voyage has to be abandoned. On the other hand, after the goods have been shipped, so long as the shipowner is ready and willing to carry the goods to their destination, or, if the ship is disabled, to forward them to their destination by some other ship without unreasonable delay, the owner of the goods cannot require the goods to be delivered to him at any place short of their destination without payment of the full freight. Sometimes the freight, either wholly or in part, is made payable in advance. If freight payable in advance has become due, even though the ship is lost before it is paid, it must, in the absence of some special provision to the contrary, still be paid, and freight already paid in advance does not become repayable because the goods do not reach their destination. If, however, goods upon which freight has been paid in advance are lost, and the shipowner is liable for their loss, the amount of freight paid in advance must be taken into account in assessing the damage recoverable from the shipowner.

(8) There is no part of the bill of lading which is of greater practical importance or which demands more careful consideration by shipowner and shipper alike than that which sets forth the excepted perils: those perils, or in other words causes of loss, for which the shipowner is to be exempt from liability. By the common law, as we have seen, the exemption of the carrier, apart from express contract, extended only to loss by the act of God or the king's enemies. The expression "act of God'' requires a word of explanation. It will be sufficient to say that it is not synonymous with force majeure; but it includes every loss by force majeure in which human agency, by act or negligence, has had no part. The list of excepted perils varies much in different forms of bills of lading. In the older forms it usually included perils of the seas, robbers and pirates, restraint of princes and rulers, fire and barratry (that is, wilful wrongdoing) of the master and crew. The list, however, has grown in modern times, and is still growing; the tendency being to exempt the shipowner from liability for all loss which does not arise from his own personal default, or from the negligence of his managers or agents in failing to provide a vessel seaworthy and fit for the voyage at its commencement. It is important to point out in this connexion that there are two duties which the shipowner is always presumed to undertake, and which are assumed to be unaffected and unqualified by the exceptions, unless a contrary intention is very clearly expressed by the terms of the contract. In the first place, he undertakes absolutely that the ship in which the goods are shipped is fit at the commencement of the voyage for the service to be performed. If during the voyage loss arises even from dangers of the seas or other excepted peril which would not have occurred if the vessel had been seaworthy and fit for the voyage at its commencement, the shipowner is not protected by the exceptions, and is liable for the loss. In the second place, there is an implied undertaking by the shipowner that all reasonable care will be taken by himself, his servants and agents, safely to carry and deliver at their destination the goods received by him for carriage. Should loss or damage occur during the voyage, though the direct cause of such loss or damage be perils of the seas or other excepted peril, still the shipowner cannot claim exemption under the exceptions, if the shipper can prove that the loss or damage would not have occurred but for the negligence of the master or crew, or other servants of the shipowner. The shipowner, in other words, is bound, with his servants, to use all reasonable care to prevent loss by excepted perils and by any other cause.

Express stipulations.

It must not be supposed that even these primary obligations, which are introduced into every contract of affreightment not by express terms of the contract. It has now become common form to stipulate that the shipowner shall not be liable for any loss arising from the negligence of his servants, or that he shall not be liable for loss by the excepted perils even when brought about by the negligence of his servants. And with regard to seaworthiness, it is not uncommon for the shipowner to stipulate that he shall not be responsible for loss arising even from the unseaworthiness of the ship on sailing, provided that due care has Been taken by the owner and his agents and servants to make the ship seaworthy at the commencement of the voyage. There is indeed no rule of English law which prevents a shipowner from exempting himself by the terms of the bill of lading from liability for damage and loss of every kind, whether arising from unseaworthiness or any other cause whatsoever. In such a case the goods are carried at their owner's risk, and if he desires protection he must obtain it by insurance. In this respect the law of England permits greater freedom of contract than is allowed by the law of some other states. The owners, agents and masters of vessels loading in the United States of America are forbidden by an act of Congress, commonly called the Harter Act, passed in the year 1893, to insert in their contracts of affreightment any clause exempting the shipowner from liability for the negligence of his servants; but it is at the rame time enacted that, provided all reasonable skill and care has been exercised by the shipowner to make the vessel seaworthy and fit for the voyage at its commencement, the shipowner shall not be liable for any loss caused by the negligence of ihe master or crew in the navigation of the vessel, or by perils of the sea or certain other causes set forth in the act. It is now very usual to insert in the bills of lading of British vessels loading in the United States a reference to the Harter Act, incorporating its provisions so as to make them terms and conditions of the bill of lading.

The difficulty of construing the terms of bills of lading with regard to the excepted perils, often expressed in obscure and inexact language, has given rise to much litigation, the results of which are recorded in the law reports. Where such difficulties arise the question must be, What is the true and natural meaning of the language used by the parties? This question is not governed by the general rules which we have endeavouted to explain: but the words of the contract must always be considered with reference to these rules, which are founded upon the well-established customs of merchants recognized and formulated by the courts of law.

Previous Part     1 ... 23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35 ... 89     Next Part
Home - Random Browse