Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 6.djvu/301

 FRATRES

249

FRAUD

place in the presence of the pope. St. James of March, commissioned by Nicholas V to proceed against them (1440), wrote the famous "Dialogus contra Fraticellos", which he first pubhshcd in 14.')2, making some additions to it later on. According to this the main establishments of the Fraticelli were situated in the valley of Jesi, at Maiolati, Poggio Cupo, Massaccia, and Mergo. They had also constituted bishops in other districts where there were a sufficient number of adherents. They made frequent journeys for propaganda purposes, especially in Tuscany. Some dressed partly as Minorites, some as hermits, often disguising themselves for the sake of protection. Their doctrine was a resumS of their former sectarian errors: the whole Roman Church had deserted the true Faith since the time of John XXII (1323); they alone constituted the true Church and retained the sacra- ments and the priesthood.

A form of Fraticelli was also represented by Philip of Berbegal, a fanatical and eccentric Observant of Spain (1433), who attempted to establish a strict society de la Capuciola, but met vigorous opposition from John Capistran, who issued a dissertation against him.

Only once again are measures known to have been taken against the Fraticelli, viz. in 1466, when a number of Fraticelli from Poll, near Palestrina, and Maiolati were captured at Assisi during the Portiun- cula celebration. They were imprisoned in the castle of Sant' Angelo and proceedings instituted against them. Their protector at Poli, Count Stefano de' Conti, was imprisoned, but they also received the pro- tection of the Colonna family of Palestrina. Tradi- tion also mentions that the Fraticelli established many other colonies and that they had an important centre in Greece, whence they sent out emissaries and where they sought refuge from the aggressive measures of St. James of the March. They generally held their re- unions at night in private houses and half of the in- habitants of Poli are said to have been among their adherents. The allegation that their religious serv- ices were defiled by immoral practices cannot be proved. According to their doctrine, as contained in the "Dialogus", immoral priests incurred the loss of the powers of order and jurisdiction. They had also their own bishop, Nicholas by name.

During this period numerous pamphlets were pub- lished controverting the errors of the Fraticelli. While the campaign was going on at Rome, informa- tion was brought concerning another sect similar to the Fraticelli, which had been discovered in Germany; but though these visionaries, led by Brothers Johann and Livin of Wirsberg, found adherents among the Mendicants in Bohemia and Franconia, they cannot be considered as Fraticelli. In spite of all persecu- tions, remnants of the original Fraticelli still survived, but their strength was crippled and they thenceforth constituted no serious danger to the Roman Church. The foregoing sketch sufficiently proves that these heretics were not members of the Order of St. Francis, but rather that they had been expelled from the order and from the Church. The order as such and in the great majority of its members remained faithful to the Church in spite of the fact that many prominent monks and even whole sections fell away.

The best, source for the general history of the Fraticelli is Ehrlb in Archiv fur Literalur- untl Kirchengeschichte desMillelat- ter.i. III (Berlin, 1887). 553-614; IV {Freiburg, 1888), 1-201; I (Berlin, 1885), 509-70, 1.54-165; II (Berlin, 1886), lOS-64, 249-336, 3.53-416, 653-69; III (Berlin, 1887), 1-195, 540-52. EUBEL, BuUarium Franciscanum (Rome), V (1898), VI (1902), VII (1904); Wadding, Annalfj: Minorum, ad ann. 1320-34 (2nd ed., Rome, 1733); Baluze, Miscellanea (2nd ed., 7 vols., Paris, 1678-1715; 4 vols., Lucca, 1761-64); Analecla Francis- cana (Quaracchi), II (1887). 120 sqq.; Ill (1897), 474 sqq.; MuLLER, Der Kampf Ludwigs des Bayem mit der romiitcken Kurie (2 vols.. Tubingen. 1879-80); Riezler, Die liternrischm Widersacher der Pdpste zut Zeit Ludwigs den Bayers (Leipzia, 1874); Marcour. Anteil der Minorilen am Kampfe zwischen K. Ludwio IV. von Bayern und PapsI Johann XXII hit zum Jahre 1328 (Emmerich, 1S74); Preger, Der kirchenpolilische Kampf

unter Ludwig dem Bayem (Munich, 1877); Schreiber, Die politischen nnd religu,sen Doktrinen unter Ludwig dern Bayer (Landshnf. IS'.si; Felten, Die Bulle: Ne prtEtereat, und die Iteknnril hiltntr r,!liaiiiUungcn Ludwigs des Bayem (2 vols., 'I'ritT, Iss.i s,'. \ \ 'KM. Forschungen zur Geschichle Ludwigs des Half II, i.\,,,-. mini; Riezler. Vntikanische Akten zur drnlsiJuii (,..m/.ii/,/. in ,lrr 7r,l I udu-!,!~ ,lr: Hoi/em (Inusbruck, 1.S91); 8ciiwAi,M. /< . 1 ' /, l.mlwigs des Baiem

I'OK iS^4 (Weimar, I'liii, i,, t nii,. i i nitri bibliography see

Dahlmann-Waitz, (,J:,.,,.., ,, / ,/,,,» Gesch. (7th ed.,

Leipzig. 1906), n. 41J1 »q,i.. 44;»'.(-l.,jy. Tocco, Vn codice della Marciana di Venezia sulla Queatioiie della pmerlh (Venice, 1886-87); Idem, L'ercsia ne( medio era (Florence, 1884); Idem, Vn processo contra Luigi di Durazzo in Archivio storico per le provincie Napolelane, XII (Naples, 1887); Idem, I Fraticelli o poveri Eremili di Cdestino, secondo i nuovi documenii in Bolle- tino della societh di storia patria . . . negli Abruzzi, XIV (Aquila, 1895), 117-6,_XIII, 95-105; Idem. N„ mi documenii sui dissidii francescani in Accademia dei Lini n ^' i. n, iii,,r. star, e filol.. ser. V, vol. X (Rome, 1901), 3-L'n: ! ., ,i ; . . ,,a dei Fraticelli € una lelterainedita del b.Giovann < ,\l

XV (Rome, 1906), 1-18, 109-SO; Idem, ;-',.,', , , i i.n'io storico italiano, ser. V, vol. X\'X\' 'I'l'.rrn.. in: ; ; ,;vi- Davidsohn, Un libra di entrni' ' '■ /,„fj

(1322-29), i6t(i., ser. V, vol. A \ \ I I 1! ;.i,.., mi ;;., :,,-,; S\viNi,Sui Flagellanti.sui Fniin ',,< ' i.'-nmun

ibid., ser. V, vol. XXXV (Il^nn... i n - .,,, without

value); Z.^MBRl^t, Storia di Fra Mo fi, l; niefuarso

in Firenze net 1S89 con documenti ri~'; / ,' uelli della

povera vita (Bologna, 1864); FuMi, ;■,'/.:. . r ,,...,, ,;,;/' Umbria dal 1B20 al 1330 sludiati su documenii imoiu. drW archivio se- greto valicano in Bollettino della reale deputaziune di storia patria per I' Umbria. Ill (Perugia, 1897), 257-82,429-89; IV (1898), 221-301, 437-86; V (1899), 1-46, 205-425; Idem, Una epistola dei "Poverelli di Cristo" al commune di Nami, ibid , VII (Perugia, 1901), 353-69; Lea, A Histon/ of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages (New York, 1888), III; Pastor. Gesch. der Fapste im Zeitalter der Renaissance. II (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1894), 300 sqq.; Finke, Acta Pragonensia (2 vols., Berlin, 1908); Tocco, Studii Francescani, I (Naples, 1909); Holzapfel, Iland- huch der Geschichte des Franziskanerordens (Freiburg ini Br 1909), 56 sqq., tr. Lat., ibid. (1909), 50 sqq.; Liv. Oliger in Archivum Franciscanum Historicum, I (Puaracclii, 1908), 617 sqq.; BiHL, ibid., II (1909), 137 sqq., 158 sqq.

Michael Bihl.

Fratres Uniti. See Holzh.\user, B.\rtholom.\us.

Fraud, in the common acceptation of the word, an act or course of deception deliberately practised with the view of gaining a wrong and unfair advantage. Its connotation is less wide than that of deceit, which is used of concealment or perversion of the truth for the purpose of misleading. Stratagems employed in war to deceive the enemy are not morally wTong; yet even in war it would not be right to practise fraud on him. Fraud is something which militates not only again.st sincerity and straightforward conduct, but against justice, and justice is due even to enemies.

The question of fraud is of special importance in the matter of contracts. It is of the essence of a contract that there should be an agreement of wills between the parties as to its subject-matter. Without such an agreement in all that is essential there can be no con- tract. Hence, if by fraud one of the parties to a con- tract has been led into a mistake about what belongs to its substance, the contract will be null and void. If a dealer in jewellery offers a piece of coloured glass to a customer as a valuable ruby, and induces him to pay a large sum of money for it, the contract is invalid for want of consent. The customer wished to buy a precious stone, and he was offered glass. If one of the parties to a contract is fraudulently led into a mistake about something which is merely accidental to the contract and which did not induce him to enter into it, the contract will be valid and there is no reason for setting it aside. If a higher price or more favourable terms were obtained by means of the fraud, there was, of course, wrong done thereby, and if, in consequence, more than the just value was given, there will be an obligation to make restitution for the injustice. But there was no mistake about the substance of the con- tract, there was union of wills therein, and so, there is no reason why it should not stand. If, however, such a mistake, not indeed regarding the substance of the contract, but caused by the fraud of the other party, was the reason why the contract was entered into, there are special reasons why such a contract should not be upheld.